trial day 43: the defense continues its case in chief #131

[lisalei321]

'Morning, friends! :seeya: deedee you may still get your wish before this trial is finished - the killer is deranged and wants a mistrial so badly that when her latest motion for one is denied, she may try to cause one herself.

JA is on the verge of a breakdown in court - she said 'sustained' out loud yesterday (JW glared at her), and was in JW's space so much, too. Doesn't JW look like she's thinking "FCS, get away from me." Something might be brewing, brewing...stay tuned. :floorlaugh: All is MOO

BBM

I missed JA doing that, does anyone have a clip of it?

 

[HarvestMoon]

It appears that JW has torn down all boundaries, as JA gets closer and closer to her physically and mentally. We saw JW make faces to JA when her objections were overruled, as if to say, "See what I've been telling you, how biased this court is?" Day by day JW gets less professional and JA gets more emboldened. imho.

All of this is why I don't care for Ms Wilmott, she has become quite unprofessional imo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Strictly speaking, a crime of passion is when someone kills another as a result of a sudden and strong impulse. Her bringing a weapon with her rather precludes that line of defense, in my opinion. Overkill is pretty common though and it's found in many stranger homicides too. However, in this case, I believe the amount of overkill and extreme brutality is indicative of a narcissistic rage. The amount or brutality of the injuries doesn't speak to premeditation (or even lack of) for me - but all her actions leading up to getting to Travis' house that day certainly do. I believe premeditation has been proven BARD because the coincidences would have to be astronomical otherwise.


MOO

A crime of passion case this is not.

An example of a crime of passion murder is when two people get into a heated argument and then one of them picks up something handy nearby (lets say a heavy lamp) and hit the other person in the head with it in anger and that person dies. Or a man walks in and all of a sudden finds his wife in the bed with another man and he winds up murdering the man or his wife or both because his emotions (anger) were running so high.

The mere fact that she brought a firearm into his home and a knife too shows this was pre-planned and then you had all the other overwhelming amount of premeditation evidence in this case and you have got First Degree Murder only.

IMO

 

[BritsKate]

Replaying the end of yesterday in my mind, I could not get past the "It wasn't stalking because stalking implies FEAR" comment. Combine that with ALV's earlier statement of "I saw no evidence of stalking" on the part of JA and you have an absolute mess of a DV expert.

But my question to my fellow sleuthers is this: What testimony have the jurors heard that shows TA feared JA AND that ALV should have considered? I know he said something in one of the IM conversations. (She apparently could discount that easily, even though JA never once put in writing anything even RESEMBLING fear.) But was there something that stands out to you earlier in the trial or from a journal entry or an email or a witness? I didn't start watching until JA took the stand.

TIA for your help. I'd love to review transcripts or testimony if you have thoughts! Now, coffee and work before Juan rocks the courtroom!

I couldn't agree more, scorpio. I took her testimony to mean because Travis didn't react from a place of fear according to her interpretation (I'm going to assume restraining order, new locks, police intervention, etc.) that means there's no evidence of stalking...which is about as backwards an approach as you can get. By that reasoning every female that returns to a male abuser obviously couldn't possibly fear him either.

Stalking is just one manifestation of psychological abuse. Abuse is determined by a series of behaviors on the part of the abuser intended to subjugate another using those behaviors. It has never been defined by the actions or reactions of the victim - not since, maybe, 1928 or so.

To answer your question though, both Lisa and Mimi have mentioned stalking prior to Jodi's testimony. It was at Lisa's house Travis' tires were slashed. We haven't heard from friends yet who have said online that Travis feared her - I think his own words carry a great deal of weight though.

Jodi was pretty, um, blatant in showing a pattern of obsessive and unreasonable behavior all her own with her testimony imo. One of the jury questions was specifically about Jodi being controlling and I believe that's immensely important. She discounted it, of course, and stated she's too forgiving and acquiescent. I think the jury see right through her and her 'experts'.

JMO

 

[Numbers]

6. None of the above. She will just smile.

7. What would Travis do?

 

[Truth Detector]

What in the world was going on between JA and JW the last 2 minutes of that clip (right at the end of court)? I'm more shocked that they didn't start making out than I would have been if they did. Don't either of them have any concept of personal space? Right before JA noticed the camera and put her glasses back on quickly, it seemed like they were flirting back and forth! What in the world.

Love in the afternoon...

 

[fifteen89]

Did ALV really say "if you were in one of my groups, Mr. Martinez, I would......" ????? Yowza. What was the exchange about? Can anyone point me to video where I can see that part of her testimony? TIA!

 

[Jeda2]

BBM

I missed JA doing that, does anyone have a clip of it?

Look at post #940 and it has the link

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am waiting for the jurors questions for her. Her MO has become so obvious, not even answering YES or NO to the simplest of questions, instead using ANY OTHER word in an effort to defy Juan. No way the jury isn't tired of non-answers and dancing around questions and over all attitude.

I must say I am HIGHLY disappointed in the Judge's control of her courtroom. A judge should garner respect and maybe a little fear from all participants in her court. It is clear she is not in control. I have never seen so many APPROACHES in all the cases I've followed COMBINED. It's ridiculous.

If I were one of the jurors I would ask her.

Ms. LV is there anything that you blame Jodi for in the relationship, both when together, and when they were no longer together?"

 

[LynnM]

The interesting thing to me was that, sometime last week or the week before, somebody had a quote from ALV about how "studies show" that most abusers are men and victims are women -- that there are no studies showing that men can be victims in anywhere near the numbers that women can.

Bet there will be studies after this case is finished!

I disagree. There are lots of studies using different methodologies and they all show that women are disproportionately likely to be abuse victims compared to men. Obviously Jodi was abusive and obviously women do abuse and murder men but ALV is right. If you look at prison statistics, only 6.8 percent of federal and state prisoners are women. Women just don't commit ANY crime in the same numbers as men do.

 

[Softail]

Goodness gracious, I never knew posting a pic would cause such a ruckus.:floorlaugh:

The dimensions of the pic I posted were 400x228.

Didn't look big when I posted it. Sorry

I don't think it was your picture. However, in the future if you aren't sure, you can "preview" your post before actually posting it to be sure. "Preview Post" is to the right of "submit reply". HTH

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Did ALV really say "if you were in one of my groups, Mr. Martinez, I would......" ????? Yowza. What was the exchange about? Can anyone point me to video where I can see that part of her testimony? TIA!

Yes, and she is going to regret ever saying it. Combativeness from a witness needs to be left out of the courtroom in such a serious case.

From what I have heard from the court watchers none of the jury laughed when she said it either.

 

[rose222]

Did ALV really say "if you were in one of my groups, Mr. Martinez, I would......" ????? Yowza. What was the exchange about? Can anyone point me to video where I can see that part of her testimony? TIA!

Start watching from 0:35:00

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt8SepGoED8"]Jodi Arias Trial - Day 43 - Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nhic]

I appreciate all the feedback...my position is just that, today....tomorrow may be another story Or heck, maybe even later today....
All I do know for a fact is that we will never really know. I don't see JA ever coming clean to the truth.

ITA. She will never tell the truth about the day she butchered Travis because to do so would mean afterwards the world would turn its back on her and forget about her.

That's something she fears. She wants to be the centre of attention, she wants to keep everyone guessing. She's a psychopath, not unlike Bundy, who also held back the truth to get the attention he craved.

 

[atthelake]

Alert! Alert! Alert!

Katie cool lady is now awake and is posting on the trail Observer thread!

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[momof7]

Yes, and she is going to regret ever saying it. Combativeness from a witness needs to be left out of the courtroom in such a serious case.

From what I have heard from the court watchers none of the jury laughed when she said it either.

I think ALV has forgotten that she does not have to convince JM she is right, she has to convince the jury. Being snarky and showing her 'assertiveness' to JM just doesn't do that.

Not that I am unhappy that she is not convincing the jury, just that I thought that was the purpose of her being a witness. To convince the jury that JA did suffer from DV. She needs to answer the questions yes or no, stop elaborating and explaining herself. JW will be back momentarily to let her expand on her answers. If ALV would pay attention, she would know this is a pattern...

Kelly

 

[bsk]

If you go to the legal questions thread for this trial the lawyers on WS address this:

It IS an issue. No lawyer is allowed to "coach" their witness DURING their time on the stand, therefore, it is a poor choice to be seen out to lunch together as it gives the appearance this may be happening. As pointed out though, they could just say they aren't coaching her so it probably won't be brought up.

Either she WAS coached at lunch yesterday or else it's quite a coincidence that right after lunch she pointed out a "mistake" she had made (in attributing someone's age I think it was) before Martinez pointed it out.

And heck, the judge allowed JW to approach her at her seat for a brief secret chat, just like she had allowed at one point with Jodi. That seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Nhic]

If I were one of the jurors I would ask her.

Ms. LV is there anything that you blame Jodi for in the relationship, both when together, and when they were no longer together?"

That would probably be the only time we'd ever hear a simple NO from ALV. :floorlaugh:

 

[Pink Panther]

Does anyone know if the jury questions come after JM or after JW's re-direct?

 

[Schuby]

I am waiting for the jurors questions for her. Her MO has become so obvious, not even answering YES or NO to the simplest of questions, instead using ANY OTHER word in an effort to defy Juan. No way the jury isn't tired of non-answers and dancing around questions and over all attitude.

I must say I am HIGHLY disappointed in the Judge's control of her courtroom. A judge should garner respect and maybe a little fear from all participants in her court. It is clear she is not in control. I have never seen so many APPROACHES in all the cases I've followed COMBINED. It's ridiculous.

I bet a lot of juror Q's will be along the lines of, "If you knew x, would it change your opinion of y?" There seems to be so much information she is not privy too.