trial day 53: REBUTTAL; #161

[Whack A Mole]

Is there any OTHER place to get gas?

:O

Ask my dog...he has a never end supply :hills:

 

[JRS_JD2L]

Ok, a question for the veteran trial watchers..lets say the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on Friday, how long until they start to decide on life or death? Is it right after? Hope someone can answer, Thanks!

On cursory review, it looks like rather quickly...like "immediately." <see below> What that means in Judge Stephens court is, well...ullhair:

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-752: (relevant sections)

"C. If the trier of fact finds the defendant guilty of first degree murder, the trier of fact shall then immediately determine whether one or more alleged aggravating circumstances have been proven. This proceeding is the aggravation phase of the sentencing proceeding.

D. If the trier of fact finds that one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances have been proven, the trier of fact shall then immediately determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. This proceeding is the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.

E. At the aggravation phase, the trier of fact shall make a special finding on whether each alleged aggravating circumstance has been proven based on the evidence that was presented at the trial or at the aggravation phase. If the trier of fact is a jury, a unanimous verdict is required to find that the aggravating circumstance has been proven. If the trier of fact unanimously finds that an aggravating circumstance has not been proven, the defendant is entitled to a special finding that the aggravating circumstance has not been proven. If the trier of fact unanimously finds no aggravating circumstances, the court shall then determine whether to impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant pursuant to subsection A of this section.

F. The penalty phase shall be held immediately after the trier of fact finds at the aggravation phase that one or more of the aggravating circumstances under § 13-751, subsection F have been proven. A finding by the trier of fact that any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has not been proven or the inability of the trier of fact to agree on the issue of whether any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has been proven shall not prevent the holding of the penalty phase."

 

[Nhic]

I don't understand how manslaughter can be in the jury instructions when it wasn't in the indictment. Can someone please explain? TIA!

 

[DesSands]

I am seriously considering taking the following Monday off of work. I did this for the CA verdict. Nerd, I know. But since we can't predict how long they'll deliberate, I don't know what day to take - Monday or Tuesday... Wednesday? Hmmm....

I have a lot to say today. Ok here goes .... I'm betting there will be one hold out on the jury and will drive them to insanity.
Next me thinks the JJS finally got the message that enough is enough, pressure from taxpayers. I think this is a pretty long delay until end of trial. DT couldn't get Dr. before next Wed. Nothing moves in this trial, it's so frustrating. If Dr. would come Mon. this could go to jury by Wed. and maybe we would have had verdict next week. :banghead:
Next I said last night JA will never go away, she's addicted to spotlight, as maybe are her attorneys by now. ME said the same thing on Dr.D last night. We'll be putting up with digs from JA even from prison for a very long time. Instead of going away, she'll torture his family with tweets, pics, drawings etc for yrs to come. AND if she ever get out, JM needs to watch his tires every night.
Hell hat no fury after this like JA, and you can mark my words on that. :floorlaugh:

 

[Kamille]

I think he is being called to trash Dr. Demarte. He will conclude any/all of the following:

She is too inexperienced
She administered the wrong tests
She gave the tests improperly
Her interpretation of the testing was incorrect
Dr. Samuels rescoring was ok
Dr. Alyce's 44 hours with the defendant should be the determining factor, she knows Jodi!

I don't understand why the DT would want to dispute a finding of a personality disorder, that may go towards some leniancy in the penalty phase, and try to re-establish the fake PTSD diagnosis. That diagnosis only applies to the "fog" after the fact and I think that has been pretty much "cleared up" so to speak that there was no fog. Nor that she suffered any PTSD signs or symptoms in the days and weeks after the murder.

MOO

 

[jojomonkey]

Beans.

Broccoli

 

[Liebchenmutti]

When Jodi claimed she jumped up to that very high far corner of the shelf to retrieve Travis gun, that was her total undoing.

First, the jury realizes Travis never had a gun because he would have had box of shells, a gun cleaning kit, and a holster (think jodi even claimed this too).

Secondly, every juror is looking at that tall shelf in the picture and realizes how hard it would be to get up there especially with someone chasing them and they realize she probably would not have had the time to make it up to that spot the way she claims.

Thirdly, the shelves were not disturbed and in a rush like she claimed something would likely have been moved.

Fourthly, the shelves may not have even supported her weight if she jumped up on them in a hurry.

Fifthly, and most importantly the coincidence of the .25 being stolen at Grams and that matched the shell casing on floor.

So in summary, it all comes down to this story is just not believable to common sense. This is critical because the jury realizes Jodi lied to them directly. This means she probably lied about other things too.

IMO, I feel this part of her testimony was a critical part in her undoing. She went way too far in her lies and this part is a perfect example.

ETA: Added the 5th most important reason above.

And we have her busted in these lies:

~Did NOT return gas can to Walmart & filled it along with the other 2 & the car in SLC at Tesoro; only purchased GAS
~Had Helio phone on death trip; took pics of her new brown hair color with it--so she HAD THE SEX TAPE with her at Travis' (blackmail); She lied to the jury about it being lost.
~Got hair done in Salinas right before or after she bought gas can at Walmart (I love that her ugly face pics on the Helio are going to contribute to her demise!)
~Can we lay the "Genius IQ" label to rest?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Now that we are getting closer to a verdict, I am really starting to worry about what this jury might think they know about crime that would influence their deliberations.

For example, in the William Kennedy rape trial, one of the jurors said later that it was impossible for her to believe that he could have been guilty because he was an attractive doctor and member of an influential family and could get all the girls he wanted without resorting to rape. Whether he was guilty or not, it is just not true that rapists are acting from sexual deprivation!

