trial day 44: the defense continues its case in chief #134

[Paintr]

Just got home from work and heard that there is another witness after AVL???????????? Please let this be a joke. I can't take another defense 'expert'. :banghead: Is this true? Who is it?

 

[FrayedKnot]

Okay - upthread there was discussion about Jodi and the whole anal sex thing (groan) and why it was such a prominent part of the relationship. Defense says it was all Travis' manipulation of her and the "it's not real sex" thing. Whatever. Anyway -- several thread ago, someone posted a link to a blog about a person's experience with a stalker - a girl stalking guy scenario. He had this to say about the sex part of it and I think it's spot on with Jodi. I wish I could remember the sleuther who posted the blog -- as they deserve the credit for finding the blog - if anyone recalls, please "refresh my recollection"

This is quoted from: http://.blogspot.com/ (if the link doesn't work, just type it into your browser and it should come up).

"This really resonates with me. My ex- was willing to do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, accept standard intercourse. She did not want regular intercourse at all. She had tons and tons of ideas for kinky, and even perverse sex and positions, but was completely against vaginal intercourse. Without going in to anything too graphic, I will just say I rejected most of her ideas as too freaky for my tastes. She has a voracious sexual appetite, which surprised me, considering she was completely turned off by what most people considered 'normal'.

One thing that stands out was her insistence that we do these things as a way of me exploring those areas that I had not experienced with other woman. There are two reasons for this, that I see. One is she did not want to compete sexually with woman I had already been with. It was very important for her to distinguish herself as 'different'. Two, she wanted to be 'everything' to me. She did not want me to ever think or desire a particular sexual position or experience without thinking of her. She even asked if I had told my friends about our sex life and all her crazy ideas, whether we had done them or not. She wanted to be known as the girl who would do anything, she wanted to be a fantasy and to be the personification of every fantasy I could have. As much as it may sound like a good old fun time, it really isn't. She would tell me that it was all about acting out my fantasies and fulfilling my desires, but it really was about her acting out her fantasies. Oddly, most of her fantasies had elements of rape, violence or taboo. None of that interested me (I think I just announced to the world that I'm a boring lover, hahahaha)."

Jumping off your post but not targeting you or ANY OTHER poster.......

While I agree that any sexual adventure should be mutually embraced by both partners, I do not agree that out-of-the-norm sexual behavior or desire necessarily denotes sociopathy.

This whole trial I have read over and over that JA's sexual proclivities are just PROOF of her evil. Like the two are cemented.

Ummmm, I think that the ghastly murder of Travis is the proof of her EVIL CRAZY and that the majority of us who are into exciting non-missionary sex with equally enthusiastic, loving partners are no more likely to slaughter our lovers than are the "once a week with the lights out" crew.

Jeebus. Sorry for the rant but there are more sexual positions than "okay but hurry".

 

[Bravo]

Thank You! Just trying to understand. But it has me thinking if it is not real who would have helped her make that.

I think it is authentic. I remember Juan had Travis's Family hear it (behind closed doors) prior to it playing in Court. To prepare them.

 

[amarycann]

Makes you want to scream lol:banghead:

The defense's so called recreation in 42 seconds was a JOKE. They left out major time consuming things, like him yelling at her about the camera, the body slam, closing the door and then opening the door of the closet.

And did you notice how SLOWLY the man followed behind her 'in chase.' Travis was supposedly in a murderous rage, so why did the recreation show him in slow motion?

Worse, LIFETIME is watching closely for HLN to be the "technical advisor" to the script - sigh.

 

[katiedid2]

She's starting to resemble a praying mantis and has many of it's attributes. Predatory behavior and ambushing, biting off the head of the male when mating.

She's looking haggard and gray. Lately she's displaying weird behaviour. Someone posted a pic of her yesterday,with her teeth clenched and a fist balled up.
Scary shes Getting up close to her attorney! No boundaries, Leading her attorneyas to when to object and wilmott actually does obey. Are you kidding me.
She's becoming more brazen this last week, I'd like to know who she's staring down in the gallery. Didnt sky say that Jodie didnt leave her home when asked to. Instead she goes into the kitchen sat down and just stared at her, didnt speak. She than gets up and leaves. Scarry psychopath/sociopath.

