Trial day 53: REBUTTAL; #162

[buckeyefan1]

Okay, I just have to say few things.

First, the other day when Deanna Reid was up, I kept getting the feeling Nurmi REALLY did not want to ask her the stuff he did. He asked, but I noticed he kept sighing an AWFUL lot before hand.

Second, I for one am OVERJOYED that there is no court until the 1st!! We're leaving today for vaca, so I'll be able to run around and have fun without feeling like I'm MISSING OUT!!! We're flying on the 1st also, but I can live with missing one day!

Go Juan!!! Justice for Travis.

I respectfully disagree about the part concerning Nurmi not wanting to ask Deanna those questions especially because he ended the examination with the words he did. He hit a new low with those questions. It always seemed to me he got a lot enjoyment out of the sex questions especially with Jodi. JMHO I was going to use another term but didn't want to get a T/O

 

[josie1986]

For sure…and Cabot Cove was losing a citizen once a week! :floorlaugh:

what happens when she is the only one left and she is murdered,who is going to investigate :scared:

i have too much time on my hands.


something is up with me today i keep welling up for nothing,especially watching those lovely videos about Travis

 

[momof7]

They had to defend her, but in my opinion, there is no excuse for the ugly way they trashed Travis. She took his life. His reputation was the only thing left and they did their best to destroy it. Thankfully, those who knew him knew better. There was no excuse for Nurmi to dwell on his sex life. This was about murder! There was no excuse for Jennifer Wilmott sitting there talking, writing notes, and laughing like best fifth grade friends. I was appalled yesterday when court starting back and JW was sitting there laughing, when Travis's family had just gone through such a heartwrenching morning. I guess it was because the juror had been dismissed, but it was totally inappropriate, no matter what it was.

I do think they used the sex to cover up the facts. No one is perfect but to have no valid proof, especially of the pedophillia accusations just bothers me. I understand if they had proof. But nothing and still be able to throw it out there? That just seems so wrong on many levels.

I agree she had to have a defense, but wow on being able to throw unprovable things out there. Reminded me of FCA and George's alleged abuse.

I am a proponent of everyone getting their day in court and getting the defense they deserve. But, there should be limits on the things brought out and the proof needed to do so.

 

[BetsyB]

BBM~

Plan A was to corner Travis in a vulnerable position. (shower)
The gun either misfired, jammed or got out knock of her hand along with the camera.

Plan B comes into action. She has the knife duct taped to her.
She stabs his in the heart.

Either way----- it is NOT self defense.

This was a rage killing. After she stabbed him in the heart, she could of got help. But no, she didn't. She proceeded to stab him 26 more times, chase him down the hallway, slit his throat, drag him back, and then try the gun again. This time it fired, and it was a nice clean shot.

I agree with much of what you've posted, but would be more inclined to term it a revenge killing, because rage--- while certainly a factor-- implies heat-of-the-moment. People do not tend to consider the seething, simmering rage harbored my disordered individuals, but rather of perpetrators who "snap." It's really just semantics, but semantics can derail justice, sadly. (And no, I do not mean to imply that your use of the word is problematic; just that the word can be misinterpreted.)

Jodi Arias did not snap. She did, indeed, harbor simmering, seething rage for the "wrongs" perpetrated by her victim. (As one who's been the recipient of irrational rage-- hidden, seething, years'-long rage-- I can attest that it's utterly perplexing even if you think you know the person; really, there is no knowing him/her.) And she used this rage to very carefully plan an execution. Things may or may not have gone according to plan, but it was planned nonetheless.

 

[Clue Finder 55]

This drives me crazy too. I can't imagine the scenario. But after hearing Dr Horn again, I am going with what he sad: stabbing first. Defensive wounds, TA too incapacitated to get to end of the hall. And the 62 seconds the photos show leaves no room for a shooting to take place. She shot him after the dragging photo. That's what I'm going with now... hope the jurors do too.

A tiny 25 cal gun would be very risky to use if you were trying to kill someone because the bullet would have to hit a person in a vital spot and even that might not stop them.
It would be far better to use a knife as a way to kill. With a knife there is no sound like a gun firing that can be heard by neighbors or taking the chance the gun might jam.
A larger caliber gun would be much more effective for killing someone than a tiny 25 cal.
The knife Jodi used had a blade width of 1 1/2inches which is a large blade.
That is why the back wounds were stopped from penetrating deeply by the bones of the ribs and spine.
Probably a knife stolen from a restaurant she worked at.

There is a Youtube video link I posted earlier that to me explains how the murder likely took place and it is by Jodi's own words. I think this video makes the most sensible theory I have heard yet as to motive and what really happened.
Here is the link ( take a look and watch the whole 12 minutes of it ) and see if this makes sense to you.

This video has very graphic pictures in it so be warned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXlwTZoMzQ

 

[Nosey Parker]

That was lame if the juror was doing a "do you know who I am?" act. First Reese, now juror #8. Where have all my heroes gone?

It's not confirmed yet, is it? Poor juror #8 if it turns out it was some DUI dude trying to get out of arrest. The stigma will stick with him.

There's still the other rumour that #8 ran out of time. Didn't a juror in the CA trial leave for a cruise?

 

[Southern_Meadow]

I saw this this morning. My only thought was the that the juror was drunk enough to discuss the trial with the police.

He had to be taken off the jury because of comments or things he said.

I can't thiink of another reason unless there is a rule that says if you get in trouble while you are a juror you are eliminated. IDK.

K

When I was called for jury duty a few years ago, all the attorneys asked each potential juror if they had ever been arrested. Those that had were all excused, no matter what the arrest was for and they were all asked to be excused by the prosecution. The case was for assault and battery, nothing close to this case. I think it may have something to do with one defendant having compassion for another defendant (not that I think he had any compassion for her or that the two arrests in any way compare), but I'm not attorney so what do I know....

There was speculation all afternoon on twitter that the State asked that he be excused. Perhaps that is true and not just a rumor.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

I am only going to say this one more time. Stealing the gun and shooting him is premeditated. Stabbing him first does not work with that the premeditation theory.

Which ever way she did it, no one will know other than one person.

And i hate her with a passion. Hopefully the jury will see what an evil, heartless , egotistical, person she is. Who has absolutely no remorse for the carnage she has caused.

I don't see what difference it makes whether she stabbed him or shot him in regards to premeditation. If she took a knife to his house, got him in the shower to make him vulnerable in order to stab him, that's premeditation. The weapon of choice makes no difference.

 

[momof7]

When I was called for jury duty a few years ago, all the attorneys asked each potential juror if they had ever been arrested. Those that had were all excused, no matter what the arrest was for and they were all asked to be excused by the prosecution. The case was for assault and battery, nothing close to this case. I think it may have something to do with one defendant having compassion for another defendant (not that I think he had any compassion for her or that the two arrests in any way compare), but I'm not attorney so what do I know....

There was speculation all afternoon on twitter that the State asked that he be excused. Perhaps that is true and not just a rumor.

Sounds plausible. I have not served on a jury before, but may sister has several times. She said depending on the case, they ask certain questions of the jurors to whittle down the numbers. She was on a case once that was someone suing an insurance company or a person after an accident. My sister when she was a teen had been in an accident and had to eventually sue the person driving the vehicle she was in (actually it was his insurance company and he is now her dh). She was disqualified from the jury for this.

K

 

[kswesquire]

When I was called for jury duty a few years ago, all the attorneys asked each potential juror if they had ever been arrested. Those that had were all excused, no matter what the arrest was for and they were all asked to be excused by the prosecution. The case was for assault and battery, nothing close to this case. I think it may have something to do with one defendant having compassion for another defendant (not that I think he had any compassion for her or that the two arrests in any way compare), but I'm not attorney so what do I know....

There was speculation all afternoon on twitter that the State asked that he be excused. Perhaps that is true and not just a rumor.

