Jodi Arias Trial discussion, #4

[popsicle]

She likely didn't rule solely on oral argument alone. I'm sure both sides admitted papers and fully briefed this motion. I'm sure she read up on their arguments from their papers.

sounded like it

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I know, right? I was thinking, what part of this wasn't cruel and unusual? He suffered horribly.

From what I read that is one of the reasons this case is a death penalty case. The prior Judge deemed the acts as 'cruel' which is a prong for a death penalty case. There are other prongs that they could have selected but only one is needed and 'cruel' is one of them.

So the defense is wanting the jury to think he was shot first and didnt suffer. I guess the DT just closes their eyes to all the blood and gore everywhere caused by the horrific knife slashing and if the shot to the head was first and he died then the stab wounds wouldnt have produced very little blood loss.

So its obvious he was slashed first and then shot and that is why the ME found little blood loss in the skull area. He had already practically bled out by the time he was shot in the head.

 

[Boodles]

BBM
Actually I wish she would have taken more time with her ruling, her ruling will get scrutinized to the utmost level, I hope it is sound.

I think the defense had a lot riding on this motion. That explains a lot of the debate about the gunshot to the brain testimony with the ME and the belaboring of the sequence.

I didn't see it, but some posters mentioned the defense people smirking during Menendez' testimony. I think they were banking on this being a mistrial because of this issue.

I wish we could fast forward to the defense case to hear whether they have anything substantial to present.

 

[JSR]

I agree, it just came rather quick.

A lot of judges issue right from the bench. And some don't even entertain oral argument they decide on the papers. It's hit or miss and most judges fall within a pattern of how they rule.

 

[JSR]

From what I read that is one of the reasons this case is a death penalty case. The prior Judge deemed the acts as 'cruel' which is a prong for a death penalty case. There are other prongs that they could have selected but only one is needed and 'cruel' is one of them.

So the defense is wanting the jury to think he was shot first and didnt suffer. I guess the DT just closes their eyes to all the blood and gore everywhere caused by the horrific knife slashing and if the shot to the head was first and he died then the stab wounds wouldnt have produced very little blood loss.

So its obvious he was slashed first and then shot and that is why the ME found little blood loss in the skull area. He had already practically bled out by the time he was shot in the head.

Nah they aren't closing their eyes to it. It was a long shot and they knew it. They're just trying to get the DP knocked out and save her life.

 

[lonetraveler]

geeze that tie looks like a piece of sizzle lean

:floorlaugh: I was thinking salmon filet.

 

[AbbieNormal]

From what I read that is one of the reasons this case is a death penalty case. The prior Judge deemed the acts as 'cruel' which is a prong for a death penalty case. There are other prongs that they could have selected but only one is needed and 'cruel' is one of them.

So the defense is wanting the jury to think he was shot first and didnt suffer. I guess the DT just closes their eyes to all the blood and gore everywhere caused by the horrific knife slashing and if the shot to the head was first and he died then the stab wounds wouldnt have produced very little blood loss.

So its obvious he was slashed first and then shot and that is why the ME found little blood loss in the skull area. He had already practically bled out by the time he was shot in the head.

Also shell casing was found on top of an already coagulating splat of blood. That shows stabbing came before the shot to the face. Then dragged to shower, put inside, and throat was slashed. She showered there afterwards which is why no blood was found on the shower walls- she washed it off.

IMO throat slitting was last.

 

[borndem]

I just don't understand the questioning.
How is this going to help his client ?

You're right, Davia -- every time I watch a trial where the defense really has nothing to help their client -- which is often -- we always ask that question. Often, when the defense questions a prosecution witness, it just adds to the prosecution's case all the more. But I guess the defense feels it just can't let an important witness go without cross examination. And I don't know of a cure for that. Such a pity, huh?

 

[LotusPawprint]

Ha!

I homeschool!
My kid is awfully interested in the criminal justice system, so he's taking another online college course on the Constitution and another on Crime Scene Investigation and is watching the trial with me. We had originally planned to attend the Autumn Pasquale trial. This courts schedule is great because he wo t miss homeschool co-op classes on Mondays and Fridays!

That's neat! I wonder how he ever got interested in criminal justice.... hmmmm .... :waitasec: .... oh, hey mom! :seeya:

 

[GobBluth]

She likely didn't rule solely on oral argument alone. I'm sure both sides admitted papers and fully briefed this motion. I'm sure she read up on their arguments from their papers.

I agree, it just came rather quick.

She already had previous court case citations in front of her that she had reviewed, so it seemed to me that she knew of this motion ahead of time, and had already done some research. I may be wrong though.

I feel a lot better about this trial, now that I heard Judge Duncan's conclusion, as well as this Judge's. I get so worried about how the testimony and evidence is coming across in the court room, ever since the CA trial debacle. If that happens here, I will lose all faith in our justice system.

 

[lonetraveler]

bbm

My kids will be severely neglected by then... :what:

:floorlaugh:Yep, in the last three days my cat has taught herself to go out of the dog door out of necessity.

 

[AbbieNormal]

I want them to ask one of their expert witnesses about how long did this attack last? I mean, in their estimation.

 

[popsicle]

Here is a laugh for everyone. This is what Jodi is writing in court, what she wants to twitter once she gets back to her cell lol

https://twitter.com/Jodi_on_Trial

 

[dani]

Im thinking I've herad that they are required to.....but could be totally wrong....but think there are some states it is to be disclosed....

No…you are NOT wrong. I was a R.E. broker in both California and Arizona and the "law" is full disclosure.

 

[Boodles]

I want them to ask one of their expert witnesses about how long did this attack last? I mean, in their estimation.

Betcha they do a 2 or 3 minutes of silence thing at the close of the prosecution's closing argument so the jury can feel just how long those minutes are.

 

[Isabelle]

Am I understanding that during the savage attack upon this man, he managed to make it to his bedroom? If so, is it thought Jodi may have cut his throat in that room (there was a large amount of blood on the carpet and it was water soaked)?

I am so very glad to see consideration being given to the cruelty of the act and whether or not the victim suffered. In the medical profession, most but not all caregivers do not assume that because a person is unconscious they cannot be in pain. In home health we are required to document complaint and description of pain, but when a person is not conscious they are not able to give this information and I have more than once documented that I would assume that the person is in pain, even if it is only due to their inability to reposition themselves. So glad to see this being given significant consideration.

 

[JSR]

She already had previous court case citations in front of her that she had reviewed, so it seemed to me that she knew of this motion ahead of time, and had already done some research. I may be wrong though.

I feel a lot better about this trial, now that I heard Judge Duncan's conclusion, as well as this Judge's. I get so worried about how the testimony and evidence is coming across in the court room, ever since the CA trial debacle. If that happens here, I will lose all faith in our justice system.

Well although not every Judge is perfect I'm extremely sad to say that I feel far more confident with a Judge being the one determining guilt or innocence than 12 jurors. Had you asked me my belief before the Anthony verdict I would have been far more optimistic about jurors being able to render appropriate verdicts. I've seen juries get it wrong many times but not in a case as obvious as the Anthony case and unfortunately it's rattled my belief that 12 normal jurors have qualifications to evaluate criminal cases. Or maybe only Florida juries from Pinellas county do.

Having said that I still remain worried how testimony and evidence is being perceived by the jury members. What might be obvious to me or to you will not always be obvious to the 12 jurors hearing the case. We live in a CSI age. Jurors believe, wrongly might I add, that they do not have the duty to connect dots and view evidence collectively. And that circumstantial evidence lacks the veracity that physical evidence can sometimes provide.

I just hope collectively that the jury will be able to connect all the dots and come to the same conclusions we have on this board about the evidence being presented.

 

[Madeleine74]

Slightly OT but somewhat related to this case: I'm only on page 11 of this thread and LOLing at all the drooling over the hot detective from Yreka who testified this morning. (And yes, he is).

Back in 2011 there was a murder trial in my area and I attended some of it. One of the detectives was very handsome (I had noted this a couple years before the trial started when I saw his pictures). Anyway, once he got on the stand during the trial some of the ladies of WS started referring to him as "Detective McDreamy." I too started to call him that online.

Wellllll....turns out some of the county courthouse personnel were reading updates on WS and saw that and were only too happy to share the new nickname with the detective and all his LE coworkers. He got teased and teased for it by his fellow detectives--face turned bright red every time (which only made him cuter, IMO). He opined it must be a "bunch of grade school girls saying that," and I assured him in no uncertain terms it was most definitely not and these were grown women, some perhaps old enough to be his mom.

The chief of police (female) also knew about the comments and agreed with this assessment (she and I spoke at a party and she was aware of these comments and was amused, to say the least). I had joked for a few years before the case went to trial that I wanted him as my lawn boy and it turns out she had read that. :blushing: I told the hot detective it was all in good fun and his LE cohorts were just jealous. I'm not sure how his wife felt about it--I think he was teased from all sides.

Soooo...you never know who is reading and how it might get reported back. As I told that detective, "there are certainly worse things to be called in life than "handsome" or a "hottie" and perhaps the next step was a People Magazine "Sexiest Man Alive" cover. Hehehehe.

 

[KMouse]

To me, it is not so important if the Det.'s testimony about the ME's testimony (which IS hearsay, BTW) had an inaccuracy about the wound examination, but rather if the ME's testimony had an inaccuracy about the wound examination.

Come on.

There were probably many conversations between investigators speculating on about what wound came first. Does that mean they are all inaccurate and means the evidence is cloudy? Look at us here all speculating until the blood spatter expert laid it out for us.

If that's all the Defence can do today is argue about Flores and Horn talking about what came first, the chicken or the egg, good luck.

 

[3trees]

Here is a laugh for everyone. This is what Jodi is writing in court, what she wants to twitter once she gets back to her cell lol

https://twitter.com/Jodi_on_Trial

Alicia Marie ‏@skinnykiss

I'm not loving this prosecutor, Yet. #JodiArias
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite

2 Jan Jodi Jodi ‏@Jodi_on_Trial

I like him. RT @skinnykiss I'm not loving this prosecutor, Yet. #JodiArias

:floorlaugh: