jodi arias TAKES THE STAND #64 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[Mrs G Norris]

I missed any "how /why did you put him back in the shower stall?" stuff..was in the am testimony?

It must be in part 3 .. I'll let you know what time if it comes up while I'm watching it:
[video=youtube;4O8Q2gXy_Y0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O8Q2gXy_Y0[/video]

 

[Love Never Fails]

I had that same thought today and am hoping he uses the phrase "she is taunting you with this...you know she's not innocent, you know she commited this crime..do not mark her words".

Ooohhh, very good idea.

 

[katiecoolady]

She's such a Whiney beotch!! When she said in that Whinese accent that where she resided was much smaller than Travis's closet - I wished Juan had shot back (for the jury's sake) that the coffin where Travis resides is much smaller than her cell.

Total chills reading this. Maybe he will pick it up for his closing.

And Whinese? OMG :floorlaugh: I've never heard that before. That so just made my day.

 

[OldCarGal]

Well, I guess that Jodi is readying for her DV person (remember the one who is associated with snow white) as she has been doing those skectches and putting them up on EBay and projecting what that person will be testifying to........) This sketch to me just shows how very sick this woman is. Snow white/black eye/tears/smile.........very telling indeed Jodi.

Sick, just sick!

If this is an example of Jodi's art, then who is drawing the art being sold on ebay? This is not anything similar.

 

[2door73chevy]

Pain and suffering is an understatement. IT is totally beyond comprehension for me, how she was able to do this to another person. Poor Travis and his family. I wonder what made her stop when JA was on this rampage.

I know, right? My dh and I have said those crime scene pictures ALONE should get the jury to convict her...They are the most gruesome we have ever seen and that SLAUGHTER was NO self defense.:furious:

 

[bobloblaw]

I don't believe any of her story, but would love to hear her explanation for how the camera got from the bathtub to the far end of the hallway. Another major hole in her story.

 

[PenElaine]

IMO....Juan will tie it all up very nicely for us in closing.....my guess is that MM has turned against her and will tell of the stolen gun and DVD player w/remote.....oh I can't wait til we find out what MM knows.....

OMG do you think she gave the stolen DVD player (or sold it) to DB and that is the remote she took to him after Salinas? Sorry if this has already been discussed...

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

I missed any "how /why did you put him back in the shower stall?" stuff..was in the am testimony?

Katie, I don't know for sure but since putting Travis back into the shower is after the murder I think if you checked in the pm portion of testimony?

 

[katiecoolady]

No not that (that I heard) but he confronted her on all of the cover-up she did while in her fognesia. Something like, "You were in a fog but you had the presence of mind to put the camera in the washing machine?" Not those exact words.

I may have misunderstood your post.

No worries, I'm having low blood sugnesia right now anyway.

Yes I heard the things he did confront her on but missed the "back in the shower" stuff. Maybe he didn't need it and she'd claim fognesia anyway. (who do I need to give a silent nod to with that term anyway? And I'd sure still love to know who coined the term I'm using and overusing "Von Trapp" too).

 

[Hopeful One]

I know, right? My dh and I have said those crime scene pictures ALONE should get the jury to convict her...They are the most gruesome we have ever seen and that SLAUGHTER was NO self defense.:furious:

The crime scene photos are so disturbing, I can't even explain how much it all bothers me.

Agree. Stabbing someone in the back is not self defense. Plain and simple. Period.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Another great point (one of many) yesterday was his going over each step she had to take AFTER the murder, to delete photos.

She would stand there, and go through the screens. You can't be in any fog.

 

[Hopeful One]

No worries, I'm having low blood sugnesia right now anyway.

Yes I heard the things he did confront her on but missed the "back in the shower" stuff. Maybe he didn't need it and she'd claim fognesia anyway. (who do I need to give a silent nod to with that term anyway? And I'd sure still love to know who coined the term I'm using and overusing "Von Trapp" too).

Well it's nearly impossible to keep track of everything with hours upon hours of testimony. Makes my brain scramble.

 

[katiecoolady]

Katie, I don't know for sure but since putting Travis back into the shower is after the murder I think if you checked in the pm portion of testimony?

I'm watching the pm portion right now. It's very likely I missed it and I was right there. There's only so much of this demon I can take in to my head at a time.

 

[atthelake]

That's what we've been debating here for months! Join in.... Lot's of opinions, but for GUILTY.......

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196224 is the separate thread for these discussions

IT.DOES.NOT.MATTER

:bump: myself as I meant to put in the WS thread for this discussion of timeline for SistaSleuth, and remembered much later I had not..........corrected above to include

 

[Nezumi]

Has anyone posted posted possible jury instructions yet? I found the 'self defense' instruction particularly interesting. And, by interesting, I mean that I cannot conceive of any juror who has been sitting in that courtroom not saying "nice try Jodi' and zooming right on to the 1st degree/premeditation issue.

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

Section 4.04 et seq (starts at Page 32):

4.04 − Justification for Self-Defense
A defendant is justified in using or threatening physical force in self-defense if the following two conditions existed:
1. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful physical force; and

2. The defendant used or threatened no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation.

A defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense only to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of deadly physical force.
Self-defense justifies the use or threat of physical force or deadly physical force only while the apparent danger continues, and it ends when the apparent danger ends. The force used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.

The use of physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have reasonably believed that immediate physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of physical force in self-defense.
You must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that: physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s [use] [attempted use] [threatened use] [apparent attempted use] [apparent threatened use] of unlawful physical force; or

You must measure the defendant’s belief against what a reasonable person in the situation would have believed.
[The threat or use of physical force is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone;
2. To resist an arrest that the defendant knew or should have known was being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at the peace officer’s direction, whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeded that allowed by law; or
3. If the defendant provoked the other’s use of unlawful physical force, unless:
a. The defendant withdrew from the encounter or clearly communicated to the other person the defendant’s intent to withdraw, reasonably believing that the defendant could not withdraw from the encounter; and
b. The other person nevertheless continued or attempted to use unlawful physical force against the defendant.]
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge. [The user is directed to the Prefatory Use Note regarding the applicability of this paragraph.]

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'm watching the pm portion right now. It's very likely I missed it and I was right there. There's only so much of this demon I can take in to my head at a time.

Well he's up to the deleting images part and no mention of dragging Travis down the hallway and back to the shower yet .. No, he just jumped back ... he's putting the images up of her dragging him down the hallway now - second one up at 11:43 ish.

 

[katiecoolady]

Another great point (one of many) yesterday was his going over each step she had to take AFTER the murder, to delete photos.

She would stand there, and go through the screens. You can't be in any fog.

huge.

 

[atthelake]

Lots of legal questions here. New folks, there is a separate thread for all legal questions that might be interesting to check out if you didn't know it existed! It's strictly Q&A...no discussion type thread.

HTH

 

[Hopeful One]

Has anyone posted posted possible jury instructions yet? I found the 'self defense' instruction particularly interesting. And, by interesting, I mean that I cannot conceive of any juror who has been sitting in that courtroom not saying "nice try Jodi' and zooming right on to the 1st degree/premeditation issue.

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

Section 4.04 et seq (starts at Page 32):

4.04 − Justification for Self-Defense
A defendant is justified in using or threatening physical force in self-defense if the following two conditions existed:
1. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful physical force; and

2. The defendant used or threatened no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation.

A defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense only to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of deadly physical force.
Self-defense justifies the use or threat of physical force or deadly physical force only while the apparent danger continues, and it ends when the apparent danger ends. The force used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.

BBM

That right there is the answer. She kept killing him even though he was OBVIOUSLY no longer a threat to her. If every juror doesn't see that, I will be shocked.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

No worries, I'm having low blood sugnesia right now anyway.

Yes I heard the things he did confront her on but missed the "back in the shower" stuff. Maybe he didn't need it and she'd claim fognesia anyway. (who do I need to give a silent nod to with that term anyway? And I'd sure still love to know who coined the term I'm using and overusing "Von Trapp" too).

I think another poster, wasn't it popsicle, who posted Juan slipped it in like he already knew the answer to the question when he says something like and then you put him back in the shower and she says yes or right.