04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[G&AMom]

Very generally It's the difference between someone attacking you and you reasonably feeling like you need to defend yourself with (in this case) deadly force, which can be self defense v. being inspired to great fury that you can't control in the moment, which is heat of passion. The classic example of heat of passion is catching your spouse in bed with another person and losing it on them. jmo

Okay, but aren't they kind of mutually exclusive as far as defending yourself in court goes? That's what has me confused. Have the prior defense witnesses said anything that could be used to uphold this claim? If she's battered, what difference does it make whether she was "inspired to great fury" -- I mean, why bring it up at all, if that were the case? She was battered. <snort> It just seems to me, if I were a juror, that I would feel I hadn't heard a single thing that indicates heat of moment.

 

[kaRN]

I saw them. I just think the back wounds reflect rage against someone not able to defend themselves. Heinous.

I don't see any rope burn at all. The testimony was there was seepage post mortem from the chest wound.

I think those marks might be skin slippage but I'm guessing. His head was slightly forward in the shower and it could be where skin was in contact with skin. I know when you prepare a body to go to the morgue, you have to be very careful how you place the hands so as not to leave marks visible later.

 

[dadgum]

drumming fingers...
trial begins..
chambers..
sidebar
sidebar
lunch
sidebar
break
headache

 

[ShadyLady]

last night it occured to me that I can't imagine even thinking about going out to buy a 9mm gun and some good fighting knives...

Well, she bought knives or stole them when she started slashing tires, was that a year before murder?

She knew how to hide things well in the car...gun was hid pretty good IIRC.

 

[YESorNO]

I'd say at least half a dozen just for this case. There are a lot on WS altogether - a few of which are Americans living abroad.

We have nuts aplenty over here too - but smaller population and gun control = smaller number of homicides; CCTV everywhere sometimes means its much quicker to arrest; a much more accessible and less stigmatized stance on mental illness may have some effect on reducing violent crime; and trials are very, very different here. No televised coverage, not nearly the media hype, no Nancy Grace equivalent, witnesses often stand giving testimony, court artists are still in employ, and barristers and magistrate alike both still don powdered wigs and robes.

We can also boast an overly 'humanitarian' justice system which sees some murderers get sentenced appallingly lightly and convicted killers underage at the time of their crimes being granted new identities; no open records public can access, without going through the police, for known sexual offenders because of the risk of vigilantism; prisoners being granted cosmetic surgery taxpayers fund through the NHS; and highly sensationalized trials will often find dozens of people throwing bricks, cans, rocks at the prison van transporting the defendant - with unarmed police in full riot gear. It's a beautiful country steeped in tradition - but we're not without our problems, for certain.

Our justice system sounds so much better, now. I guess you could say we aren't so "humanitarian".

 

[LambChop]

I am one of the guilty parties,,,, or maybe the only guilty one. I am truly sowwy.

No. I don't think you are alone. I may have said something I shouldn't have. Easy to get carried away waiting for this to be over. It happens.

 

[kaydono]

:fence: Geeze kaydono. Stop making me do bad things. Sorry Nurse!

Blame the middle child why dont cha ......... flashbacks of my childhood..jk I WAS the middle child of 3 daughters. My dad was outnumbered, big time. hehehe

 

[Imprint]

Next they will have Henry Lee testify about some mystery piece of evidence only he found, that ended up in his pocket. But its all ok cause it clears her.

I had managed to block Lee from my mind, but you brought it all back. What case was it when he put evidence into his.. was it his lapel? Man, that guy made me mad, and super annoyed at any TH who treated him as if he was the king of forensics. He struck me as a camera hound and I always got the distinct impression his expertise, such as it was, was for sale.

 

[Clue Finder 55]

This post just made me think of something.

First of all, we all KNOW that she stole her grandfather's gun, right? Now, why would she write Travis a check on the date of the burglary? She either did write the check on that date or she didn't write the check on that date.

If she did write the check on that date, then I'd assume she did it with the idea of it somehow helping in her denial of a) stealing the gun and/or b) using it in the crime. Like, "Why would I write a check to Travis if I stole a gun to shoot him?"