Or the resultant dislike/distaste for law enforcement.

 

[raisincharlie]

I have to say that I do feel for the DT because......look who they have to deal with. JA has done nothing but lied on the stand. They are probably now just trying to save her life-they probably already know they have lost the case. I believe their defense is only as good as their client is...if that makes any sense. How can one defend a habitual liar? How can they truly defend her if they don't know exactly what happened.

But I do know one thing my fellow Sleuthers........................JUAN MARTINEZ IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm still a firm believer he will get the verdict he is after.

BBM

Difficult at best to overcome some of her lies, impossible to overcome them all. Trying to save her life, I agree, that is all they are trying to do. PTSD doc was suppose to justify her lack of memory and lies after the crime, most likely a failure. ALV was suppose to prove DV and the self defense angle, also most likely a failure. Now they want to bring on a third head shrinker to try and bolster the likely failures and maybe raise a ray of hope. They are rolling a lot of dice.

I believe the only option they had was to try and save her sorry life. They had no way to fight the premeditation, that issue is pretty clear, as are all her lies. They had no way to fight the physical evidence at the scene, if they did they would have spent more money bringing in an alternative to Dr. Horn instead of three head shrinkers. They did not bring in an alternative to Dr. Horn because, either they could find no one silly enough or money hungry enough to attempt it.

I feel no sympathy for the DT, they had zero qualms about assassinating Travis over and over again during this trial. They are being paid rather well and I doubt either one, after all the years and billed hours, are unhappy with a steady income. When the day is done, they smile and joke and carry on. Ms. Wilmott has apparently had some death threats, but for a defense lawyer, I suspect it may neither be the first nor the last.

 

[Words2Serve]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Summerfun
I am only going to say this one more time. Stealing the gun and shooting him is premeditated. Stabbing him first does not work with that the premeditation theory.

I don't understand this argument. The use of a knife requires procuring and then using said weapon; even if done very quickly, adequate time elapsed---only a split-second is required to form intent-- to meet the requirements for premeditation. The only way using the knife first is incompatible with premeditation is if you buy Arias's preposterous self-defense argument. I have great faith that that myth has been successfully put to rest by the prosecutor.

BBM - I also don't understand this argument. Here is my take. Stabbing is just as pre-meditated. She could have shot him at ANY time. There is a reason she wanted him in that shower! She wanted to get him right where she could easily stab him right in the chest. He was wet, slippery, naked. She was taking pictures and when she got him into the position she wanted him, she did not "accidentally" drop the camera, this was intentional when she went to stab him (knife taped to her body). She no longer cared about that camera, it had been a prop.

The whole point of stabbing him was to make him feel her pain. I think this is what makes it show pre-meditation even more because she thought about it. Guns are loud, and if you are not comfortable using them, at that close of range there was the chance he could have 'wrestled it from her'; why take that chance when she could have shot him in his sleep? If he had wanted her dead and her story was true she would have been dead at body slam, she would have never made it to that closet.

 

[dani]

What jumped out at me is she says he is bleeding everywhere and at one point he is down not really moving but she also says he was STILL breathing. She mentions it a couple of times in the interview with Flores.

Imo, when she drug him back to the bathroom to put him back in the shower she heard breaths leaving his body. She freaked that the knife attack had not killed him or so she thought and used the gun to shoot him in the head to make sure he was dead.

IMO

A little voice inside me keeps asking if her 2nd story (the Ninjas, one with a gun and the other a knife.) was her "Plan B" all along instead of being made up on the fly after day one of her Flores interrogation didn't go the way she thought it would.

I originally thought she conjured up the Ninja story during the night after she found out the photos hadn't been permanently deleted. :twocents:

 

[Gypseagirl]

no-Juan has the very last word

And those words are going to bring justice!!!!!! :rockon:

 

[womblek]

I always thought premeditated was a step-by-step plan myself. I still do not understand how premeditated can be within seconds of performing murder.