I see people online commenting that Jodi Arias can't be guilty of first degree murder because it was clearly a crime of passion. Now in popular usage, a crime of passion means that someone acts without premeditation because of sudden emotion, for example in the course of an argument.

But some people seem to think that if the crime reveals passion - ie violence involving 'overkill' such as in this case, it can't have been premeditated. That is just not true. People are perfectly capable of being angry with someone for days or even years and then deciding to go kill them. It may sound odd to me or you that someone could sustain such anger for an extended period of time but it's perfectly possible for someone to stew over something and premeditate murder. I can imagine Jodi becoming angry with Travis, planning to kill him, and sustaining that anger for days and days. She may have even hoped she could win him back and he would take her to Cancun but once he made it clear he didn't want her anymore, her rage was boundless.

Is anyone else worried or is it just me obsessing?

BBM:

:seeya: You are not alone ... I am worried sick and will feel 1000% better when I hear the words :

GUILTY of 1ST DEGREE MURDER !

Until then I am worried ... ya just never know ...

:moo:

 

[SunnyinMO]

Congrats! It does not seem like 10 YEARS! I guess that is a good thing!

Wait til you get to 45 years!!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Seriously, I have a winner and we are still best friends. We make each other laugh a lot. Total opposites. We complete each other.

 

[katiedid2]

O/T~ The first trial I watched on TV was OJ. Phil Spector was pretty good too.

Yeah I've got a question?
Scott Peterson. Had alot if people outside the courthouse waiting for the verdict as in the kc case? Ya think there will be a crowd outside the courthouse for this verdict?

 

[rose222]

The only sad thing Rose, is that , I bet at verdict time it's going to be pretty hard to get on here.

Oh I hope we all get to watch it together on here. It may sound silly to say but we're all family now. We laugh and joke but we know we are here for Travis and his family. It's not easy waiting for the jury to complete deliberations and listening to the verdict...

 

[JusticeJunkie]

So who thinks yesterday's closed session was about the scheduling in part. How will we find out if the surrebuttal is granted? Just wait and see if it happens?
This judge sure likes to do things behind closed doors, and it's really only supposed to be for unique and spare situations. Me thinks this judge has lots and lots to learn about DP cases.
I'm glad she FINALLY found the balls to set some time limits. We all know with Nurmi, he could make closing arguments last for weeks.

 

[Ricki]

Now that manslaughter will be among the charges for the jury to consider, is anyone worried about the possibility of a conviction on one of the lesser charges - second degree or manslaughter? I'm not feeling quite as confident about 1st degree pre-meditated murder as I was earlier in the trial. :blushing:

I am a tad worried but lets not forget that there is so much evidence that points to premeditation.

 

[Ladylub]

I just hope they do not come back with a verdict between 3-4 pm ( my time) b/c I need to pick up my kiddo. Not sure if the school would be happy if I call saying I can not come pick her up on time b/c they are about to read the verdict. LOL Those days I will be on this site with my cell phone during that hr. and those children better be ready to run all the way home.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Now that manslaughter will be among the charges for the jury to consider, is anyone worried about the possibility of a conviction on one of the lesser charges - second degree or manslaughter? I'm not feeling quite as confident about 1st degree pre-meditated murder as I was earlier in the trial. :blushing:

The majority will NOT budge from murder one. There is no way she will get manslaughter. The best possible outcome for the DT is a hung jury. But an actual verdict of manslaughter, no.

 

[Nhic]

Please, please. Do NOT even tempt me. I'd love to watch that trial - it's going to be a good one, but I really have to get back to life at some point. lol

Same here! I had to dig out my old thighmaster because of watching this trial. :stormingmad: It needs to go back and stay back!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Soulsad]

Congratulations on everyone approaching a Wedding Anniversary. Today is our 38th and it doesn't feel like 38 either.
:seeya:

Congrats! It does not seem like 10 YEARS! I guess that is a good thing!

 

[SunnyinMO]

Now that we are getting closer to a verdict, I am really starting to worry about what this jury might think they know about crime that would influence their deliberations.

For example, in the William Kennedy rape trial, one of the jurors said later that it was impossible for her to believe that he could have been guilty because he was an attractive doctor and member of an influential family and could get all the girls he wanted without resorting to rape. Whether he was guilty or not, it is just not true that rapists are acting from sexual deprivation!

I see people online commenting that Jodi Arias can't be guilty of first degree murder because it was clearly a crime of passion. Now in popular usage, a crime of passion means that someone acts without premeditation because of sudden emotion, for example in the course of an argument.

But some people seem to think that if the crime reveals passion - ie violence involving 'overkill' such as in this case, it can't have been premeditated. That is just not true. People are perfectly capable of being angry with someone for days or even years and then deciding to go kill them. It may sound odd to me or you that someone could sustain such anger for an extended period of time but it's perfectly possible for someone to stew over something and premeditate murder. I can imagine Jodi becoming angry with Travis, planning to kill him, and sustaining that anger for days and days. She may have even hoped she could win him back and he would take her to Cancun but once he made it clear he didn't want her anymore, her rage was boundless.

Is anyone else worried or is it just me obsessing?

I always worry until the verdict it read.

 

[Truth Detector]

We would be a little more confident in a justice-based outcome if we knew that more than a few jurors were asking these questions.

Are there documented sightings of more than five or six jurors of the remaining 16 submitting questions since juror 5 got the boot and juror 11 left sick?

Any court insiders speak to this, perhaps?

Haven't heard the insider TH's provide a number.

 

[Hopeful One]

Wait til you get to 45 years!!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Seriously, I have a winner and we are still best friends. We make each other laugh a lot. Total opposites. We complete each other.

I love that story!! Hoping I can say the same at 45 years!