trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #112

[Dmacky]

Travis' s ex lisa diadone (sp?) Was on the stand and he whipped out an autopsy photo of travis's neck wound and they had a hissy fit and called for a mistrial due to his "procecutorial misconduct"

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I had forgotten about that one josie. There are many more. DT even tried to get a mistrial.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/28/did-arias-prosecutor-play-rules

 

[neesaki]

snipped

I think the point is that nobody wants there to be even a hint of impropriety. The defense will jump on anything that even hints of misconduct. There has already been several accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. Why give them ammunition?

The bottom line is that this trial is about the brutal murder of Travis Alexander. The side shows, groupies, fans, .... whatever you want to call them, need to back off and let him finish his job. Looky loos wanting their fifteen minutes of fame via a picture or whatever need to wait until it is over! Then have at it for all I care. I just don't want to see it jeopardize the case in any way.

If I were Travis' family I would be pissed that this is going on. I mean, imagine how they feel? People who have no business injecting themselves into this case causing problems. It is their brother! This trial has been going on for a long time. Day in and day out they have to sit there and listen to the BS going on inside the courtroom. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the BS going on outside of the courtroom. People need to have some respect for this family, and just knock it off!

I do not blame JM at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these ignorant people chasing him around should be ashamed of themselves. He is doing the right thing by avoiding the circus at all costs. :twocents:

And I would not put it past this DT at all, to set something up hoping to "catch" JM at something, anything for ammunition to try and get a mistrial. They are that down and dirty and can not be trusted. And they certainly could care less that all the money put forth on this trial thus far would be totally wasted in the case of a mistrial. They so disgust me and make me want to scream :scream:.

 

[Softail]

I was not here at the beginning of the trial. I heard that the DT had accused JM of prosecutor misconduct before. Can you or anyone tell me when and what that was about? I agree they are going to try any trick they can to get a mistrial. They are desperate.
I do not blame Juan for the media clip of him. He was taken by surprise, although I don't think he will be going out the front doors of the courthouse anymore.

Here is video of one of the mistrial hearings (thanks Tigerbalm!)

From earlier today after regular court session ended:

Mistrial hearing part 1
http://youtu.be/XT8K6edd2_s

Mistrial hearing part2
http://youtu.be/b_JF-xXli-M

Here are Wenwe4's (Thanks Wenwe4) notes about the misconduct allegations:

Objection - evidence should not be ruined . . ie dropped.

State Atty - there was carpet there - dropped 1 or 2 feet - nothing improper - no more tests being conducted . . . no legal reason for Defense to cite

Defense - improper for State Atty to testify . . . doesn't make it ok for him to break it . . . . please admonish the State to not ruin anything = if you want to use evidence for demonstrative please approach . . . . (we cannot even write on evidence)

JA been asking for State to provide evidence . . . .

when Melendez was on the stand . . . . .he was asked

Judge asks witness to step down and return 10 min . . .

Apart from the State assertions that these didn't exist - reason for not providing them in discover - going on for a year now . . . on June 18th we were in front of Judge Duncan . . . text messages and emails - did you look through everything . . . yes - but you didnt

prior testimony in Jan - he went thru every single email . . . clearly now the testimony has changed . . . these text messages existed in 2008 - what he did with texts is in direct . . . . from testimony that he gave before.

We have to cede on the State's part re: these text messages . . . we put forth proseuctorial misconduct - we are renewing that now - we did that before in front of Judge Duncan - cumulative effect of misconduct is growing.
Keep in mind this has been litigated in front of Judge Duncan - at some point . . . why didn't he cite Det. Melendez . I don't know what he is talking about with . . . perhaps he thinks that all hispanic names sound alike - Objection your honor - I am not done.

He couldn't get the texts because he couldn't extract them . . . . he testified it would take too long to take photos . . . .after the technology developed 896 - between 25- 30 text messages per page - it would have been impossible to take pics of every text message - highly inflamatory comments. . . . . .

When the technology became available - 2 years ago - texts were made available to defense counsel - his inflamatory comments are demonstrative of prosecutorial misconduct. . . . .there was there nothing about technology . . . .refer court back to 1/10/10 and 4/20/10 - court can go back to records - we will see Det. Melendez did testify tosomething different he is testifying now . .. he did not talk about seeing all these messages - because back then that would have motivated testimony about what was in them . ..

State asserting motions in 2010- cumulative prosecutorial misconduct . . .

Have yu had these texts for 2 years - yes but that is not the point . . . in 2010 they were forced to turn them over . . . .

what did your client suffer as a result?

Defense - Brady violations your honor - I don't know . . . when there is direct violation of exculpatory . . . . sexual . . . took months of litigation for the State to turn over what they already had . . . tht is why we are doing trial in 2013 -

State back in 2008 did not come forward

Judge wasn't presiding over this in 2010 - she will look back over Duncan's motion - she will take motion under advisement - they will take a recess.

Whew!!!!

I know there were more... I'll see if I can find them.

 

[Dmacky]

OK...so Chris Hughes has testified during the jury part?

Does that mean these emails have been entered into evidence?

If they have not - which I am assuming they have not been - is there anyone who can answer WHY NOT? I mean, if the author has testified and the DV expert can discuss them, how are they NOT evidence?

That's something else I don't understand!

OH, and can Chris now be recalled to testify about them since the defense has pushed them into the forefront of this trial now? I mean, that little nugget that ALV dropped yesterday is now today's trial headline on GMA!

The whole "Travis was abusive to other women and Jodi should stay away" thing. It was the soundbite they played today.

I just don't get that a guy having sex with a girl who was clearly willing (no matter what the defense says) is abusive - physically or emotionally! If you are having sex with a guy to try to hold onto him, that's on YOU not him! I've been there, and I blame no one but myself. And it certainly didn't turn me into a murderous monster!

IIRC Chris hughes testified with the jury NOT present. Anyone else remember?
But now that his emails have been brought up, I think maybe the door has been opened for JM to call him for rebuttal. I hope so anyway.

 

[katiecoolady]

And I would not put it past this DT at all, to set something up hoping to "catch" JM at something, anything for ammunition to try and get a mistrial. They are that down and dirty and can not be trusted. And they certainly could care less that all the money put forth on this trial thus far would be totally wasted in the case of a mistrial. They so disgust me and make me want to scream :scream:.

Omg maybe it was Jennifer Wilmott in that bunny in a pot suit the other day...I thought I recognized that voice!!! :floorlaugh:

Of course THAT would be so much more prejudicial than Juan Martinez posing for a photo with someone but they can't find a way to blame that bunny on him. Oh brother.

 

[katiecoolady]

IIRC Chris hughes testified with the jury NOT present. Anyone else remember?
But now that his emails have been brought up, I think maybe the door has been opened for JM to call him for rebuttal. I hope so anyway.

Wasn't that like last year? I was in a fog.

 

[SCSam]

ALV's describing JA's childhood as being "abusive"? So what if there was some subtle abuse and harsher than necessary discipline. It sounds similar to my childhood. And last time I checked I hadn't murdered anyone, much less via 29 stab wounds, a 6 inch long, 1 1/2 " deep throat slashing, then a gun shot to the head.

This DT is so slimy and disgusting the way they are stooping so low in order to finagle their client out of responsibility for her actions.

And the hearing involving Juan being seen outside the courtroom while being stopped by court watchers to shake his hand etc. Well, boo hoo hoo :boohoo:, it just shows how pathetic and desperate they are. And maybe I shouldn't say this, but Nurmi looked like a complete goon when he was talking, looking down at the floor and like he was having a seizure or something. Is there something wrong with him ? Maybe he was just ashamed of himself... nahhh, even though he darn well should be.

Aaaand considering his clientele, we know it is doubtful anyone will ever ask to shake Nurmi's hand,:floorlaugh:

 

[Softail]

IIRC Chris hughes testified with the jury NOT present. Anyone else remember?
But now that his emails have been brought up, I think maybe the door has been opened for JM to call him for rebuttal. I hope so anyway.

:yes: The jury was not present. This video never gets old for me. When Nurmi asks Chris if he called him a snake! :snake: :giggle: This video is still unclear on the e-mails.


[video=youtube;z4bTzT-c0DI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bTzT-c0DI[/video]

 

[SCSam]

ALV's describing JA's childhood as being "abusive"? So what if there was some subtle abuse and harsher than necessary discipline. It sounds similar to my childhood. And last time I checked I hadn't murdered anyone, much less via 29 stab wounds, a 6 inch long, 1 1/2 " deep throat slashing, then a gun shot to the head.

This DT is so slimy and disgusting the way they are stooping so low in order to finagle their client out of responsibility for her actions.

And the hearing involving Juan being seen outside the courtroom while being stopped by court watchers to shake his hand etc. Well, boo hoo hoo :boohoo:, it just shows how pathetic and desperate they are. And maybe I shouldn't say this, but Nurmi looked like a complete goon when he was talking, looking down at the floor and like he was having a seizure or something. Is there something wrong with him ? Maybe he was just ashamed of himself... nahhh, even though he darn well should be.

Aaaand considering his clientele, we know it is doubtful anyone will ever ask to shake Nurmi's hand,:floorlaugh:

 

[neesaki]

BBM

Ï had many friends who had that type of bootie call relationship. That is all it was and Jodi wanted more from him. At some point, a sane person would look at the relationship and walk away unless they wanted a continued bootie call.

"You teach people how to treat you"

And I believe she was the one who opened the door to sex in the first place. Everything we have heard from witnesses has painted her as the sex pot who behaved and dressed in a sexually provocative manner. Where's that testimony, ALV? Oh, that's right, JA didn't tell her that part did she ? :banghead:

 

[Softail]

And I would not put it past this DT at all, to set something up hoping to "catch" JM at something, anything for ammunition to try and get a mistrial. They are that down and dirty and can not be trusted. And they certainly could care less that all the money put forth on this trial thus far would be totally wasted in the case of a mistrial. They so disgust me and make me want to scream :scream:.

I totally agree. They are very sneaky!

 

[Dmacky]

Wasn't that like last year? I was in a fog.

It might have been KCL. Now you've got my brain all scramble-fied :floorlaugh:

 

[indycornstalk]

Originally Posted by Softail
snipped

I think the point is that nobody wants there to be even a hint of impropriety. The defense will jump on anything that even hints of misconduct. There has already been several accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. Why give them ammunition?

The bottom line is that this trial is about the brutal murder of Travis Alexander. The side shows, groupies, fans, .... whatever you want to call them, need to back off and let him finish his job. Looky loos wanting their fifteen minutes of fame via a picture or whatever need to wait until it is over! Then have at it for all I care. I just don't want to see it jeopardize the case in any way.

If I were Travis' family I would be pissed that this is going on. I mean, imagine how they feel? People who have no business injecting themselves into this case causing problems. It is their brother! This trial has been going on for a long time. Day in and day out they have to sit there and listen to the BS going on inside the courtroom. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the BS going on outside of the courtroom. People need to have some respect for this family, and just knock it off!

I do not blame JM at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these ignorant people chasing him around should be ashamed of themselves. He is doing the right thing by avoiding the circus at all costs.

I COMPLETELY AGREE! This is NOT a Movie Set, NOR is it a Reality TV Show, this is REAL LIFE and there is a REAL family that is grieving and demanding Justice from this Jury and the people that are flocking to this Trial are seriously jeopardizing the trial by creating a sideshow circus at the Court House. It's one thing to observe the trial on TV and to be part of Web Discussions but when throngs of people who think they have some kind of personal vested interest in this case when they do NOT start interfering with the wheels of Justice, causing distractions and creating a media frenzy then that is just going way to far. People need to BACK OFF and let Mr. Martinez do his job and NOT bother him. Do people NOT see how the obsessing over the Prosecutor is kind a bit much? I too think he is brilliant but I'm sure as heck not going to travel all the way from Indiana to camp outside the courthouse so I can get an autograph, doing so would be a selfish move on my part and it would NOT be in the best interest of the Trial. IMO.

 

[Chester_from_THM]

IIRC Chris hughes testified with the jury NOT present. Anyone else remember?
But now that his emails have been brought up, I think maybe the door has been opened for JM to call him for rebuttal. I hope so anyway.

You are correct, Dmacky. It was in a hearing. The same one with Gus Searcy.

I think that was about prosecutor misconduct. And Nurmi put both Hughes on the defense witness list.

I thought at the time it was to get Sky barred from watching the trial and giving Juan info about her lies. But maybe they really are going to call them about this e-mail?:what:

 

[zebraland]

And I would not put it past this DT at all, to set something up hoping to "catch" JM at something, anything for ammunition to try and get a mistrial. They are that down and dirty and can not be trusted. And they certainly could care less that all the money put forth on this trial thus far would be totally wasted in the case of a mistrial. They so disgust me and make me want to scream :scream:.

As awful as it is for everyone involved, this is a death penalty case. They could later be accused of providing JA ineffective council if they don't make a record of any potential improprieties. Probably why the judge is giving them a long leash.

A death sentence will be appealed and that's a long painful road for a victim's family and friends. I hope she gets life for that reason. Much harder to appeal - done and doner.

 

[indycornstalk]

:yes: The jury was not present. This video never gets old for me. When Nurmi asks Chris if he called him a snake! :snake: :giggle: This video is still unclear on the e-mails.


Jodi Arias Murder Trial day 10. Part 3 - YouTube

There is also another piece of testimony from Chris Hughes that is NO where to be found. This video is the 2nd day he was on the stand, there video of him from the previous day is the one that is the best one.

 

[AlanCFA]

There are quite a few recent studies that indicate that it's pretty close to even when you compare numbers of male victims/female perpetrators with female victims/male perpetrators. There is much more awareness about female DV victims for a number of reasons, however.

Well, her article was written in 2002, so it is not surprising that it is dated. Even then, she acknowledged studies showing similar levels of aggressive acts between each gender, but differentiated between acts of aggression and abuse.

But as I mentioned in closing, she may be wrong in her assertion.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I totally agree KCL ~
IMO Jodi would take Travis anyway she could have him. She thew out the seduction card very early on in this "friendship", "boyfriend girlfriend", "exclusive" or any other stupid title she chose to use. There is not a single man (as in not married) out there that would turn down all of the sex SHE TAUGHT HIM. Especially a man in his 20's and 30's. I think if anybody came up with "It's only sex if it's vaginal" was Jodi (a little truth peppered in). She knew she could always use sex to get to him. And that's what she did. Anything to hold on to him.

Jodie had NO personality, nothing other than her looks and plenty of sex. Of course Travis was going for it, like you said Dmacky what guy wouldn't , especially someone who was forbidden to have sexual relations before marriage. Jodie was fine with all of this because she thought this was her way of getting the big catch--she would have NO competition in this area from the MORMON community.

IMOO, The only thing I feel was wrong was Travis leading a double life. Keeping this JA relationship on the down low, and still maintaining his pure reputation for outward appearances. This is Never good. I am sure there will be many a Mormon mother that uses this story to scare the Hell out of their wayward sons. This is the Mormon way and their beliefs are what you sign on to when you become one--no shortcuts.

Can't be easy with Jodies' throwing themselves at them.

 

[audreyparker]

Jodi was an adult, not some 16yr old naive girl. They were NOT a couple, and therefore he was simply being honest - he was dating other girls while sleeping with Jodi. Jodi just couldn't handle the fact that THIS guy wasn't under her spell so completely. Another reason why I think she killed him.....he would have moved on and utterly forgotten about her.

I'm so glad you said this! I think people forget this and JA and the DT are definitely trying to play up the idea that JA was this completely innocent, naive young girl who had no clue about relationships and it's so ridiculous and I'm tired of it!

JA has a history of using men for her own purposes and then discarding them when something better comes along. She knew Travis was her big shot at living the life she thought she deserved and there was no way she was going to let that go! She was totally unstable on her own way into her 20's - she didn't finish high school, couldn't hold a steady job, had very few friends except for men she could manipulate with sex and had no financial security.

She used everything she could think of including her own extensive sexual experience to try to keep Travis in her life. She initiated most of their contact, she's the one who drove to see him, she's the one who hacked his emails, threatened women she thought he was involved with, peeped in his windows and slashed his tires out of jealousy. And she's the one who drove over 1000 miles each way with 2 weapons and extra gas and murdered him, after which she then moved on to her next target immediately. She's the one who has consistently lied since his murder to the police and the general public. All of this other stuff is smoke and mirrors by the DT to deflect attention away from JA's ugly, obsessive and murderous nature. Travis did not deserve to die because he didn't want to be in a relationship with JA, and that's exactly what happened.

And once Juan "the prosecuter" Martinez begins his rebuttal case, all of that will be plainly evident.

 

[Juli]

Besides, "abusive" is in the eye of the beholder. What we've learned from ALV is that everyone is in an abusive relationship, so we all can go around killing our significant other's now.

No, seriously, they could have meant different things by that. Maybe they viewed his womanizing in general as "abusive." No one has denied that he dated and flirted with a lot of women.

Are the Hughes also Mormon? I ask because I think about Mimi Hall's testimony where she said Travis talked about sex "too much." To a Mormon, I would imagine if you mentioned sex twice a day that would sound like too much since they are very strict about sex after marriage, etc. If I were raised Mormon, I think any talk of sex would make me uncomfortable due to my upbringing.

So, yea, context is important, the problem is that since the prosecution is fighting admitting it, it makes me wonder if there are details in the letter than does elaborate and that it doesn't look good for Travis.

Good post. I truly believe that context is everything. Lord knows that even the Bible has been taken out of context and misused to make a case for those who don't even believe in it by quoting just bits and pieces of it.

I'm a decent person who could be considered to be boring by most. I never had a wild life, so to speak, but I am not perfect. I have written and said some things over the years in relationships prior to being married that I would be quite embarrassed by if other people heard them or saw those written words. I have been married for nearly 28 years, and I would never want anybody to read my personal letters or emails that I have written to my husband. The point being, anybody can make anything look ugly to prove a point if they want to.

This whole behavior-related story created around Mormonism is just out of line as far as I'm concerned. It never should have been permitted in my humble opinion. It's just not relevant in my eyes and as a layman juror, that's how I'd feel.

I'm not legal savvy, so can somebody help me out? If Chris H. is on the defense witness list, can JM still call him as a witness to clear up what ALV is interpreting as her opinion?