I don't know that I've seen anyone state that she's innocent of murder, but I could have missed alot.
Well, some are entertaining a self-defense claim and some are coming close by assuming that Travis was abusive sexually and that jodi was a victim.
But I'm more worried about the jury. Sleuthers are a pretty intelligent lot and can disagree on certain things without losing sight of the ultimate truth for the most part. I am not confident about jurors.
Jodi wants to run her own direct, cutting Nurmi out. She says way too much and I see both JM and Flores feverishly writing down notes. One lie the jury might overlook but I think she's into double-digits numbers now. jmo
Who is Flores? Isn;t that the detective? Where is he seated?
Also watching NG.
Curious why the women jurors are on the edge of their seats during this testimony......
:waitasec:
Who said that? TIA!!
Reading all the posts and realizing that there are so many different views and bantering back and forth among viewers truly worries me. If we viewers have such polarizing views, imagine what will go on during deliberations.....and all it takes is 1 out of 12 and a mistrial is declared. True, she has yet to be subject to cross, but "there's one in every crowd." You can convince some of the people some of the time.........etc.
I agree. I worry.
Nancy Grace is asking why the State is allowing all of this in without objection, and she thinks it's because Juan doesn't want to give the impression that he has anything to worry about his own case.
I disagree. When he has objected, he has been overruled. The judge is allowing this in as part of the defense build-up of Jodi's long history of abuse. I think the judge has allowed in way too much, but I think that's the reason Juan has stopped objecting.
Yeah, I got that sense as well. He just gave up because otherwise, the jury would hear him objecting non-stop and being overruled non-stop.
However, some feel he likes to let jodi ramble. More rope.
I've been debating making this post and decided to share lol
As a victim of a sexual crime I find it offensive that Jodi is trying to imply Travis is a sexual deviant. Her testimony today of she didn't want to say no because she didn't want to spoil the chemistry they had is offensive. I don't remember her saying she said no and he insisted or forced her to do one thing EVER.
She, on more than one occasion drove to see him. IF she felt abused, intimidated, used or in any way like she was in danger all she had to do was turn her car around and go home.
She was a willing participant and I'm very tired of the victim being blamed for their own cold blooded murder.
Thank you.
I think that in the beginning, the Hugheses were really taken with Jodi. They said she was the nicest person they ever met. AND...Travis was on "cloud nine" after meeting Jodi, too, and told Chris about her.
They probably thought they were helping along a budding romance. They had no idea what lurked beneath until MUCH later.
I do think it's odd, though, considering some other of TA's friends said JA was "off" immediately after meeting her.
Well, many people are fooled by sociopaths. Sociopaths make great salespeople for that reason.
It's very different when you're in a jury room though. We all tend to be able to find like-minded posters and people in our real lives that agree as well. When you're dependent on 11 other people agreeing with your perspective in a closed room and the stakes are so high it's a much different atmosphere.
The jury only has to be unanimous on guilt not on the charges. I don't think that'll be any problem at all once jury instructions are read.
lease:
Actually, in the dark ages and up until, well, I guess now, women have always been to blame for the sexual downfall of men. Not vice versa. :waitasec:
In some Muslim countries, a raped woman can still be punished by death for inciting lust in her rapist.
But even Western history has the same mindset. I want to say until recently but it appears it is ongoing.
.
Where in history have men all been considered bad and all women good?
This is not Saudi Arabia. We have come a long way here. Yes, we have some way to go but a female gender bias has nothing to do with this trial, IMO.
As to women always being considered bad and men good, that is just flat false, respectfully. I have a Bachelor's in American Studies and have studied and researched gender. That's not true in this country and it's not true in general, historically.
And when it comes to gender and prosecution or sentencing, men have it much worse and women get the breaks in the United States. Here are some posts I posted on the subject:
I linked to an article about sentences disparity between genders. Since that apparently did not make enough of an impression, I will link to the study itself:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
Research definitively shows that women receive lesser punishment for the same crimes as men. That's just a fact.
Regarding Debra La Favre, ANY man accused of committing similar crimes would have received prison time. But in her case, the defense argued she was too pretty for prison and the judge apparently agreed. Can you see that happening with a man?
Debra La Favre
casey anthony
Mary Winkler
Lorena Bobbit
Angelica Jimenez
Karen Pena
The list goes on and on. Of course, we can find cases where men got away with horrible crimes as well. However, as I have stated, studies show
that is much more likely and much more often the case with women.
Here is a link to a book called "When She Was bad: How and Why Women Get Away With Murder":
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=Zaw_AAAAMAAJ
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8696734&postcount=1204
That study is from 2001 and was published in the Journal of Law and Economics. The person who wrote it is a P.h.D. and a professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Gerogia. Here are his credentials and experience:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/
The article is widely cited by news organizations and by other, public research articles, having been cited 259 times by other, journal articles. It is considered a scientifically sound research paper with a sufficient research sample. I found the study through the Huffington Post. Not the Enquirer.
ETA: you misunderstand the article sample. It does not study just repeat offenders. It excludes first offenders sentenced under mandatory minimums of life.
