trial day 40: the defense continues its case in chief #119

[shane13]

I haven't practiced in a good number of years, and never practiced criminal law, but from memory and law school:

1. I don't think their testimony would be helpful (probative) as to JA's guilt. The tapes deal with information their opinions of Jodi after the fact, not to do with her planning and execution of the crime. This type of evidence is marginally relevant and probably unduly prejudicial. Theoretically, JM could call them as hostile witnesses, but he might not want to do that for tactical or strategic reasons.

2. Depends on the statute of limitations, but they definitely could, regardless of the outcome of the criminal prosecution. As we saw with OJ, even an acquittal is not a bar to a civil claim of responsibility. It is much easier to win a judgment in a civil suit than it is to get a conviction because the burden of proof is significantly lower (preponderance of the evidence v. beyond a reasonable doubt).

3. Depends on state law. Many states do have a prohibition on convicted criminals earning income from the crime they committed. I think it's called a Son of Sam law (from the infamous NY serial killer) after he attempted to profit from his crime. Some states may have ruled this type of law unconstitutional, since it may abridge the convict's first amendment freedom of speech, so they are narrowly tailored so as to not infringe on someone's right to tell their story.

I haven't researched my answers...so sorry in advance if they are confusing or inaccurate in any way. HTH:twocents:

Thanks.
Always good to have an answer from an atty.

My Qs to you are RE Q3. And my answer was that the state can not bar someone from writing the book, only that profits from the book are taken. Thus not voiding 1st Amendment. And also states that have such a law--don't they mandate profits be given to the victim's family?

 

[gauntlet]

And according to the parent interview clips, when JA was asked if she was in AZ, she told her mom no, and she had gas receipts to prove it. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[SusieD]

I know in my mind you are correct. But in my heart, how does one commit a slaughter like this? I was trying to express what the thoughts of the parents might be toward the defense team for allowing her to plead self defense. I mean, if a person is a sociopath or psychopath, they are insane, correct? That would have been her only chance. I am not even saying a jury would buy it, but self defense? Come on!!!

BTW, I am not defending her. It's just I see her DT as sleaze. I have no sympathy for Jodi Arias. Sure would hate to be her relative.

BBM

No, being a sociopath, psycopath, whatever you want to call her is NOT at all the same as being clinically insane. You may think it's "insane" to stab somene that many times but that's a description, not a diagnosis.

Insane is generally defined in the courts as "did the person know right from wrong" when committing the crime?

Jodi knew damn well what she was doing, she may have been in a murderous rage but she knew it was wrong, even admitted it.

An example of someone truly insane (and I know this won't go over well here, so be it, it's what I think and what the courts think too) is Andrea Yates. That woman heard voices, thought she was saving her children from satan and had a well-documented history of psychotic breakdowns. At the time of the drowning her sick mind was telling her it was the right thing to do. She called her husband right after, and never attempted to cover anything up.

There's a big difference between personality disorders (which IMO Jodi suffers from several), mental illness (IMO Jodi has none) and actual insanity.

 

[Ladylub]

Legally, insanity is more like what we would call psychosis, as in delusional, intrusive irrational thoughts. Think son of Sam or Andea Yates (though I realize the jury found her guilty). Psychopathy, unless accompanied by paranoid schizophrenia, doesn't reach the legal requirements.

Thanks. I just figured they would be able to find one person that would claim she was truly insane though. Guess it would be to far of a stretch ( no matter how close she seems to be rubbing on that line) for anyone to make to get Jodi from her "ways" to legally insane.

Don't get me wrong I'm glad they went with the self defense BS line. I do not see how anyone would believe that, if they were really paying attention to this case.

 

[laniefi]

Oh, folks - I have to admit - I am just so darn tired of everything with this trial....

:sigh:

 

[LambChop]

I can't understand how testifying in favor of JA would make anybody sick?


I just started a thread in the TV and Entertainment forum for NCIS fans. I don't watch the show, but I'm watching an episode of "Kathy" that Pauley Perrette is on. It turns out she's a big trial watcher. She knows a lot about the JA trial. I wonder if she posts here? :giggle:

Maybe because ALV changed her story about what Jodi told her regarding the computer pictures. She altered her statement and I do not think she is feeling good about doing that if she is at all ethical as she would have us believe.

Plus we already know the incident didn't happen due to cell phone messages between Jodi and Travis on the 21st. Jodi was working until 6pm that night and Travis was attending a meeting by 7pm. No way it happened.

 

[Steely Dan]

I just noticed something in regards to the duct tape and Body Bugg. JA says the duct tape was to keep his Body Bugg on. I just found this pic from the crime scene that shows a fully intact Body Bugg. Why would he need duct tape to keep it on? Thoughts???

http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/forwinteriscoming/media/IMG_2971_zps29fd01ab.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2

Good catch! :thumb:

 

[Elley Mae]

Arias wrote this a year prior to murdering Travis:
8/2/17 @8:00AM

Create a new truth for yourself(<-sentence underlined twice)

I love him. I could not possibly love him
not, though I WISH that I can stop. Turn it
off like a light switch. Duct tape it down
so it can't turn back on or better yet, just
unplug(<-line through word) cut the circuit. Cut off it's life source.
Make it dead in a second. Lifeless. A
meaningless network of wires that do and mean nothing
UBM
:what: "Duct tape it down" :what:
Remember the mysterious duct tape found? Just sayin'...
:twocents:

http://s922.photobucket.com/user/SoulShynz9293/media/shower_travis_murder_pics_xtralarge.jpg.html

There is a minute and 10 seconds between the face photo and the next one which is the sitting down photo. I have wondered if she had him tape his feet together. But then again there could be photos that were taken that we have not seen. jmo

 

[Litigatrix]

No, that's not correct. In order to meet the definition of insanity, she would have to have been unaware that this crime she committed was wrong, illegal.

Not sure what mental illness would cover that, maybe schizophrenia? That nut Magnotta in Montreal was supposedly diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic some years ago, so his defense will be insanity no doubt.

JA knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong, tried to cover up her crime.

And she is a psychopath with BPD as well IMO. :seeya:

Even a person with schizophrenia can be sane for the purposes of being tried for murder. An insanity defense requires that the person committing the crime was not able to understand the "nature and quality of their actions or their wrongfulness" at the time of the killing. If the person was lucid, even for a minute and continued the crime, then they are deemed culpable.

So here, the fact that she pre-planned and post-planned negates any insanity defense, no matter how bat s*it crazy she is....

 

[cricket49]

I say she should have plead insanity b/c pleading insanity is a bit more believable. She may not fit the definition of true insanity but I think she is close enough to it. Also I think there is more evidence of her having something wrong with her mentally then her claims of self defense.

IMO There is no way Jodi would have allowed her attorneys to go the insanity defense. I agree that it might have explained the crime more to a jury, but Jodi's ego would not allow that defense.

 

[deedee21]

Legally, insanity is more like what we would call psychosis, as in delusional, intrusive irrational thoughts. Think son of Sam or Andea Yates (though I realize the jury found her guilty). Psychopathy, unless accompanied by paranoid schizophrenia, doesn't reach the legal requirements.

I live in NY. I remember The Son of Sam. He sent several letters to the Daily News. Jimmy Breslin I think. A real nut.

 

[minazoe]

I do not believe for one solitary minute that Jodi EVER loaned money to Travis...my take is she owed him money...promised to pay him, got him in trouble with his bank because she was not paying him back , and gave him as little as she possibly could to keep nhis checks from bouncing and he was probably ready to strangle her.

 

[Love Never Fails]

You guys are just awesome! See, I have believed since I got the first snippets years ago about this murder that she would be convicted. The crime was too mean, too horrible for my mind or my heart to comprehend. Then when I have been watching the trial I was furious that she would claim self defense. She was killing him all over again in court! So I thought " That is insane!".

I don't know all the legal definitions and what all goes into a trial. I do believe in fair trials and all that but this was so premeditated and then she covered it up! I just thought how could this be? Then I read Katiecoollady's story of her sister and I just got sick. There are people who are truly pure evil!

I thought the Anthony case was just a strange, once in a lifetime occurrence, stupid jury, etc. OJ? won't even go there! Then we come back to this trial. Anyone who could even think of killing is in my mind insane. That doesn't mean I would ever let her walk.

If she got out, she would kill again. There is no sorrow, no remorse, no sadness. Killing means nothing to her. Maybe that's why people who knew her are afraid to come forward.

That is why I also said several days ago that Darryl Brewer should stand up and be a man for his son and tell the jury all he knows. He lived with that witch. He is hiding something. As is Matt McCartney.

Thanks to all of you for your view on insanity and the legal definitions. I get it now.

 

[Steely Dan]

Maybe because ALV changed her story about what Jodi told her regarding the computer pictures. She altered her statement and I do not think she is feeling good about doing that if she is at all ethical as she would have us believe.

Plus we already know the incident didn't happen due to cell phone messages between Jodi and Travis on the 21st. Jodi was working until 6pm that night and Travis was attending a meeting by 7pm. No way it happened.

I have been so zoned out by ALV that I don't even really listen to anything she says. I'm just waiting for JM to get ahold of her. What's that all about?

 

[deedee21]

Legally, insanity is more like what we would call psychosis, as in delusional, intrusive irrational thoughts. Think son of Sam or Andea Yates (though I realize the jury found her guilty). Psychopathy, unless accompanied by paranoid schizophrenia, doesn't reach the legal requirements.

I live in NY. I remember The Son of Sam. He sent several letters to the Daily News. Jimmy Breslin I think. He was a devil worshipper.

 

[Stolat]

Right. My paternal grandmother used to wrap a red blanket around herself and walk around the house saying, "I am Jesus Christ." THAT is legally insane. Not Jodi.

Okay, that just cracked me up. Thanks for that!!!

 

[luvtenniss]

Oh, folks - I have to admit - I am just so darn tired of everything with this trial....

:sigh:

Me, too, well, except Juan. It's a shame they couldn't just let the defense do all of their acting first in the trial and then be done. And then let Juan get the truth out for the rest of the trial. Then we could all skip the defense and focus on Juan for a good, long time. :great:

 

[Hopeful One]

So, if she had a boy, she would name him Alexander. Creepy much?? Ew!!! I'm am SO glad she never got pregnant!

 

[Schuby]

Okay, that just cracked me up. Thanks for that!!!

Lol, it is funny, tragic but funny! Bless her heart!

 

[TexMex]

Without going through a ton of stuff - I agree, Jodi didn't have a single non-jealous bone actually. On top of that she was paranoid - accused her parents of snooping so I suspect she thought everyone snooped but the reality was she was the snooper.

Look at the timeline - Mimi testified Travis asked her about going to Cancun in early May 2008. Just so happens on May 10th Jodi records a sex tape on Travis. Claims Travis told her her Mimi might be the one. May 26th Travis explodes and tells Jodi he is going to expose her, calls her a sociopath. May 28th a gun is stolen from Grand Pa's. June 2 the witch is on the road collecting necessary things as she goes.

I really want to know what prompted Travis to write the May 26th email. Just my guess is she threatened him with that phone tape, to expose him to Mimi because Travis was interested in her, the church, and all his friends. This was her shot at control and Travis didn't bite is my guess. Jealousy for Jodi was overwhelming at that point - it was time to "cut off its life source".

Also on the tapes she tells Flores that Travis cancelled plans to come see Jodi sing the National Anthem at an event in CA on May 24th. Of course, according to Jodi it absolutely did not upset her, AT ALL, nope :notgood: