State rests rebuttal case- thread #163

[Ships]

Does this help?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y137/AlbumPhoto/ScreenShot2013-04-27at93118AM_zpseb2aa439.png

That's his left shoulder.

Again sorry, I think you are looking at naturally crazing blood (for want of a better term - I know crazing from pottery, but it seems to fit in this instance considering the pattern). Surely the comparative size of the 'shoeprint' and then the fingers in shot indicate that this is a pattern of blood spill from the wound (to camera right), which has then dried up - and NOT a shoeprint.

That is, fingers are big. Shoeprint is small.

 

[Zuri]

Also, i'm too lazy to look up the autopsy report, but did Dr. Horn note the shoeprint marks?

Not that I am aware of. The dried blood in the photo just looks like blood that continued to ooze post Mortim into the folds of the abdomen to me.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

IMO, re: possible shoe print impressions... That is crime scene investigation 101 - Had ANY show print impressions been observed at the crime scene, they would have been noted and photographed by the CSI's. Had ANY shoe impressions been observed on the deceased's body during the medical autopsy procedure, again, they would have been noted and photographed. There would be no reason for this information to be left out if it was available. I have never heard of a case where, if shoe print evidence were available and could implicate the accused, it could be omitted for prejudiciary reasons. Perhaps one of our gifted lawyers could chime in...

JMO ~

I agree.

 

[ElleElle]

And pooling from being pressed up against a shower wall for 5 days post mortem.

imo Jodi was wearing black socks because it was part of her "ninja outfit".

Not that I am aware of. The dried blood in the photo just looks like blood that continued to ooze post Mortim into the folds of the abdomen to me.

 

[gwenabob]

I've no idea. At least we'll find out very soon. :rocker::rocker: Knowing the DT read here, it's very hard to not put who I don't think should do it as the person who I think should

Listening to either one is like being stabbed in the ears with an ice pick for hours and hours. It's a lose/lose proposition, I tell ya'!

 

[Nali87]

Rewatching Det. Flores interviewing Jodi about the "lost phone" in AZ.

Jodi travelling ALONE, won't stop a car to search for her phone? I thought she was so scared of being alone in the desert for long, that she had to bring gas along so she wouldn't have to stop.

 

[Nali87]

OMG at those graphic photos! Warning please! Or link to them.

 

[dani]

BBM
Agree! Watched a little bit of it last night on NG and found myself laughing out loud, especially the part where she tried to explain what she meant by 'no jury will convict me' - the suicide lie. Hilarious!

The part that I found most chilling, however, was when she described the actual shooting. When the gun went off, she said her first thought was "Oh Crap! Now he's really going to be PISSED!" And then she said she was 'forced' to kill him before he killed her!

IMO, the Defense lost the case with the second sentence in Wilmott's OS..."She (Jodi) was FORCED to kill Travis Alexander"!

BBM: Wow! That just sunk into my skull…"Oh Crap! Now he's really going to be PISSED!" Wasn't she pointing the gun at him because she already feared he would kill her? How much "MORE PISSED" can a guy get than that? :what:

Thanks for pointing that out, Colt.:seeya:

 

[Colt46]

IMO after 4 months of not being able to talk about the case, these jurors are going to want to talk, review their notes, and share their interpretations, sequences of events etc. somewhat like many on WSs have been doing. That will take them a few days at least. MOO.

They definitely have a lot of unwinding to do! Would love to be a fly on the wall. However, I still say they already have their minds made up. It's just going to be a case of 'arguing for the sake of argument'. And, as another poster said upthread - the jury instructions are going to be a slog!

The longer it takes, the more Jodi is going to sweat bullets. Who knows, she could go mad during the process, lol!

 

[gwenabob]

Re the organ donation debate...

What if the person dies in prison and has consented to have all their viable organs donated?

Im sorry but if me or my children are dying and the only way to be saved is a transplant, I do not care where It comes from as long as I/they would get to live.

This is just one of the articles I found

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ations-from-prisoners-nearly-250-sign-up?lite

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I believe a prisoner should have the same right to be an organ donor as someone walking around free. That said, I doubt we would see that many viable organs coming out of prisoners. Many of them have diseases that would make organ donation unsuitable. Many of them are too old when they die. If they die before they are too old, they would need to still be "alive" (beating heart) and have no brain activity. While that could still happens sometimes, I doubt it would be that common. We usually see that sort of thing after terrible car accidents, etc. which prisoners are unlikely to be involved in.

 

[Zuri]

Also, i'm too lazy to look up the autopsy report, but did Dr. Horn note the shoeprint marks?

The one thing I found curious is that the Autopsy Report we are privy to is Redacted. I have read many other autopsy reports and I never thought this one looked complete. Is this normal, when an autopsy report is released to the public, that is initially redacted? If so, why?

 

[rose222]

BBM: Wow! That just sunk into my skull…"Oh Crap! Now he's really going to be PISSED!" Wasn't she pointing the gun at him because she already feared he would kill her? How much "MORE PISSED" can a guy get than that? :what:

Thanks for pointing that out, Colt.:seeya:

That is another laughable piece of her story. Travis was pi$$ed because she shot him. I can almost imagine her BFFs including ALV deeming that to be abusive behaviour on the part of Travis!

And the part about how Travis threatened her life AFTER she shot him and he falls down. Why didn't she just go ahead and say that he threatened her life even after his heart stopped beating.

Laughable, ridiculous story.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Juan Der Full is always prepared , imo.:blushing:

Oh jeez...

from this article... I can just see what stunt the good Doctor G is going to try to pull...:no:

 

[Soulsad]

Doesn't this kind of blow her fog theory right out the window? When KN asks her why she didn't call 911 she says (paraphrase) "I was afraid to call and say what I had just done; afraid of what would happen to me etc.". I watched the trial in real-time and believe I didn't realize she said this. Now I must go and re-watch this another time or two. Thank You !

:seeya:

I've always wondered about that piece of duct that was found.

Remember right after she was arrested, the car rental (Budget?) found a gun stashed very well in the engine compartment? And from what I understood, Arias admitted it was hers. But why was it hidden like that?

Now I am wondering if she duct taped the knife and gun under the chassis or in the engine of her rental car on June 2nd too (with the help of Matt because I don't think Arias is that clever) and that's where the tape came from.

And could she have used duct tape again afterward to secure/hide the weapons out of view after she killed Travis? But here's where I think she met up with Matt. I just can't see how Arias knew how to hide the weapons after killing Travis then how she knew to dispose of them without them ever being found or her, caught!

I do believe she handed off all the items (gun,knife, bloody clothes,) to Matt so he could dispose of everything. I believe she stole Travis' money and perhaps gave some to Matt as retribution...I mean, payment

Who could know how to execute this? It was bad enough someone killed someone else but to have the wherewithal and the calm demeanor afterward (see: Ryan) is mind blogging.
I was really hoping Matt McCartney was on the rebuttal list. Oh well.

I know I've posted this a bunch of times but here's where I think Arias let on that Matt was involved:

"Matt hadn't answered his phone til he was there"

Jodi Arias Trial - What The Hades Does This Mean - YouTube

 

[Boodles]

Jodi claimed she left DB in Monterey and headed for his sister Laura's house in Pasadena "hoping" to take pics of her new baby. Why wasn't Laura called as a witness - by the DT to give Jodi an excuse for making the 5 hr. drive or by JM to prove premeditation? Jodi claimed she called Laura when she arrived in Pasadena and waited around for a response that never came. Maybe she did, especially if DB told her Laura wasn't there. Still, it's odd that Laura remains a mystery when Jodi's route proves premeditation imo.

The fact that she drove all that way for the (according to JA) sole purpose of seeing Laura and the new baby, but never connecting with her, was a pivotal piece of info to me, and I mean a massive "aha" moment. I think Juan needs to make a big point of this. He did not "highlight" this strongly in his CIC or rebuttal.

Who drives 5 hours to see someone without a mutual plan to meet? And when she didn't connect with Laura, she just left after an hour in Pasadena? To me, that proves the Laura story was a sham, that she intended to drive to Mesa all long. it cemented premeditation for me.

As an aside, my two other doubt-erasing "aha" moments were: 1) DB and the gas can testimony; and 2) when after testifying in excruciating detail for so long, the defendant said "and I have huge gaps...fog." I almost fell off the couch in shock!

I started out very neutral and open-minded, and thought it was likely she had been emotionally abused. After finding out she never saw Laura, got gas cans from DB and Wal-mart, and then her memory suddenly stopped short, that sent me not only to guilty, but of first degree premeditation.

 

[Clue Finder 55]

I am hoping that when the juror's deliberate that they understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means.
It does not mean beyond a doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am posting a simplfied version of reasonable doubt so people can understand reasonable doubt.
I borrowed this article from a freindly site and it shows how resonable doubt comes about.


Circumstanial Evidence



Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is essentially observed circumstances from which a valid conclusion can be drawn based on those observed circumstances. For example, one winter evening, just before you go to bed at night, you look out the window and see that the streets are clean.

You wake up in the morning, look out the window and see that the ground is covered with a light dusting of snow. From the observed 'circumstance' you can speculate/consider the following.

a) Someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow

b) If you believe in snow fairies, it could have been that they passed by and covered the ground in snow.

c) It snowed during the night.

d) If you had never seen snow before, you can't figure out what happened during the night to cover the ground with all that white stuff.

Of course, the correct answer is (c). The snow on the ground is evidence, (proof) that it snowed during the night and that conclusion, based on your observations, is just as valid as it would be if you sat up during the night looking out the window and watched the snow fall.

The same applies to the "meteor" example the Dr. used. You didn't see the meteor collide with the ground but the evidence, (the crater it created) left behind is valid circumstantial evidence, (proof) that a meteor landed at that spot at some time before you observed the crater.

That's kind of awkwardly written. Hope it makes the point.


Great explanation of circumstantial evidence.

So for those who think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond any possible doubt", that is like saying (in this example):

"I can't say for sure that it snowed during the night, I did not see it, so maybe answer (a) actually happened (someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow)"

Could someone get a truck and fill it with snow? Yes, that is not impossible
Could someone drive the truck to your street and sprinkle that snow around evenly? Yes, that is not impossible

However, absent some strong, logical evidence to support the "truck with snow" theory, most intelligent people would come to the conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt that there is snow on the ground because it snowed during the night. Is this conclusion beyond ANY doubt? No, it is not, because the truck with snow scenario is not absolutely impossible. But the conclusion can be reached beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard required to reach a guilty verdict.



(So in the Arias case, the fact that Jodi made up a story that is not impossible does not mean the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was premeditated
Thanks

 

[Maryann123]

No, I was never tested at school and was born and raised in the US. To my knowledge, my kids weren't tested either. It may be standard practice in some states, but apparently not in Texas.

You probably did have an IQ test but were never told. I had no idea I was tested in school, but my uncle who was my high school English teacher says I was. After I was married, my mother-in-law was required to take a course that my uncle taught for continuing education. (she was a teacher) They talked about me, and my IQ! First of all, I was young and didn't make a stink about it, but I couldn't help but wonder how they could discuss these things, and how people could know things about me that I didn't even know. I never asked what my IQ was, but evidently my uncle must have been bragging on me. My MIL was a lot nicer to me after that meeting.

 

[Linda From New York]

Forgive me if this was already posted here:

Daniel Freeman. Interesting read!

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...eman-friend-of-arias-and-alexander-speaks-out

 

[MidwestMama]

LOL, love that pic!

It would be so much fun to spar with JM, talk about a delightful way to exercise one's gray matter!! :floorlaugh:

ITA. JM is now added to the proverbial "If you could invite any 5 people to dinner and conversation who would they be?" list. I think it would be fascinating to learn about trials he has done, how he prepares, how the HECK he remembers so much without notes (like the DT), etc.

 

[Boodles]

I sure hope Juan has time to do his homework on this guy!!!

Capital cases challenge psychologists Ban on executing mentally retarded fuels scrutiny of evaluations

By KAREN PATTERSON, The Dallas Morning News Oct. 2003
Along with psychologists Robert Geffner and Elizabeth Lim, Dr. Hart has compared neuropsychological functioning of death penalty offenders to people outside the criminal justice system who had either been exposed to a toxic substance or had suffered a so-called closed head injury, like a concussion. Depending on what measures were used, at least one-quarter, and up to two-thirds, of the 33 death penalty offenders showed signs of neuropsychological impairment, said Dr. Lim, of Eastern Correctional
Institution in Westover, Md.

Yet data on the 33 offenders indicated that perhaps only one would qualify as mentally retarded based on intelligence testing, or IQ, scores alone, said Dr. Geffner, founder and president of the Family Violence & Sexual Assault Institute. A person could have a pretty severe neuropsychological impairment – from a car accident or fall, say – and still score above the cutoff for retardation. "We need to look at brain impairment and not just mental retardation," he said.

Even in looking just at mental retardation, intelligence testing is problematic. Traditionally, people with an IQ score below 70 – about 2.3 percent of the population – are considered mentally retarded, Dr. Price
said. But now, to account for measurement error, a cutoff of 70 to 75 is often used – a range that means twice as many people could be considered retarded.

Oh FFS! AYKM?? I will likely skip Wednesdays surrebuttal. I have reached and exceeded my BS tolerance level! But I will read the eggtreenews blog version of events!