However, I think it is much more plausible that she wrote the date wrong - on purpose.

I'd like to see her check book registry and cancelled checks. Did the check numbers before and after that particular check coincide with the date of 28 May? Were they chronological?

Did she write checks after the Travis check and/or did she add anything to her check registry, like transactions? What were those dates?

Is this the reason for her depositing cash into her accounts? She didn't want LE questioning the check she wrote for insufficient funds? (Then again, the cash deposits would come after the date she wrote on the checks.)

She probably wrote the check knowing it would never be cashed. She may have taken the check with her and left it in Travis's house so it would look to LE that she was on good terms with Travis and was paying for the car she wrecked. When detective Flores was interrogating her she asked him if he knew if the check was cashed or not and it's likely she knew that it would never have been cashed.
It would be interesting to know if she had money in her account at that time that would have covered the amount on the check.

 

[Schuby]

Okay, but aren't they kind of mutually exclusive as far as defending yourself in court goes? That's what has me confused. Have the prior defense witnesses said anything that could be used to uphold this claim? If she's battered, what difference does it make whether she was "inspired to great fury" -- I mean, why bring it up at all, if that were the case? She was battered. <snort> It just seems to me, if I were a juror, that I would feel I hadn't heard a single thing that indicates heat of moment.

My guess is they are hoping it could be a compromise verdict for someone who says, "we'll, okay, self-defense but that overkill....we can't just let her walk after that degree of butchery...maybe she started off defending herself and at some point it became an impassioned attack."

Doesn't matter though. They are dreaming.

 

[Hopeful One]

I'm already having problems with the site and trial hasn't even started yet! :banghead:

 

[Bravo]

I am ready to roll on this rebuttal! I am having a great morning and hope you are having a great one too!

:rocker:

:drumroll:

yes, you guys are good :wink:

Morning nurse:seeya: It is a great morning. Sun is shining and mild temps. Patio doors are open and the birds are chirping. Puppy is happily playing. Lifes small pleasures. Pleasures no doubt here Jodi will ever enjoy again.

 

[Nosey Parker]

omg did this guy even EXAMINE Arias????????


(If we have to hear from one more psychologist I think I will be in need of a psychologist! Enough is enough!:truce

It will be interesting to see when he examined her, if he did. After the other three experts testified? Hmm - fit the hand to the glove much?

 

[YESorNO]

The same goes for the Netherlands.
Although we don't have a jury system.

No? Then who convicts? Just the judges?

 

[SCSam]

Any word on who will be testifying for rebuttal today?

Very good question.. think we'll start out in chambers arguing surrebuttal... sure wish this judge did NOT do so much IN CHAMBERS.. never seen such. Can it be that EVERYTHING is too prejudicial?

 

[Nali87]

This was probably posted before, but it' my first time seeing it. Flores warning JA about JM.

Police tape: Jodi was warned about prosecutor - YouTube

 

[Hopeful One]

My guess is they are hoping it could be a compromise verdict for someone who says, "we'll, okay, self-defense but that overkill....we can't just let her walk after that degree of butchery...maybe she started off defending herself and at some point it became an impassioned attack."

Doesn't matter though. They are dreaming.

I really really hope and pray that not a one juror believes that. What a disgrace to Travis's memory. And if it does happen, we have Jodi to blame, once again. Murdering him all over. :sigh:

 

[kaydono]

You can have him. I'll take Juan- I like older men. :floorlaugh:

Awesome combo for a male......... Martinez's fieryness and steadfast strength, Flores soothing voice, and hotness factor of Dr, McYummy aka ME doc

 

[Schuby]

She probably wrote the check knowing it would never be cashed. She may have taken the check with her and left it in Travis's house so it would look to LE that she was on good terms with Travis and was paying for the car she wrecked. When detective Flores was interrogating her she asked him if he knew if the check was cashed or not and it's likely she knew that it would never have been cashed.
It would be interesting to know if she had money in her account at that time that would have covered the amount on the check.

I think she had $146 in her account or something like that. I'm getting that from previous discussion on here so I can't vouch for that or anything.

 

[Nali87]

No? Then who convicts? Just the judges?

Yes just the judge.