But, there's more. Here's a 2012 University of Michigan Law School research paper that assesses gender disparity in federal cases only and finds that women receive 60% of the sentences men do, and that women are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...t_id=2144002##
Here's a 2009 study by a Ph.D that examined data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) from 2001 to 2003, to determine why women tend to be treated more leniently than men at the sentencing stage (note the question is not "if" it's "why"):
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu1237482038
Here's a Denver Post articles finding a huge gender disparity in child sexual assault prosecutions:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18726100
Here's a recent study by Professor Steven Shatz of the University of San Francisco Law School and Naomi Shatz of the New York Civil Liberties Union that suggests that gender bias continues to exist in the application of the death penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stud...ath-sentencing
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8697300&postcount=1208
Ok, I'm back from my post lunch nap. Can someone give a quick synopsis of what happened? I hear they got to Travis. Did they delve into what he did that made her "defend" herself?
I wouldn't worry too much about the jury right now. On cross I think the PA will pull out each photon and ask her what happened after each one. Then We'll see the water works flowing. JMO
BBM.
No. Not even close. It was more like, "Hokay, how did you meet Travis?" "Well, my friend Michelle and I and this other gal named...went to eat at the Rainforest cafe, which is like, adjacent to the hotel so it's really walking distance, and so we were eating there, actually we had just gotten done eating, well, we had just p[aid our bill, and we were standing in the entrance of Rainforest cafe and there is this fountain there and we were kind of standing around it, trying to figure out what to do and it was getting kind of cold and Michelle didn't have a sweater, but I had a cashmere one in blue and so I didn't mind standing there, but we were deciding what to do next and everyone had different ideas, Michelle wanted to.....Then, as we were standing by this really neat fountain, I turned to my left, or actually, it was north, north east, kind of pointing towards where the car would be if we had one and had parked one in the parking lot which is south, south west of the Rainforest case and east of the hotel we were staying at..."
Thank you - Great way to hone in on the reality. I couldn't agree with you more!
IMO I think turning this into a conversation about negative attitudes towards Women would be playing right into Jodi's hands. this just is not the place for this discussion; it does not fit at all.
Ditto.
From your post:
Sorry Gitana but I am on my iPad and the screen is small, so I lose long posts.
I am not explaining this well at all, I know, because people go off on tangents,
I do not care about the sex the defense is bringing up. I am not referring to the sex in this trial.
What I am concerned about it that JA is called a
, etc,
Men who do the identical behavior are not looked at as
.
Was Ted Bundy so seductive that he was able to attract women? Was he a
?
That is not even a conversation about Ted Bundy because he is a murderer.
JA is a murderer. If she had a new BF everyday of the week, it does not matter because she is a murderer. It does not matter if she wore a topless outfit. She is a murderer.
TA does not have to be a naive virgin 30 year old male to be a murder victim.
TA could have a new GF everyday. That does not mean that he cannot be a murder victim.
I understand your point but I don;t think many people are calling her a
and I don't think female gender bias is releavnt to this case. Whether or not people view jodi as promiscuous is not relevant to this case, IMO. Not thus far.
I'd also like to add that I think men are often called
(not so much
, but it's similar thing). I hear women and men refer to other men that way.
I don't think of Bundy as a seductor in a sexual way because he used pity, not sex to manipulate. But geesh, many men use sex to manipulate. And they are called out for it too. It's part of the tricks of the trade for domestic abusers of either sex, mend included.
But that seems to be ok.
I really dont understand why anyone is defending JA and her character or lack of I should say.
If it walks like a duck.......quacks like a duck..leaves a trail of duck feathers .........its a duck.
She has lined up some of her sexual trists for two days in her drama-rama.
We know she went on to dry hump Ryan hours after murdering Travis.
We also were told that a married man was in a vehicle with her for two hours and was going to leave his wife and children.
Abe said she told him she didnt wear the traditional morman magical panties but the magic was inside her panties.
She is what she is.
Promiscuous could be Jodi Arias' middle name.
IMO
Okay, so I looked up the term:
(sl
t)
n.1. a. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
[slʌt]
n1. a dirty slatternly woman
2. an immoral woman
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals)
Archaic a female dog[of unknown origin]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/🤬🤬🤬🤬
I guess if we just use it to describe a woman who is promiscuous, then maybe the term does apply to jodi.
But again, I do agree with some in thinking of the term as being used to ascribe a negative connotation to women who enjoy sex. And I see nothing wrong with women who enjoy sex as long as they are careful and following the law. I would prefer that none of my kids, regardless of gender, go running around with multiple partners and that they delay sex until they are mature, but I agree that it's not fair to deem only one gender as "slutty" for having a ball, while the other is just acting according to his nature. Apparently, that is the complaint.
However, I don't tbink that's what is happening here. I think this is a just a matter of semantics and taking a few posts out of thousands as the standard bearer. People are using foul terms to describe jodi's actions because she is a repugnant person, not because she is a woman who likes sex.
I do not call jodi a
. That's because I do not believe she is a bad person for having had sex with multiple partners and being free with sex: I BELIEVE SHE IS A BAD PERSON FOR USING SEX IN A CLINICAL, PASSIONLESS MANNER TO MANIPULATE MEN AND TO SEDUCE THEM, YES SEDUCE THEM (a term more often applied to men, historically, than to women) IN ORDER TO CLIMB THE SOCIAL LADDER AND TO POSSESS THEM.
And I really, really hope that's clear now and that we can move on.
