weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[KPinMN]

What if the judge allows a surrebuttal?

Are you trying to give me nightmares tonight? :tsktsk:

 

[Nhic]

I think I read on the 'ask the lawyers thread' (?) (001) is Jodi. IIRC

I got this from the Maricopa County site:

BBM


Party Name -
State Of Arizona - (1) Plaintiff N/A Martinez, Juan
Jodi Ann Arias - (2) Defendant F Nurmi, Kirk Stephens CR2008-031021-001

(HA HA just noticed KN is listed as Female :floorlaugh

 

[GoAskAllie]

Listening to Mimi Hall again....

If JA knew definitively that MH wasn't romantically interested in TA, would he still be here? I'm wondering if the murder would have happened anyway, if not on June 4th, than at some other point.

I posted a similar musing on the previous thread. Thought Mimi was a very credible, likable witness. Couldn't help but wonder what was going through Jodi's mind during her testimony, especially when Mimi said that she knew after three dates that she didn't have a romantic interest in Travis and told him in March that she wanted to be friends only. All that jealousy, rage and stalking. Mimi also said that Travis didn't ask her on the Cancun trip until sometime in May. Said she had some reservations because she thought Travis still held out hope that he'd win her over, but they had a heart to heart and he told her there was NO ONE (this means you JODI) else that he wanted to invite.

Convinced that if the Cancun trip wasn't the catalyst that sent Jodi over the edge, something else would have before too long.

 

[artsy1]

I think Party (001) is the prosecution.

Party 001 is not the prosecution.

Under case documents, in this case, party 001 is ALWAYS referring to Jodi Arias. The case is not against the prosecution. Case documents refer to whoever the case is about.

If there were 2 defendants, above would show:

Prosecution (001)
Defendant A (002)
Defendant B (003)

But in the case documents section, Defendant A will be party 001 and Defendant B will be party 002.

 

[Ransom]

I think I read on the 'ask the lawyers thread' (?) (001) is Jodi. IIRC

ALL are (001) on that case history = State of AZ v Jodi Arias.

The only time I've seen it otherwise was in the Gabriel Johnson case where we did have two defendants with the same case: Tammi Smith and Elizabeth Johnson. They were delineated with (01) and (02). Same county: Maricopa.

 

[artsy1]

The thought of JW bumbling, fumbling, stuttering and scattering papers around while she scrambles for an angle through even 1 more witness, much less 16 is going to be too painful to watch.

Those poor jurors.

I would just stand up and start hollerin', "I QUIT. ARREST ME FOR CONTEMPT. I. AM. DONE."

It's not 16 rebuttal witnesses - he's filed 16 supplemental witness lists. Doesn't mean he'll call them all.

 

[Linda7NJ]

O M GOODNESS Mods and Administrators !!!!!

I'm in :anguish::gasp: Please forgive me :crossfingers: I just realized my :nono: Now I'm in anic:anic: and :tears:

I've been here for quite awhile and joined a short time ago. That's my excuse for having clicked on the 'ALERT' triangle outlined in red several times one day. At least I hope it was only one day. I had no clue what that button was for until just now reading this 'Mod" note. I am so worried now that I may have caused any problems for anyone. Please if I clicked it one too many, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let the posters that were affected know that I was just an uninformed newby who didn't know what I was doing. I am so ashamed because I do remember clicking that button triangle to see if it did anything. Now I'm going to see if I can find the head hanging down in shame smilie. I couldn't find a shame smilie so I used any that could pertain to my dilemma.

Roflmao!

You're probably the reason I went to band camp! It's all good! I needed to catch up on some things anyway I forgive you... That's pretty funny!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SyraKelly]

DD testified that Jodi did delete e-mails of Travis's

 

[atthelake]

I think I read on the 'ask the lawyers thread' (?) (001) is Jodi. IIRC

This question has been asked throughout the trial. It seems that every single one no matter who is filed by get that number we don't know why.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[ParrotGal]

Was doing a little sleuthing/creeping. Now I see where JA got the word "Nay" in her "journal" entry (because we know she has no original thoughts, etc)...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130106002648/http://www.myspace.com/tvalexander/photos/1030845#{%22ImageId%22%3A26063558}

 

[FrayedKnot]

ITA. So she had a high IQ? What makes people believe a high IQ is equivlent to no mistakes? Intelligence is still influenced by education and experience. She deleted the d@mn photos which were incriminating. She tossed it into a wash with other items and bleach.

She doesn't know hardware! She probably had an experience with getting an electronic wet, which can ruin the device, but not necessarily the hardware memory. Plus she wanted to remove the blood and DNA. A stick is hardware. I don't think she knew anything, but how to take pictures and use software to edit. She made a bad assumption, thankfully.

Exactly. IQ is indicative of one's capacity for knowledge. Not how "smart"'one is.

Plenty of really knowledgeable people have IQs in the "average" range. Plenty of people with "high" IQs make little use of their gift.

It's not like being tall.

MOO from a classically over-educated underachiever.

 

[Paintr]

Welcome! I love it when new lurkers decide to post. It moves me up the seniority ladder!

Ahhhh...just a little tip about that ladder, Dr Nick. As soon as you get high enough, we start sawing through the rungs. :floorlaugh:

Welcome to our new member from Japan! :seeya:

 

[Rocco]

I was actually stunned that JW took that much time with Dr. D.

I'll be stunned if it doesn't take her a whole day to cross examine the witness from Wal Mart about not returnng the gas can. :floorlaugh:

 

[KPinMN]

I'm confused. Sorry. I remember when JW was stumbling around the aggression score but was there talk about sexual sadism?

I'm not obsessed with sexual sadism ... lol

Oh no, I wasn't saying sexual aggression or sadism. I thought you were referencing JA having internal aggression/anger (bottled up) that I speculated may be the source behind her proclivity to stab things and people.

 

[artsy1]

Speaking of the shelves....what was the defense's objections? Something ridiculous as I recall. Something to the effect that they might have been photographed by LE after they had been "altered"?

The testing of the shelves wasn't done until IIRC March 2013 - long after new owners took over the house, so unclear if shelves were ever altered.

 

[cecybeans]

I always thought that it was because she was known to be a photographer, that it would implicate her should it be found to be missing.

ITA. The reason it was in that washing machine might have also been to bleach out any of JA's own blood if she cut herself while slashing TA. Which is also why I think she dragged him back to the shower.

Another point that does not seem to have occurred to JW is that perhaps the sloppiness of the cleanup (after a certain point) is not due to a lack of executive brain functions (or whatever) and just a simple matter of TIME. I think at a certain point she was feeling hurried and wanted to get out of there before roommates or neighbors returned from work. I really don't think she had planned for a bloodbath frankly.

And I disagree with people who think there was no rope. I think we never found it because, like the gun, she brought it with her and only took away those things she brought. I pay a lot of attention to her stupid little unnecessarily detailed stories because, like CA and other liars, they are often twisted versions of what actually happened. My theory is her original intention was to tie him up to the bed (promising kinky sex) and then shoot him and leave him. In out, no muss no fuss. Maybe she hoped his Cancun "girlfriend" would find him naked tied to the bed or something and think he had called a hooker. I think he refused (since he had already called JA a sociopath) and she had to say "hey, I'll go first", hoping he would after she did but it didn't happen. I think that ridiculous story about cutting the rope is true, only she was the one in the bathroom cutting it. And she sure made sure it wasn't too tight so that she could get out easily (a fact she repeated often). If they did have actual sex after that (and I know that's up for grabs regardless of the photos) I think she had to wait until his inevitable shower for Plan B. Which means she may have already stayed way longer than intended for her alibi.

After the fact, she was most interested in cleaning up anything that could indicate her presence - the gun and rope most particularly - in addition to any photos. I agree that taking the camera might have been too obvious, after all, it was allegedly new and she had a reputation for sneaking in - she might have thought that would finger her if nothing else was missing (little did she realize that she would have been everyone's immediate suspect regardless). So the act of washing the camera might have been more calculated than is given credit.

A lot of crime scene evidence looks like a deliberate cover up to me, and is of course the farthest thing from "fognesia" imaginable. But a job done in haste, as if the clock was running out. Maybe she had not planned it to be so bloody or to even need to wash down evidence. She had to know that if she was too late for her scheduled make-out session it would raise red flags. Not to mention somebody might see her upside-down plate car parked down the block after people got home from work. So some decisions were made in haste, imo. Not fog or even as a result of her less-than-stellar IQ.

 

[Ransom]

What if the judge allows a surrebuttal?

According to our verified Lawyers (here) only way that would happen is with really NEW evidence.

Not happening. IMO.

 

[pferrin]

Not just JW's voice, I was really disturbed by her body language and those smirky laughs.

I understand what you are saying. She has a nervous laugh..bothering ...yes. Yet I had one at one time as well.

Yes her body language is uncomfortable ..I totally agree.

What seems to bother me the most is that she is doing everything that her client..the defendant is telling her to do. I reckon if she wants to make the big bucks she must follow along. Not that I agree with this being the best thing for her as a good human.

I prefer folks that believe in truth, reality, and justice.

 

[snowcat]

I am too. It is the most brainless, witless, ridiculous cross I have ever seen. I haven't the slightest idea which side JW is working for.

Her arrow in the head example is CRAZY. :help: :help: :help: :help:

If I didn't know better , I'd swear I was watching Tin Fey doing Palin doing JW this week (and most of the trial). If the circumstances of this crime weren't so tragic, I probably would have laughed but I cringed and fumed instead..

 

[Pink Panther]

I think that JA's ultimate humiliation was when she had to uhaul her azz out of Arizona. She was forced (by circumstances) to ask her family for emotional and financial help and spent a night sleeping in that uhaul (after she'd rejected her mother's help) all because of TA (in her mind). I think that night, is when she hatched her plan and she never looked back. For me, that was the turning moment for her; she couldn't idolize anymore and she went into "discard" mode.

moo