weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[DebinGA]

Does anyone recall the name of the woman who was a friend of Travis's who committed suicide after her divorce?

I don't want to provide her name online, but she and her husband are mentioned in Flores' police report re statements from all the witnesses he'd talked to. This young lady was separated from her husband and had provided an anonymous tip citing her ex as someone police might want to speak to concerning Travis' murder iirc.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I agree with you.....till I saw that "Cancun PPL" is on the states rebuttal list. IIRC, there has been quite a bit made of the fact that Jodi was NEVER going to Cancun, and that she knew all about it and was not upset.

But wait......what is "Cancun PPL"? is there a part of this company that works on putting together this annual trip? it IS an annual event for the company. If that is correct and Cancun PPL refers to a certain "department" in the company.....well, we might just find out that A) Jodie WAS originally scheduled to go, thus catching her in another lie. Or B) that Jodi switched Mimi's name out for hers somehow for the trip....which would play into the same lie, or could also be the underlying cause for Travis's text or email or whatever in late May. Seems like the timing would be about right for him to be getting his plane ressies/ tickets, etc.

Just wondering about silly stuff with no trial to discuss........

It's not silly, nor out of the realm of possibilities when it comes to Arias and her behaviours.

P.S. Where can I view the State's 16th rebuttal list?

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Does anyone recall the name of the woman who was a friend of Travis's who committed suicide after her divorce?

I had not heard about this. I'm sure someone will come along and answer.

I apologize that I don't remember their names, but this was the woman who called in a tip to LE that she thought her BF/ex-husband (can't remember which) was acting funny after the murder and she thought he may have something to do with it. The tip never went anywhere.

 

[Nezumi]

I agree with you.....till I saw that "Cancun PPL" is on the states rebuttal list. IIRC, there has been quite a bit made of the fact that Jodi was NEVER going to Cancun, and that she knew all about it and was not upset.

But wait......what is "Cancun PPL"? is there a part of this company that works on putting together this annual trip? it IS an annual event for the company. If that is correct and Cancun PPL refers to a certain "department" in the company.....well, we might just find out that A) Jodie WAS originally scheduled to go, thus catching her in another lie. Or B) that Jodi switched Mimi's name out for hers somehow for the trip....which would play into the same lie, or could also be the underlying cause for Travis's text or email or whatever in late May. Seems like the timing would be about right for him to be getting his plane ressies/ tickets, etc.

Just wondering about silly stuff with no trial to discuss........

This came up a week or so ago. Despite her claim that she was never scheduled to go on the Cancun trip and wasn't upset when TA decided to take someone else, JA was on the initial reservation and it was later changed to Mimi. I think that fact, among other things, is what the PPL representative will testify to.

 

[bsk]

I look at her this way. She is young in-experienced but smart. Her job is to do everything by the book, spend the allowed amount of time and get the heck out. Make no mistakes, keep everything squeeky clean, administer some worthless tests and let the prosecutor mop it up at trial. This Dr. was not out to do any deep well thought out analysis....just do her job.

Exactly, which is why I think she came across so well to the jury. She stressed "following the protocols" over and over, whether it was for things like gifts or for things like scoring and evaluating tests. Samuels kept having to dream up excuses for how he came up with 2 + 2 = 5, while DeMarte was saying if you follow the rules of math, 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[kscornfed]

I don't want to provide her name online, but she and her husband are mentioned in Flores' police report re statements from all the witnesses he'd talked to. This young lady was separated from her husband and had provided an anonymous tip citing her ex as someone police might want to speak to concerning Travis' murder iirc.

was it her that committed suicide, or her ex-husband? i thought it was him.

 

[deedee21]

Re the lions v. tigers PTSD question, I'm too lazy to watch the video above, but iirc DrD said what's important is the victim's response/behavior after the trauma. I wished JM had spent much more time reviewing the numerous things Jodi did post-slaughter that showed she wasn't traumatized, but The Great One knows best.

The jury heard she drove over to Ryans house and jumped into his bed. Then she had dinner with Travis' friends. On another note, some posters feel she may have shot Travis' first. Im sure the DT searched high and low for a ME to say just that. Im sure they could not find one.

 

[wasnt_me]

ITA, and think that was the scam he refers to in one of his last texts. He found out, confronted her, and she knew she was in hot water. I think it all comes out in the end.

I'd said before that I thought the scam had to do with the BMW or the payments from U-haul---if U-haul had accepted any responsibility. My thought was that if U-haul would pay anything out if they had fault, then it would be paid to Jodi, who was the renter of the truck.

If all those "ifs" are true, Travis could have learned about her getting more money from U-haul after he and Jodi had settled things about the BMW themselves. It could be that he thought she was scamming him because it was already the end of May, but he had no car payment for April or May. Here it was about to be June. Was she scamming him or intending to pay for the car?

If that scenario is true, I could see him being upset that she's not paying the car, she just took off out of state and left him with the car and repairs.

Just a theory, and I theory that might support his willingness to calm down and let her in the house if she brought the money or she'd mailed him a check a few days prior and he'd received it.

 

[Maryann123]

I have posted about this several times. My hinky meter went up during one of the interview tapes between Jodi and Det Flores. I would have to go back and find it but, in it, Det Flores is asking questions about what happened to make her go to Mesa and when she decided to make the trip. (He wasn't buying her "it was a spur of the moment" decision)

In that exchange, she responds to Det Flores with (paraphrased): "Travis was always much more concerned about my money than he should be. He wanted to know how I could afford to go on my trips."
I've always thought that was an odd response. I think it's possible she pulled a scam on him involving money, or the car or something and he found out about it. The checks she left behind have never felt right for me.

BBM
I'd like to address that. My brother borrowed $500 from me to get his car fixed. Not 2 weeks later, he took his family on a trip to the beach. He never paid me back the $500. Yet, he's telling me his wife is at the tanning beds, (getting ready for their trip) It kinda ticks you off to know that somebody owes you money, isn't paying it back, yet they have plenty of money to blow on other things. I wanted to say to my brother....how can you afford this trip, new clothes, tanning, etc.....but you can't pay me back? She owed him for the car she destroyed, she wasn't concerned that she owed that money, and instead she was spending hand over fist. Here's what Travis was saying in a nice way.........How can you stand in front of me and talk about blowing money, when you still owe me for my car? He wasn't trying to contol her spending, he just wanted his dang money!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I agree with you.....till I saw that "Cancun PPL" is on the states rebuttal list.

Where is everyone getting their info on who's on the witness lists?

IIRC, there has been quite a bit made of the fact that Jodi was NEVER going to Cancun, and that she knew all about it and was not upset.

But wait......what is "Cancun PPL"? is there a part of this company that works on putting together this annual trip? it IS an annual event for the company. If that is correct and Cancun PPL refers to a certain "department" in the company.....well, we might just find out that A) Jodie WAS originally scheduled to go, thus catching her in another lie. Or B) that Jodi switched Mimi's name out for hers somehow for the trip....which would play into the same lie, or could also be the underlying cause for Travis's text or email or whatever in late May. Seems like the timing would be about right for him to be getting his plane ressies/ tickets, etc.

Just wondering about silly stuff with no trial to discuss........

A TV reporter, forget which, said a PPL source told them that TA's Cancun guest was originally JA and was switched to MH.

Edit: It was on HLN. http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/22/was-jodi-booked-cancun-trip-travis

 

[Arishia]

Re the lions v. tigers PTSD question, I'm too lazy to watch the video above, but iirc DrD said what's important is the victim's response/behavior after the trauma. I wished JM had spent much more time reviewing the numerous things Jodi did post-slaughter that showed she wasn't traumatized, but The Great One knows best.

Ack. I have to say, ME TOO. When that question was asked and her answer was so short, as if answering a test question given by a superior, I was concerned. That people are confused as to why and or if her answer is correct is something that should be addressed. You know, I've almost lost track of why the DT thinks PTSD even matters, now that the idea that a crime scene being disordered means the crime wasn't planned was thrown out by the judge. Did they then attribute the memory loss to PTSD? Somehow, that's what I'm recalling. Given some of the previous jury questions, I had a feeling that there was or might be psych professional among them. I sure hope so, as that person can explain in deliberation. lease:

 

[lil_buddy]

You know, there was a lot of speculation early on that it was that tale that she had been circulating back home that might have led to the rage after May 26. After all, she did move to Mesa after they "broke up," (but let's face it, there wasn't much to 'break up'), and that may have been partly to protect the fantasy she was still peddling to family regarding the coming nuptials. It would be entirely reasonable to imagine that she was sporting a ring of some kind when away from Travis, claiming that they were engaged.

It sounds nutty, of course, because it is. But it isn't any nuttier than women who pretend to be pregnant for nine months, and then, when their obvious deception will be paraded for all to see, desperately murder a pregnant women to steal their child. That is an inconceivably bizarre thing to do, but we know it as happened, and more often than we'd like to admit. Anyway, I think it's the same kind of "cornered animal" mentality that JA might very well have felt as she realized she was about to be thoroughly revealed and humiliated. I do not believe she could stand the thought psychologically, and given her obvious narcissism and who knows what other associative NPD's, the behavior would be entirely consistent.

For me, it was the statement of her father in the interview he gave to police that "she was planning on marrying him," or something to that effect, that really sealed the deal for me regarding this scenario. I could see then that she had been projecting an entirely false reality to others outside of the Mesa environment -- where she could easily control the dialog, since nobody knew the people in Mesa and could not verify anything she was saying one way or another. Because 'normal' people do not assume someone will lie about something like this, she was able to easily get away with the tale.

I'm not saying all people who have these disorders would resort to these extremes, of course. Only that in this case it does seem consistent with JA's behavioral patterns. She was caught -- the walls were closing in, and in her mind it made sense to simply remove the problem.

Note that after his death, she made every effort to inject herself into the center of all activities -- funerary, police investigation -- why? Because she still had that narrative of the "fiancee" running in her head, and she wanted to world to view her that way -- even though she knew she couldn't make that story work outside of a small, controlled, isolated group that did not know Travis. I say it's just part of her pathology. I hope I don't go batty trying to figure it out for myself.

:cow:

WOW. Awesome post. Really made me think!

 

[bsk]

the only reason they keep bringing up chris and sky is because of that one email exchange where they chide TA about how he's treating JA. and that was VERY early----jan, 2007, when they had just met her and JA was whining to sky about him not committing. like everyone else in that circle, it took them a bit to figure out who she really was. at that point, they didn't know.

it's been taken out of context only because it's a tidbit the DT thinks looks good for their murdering client. i was hoping we'd hear from the hughes in rebuttal, but maybe there's a good reason we won't.

I always thought a possibility was that they couldn't get Travis to drop her, so they were desperately hoping they could her to drop him. Then again if that was the case, it seems they would have said so and I don't believe they have.

 

[aa9511]

BBM - I always thought that would have been the easy (and more time-saving) solution. Might she have feared there was some other sort of memory in the camera other than the card?

And I don't think it would be a matter of not wanting to be accused of theft, because she testified that she stole his gun in effect.

It's weird. I tend to think it accidentally wound up in the wash when she grabbed towels and clothes.

Yes, but that is was Travis' gun was made upafter her other stories didn't work. At the time of the murder she didn't have the story of Travis' gun. I think it's like others have said, that she took only what she brought in (including the knife). Also, I don't think the camera got there by accident. She did realize how important the camera was, that's why she took the time to delete the photos even though she was standing in a bloody bathroom with Travis' dead body in the shower, knowing time was of the essence and she had to get out of there. She wouldn't have gone through that trouble, only to forget where the camera was.

