weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139

[Schuby]

Can someone please direct me to this JW freak out? Pleaseeeeeeeee?

Lol, ain't it a tease? I would but it's not my department.

 

[Lorelilly]

Who is this guy? Is he deaf? He lip reads?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He verrry verrrry frunnny

 

[Maryann123]

I certainly have not participated in any of the ALV 'cyber bullying' however it's hard for me to have much sympathy for her. She, in a court of law, under oath, on national TV in defense of a woman who brutally butchered someone stated that in her opinion TA was guilty of domestic violence and masterbating to pictures of young boys.

She is accused (granted, in some cases not so nicely) of at best, being naive and gullible at worst, being a sell out.

She's still alive to defend herself - Travis is not.

I don't think there is any need to feel sorry for ALV. She is old enough to retire, which will give her plenty of time to write her new book about being the most controversial "star" witness ever to testify in a US court. We will hear all about how she put Juan Martinez in a time out, and how she had the courtroom rolling in the aisles with her "Mr Martinez, are you angry at me" comment. She'll make a ton of money off the book, since there are plenty of imbeciles that think like she does. The same people that are now buying JA's art work, and the same people that visit that facebook page. Yes, Alyce will be just fine.

 

[Colt46]

I wish Juan would have let Alyce finish her answer about "after 34 years experience her retirement"....

To me it sounded like she was going to say that she really needed the money from the trial for her retirement!

BBM
Exactly! She must be reading the blogs, lol. The lady doth protest too much! She now feels that she must defend herself...pitiful.

 

[nawd68]

She got a tad flustered and lost her place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I know. I need someone to direct me to a video.

Someone have mercy on me please.

 

[Linda7NJ]

She has the words, she has the time they were sent, and she has the date.

It's pretty easy to figure out the length of time.

Everything is timestamped and dated.

IMO

Riiiiight. But do you honestly believe Travis texted for three hours straight?

I don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keebler]

Remember a couple of weeks ago when Nurmi brought up the issue of Juan being outside signing autographs? At the end of the argument, Judge Sherry asked if we wanted to deal with the Grace Wong issue then or another time. Nurmi stated because of the previous delays he didn't want to hold up court anymore and would at another time call Grace Wong re: that issue.

I think that is what the hearing is about on Monday. Nurmi seems to think that she may have seen a juror see Juan/

I could be wrong but that is what I remember.

Re: Dave Hall and the gun video, I don't think Nurmi ever had any intention of calling him. He just didn't want him on TV saying that Travis never had a gun. He didn't want that info out there. So he put him on his witness list just in case.

IMO Nurmi didn't delay the Wong thing so that trial could continue...he wanted to keep a possible mistrial opportunity in his back pocket in case the ALV thing went South. Well, guess what? It did.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

I think it's pretty common that abused women do not know they are being abused. It's one of the many things Alyce said that shows me she knows what she is talking about.

Everyone says, she had so little information. She had thousands of pages of texts, email, and interviews that neither we nor the Jury will ever see.

Notice JM kept trying to detract from that with his, You believe a liar? No, she never even had to talk to Jodi Arias in person to arrive at her conclusions. She had just about the best evidence anybody could ever hope for in determining a relationship--hundreds of pages of their own words.
IMO

This is my, likely, unpopular opinion.

Given the criteria, it's very likely Travis could be classified as verbally abusive. Do we know what teed him off? No, but his word choice was exceedingly harsh. There's also evidence to suggest Travis WAS a bit of a player...

I don't think one has to believe Travis was perfect to want justice for his horrific murder.

The problem is when AV uses that as a spring board to corroborate the far less likely facts: that Travis was physically abusive and a pedophile. There's so little to suggest anything of the sort; it just doesn't carry weight.

Now, was Arias a wallflower? No. What comes across to me is that while Travis did seem like a bit of a player, he wore his emotions on his sleeve. A sociopath he was not. Arias was likely far more manipulative and conniving in evoking these emotions in him. There's nothing in Arias' personality, IMO, that suggests she was trapped in an abusive relationship. I think she knew Travis' buttons and pushed them, especially when she started to realize she wasn't his one and only.

 

[zqtpie]

The jury is definitely smart. They caught on that there were no fudged violence entries because she didn't come up with that until years later when she was already in jail by then. Nothing gets by them.

1. Juan has made his case brilliantly

2. I LOVE that jurors can ask questions in AZ.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think it's pretty common that abused women do not know they are being abused. It's one of the many things Alyce said that shows me she knows what she is talking about.

