AuburnSchnauzer
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,782
- Reaction score
- 0
Please Stop It.
Trial day 53: REBUTTAL; #162
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
Please Stop It.
Summerfun
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 25
Jodi lies, but there is some truth to her ridiculous lies.
Somewhere you do not get what I am saying. It is so much easier to shoot someone than stab them.
I have never stabbed or shot anyone, but shooting is so much easier.
Why would she steal the gun in such a crazy manner if that was not her first choice.
She stole the gun with a purpose and that was to kill Travis.
Can someone explain to me why she stole the gun, and did not mean to use it?
Jill-in-NV
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
Good Evening! I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. I'm relatively new here and I just can't seem to find it. Does anyone know whatever happened to the BMW that Travis sold to Jodi? The one that she ruined on the day she was moving back to Calif. I'm curious if Jodi ever paid it off, or if it ended up being sold or going to someone in Travis' family. Thanks, I love this site!
Her lawyers will tell her to remain calm. They will tell her an appeal is likely.
Lorelilly
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 2
Gypsy, I stumbled on this case late, (JA on the stand) and became hooked. In my opinion the DP should not have been allowed in this case. And yes, I'm against the Death Penalty for many reasons. The biggest is that there is no uniformity as to who or why the DP is applied. Anytime you have a trial and the DP is attached the Judge almost always leans in the direction of the Defense, after all it's their client who's life is on the line. IF this had been a Murder 1 with LWOP this trial would have been over, with a Guilty Verdict in 15 court days, tops. I want Justice for Travis and a guilty verdict. LWOP as punishment for this crime I believe does equal Justice.
I bet before she decided she knew to go all legal after firing that gun in Travis' head and purchase a 9mm and probably steal 2 more knives from the restaurants where she worked, Jodi packed a knife or two on her for those 5 hour to 2 miles (while still in AZ) in the middle of the night stalking raids on Travis, protection on the road, ya know.... and for tire slashin'.
Dont know. She probably stopped paying for it.
JustMeDeb
New Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,342
- Reaction score
- 0
She owes everyone one good meltdown. I have a feeling it might come when she hears Guilty of Murder in the 1st. I wouldn't mind waiting to see it when Judge Sherry tells her, "And I hereby sentence you to death."
Smelly Squirrel
(Taylor's Version)
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,047
- Reaction score
- 19,089
Nope, that never happened. Colombo said she told him the first car he offered her, the red car, smelled of smoke. He didn't say it in court, but it was referenced by Nurmi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEG00_E3V-o#t=37m26s
Curious Me
Who When Where What Why & How
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 26,755
- Reaction score
- 109,949
Wasn't Mr. Kardashion the one that they suspected took off with one of the suitcases they thought might of contained evidence?
Hatfield
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 17,014
- Reaction score
- 59,123
I dont recall them ever mentioning about the bullet itself either. I suppose if the lead bullet got severely deformed , then it is possible it was too damaged and deformed to tell what caliber bullet it even was. This could be why it was not mentioned much.
I've seen many bullets hit a target and some of them get really messed up and mangled where they are not recognizable at all and just look like a chunk of lead.
lil_buddy
Inactive
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,800
- Reaction score
- 8
As interesting as it is to hear how you would commit a murder, I'm not sure what that has to do with Jodi.
Presumably, you & Jodi are not on the same wavelength.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,314
- Reaction score
- 50,899
Yes, indeed, kaydono -- you're right. I have seen/heard in some definitions, the wording "with malice aforethought, however short." One of the best ways I've heard it explained as it pertains to especially the crime of homicide, is strangulation. It takes about 2--5 minutes to strangle someone to death. Three minutes, for example, is not a mere blink of an eye. Holding your hands, or to hold a rope, etc., around someone's neck for the purpose of strangulation to death takes time, and every minute or second you continue to hold, it builds up and becomes more extreme premeditation since you can stop and the victim might survive. You can't stop a bullet after it is fired, like you can strangulation, but you had time to decide not to pull the trigger, or not to pick up the weapon. Think how much time JA had to think about each stab wound; finding, pointing & pulling the trigger on a gun; or finding the knife with which to slit his throat.
Yes, she could have stopped, thereby saving him from death, but she did not. You could throw out all the gas cans, incognito car, driving all those miles, going to his house & parking the car & going into the house, and so on.