 

[Love Never Fails]

One benefit of LWOP over the DP is that there's no automatic appeal with a new set of lawyers for Jodi to manipulate.

KCL discussed this too. She said she supports Travis's family in seeking the Death penalty but in KCL's experience, there is torture for the victim's family members after a DP is given, because of the years and expense of appeals and the reliving of the crime every time it comes up. I believe LWOP would be best now that I have had time to think about everything involved. I haven't seen any part of JA that would care one way or the other. She doesn't feel as we do. I hope that changes.

 

[minor4th]

Dr. D was coached to say the results would be invalid period. Very obvious. The jury knows she is on the take.

Why would she have to be coached to state the results are invalid? It's obvious even to non-experts. Even Samuels said he should have re-administered the test once he found out the traumatic event, upon which all other conclusions were based, was a lie.

 

[SusieD]

I noticed a lot of posts about this Juror question. I finally got a chance to review it via a youtube recently put up. I think many have missed the exact wording of this question. And when I looked at it, I have no doubt that Dr D gave the only Correct reply. Of course it had to be discounted, and I think you'll all see that, once you look at it again with the exact question. Most of the posts only mention a Bear or Tiger, and forgot that the Juror added that it was a Lie.

The main point, and everyone seems to forget, is = its a LIE to start with in the Juror's question.

If a person began with a LIE then the rest of the answers can't be taken as truthful. There is no way to know what to believe....IOW the person can't be trusted


Exact Question Quoted:

"""Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?"""

I sure wish I had seen the question myself or it had been posted earlier. The exact question changes everything and IMO is pretty straightforward and certainly doesn't imply any belief in Jodi. The juror wanted clarification on Jodi's lies and how they affect the testing process. The baseline of the question being Jodi lied.

That question is now a non-issue for me going forward, thank you

 

[Nhic]

Just watching day 21 when JM begins his cross-examination of JA. He asks her if she went over to TA's house after they broke up. She says yes, after he (Travis) tells her to. Then she says when she got there Travis was with a woman, JA had gone around the back of the house and peeked in. <---stalker

Travis wouldn't have told her to come over if he was with a woman. Surely everyone on the jury caught that lie of hers?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hi, this is the first time I've posted even though I've been lurking on here for a while. So hopefully I'm doing it right!
I just wanna say that after the juror questions yesterday, I am really starting to feel worried about one juror...this has been with me for some time because in the juror questions for every witness, there has always been at least one question that is, sorry to say, illogical and like someone wants to believe Jodi could have never done this or done on purpose.
Let me say that I started watching this trial when Jodi took the stand...before that I actually knew VERY little about it, so I feel like I was very unbiased in the beginning, much like the jurors. I actually BELIEVED Jodi during Nurmi's questioning! I had NO IDEA what the real story was, and that she was just acting and lying her way through it. So I feel like I came into this, as I said, with a blank slate like the jurors.
THAT ALL CHANGED once Juan took over. I completely did a 180, I began to see her manipulation, her lies, her act. I had caught onto her...from then on I became "biased" and feel like now I am VERY biased against her...I feel like every single word out of her mouth is a lie. So I keep thinking, since I was much like the jurors in my lack of information, they MUST be seeing what I saw!
I went back and started watching more testimony from the beginning of the trial that I had missed. One was the blood pattern expert...what got me VERY worried was the juror question about COULD THE PALMPRINT of Jodi have been left on the wall from some previous time? This, to me, was a question that was so out there...does that mean that the person is even doubting that JODI COMMITTED THE CRIME??? To me, this sounds like someone doesn't even want to believe she was even there or that she did it!! As I said I was not following the trial at the time, so I'm sure this was discussed on this forum at the time, but I missed all of that. But that really stuck with me. Then Juan went back and had the blood pattern expert EXPLAIN that it was Jodi's blood MIXED with Travis' blood...but WHY would someone need verification that it was HER palmprint????
Then there were also a handful of questions since then....like, could the camera have been moved by Travis because he picked it up after Jodi dropped it and was checking it while she was running away? DOES THIS QUESTION NOT WORRY OTHERS? It's like someone is just reaching for things to support what they ALREADY believe. This question goes against what really happened and EVEN WHAT JODI CLAIMS, because that would have given her enough time to run away!
Also the question that could Jodi have stabbed him after the gunshot due to the rage she felt inside from his previous abuse (or something like that, maybe it was could the overkill been because of her rage from the abuse?). This shows to me a, they believe Jodi's story that she shot him first, AND they believe he abused her. Other question was, could the overkill be because she was pouring out all her emotions at the time...I don't know if that was part of the last question or not. Then yesterday, what bothered me more than the tiger/bear question (which I can't tell which way it goes), were the CAMERA questions...it's as if someone wants to believe Jodi's story and feel like she put the camera in the washer because she was so frazzled by what had just happened, not as part of her PLANNING. To me, whether or not the camera was in the washer doesn't even matter...the fact that she DELETED the pics is what matters. So is one juror not willing to believe that deleting the pics show planning and ORGANIZATION? To me, Jodi didn't know that they could retrieve the pics...just like the rest of us, I had no idea...I thought if someone deleted pics that means they were removed from the memory card. Jodi claims to have more knowledge of cameras, but I DO NOT believe she knew anything more than the rest of us. So the fact of whether it was in the washer or not doesn't matter, but yet there were two or three questions about this and whether or not it indicates planning, which it CLEARLY does.
Okayyy...sorry this is so long. I just had to get this out there because now I'm really worried, I have been watching the trial daily and I don't know what I would do if it ends up in a hung jury or even life in prison, she deserves the death penalty. I'm worried about this one juror.

:seeya: Hello and :welcome:

First, let me say this is a Great First Post !

Second, I share your "concern" about a juror(s) believing Jodi's story -- now how that is possible, is beyond me ... but ya never know with jurors !

I was very concerned with some of the jurors' questions very early on in this case -- but then I noticed a change in their questioning, particularly when the Defense put on its case.

The juror questions for Doc Samuels and Alyce were very "telling" IMO, and it appeared to me from the jurors' questions they were NOT buying the defense's experts "opinions" and Jodi's "stories."

This is a clear-cut case of PRE-Meditated Murder, and I hope that every one of those jurors see this because Mr. Martinez CLEARLY PROVED pre-med murder !

The evidence is overwhelming for pre-med murder -- and there is ZERO evidence of "abuse" !

But again, ya just never know with jurors or juries ... never know what they are thinking ...

I will really feel very good about this jury when I hear the words :

G U I L T Y of 1ST DEGREE PRE-MEDITATED MURDER !

Until then ...

:moo:

 

[MickyTwoShade]

Yes, I agree. Especially since he/she said something like "what if it was two animals..." so basically they're saying they think of bear and tiger as the same general thing. I am thinking maybe this juror doesn't actually believe Jodi has PTSD, but maybe he took issue with DeMarte saying that the results of the test would be different whether she was reporting ninjas or Travis. Maybe he doesn't actually believe Travis attacked Jodi, but still thinks it would count as a traumatic event if hypothetically it happened. Which I would think it would be too if it actually happened. Problem is it never happened, I hope jury realizes that by now. Sounds like he was just testing Demarte.

You're right. Here's another question that may, or may not have, come from the same juror: "Do you consider Jodi stabbing, shooting & slitting TA’s throat to be a traumatic event?"

The problem I have with PTSD is exactly what Dr. DeMarte highlighted- Arias has shown ZERO aversion to talking about Travis and talking about the murder. In fact, during the early days, she was calling Detective Flores up and pumping him for information!