Everyone says, she had so little information. She had thousands of pages of texts, email, and interviews that neither we nor the Jury will ever see.

I think we can assume the DT showed the best they had to show abuse, and it was very lacking. A lot of it was mild and typical of a rocky relationship, nothing major. And ALV was hampered by her own biases, especially her "old fashioned" prism where she thinks a preference for a Brazilian is something sinister. Back in the 60s, a full merkin may have been the way, but nowadays that's just the style. it's not a sign of pedophilia, especially not an attraction to young boys. She also blatantly misread evidence. She said the father's quote about JA lying was only about lying as a teen. He in fact said JA lied "since then," which means up through 2008. She also misread the "Michelle K" message as TA expressing anger at JA for learning about another woman, rather than anger that JA made up the story. She also gave the ludicrous view that when someone, who after hearing a story about another women, immediately and late at night drives an hour and half to talk to the other women, that isn't a sign of jealousy. :facepalm:

I don't know about how she's testified before, but in this case, she has zero credibility.

 

[Schuby]

Yes I know. I need someone to direct me to a video.

Someone have mercy on me please.

Minor posted it up thread about 5 or 6 pages.

 

[Lorelilly]

I'm projecting myself, I know it. A woman I knew years ago (she was my intern at one of my first jobs out of college) went to England on an exchange. I had plans to go to England in the fall. Before she left, she said, "Let's meet up when you come to the UK and hang out."

I said, "Yes, let's e-mail and keep in touch."

She was one of those ultra happy people always looking for the silver lining. I asked her one morning if she drank! :floorlaugh: Seriously, she was that chirpy.

She was super friendly but I never really thought she really wanted to meet up. We all say these things to each other when we part ways after college, from one job to another, from one gym to another. We exchanged a few e-mails over that summer and that was it. I wasn't surprised or disappointed because I thought we were exchanging social niceties.

In early October (my trip was mid October), she sent an e-mail asking where I'd be staying. A few days later, she e-mailed train schedules and maps from my hotel . She was in York and I was in London so it was quite the train trip. Beautiful though.

When the train pulled into the station, I didn't recognize her. She'd had a hair cut and was wearing a stylish scarf around her hair and she was just glowing. We talked about her boyfriend back home and a new guy she'd met in York. She was fascinated with him and conflicted by her feelings for her bf back home. She said she'd date this new guy and see how she felt over the winter break when she returned home.

We didn't keep in touch for a while after I left York but she'd sent me away with recommended books and asked me to pass them on after I read them. She sent a couple of letters and one of the letters was how she was engaged. When she got back to Holy Cross, she could not stop thinking about him.

Mutual friends said that she moved to England and shortly afterwards, she and her husband and new baby moved back here.

I never saw her again. Her husband shot her in the head and their daughter Lilian whilst they slept. And during the trial he claimed she was depressed and that she killed herself and the baby. Was he out of his MF mind? OMG.

He was found guilty and rots in prison. You've probably heard about the case. My friend was Rachel Souza. I refuse to ever refer to her by her married name, which was Entwhistle.

I know I'm too caught up in this case but there is just something obscene and truly pornographic to take someone's life and decide to take the only thing the dead have: their dignity and honor.

So I'm ambivalent about the DP but I know I want her to be convicted. I want her to know we all judge her and find her wanting. I want her in a little cell with no one to admire her and take photos and film her every move and report on her every blink.

She already thinks she's won because she took what no other woman will ever have. But she's still a flaming narcissist who needs constant validation and I want her in a plain little cell with only herself for company for ever and ever and ever.

I want her in a panic now that the sand is running out of the hourglass and I want her to sweat. And I want the Alexander family to make their impact statements and then I want the jury to verbally body slam her with their sentence, whatever that may be.

So, I'll keep posting smarty arse comments about the trial but I'm never forgetting what it's about. And it isn't a spectator sport for me. I'm a heat seeking missile where this chick is concerned and I have no shame about it.

OMG, another late night vent. I swear I don't drink or drug. lol

I read about this case. Evil b_______d!

 

[MeeBee]

She has the words, she has the time they were sent, and she has the date.

It's pretty easy to figure out the length of time.

Everything is timestamped and dated.

IMO

Ive seen them too. He does not go on and on and on. Several minutes, almost an hour would pass before would he would send another slew of texts.

I'm sorry but you'll never convince me that anyone could know exactly who a person was just based on what is written in texts and emails. There are extenuating circumstances that we will never know about because Travis is gone. We don't really know why Travis was so angry in that one text. We do know that two days later the gun was stolen.

