04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

Status
Not open for further replies.
I TOTALLY understand and it's affecting me the same way. Because of the time zone and my schedule, I can only watch the first section before lunch break, then I have to wait and watch parts 2 and 3 once everyone's asleep, that combined with checking on here means I don't go to sleep until 1 at the earliest. I also have an "addictive personality", so I completely understand. Not to mention in between parts 1 and 2 I'm going crazy wanting to get back to the trial and wondering what's going on. I thought I was the only one, that's why I love this site so much! Oh, and I forgot sometimes watching NG and Dr. Drew, I record those, but still takes another hour or so for those.

:highfive: I'm here for ya :seeya: together we will all get through this :justice:. Thanks for voicing your support. I desperately needed that right now. :hug: to you ... and everyone else who is feeling the pain
 
Did you listen to Juan's redirect? It was Mimi Hall who testified about the doggy door and other incidents of Jodi's stalking behavior. I re-listened to her testimony recently too. Redirect begins at/around 1:55:38 of the following link: Jodi Aris Trial : Day 1 : Opening Arguments (No Sidebars) - YouTube

Doggy door is mentioned around 1:56:35.

Awesome, there it is about the doggy door. This is a different audio YouTube upload than I had previously. Thanks so much!

The Christmas tree story, though, that was Clancy Talbot on HLN, right?


Sent from my hippocampus using Tapatalk
 
I have been watching JM's cross of JA... so enjoying her being grilled and thinking she is so superior and has every answer. Particularly interesting is Day 25 part 3 of 3 - JM asks her all about the photos, the attack, the blood, her fog. JM is SO GOOD!
She does admit those are her socks in the dragging photo, btw.
 
Surrebuttal really doesn't worry me. I think the truth has been presented and I doubt the DT could do anything that will affect that. I really don't like the lesser charges....too much wiggle room there to suit me.
It's been such an unbelievable day here. My last client actually asked me to call her when I got home to let her know I got here safely. One client was rushed to the ER in heart block, another fell down a flight of stairs. Before that, one of my female goats busted her way to the 'segregated' section...found herself a boyfriend...Oh my lol Now I can be on babygoat watch..... It's been one of those days. And then I hear about the latest carp from the DT. I wish I was joking about how it feels in the pit of my stomach. Makes me wish I drank. Even a little :) Would a margarita make it better? LOL

YUP!!
WORKS FOR ME ... JUST SAYIN' (shrug, smile)
 
The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
UNCONFIRMED : The proposed surrebuttal witness is Dr Robert Geffner [colleague of LaViolette] to rebut Dr Janeen Demarte on BPD.

[Supplied by Paula Feese, with thanks]


From Facebook a few minutes ago

Well! I wonder what he's going to say?! Surely he won't agree to what his colleague testified to, will he?! :rolleyes:

I never, ever thought I could dislike a defense attorney more than Jose Baez, but KN and JW have achieved it.
 
The only stories I recall from TA's friends such as Clancy Talbott (about sleeping under the Christmas tree) weren't addressed in court, afaik.

Page 6 of Detective Flores' Investigation Supplement Report summarizes his interview with Marie Hall:

"She didn't know too much about Jodi, other than what she learned tonight. She learned that she was kind of obsessive and that she had manipulated Travis' facebook account. She also mentioned hearing that Jodi would get into the house through the doggie door without being invited. She described Jodi as a "stalker ex-girlfriend. Marie said she was actually kind of worried about her, because she was obsessive. She had also heard that Jodi had stolen some of his personal journals and they [sic] had recently taken some pages of his new book he was writing. She knew Travis spoke to Jodi sometime last week. Travis called Jodi, because he caught her hacking into one of his email or Facebook accounts and confronted her about it. Other than this she knew very little about Jodi Arias."

JA described the doggie door as installed in the sliding glass door, that the sliding door butted up to the doggie door but wasn't locked. Meaning she could walk in the sliding door.

Here's a photo of TA's doggie door showing the tiny 8" x 11" opening of the doggie door that it was probably impossible for her to fit through. But she could still walk in the sliding door that abutted it.

<modsnip>

Thank you! I didn't see your answer before the moderator deleted the image. I'll look for it elsewhere. lol, they're so quick! I appreciate the mods, nonetheless.


Sent from my hippocampus using Tapatalk
 
I have NO professional opinion on this, but it strikes me that they could in fact put JA back on the stand to "fix" her lies if they are permitted to offer a surrebuttal. The purpose of surrebuttal would be to contest new information offered during rebuttal. If we consider it from that point of view, she could conceivably be back to "explain" said new information.

That is what I am thinking...
If she got up there and told the story that WE ALL KNOW Already...
Admitted to her stalking and jealousy and pure "neediness"

She just might get away with it.

Won't ever work for me personally.
She pre-meditated the murder. None of the other stuff matters.
( I could never be on a jury! )
 
I don't get why the defense would even dispute BPD anyway. It's a gift in a way. Borderline's a lot more treatable than other PDs, they experience emotion on a much further ranging scale than some other PDs, and they're not typically known to be overtly violent towards others. Undoubtedly, many even often have a childhood history of abuse that may have led to the disorder itself.

Seems totally spinnable to me...unlike psychopathy, my dx. ;)
 
I just want to say for the record that we don't get HLN in Australia, I am however guilty of going to see Tot Mom, a play by Steven Soderbergh, at Sydney Theatre Company. I think most of us here are able to separate media hype from reality and often criticise the likes who wish to sensationalise murder for entertainment.
 
I should have snipped.....Don's Sporting Goods....where JA bought her 9mm after the murder. AND..................THANK YOU!
:gthanks:

I hope they went back several months and checked sales of hunting knives.
 
Awesome, there it is about the doggy door. This is a different audio YouTube upload than I had previously. Thanks so much!

The Christmas tree story, though, that was Clancy Talbot on HLN, right?


Sent from my hippocampus using Tapatalk
You're welcome! Yes, Clancy Talbot told the Christmas tree story during an appearance on Nancy Grace.
 
I'll try. :seeya:
A sur-rebuttal can only focus on evidence brought in on rebuttal. They can't start a new CIC. They plan on bringing on another witness to dispell Dr.D's testimony meaning they're scared. At this point does it really matter what they say? I don't believe so. Unlike Cardiology or Physics, there are no constants in Psychological Science. It's all open to subjective interpretation. There are no scans, lab tests etc to quantify the science, just journals and text messages and of course JA. The jury knows she's sick and don't need a battle of the experts to diagnose it. I don't think they really care or empathize with her anyway.
The crime scene photos don't tell the story of self defense for JA nor do they suggest crime of passion. The guy was taking a shower and some jurors might believe that she invaded his personal space even being there. Lastly no matter how many head shrinks testify, it's not reasonable for anyone including a battered woman to stab to death, then stab another 29+ times, then slit the throat and shoot over the passion of a dropped camera.

If the jury sounds angry now, just wait a few more weeks IMO.:hug:

Can Juan use Dr. D's testimony and test results to refute the surrebuttal "expert" who is going to try to say Jodi is NOT BPD? This is getting absurd. If I was on the jury & Nurmi or Willmott jumped up right when I thought we were finally getting to the end of this very long trial, I would not listen to a word of testimony!!!:banghead:
 
margarita's for everyone

smiley_emoticons_margarita.gif
 
Last night my mom and I were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination (don't ask) and she kept insisting on certain "facts" because she was alive then and remembers them from life. She kept talking about the Zapruder film but calling it "Zagruder," and arguing with me about the name. Finally I said, "So, would you say you remember these details as clearly as you remember that it's Zagruder, not Zapruder? Her eyes got wide and she said, "Okay Juan Martinez!"
At least you didn't have to go so far as to say: Is that a Yes or a No, Ma'am?
 
I don't get why the defense would even dispute BPD anyway. It's a gift in a way. Borderline's a lot more treatable than other PDs, they experience emotion on a much further ranging scale than some other PDs, and they're not typically known to be overtly violent towards others. Undoubtedly, many even often have a childhood history of abuse that may have led to the disorder itself.

Seems totally spinnable to me...unlike psychopathy, my dx. ;)

I had the same thought.
 
D
Defense #8 might actually fly: Jodi's mother is a twin, and twins often beget twins. :floorlaugh: Skeery to even think about that possibility. :eek:

As a twin and mother of twins I take offence at that comment. Just saying. :fence:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
694
Total visitors
780

Forum statistics

Threads
625,982
Messages
18,517,948
Members
240,920
Latest member
LynnKC84
Back
Top