 

[Kamille]

It bothers the heck out of me how the defense team on HLN (After Dark) just lied about the evidence and what the ME said.:furious: Good grief if they are going to do this silly show they need to get the facts straight instead of making them up to help their side of the case. It infuriates me.

IMO

On the defense side of every episode of that show that I forced myself to watch they have always "misinterpreted" some of the information and outright said things that are not in evidence in the actual trial. So can we assume from that that all defense lawyers will say anything, even untruths or information that they just assume or make up on the spot, to win?

MOO

 

[Hopeful One]

http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf

Thank you!!

I noticed that have "Travis's" right rather than "Travis'". Sorry, spelling freak.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Yes, yes yes. If I could thank this post a 1000 times I would. You reached into my ADHD brain and put down all my thoughts in a way I never could. I hate that Travis gets lost in all the lurid details of the trial. The picture of Travis giving Napoleon a smooch gets me every time, just makes my heart hurt. What an amazing man, his life snuffed out by that worthless blob of DNA. That smug b**ch. Seething hate.

And I would like to thank both your posts 1,000 times

 

[ElleElle]

Well we know it came from Helio good Gus gave Jodi.

I may be waaay off here but do we know for sure the recorded phone call is authentic and not contrived??? I don't know how it could be done, but anyone have ideas?? :what:

 

[panthera]

The defense's so called recreation in 42 seconds was a JOKE. They left out major time consuming things, like him yelling at her about the camera, the body slam, closing the door and then opening the door of the closet.

And did you notice how SLOWLY the man followed behind her 'in chase.' Travis was supposedly in a murderous rage, so why did the recreation show him in slow motion?

This is the worst part about recreating a crime scene, and thankfully it has not been attempted inside the courtroom. Not only are the points you made very valid, what is most obviously missing is the structure of the house, i.e. the walls, the doors, narrow hallway, clothes inside the closet, the bench, etc. All these things would also factor into the time it would take if there were two people struggling, rather than an all-out assault by one perpetrator.

MOO

 

[Karraster]

The defense's so called recreation in 42 seconds was a JOKE. They left out major time consuming things, like him yelling at her about the camera, the body slam, closing the door and then opening the door of the closet.

And did you notice how SLOWLY the man followed behind her 'in chase.' Travis was supposedly in a murderous rage, so why did the recreation show him in slow motion?

That show makes me uke:

 

[elementary]

It was after the first afternoon break I think. She would put her jacket on backwards just covering her arms (and lap). When she stood for the jury off came the jacket. It was really wierd.

She wants to continue to show the jury how frail and thin she is.

 

[katydid23]

It bothers the heck out of me how the defense team on HLN (After Dark) just lied about the evidence and what the ME said.:furious: Good grief if they are going to do this silly show they need to get the facts straight instead of making them up to help their side of the case. It infuriates me.

IMO

One thing I LOVED was that their so called RECREATION proved that it was NOT SELF DEFENSE. They showed TA crawling away from the killer, down the hall, and then she follows behind him and starts slaughtering him with the knife. Is that a helpful reenactment for the defense?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

IMO their psychopathy is identical. Both are full of hidden rage. Both are master manipulators and liars. Both are narcissists.

TB's girlfriend disappeared after she rejected him. Nobody knows if he tried to find her to kill her or not. That is a distinct possibility. In those days there was no internet, no cell phones, no IMs, email. All he had was his used VW in which he drove all of the U.S. It obviously would not have been as easy for him to locate that ex-girlfriend then as it would be now.

Both TB and JA want to "own" their victims.

Whether JA got her sexual thrills from butchering Travis or not is irrelevant. Her deep rooted rage was satiated, as was TB's after each of his murders.

No, she didn't disappear, she moved back in with her parents. He encountered her years later:

During a trip to California on Republican Party business in the summer of 1973 Bundy came back into the life of ex-girlfriend Brooks, who marveled at his transformation into a serious, dedicated professional, seemingly on the cusp of a distinguished legal and political career. He continued to date Kloepfer as well; neither woman was aware of the other's existence. In the fall of 1973 Bundy matriculated at UPS Law School[50] and continued courting Brooks, who flew to Seattle several times to stay with him. They discussed marriage; at one point he introduced her to Davis as his fiancée.[24] In January 1974, however, he abruptly broke off all contact; her phone calls and letters went unreturned. Finally reaching him by phone a month later, Brooks demanded to know why Bundy had unilaterally ended their relationship without explanation. In a flat, calm voice, he replied, "Stephanie, I have no idea what you mean ..." and hung up. She never heard from him again.[51] Later he explained, "I just wanted to prove to myself that I could have married her."[52] At about the same time Bundy began skipping classes at law school, and by April he had stopped attending entirely,[53] as young women began to disappear in the Pacific Northwest.[54]

Ted Bundy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, now I'm discussing him LOL Back to Arias ...

 

[Georgina]

It bothers the heck out of me how the defense team on HLN (After Dark) just lied about the evidence and what the ME said.:furious: Good grief if they are going to do this silly show they need to get the facts straight instead of making them up to help their side of the case. It infuriates me.

IMO

AfterDark is just unwatchable to me. Their "bold accusation" phrase hasnt really taken off has it?

 

[Nore]

OMG, anyone just hear what "judge" Seidlin said about Juan? That he's taking way too long on cross, and it's just becoming a Juan Martinez commercial? Is he serious? This is the Anna Nicole Smith crying judge right? LMFAO....I hate HLN too. :floorlaugh:

Hi, diid you hear they will cover the Trayvon Martin case in June? I heard Vinnie report it will be on HLN.. sorta looks like they switched channels.:floorlaugh:It is the crying Judge.lol..I gave up on it. Vinnie is such an intelligent man, he should have a better postion. He is/was a prosecutor. :seeya:

 

[Kamille]

As far as I know,she was convicted and sentenced to 26 years,appealed and got a new trial,then was aquitted.But in Italy the prosecutors can appeal acquittals,unlike the US or Canada,and the higher courts overturned her aquittal and ordered a new trial.Apparently she does not have to attend and it's up to the US if she is extradited.

But even if she's not extradited,if she's found guilty and travels to some foreign country which has an extradition treaty with Italy,she could be picked up and shipped of to Italy to serve her sentence.So if that happens,she'll have to be careful where she travels.MOO from what I've heard and read.

Actually in Canada, the prosecution can appeal a verdict with good reason within the actual trial or new info I believe. I really think the US should consider this system in light of the way the defense seems to be able to trample all over the prosecution with no consequences.

MOO

 

[Plumeria5]

Changing faces before and during trials.

Juan Martinez/Wendi Andriano

Starts at 1:10 or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLce9Pdt_PI

 

[Pink Panther]

Isn't she acting weirder and weirder? Telling wilmott to object and actually voicing herself. Her behaviour. Is escalating. I hope the bailiff has the remote to her thing strapped to her. I have a feeling she may act out! When the verdict is read. Ya think?

I agree with you. I do think she's acting weirder and weirder. Her "mask" is slipping. I hope it slips right off. Looking forward to it, should we be so lucky!

moo

 

[VictimsSide]

I want to know why ALV thinks that stalking victims have to be held to a standard, but DV victims are forgiven for not holding to a certain standard?

Both are horrific, I'm sure, but why is it that a stalking victim has to take drastic measure to prove that they were stalked? If there are reasons that a DV victim is afraid to leave a situation, then there are also reason why a stalking victim is afraid to rile the stalker.

As it takes time for a DV person to realize what is happening to them, it also takes time for a person to realize that someone is stalking them. It could take months for a stalking victim to realize that their "friend" is invading their privacy or showing up wherever they are, or have put a tracking GPS on them, etc and so on. Just like a DV person can feel that they can reason with their abuser and that it doesn't happen all the time, why can't a stalking person think that they have reasoned with their "friend" or lover and has also concluded that the behavior would stop?

I don't take away from DV victims. I just don't think it's fair to take away from stalking victims. Since they compared the two today, I have to raise these questions.

First, I put no stock in what alv says regarding either issue, but I think to answer your question, in my view, the police and courts have been forced to act upon a DV situation after years or decades of inaction. They haven't come to address stalking yet in the same regard. Is it just as frightening and dangerous, absolutely and does there need to be more strides made, yes. My thought is that in a dv situation you can usually see an immediate "proof", ie black eye, etc., whereas in a stalking situation you have a she said/he said and no immediate proof of where the truth lies. Is there more work needing to be done and should it be taken more seriously, resounding yes. I have no idea however of how long it will take for both matters to be equally reacted upon and defended and protected in a court of law tho. Computers and technology make stalking so much easier in todays world and laws are not keeping up with the the changes. Hope I answered some of your thoughts.