I was disappointed that Andrea Yates did not get put down for killing her children. She said that she thought of killing her kids for two years. She thought Satan influenced her children. To me, that is premeditation.

Andrea Yates suffered from severe mental illness. Not a personality disorder, not anxiety or depression, but psychosis. The difference between psychosis and the others is a complete break from reality. Andrea couldn't even get herself out of bed, dressed, and fed on a regular basis by the time she killed her children. Tragic, but entirely different than the murdering liar that is JA.

 

[BetsyB]

What do you think will be jodis reaction when the verdict comes in for first degree?

She will glare menacingly and mutter as each juror is polled.

 

[Nhic]

My only issue with the above is we are getting this information on 'how bad' she was as a child from sources other than being there. JA said she kicked the dog, now some speculate the dog was killed. We don't know that.

Yes, the above descriptions would lead us to believe that there were problems with this particular child. But, hitting siblings, running away from home and pot use don't mean a person is going to end up a killer. A lot of kids, especially from the 70's when I grew up, lots of people smoked pot and ran away from home and wanted love and vw bug. None of them have gone on to be anything terrible. Couple counselors, teachers and lawyers in the group.

I am not saying her parents did everything they could. I am not even saying that JA was not obviously in need of help at a young age. I am just saying that sometimes on these boards/mainstream media we get a picture that is a little exaggerated. JA said she kicked the dog in frustration. Bad thing? Yes. Would I believe that she hurt the dog? Possible. Grew pot WITH FRIENDS on her roof, yep. None of her friends are killers?

I am not sticking up for parents or JA. Just think sometimes speculation goes to far and then it becomes fact.

Kelly

I'm only applying that information as it pertains to JA and is MO only. Sure what you say can be true about other kids, however, as far as JA is concerned it has always been MO she's a psychopath.

Not once has she ever said she's sorry for slaughtering TA. She makes me sick and I fully believe if she's ever let out of prison she will take what she's learned since 2008 and commit another murder. I don't believe she's "curable".

 

[momtective]

JMHO, but maybe it would have been a good thing for this jury to have been sequestered. I wonder where he got drunk. Could he have gotten drunk at a place where he might have "discussed" the trial with someone? I bet DT will find out and find "someone" he was talking to while drunk about the trial and being on the jury. Again, I think this jury should have been sequestered.

It was DUI...doesn't necessarily mean "alcohol"...he could have smoked a little weed. I can't say I blame the man considering what he has sat through daily for, how many weeks now...

Would also explain the dog being run through the courtroom yesterday.

 

[SheltieMom1]

Agreed that this DUI will not support a motion for a mistrial, unless he bragged to the cop that the entire jury agreed with him, indicating there had been inappropriate communication or deliberations among the jurors prior to this juror being pulled over and arrested. Or that he knew other jurors had been watching trial coverage or reading about it. In other words, the crime of drunk driving, in and of itself, is not relevant to any mistrial motion, there would have to be additional indicia of wrongdoing related to the trial.


Being currently involved in the criminal justice system might (and my guess is probably would) lead to that juror no longer being able to be impartial. If he is falsely accused of DUI, then that would lead to anger and mistrust of law enforcement, prosecution and the judiciary. If he was, in fact, drunk and behind the wheel, he might be angry at being caught and having to face criminal consequences. If the cop that pulled him over was nasty or rude, that could influence his opinion about what is going on or has gone on inside the courtroom during the trial of JA.

You would never want someone currently facing charges on a jury. You really want to try to limit or eliminate anyone with a personal history dealing with the criminal justice system, because their experience will color their view of the evidence and the players involved. It would be hard not to let your own views and first-hand experiences with law enforcement, with you being the alleged perpetrator of a crime, play some role in your assessment of the case currently being tried.

JMO

 

[momof7]

It was DUI...doesn't necessarily mean "alcohol"...he could have smoked a little weed. I can't say I blame the man considering what he has sat through daily for, how many weeks now...

Would also explain the dog being run through the courtroom yesterday.

Ditto the sentiment.

K