 

[AngelWings444]

She got a tad flustered and lost her place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And...since some peeps here tonight, in the "know", often pay the $1.50 to get a copy of the motion, one would think, they would put it to rest and spew it. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I will be patient...it will be released. As KCL speculated, there will not be a mistrial from it. :rocker:

Oops...wrong quoted post? WTHay just happened. haha. I don't care, you will know what I meant.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

bold an big by me: someone who does NOT know all the facts of the case and should read up before commenting jmhoo

Which show? Dr. Drew? I didn't watch any HLN today, just caught up on the testimony I missed today on Youtube.

What a great job by JM discrediting this witness today. I'm in awe when I watch him in action in the courtroom. And I don't care about the rumbling about his "rockstar" status, or the accusations of grandstanding. This is an attorney who cares deeply about what he is fighting for. If it was political with him I think he would have made that move already. He fights for justice for the victim, and he will not let up until he is satisfied that he has done everything he can to speak on their behalf.

My DH is starting to think I'm getting a bit of a crush. :blowkiss: Ya think?

 

[AnonymousD]

Can someone please direct me to this JW freak out? Pleaseeeeeeeee?

I believe this will start at the correct time, but if it doesn't, start watching around the 40 min mark.


http://youtu.be/pw7AspGKr48?t=40m12s

 

[wasnt_me]

I have a question for all you WS's...How is it that a verbal "rant" cannot be shorter than a "rant" in text form? Are you kidding me? His 3 hr long "rant" wasn't taking place for literally 3 hours was it? I can't believe she would really think that in a conversation this "rant" wouldn't be much shorter...

ALV doesn't understand that some people who are not verse in texting might take a long time to text a paragraph. say he took 4 minutes to type something. Though I don't know if Jodi responded to Travis, say he waited 15 minutes, and no response. Then he gets to typing another message and he's mad because she's "ignoring" him. So it takes him 4 min. to type this next response. You've got 23 minutes of time right there on just two texts. Say he's working, showering, taking the dog out, whatever, and he returns 30 minutes later, still no response for her. Again, 4 minutes to "rant" some more and a wait for a response.

I doubt Travis was texting and texting and texting for hours straight, but if it did take him 5 minutes to text something, then he thinks on stuff for 10 minutes and texts again, time is going by.

I don't understand really what transpired, though, cause they claim it switched over to Iming all morning. Do we have the correspondence for viewing?

 

[borndem]

I wonder if ALV has had time to calmly think about the woman she was evaluating (is that the right word?), and realize that she was bamboozled by JA and that she may have made a mistake.

Now what does she do? Can you imagine? She 's been trying her best for the last several days to back-pedal a bit, but just enuff to not be too noticeable. JM was coming at her hard, so she stepped around answering him directly -- and, of course, she wasn't fooling anyone. I would think the questions from the jury would have unsettled her a bit, realizing that they weren't buying what she was selling... I think she knows much more about JA and TA now, and knows that things were not as JA had said they were. JMO. She seemed a bit more straightforward and less *advertiser censored*-sure when giving her answers. No capitulation, but just less sure....

Just my imagination, or not?

 

[Schuby]

This is my, likely, unpopular opinion.

Given the criteria, it's very likely Travis could be classified as verbally abusive. Do we know what teed him off? No, but his word choice was exceedingly harsh. There's also evidence to suggest Travis WAS a bit of a player...

I don't think one has to believe Travis was perfect to want justice for his horrific murder.

The problem is when AV uses that as a spring board to corroborate the far less likely facts: that Travis was physically abusive and a pedophile. There's so little to suggest anything of the sort; it just doesn't carry weight.

Now, was Arias a wallflower? No. What comes across to me is that while Travis did seem like a bit of a player, he wore his emotions on his sleeve. A sociopath he was not. Arias was likely far more manipulative and conniving in evoking these emotions in him. There's nothing in Arias' personality, IMO, that suggests she was trapped in an abusive relationship. I think she knew Travis' buttons and pushed them, especially when she started to realize she wasn't his one and only.

We do know what ticked him off if you're referring to the texts I think you are. Beyond those it is hard to argue emotional abuse.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

KCL has a hunch but won't say. Since it will be heard in front of the jury, it probably relates to testimony. Some say it's related to the motion of Prosecutorial Misconduct (witness intimidation, interference by way of social media, etc.) but I can't get a sense that anybody actually knows. She just needs to be available Monday or Tuesday, judge very adamant about that. Theories regarding perjury largely discredited by all of WS lawyers.

BBM: You say for a fact that this will be heard in front of the jury. How do you know this? I'm behind in reading all the posts. TIA