Her lying goose is cooked when it comes to premeditation.
Are the courtroom proceedings from Arias' arraignment available to watch? Are there any courtroom proceedings pertaining to Arias from 9/19/2008 -1/03/12 available to watch?
I have only seen the trial. However, I have seen a picture of Arias in the courtroom wearing a jail uniform - I think it was taken when Arias planned on defending herself.
I would like to see Arias' courtroom behavior before the trial started - if anyone knows where I can view Arias in court between 2008-2012 (before the trial started) please let me know.
I did find all of the court minutes - and a timeline of Arias in court that begins in 2008. It is below in italic.
I greatly appreciate the help in finding Arias in court before her trial.
First public defender at arraignment is James Hann. There is a minute entry about the public defender having a possible conflict. The State’s Attorney is Juan Martinez
On 9/19/08 the public defender is Maria L Schaffer as primary.
On 9/19/08 another public defender Judis R Andrews requested an extension of time to challenge the Grand Jury proceedings as they did not have a copy of the Grand Jury transcript.
On 12/18/08 the primary public defender is Maria L Schaffer and the secondary public defender is Gregory T Parzych. Juan M Martinez is still the State’s Attorney.
On 5/22/09 the defendant submitted a request for a change of council.
Additional hearings and status meeting are held without further mention of the change of council.
On 8/10/09 the Court received and reviewed a motion from both public defenders to withdraw from representing the defendant. The Court found sufficient cause to allow them to withdraw and noted that the trial was set for February 2, 2010 so there is adequate time for new counsel to be assigned without putting the trial date in jeopardy.
On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington and Kirk Nurmi appear as counsel along with Maria Schaffer and Gregory Parzych at an evidentiary hearing. Of interest, this hearing was to determine if there is probable cause to add an Aggravating Factor that will make this a death penalty case. This is where the prosecution presents to the Court that the victim was shot first, then repeatedly stabbed, then stabbed in the heart and finally had throat slit. Detective Flores represents to the court that he spoke with the Medical Examiner Dr. Horne and that this is the sequence of events Dr. Horne gave him.
On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington (secondary) and Kirk Nurmi (primary) are assigned as new defense counsel.
On 11/3/09 new trial date of 8/16/2010 is set. This is per the request of defense counsel who previously stated they need more time to prepare.
On 6/18/10 the trial date was reset to 8/2/2011.
On 2/25/11 Kirk Nurmi announced to the Court that he is leaving the Public Defender’s Office.
On 3/8/2011 a hearing is held regarding Kirk Nurmi withdrawing as defense consel. Very interesting minutes. Defendant strenuously objected to new counsel and possibility of pushing back trial date. The Court noted that “Once a case is set for trial, counsel may not withdraw except upon motion providing the name and address of another attorney, along with a statement from that attorney stating that he or she has been advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial. Rule 6.3(c). No such motion or statement has been filed in this case. “ Mr. Nurmi was ordered to continue as the lead defense counsel at the standard public defender hourly rate paid to the primary defense counsel.
On 3/9/2011 Mr. Nurmi submitted a formal motion to withdraw and as hearing on the motion was set for 3/21/2011.
On 3/21/2011 Mr. Nurmi’s motion to withdraw as counsel is denied. At this hearing the State’s request to change the trial date due to a scheduling conflict with State Attorney Juan M Martinez was also denied.
On 3/22/2011 another hearing is held with a second motion to withdraw by Mr. Nurmi. After the hearing on the previous day the Public Defender Office notified Mr. Nurmi that they were withdrawing the mitigation specialist, investigator, and paralegal because the Public Defender Office does not want Mr. Nurmi directing staff when he is no longer an employee. The Court ordered that Mr. Nurmi motion was denied and he was required to remain as the primary counsel and that the Public Defender Office must immediately reassign the personnel to the case.
On 4/4/2011 Mr. Nurmi stated his objection to remaining on the case during a status hearing as he has left the Public Defender Office to go into private practice. The Court found that Mr. Nurmi has an ethical obligation to continue representing the defendant but would begin receiving a reasonable hourly rate of $225.00 as compensation to avoid any financial interests that would place Mr. Nurmi in conflict with his client.
On 8/8/2011 defendant has a hearing on an oral motion she submitted to represent herself. At the end of the hearing this motion is granted but Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington are to remain as advisory counsel, with Victoria Washington as primary. The evidentiary hearing on the purported letters from Travis Alexander alleging he is a pedophile is held with Ms. Arias as defense counsel.
On 8/9/2011 during a normal status conference both Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi address the Court as to the roles and responsibility of advisory counsel, and the primary counsel (which is now the defendant). The Court agrees and addresses this with Ms. Arias and asks her if she wishes to remain as her own counsel. She states she will continue as primary counsel.
On 8/15/2011 the evidentiary hearing regarding the “pedophile” letters is completed. The Court orders that the letters are precluded and the defense withdraws them. At the end of this hearing Ms. Arias submits an oral request to withdraw as her own counsel and requests that Mr. Nurmi and Victoria Washington be reinstated as defense counsel. The Court orders Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to represent the defendant in all further proceedings.
On 9/9/2011 the trial date is reset to 2/21/2012 due to the primary defense witness needing to withdraw because of a health issue. A new witness will need to be retained and allowed time to prepare for the trial.
On 12/22/2011 a hearing was held on a motion from the Public Defender Office to withdraw from this case due to a conflict of interest with Victoria Washington. Motion was allowed but the Public Defender Office will appoint a new second counsel, investigator, mitigation specialist, and paralegal. Victoria Washington is released as counsel.
On 1/3/2012 a hearing was held on a motion to continue trial due to assignment of new counsel. New secondary counsel Jennifer L Willmott was assigned by the Public Defender Office. Defendant agreed and waived the applicable time limit. Trial date was changed to 10/17/2012.
On 3/12/2012 a hearing was held on a defense motion to dismiss the Intent to Seek Death Penalty. Per the motion “At the status conference on January 3, 2012, the Court granted an oral motion by the defense to continue the trial due to the recent appointment of Ms. Willmott. Defendant Arias agreed to the continuance and the exclusion of time. The trial was reset to October 17, 2012. All time was excluded. See minute entry dated January 3, 2012. Defendant now asserts the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty should be dismissed because, to assure she had effective representation by counsel, Defendant Arias had to agree to the continuance of the trial to October 17, 2012.” The Court denied this motion as the need for competent and prepared counsel trumps her right to a speedy trial. During this hearing the defense also submitted a motion to preclude the State from referring to Travis Alexander as a “victim” during the trial. Specifically, Defendant Arias argues she would be prejudiced by permitting the State and its witnesses to refer to Mr. Alexander as the victim since it is contrary to her claim of self defense. As such, she would be prejudiced. The State responds that the term “victim” is routinely used in criminal cases and does not imply the defendant committed the crime with which she has been charged. Further, the State argues Mr. Alexander was murdered and thus he was a “victim” of a criminal offense as defined by Arizona law. The Court finds the defendant failed to establish she will be prejudiced if Mr. Alexander is referred to as the “victim” in front of the jury during the trial. The State’s evidence will show Mr. Alexander was the victim of a homicide. Apparently, the defendant will argue she acted in self defense and was thus justified in her actions. Regardless, referring to Mr. Alexander as the “victim” during the trial will not unfairly prejudice the defendant.
On 10/30/12 defense submits another request to continue the trial date (there was a previous motion that was granted moving the trial date from 10/17/2012 to 11/19/2012) because they want their own review of a computer hard drive. State objects to the continuation.
On 11/19/2012 motion is granted changing trial date to 12/10/2012.
On 12/4/2012 defense submits another motion for continuation. Motion is denied.
Jury selection begins on 12/10/2012. Final jury is selected and sworn in 12/20/12. Opening statements scheduled to being 1/2/2012.
All court minutes for Jodi Arias
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...r=CR2008031021
I have only seen the trial. However, I have seen a picture of Arias in the courtroom wearing a jail uniform - I think it was taken when Arias planned on defending herself.
I would like to see Arias' courtroom behavior before the trial started - if anyone knows where I can view Arias in court between 2008-2012 (before the trial started) please let me know.
I did find all of the court minutes - and a timeline of Arias in court that begins in 2008. It is below in italic.
I greatly appreciate the help in finding Arias in court before her trial.
First public defender at arraignment is James Hann. There is a minute entry about the public defender having a possible conflict. The State’s Attorney is Juan Martinez
On 9/19/08 the public defender is Maria L Schaffer as primary.
On 9/19/08 another public defender Judis R Andrews requested an extension of time to challenge the Grand Jury proceedings as they did not have a copy of the Grand Jury transcript.
On 12/18/08 the primary public defender is Maria L Schaffer and the secondary public defender is Gregory T Parzych. Juan M Martinez is still the State’s Attorney.
On 5/22/09 the defendant submitted a request for a change of council.
Additional hearings and status meeting are held without further mention of the change of council.
On 8/10/09 the Court received and reviewed a motion from both public defenders to withdraw from representing the defendant. The Court found sufficient cause to allow them to withdraw and noted that the trial was set for February 2, 2010 so there is adequate time for new counsel to be assigned without putting the trial date in jeopardy.
On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington and Kirk Nurmi appear as counsel along with Maria Schaffer and Gregory Parzych at an evidentiary hearing. Of interest, this hearing was to determine if there is probable cause to add an Aggravating Factor that will make this a death penalty case. This is where the prosecution presents to the Court that the victim was shot first, then repeatedly stabbed, then stabbed in the heart and finally had throat slit. Detective Flores represents to the court that he spoke with the Medical Examiner Dr. Horne and that this is the sequence of events Dr. Horne gave him.
On 8/18/09 Victoria E Washington (secondary) and Kirk Nurmi (primary) are assigned as new defense counsel.
On 11/3/09 new trial date of 8/16/2010 is set. This is per the request of defense counsel who previously stated they need more time to prepare.
On 6/18/10 the trial date was reset to 8/2/2011.
On 2/25/11 Kirk Nurmi announced to the Court that he is leaving the Public Defender’s Office.
On 3/8/2011 a hearing is held regarding Kirk Nurmi withdrawing as defense consel. Very interesting minutes. Defendant strenuously objected to new counsel and possibility of pushing back trial date. The Court noted that “Once a case is set for trial, counsel may not withdraw except upon motion providing the name and address of another attorney, along with a statement from that attorney stating that he or she has been advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial. Rule 6.3(c). No such motion or statement has been filed in this case. “ Mr. Nurmi was ordered to continue as the lead defense counsel at the standard public defender hourly rate paid to the primary defense counsel.
On 3/9/2011 Mr. Nurmi submitted a formal motion to withdraw and as hearing on the motion was set for 3/21/2011.
On 3/21/2011 Mr. Nurmi’s motion to withdraw as counsel is denied. At this hearing the State’s request to change the trial date due to a scheduling conflict with State Attorney Juan M Martinez was also denied.
On 3/22/2011 another hearing is held with a second motion to withdraw by Mr. Nurmi. After the hearing on the previous day the Public Defender Office notified Mr. Nurmi that they were withdrawing the mitigation specialist, investigator, and paralegal because the Public Defender Office does not want Mr. Nurmi directing staff when he is no longer an employee. The Court ordered that Mr. Nurmi motion was denied and he was required to remain as the primary counsel and that the Public Defender Office must immediately reassign the personnel to the case.
On 4/4/2011 Mr. Nurmi stated his objection to remaining on the case during a status hearing as he has left the Public Defender Office to go into private practice. The Court found that Mr. Nurmi has an ethical obligation to continue representing the defendant but would begin receiving a reasonable hourly rate of $225.00 as compensation to avoid any financial interests that would place Mr. Nurmi in conflict with his client.
On 8/8/2011 defendant has a hearing on an oral motion she submitted to represent herself. At the end of the hearing this motion is granted but Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington are to remain as advisory counsel, with Victoria Washington as primary. The evidentiary hearing on the purported letters from Travis Alexander alleging he is a pedophile is held with Ms. Arias as defense counsel.
On 8/9/2011 during a normal status conference both Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi address the Court as to the roles and responsibility of advisory counsel, and the primary counsel (which is now the defendant). The Court agrees and addresses this with Ms. Arias and asks her if she wishes to remain as her own counsel. She states she will continue as primary counsel.
On 8/15/2011 the evidentiary hearing regarding the “pedophile” letters is completed. The Court orders that the letters are precluded and the defense withdraws them. At the end of this hearing Ms. Arias submits an oral request to withdraw as her own counsel and requests that Mr. Nurmi and Victoria Washington be reinstated as defense counsel. The Court orders Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to represent the defendant in all further proceedings.
On 9/9/2011 the trial date is reset to 2/21/2012 due to the primary defense witness needing to withdraw because of a health issue. A new witness will need to be retained and allowed time to prepare for the trial.
On 12/22/2011 a hearing was held on a motion from the Public Defender Office to withdraw from this case due to a conflict of interest with Victoria Washington. Motion was allowed but the Public Defender Office will appoint a new second counsel, investigator, mitigation specialist, and paralegal. Victoria Washington is released as counsel.
On 1/3/2012 a hearing was held on a motion to continue trial due to assignment of new counsel. New secondary counsel Jennifer L Willmott was assigned by the Public Defender Office. Defendant agreed and waived the applicable time limit. Trial date was changed to 10/17/2012.
On 3/12/2012 a hearing was held on a defense motion to dismiss the Intent to Seek Death Penalty. Per the motion “At the status conference on January 3, 2012, the Court granted an oral motion by the defense to continue the trial due to the recent appointment of Ms. Willmott. Defendant Arias agreed to the continuance and the exclusion of time. The trial was reset to October 17, 2012. All time was excluded. See minute entry dated January 3, 2012. Defendant now asserts the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty should be dismissed because, to assure she had effective representation by counsel, Defendant Arias had to agree to the continuance of the trial to October 17, 2012.” The Court denied this motion as the need for competent and prepared counsel trumps her right to a speedy trial. During this hearing the defense also submitted a motion to preclude the State from referring to Travis Alexander as a “victim” during the trial. Specifically, Defendant Arias argues she would be prejudiced by permitting the State and its witnesses to refer to Mr. Alexander as the victim since it is contrary to her claim of self defense. As such, she would be prejudiced. The State responds that the term “victim” is routinely used in criminal cases and does not imply the defendant committed the crime with which she has been charged. Further, the State argues Mr. Alexander was murdered and thus he was a “victim” of a criminal offense as defined by Arizona law. The Court finds the defendant failed to establish she will be prejudiced if Mr. Alexander is referred to as the “victim” in front of the jury during the trial. The State’s evidence will show Mr. Alexander was the victim of a homicide. Apparently, the defendant will argue she acted in self defense and was thus justified in her actions. Regardless, referring to Mr. Alexander as the “victim” during the trial will not unfairly prejudice the defendant.
On 10/30/12 defense submits another request to continue the trial date (there was a previous motion that was granted moving the trial date from 10/17/2012 to 11/19/2012) because they want their own review of a computer hard drive. State objects to the continuation.
On 11/19/2012 motion is granted changing trial date to 12/10/2012.
On 12/4/2012 defense submits another motion for continuation. Motion is denied.
Jury selection begins on 12/10/2012. Final jury is selected and sworn in 12/20/12. Opening statements scheduled to being 1/2/2012.
All court minutes for Jodi Arias
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...r=CR2008031021
Gypsy Road
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 15,454
There's hope! I'm not saying they won't give her the DP, but I'm just not so sure. I do believe they will find her guilty of 1st degree however!
Dr. Nick
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
In case anyone wasn't convinced by the ME that a bullet to the frontal lobe of the brain is extremely likely to be immediately incapacitating. Note that the shock wave is much worse than the track of the bullet would imply, and afterward there is only a small trail through the brain. It's always possible to find exceptions, but a bullet crossing through both hemispheres is almost certain to be a devastating injury:
[video=youtube;tex378zgV1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tex378zgV1k[/video]
[video=youtube;tex378zgV1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tex378zgV1k[/video]
Wouldn't it take her a while to go hunt down a knife in the house to use to finish the job? More than 60 seconds, right?
I think you are trying to look at this from a rational manner. Jodi Arias is not rational. So it's hard to understand why she did what she did. If you look at it from the perspective that she is pure evil and wanted to inflict the most painful death possible and the most control where the victim was cognizant of what she was doing, then her using a knife makes sense. I know it doesn't necessarily seem reasonable that she could overpower him with a knife, but if she caught him completely by surprise and got a few good shots in, it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Sorry for being so insensitive about how the killing went down.
AuburnSchnauzer
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,782
- Reaction score
- 0
No, you are not on the wrong thread - Please expound (or tell us more of what you think, OK?)
Celeskitty
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 0
It might have jammed (if it was an older gun) and had to use the knife as a backup. She then figured out how to fix it and stage the scene to make it look like two people were there. Example: putting the body in the shower and throwing water everywhere so they couldn't tell how many people were there.
- Status