State rests rebuttal case- thread #165

[InALandFarFarAway]

Going out on a limb and predicting if the jury gets the case right after lunch on Friday, verdict will be M1 by end of day

*crosses fingers*

We just need to send that wish out into the universe and allow the positive vibrational levels to become negative rays aimed at Jodi's merciless crime. Let the Law of Attraction allow her to reap what she has sown in record time.

 

[Zuri]

I hope, in the back of the juror's minds, that they think of public safety if JA is acquitted and allowed to walk. I know. They are only supposed to look at the facts of the case. JA will kill again. She is an enormous threat to others. IMO

 

[Hat]

Going out on a limb and predicting if the jury gets the case right after lunch on Friday, verdict will be M1 by end of day

They could decide in the passageway to jury room and never even sit down. Could be a show of hands in the hallway and back in 2 minutes.

 

[Arishia]

OK, but it doesn't show going thru a skull first so...

So, the only difference is the energy transfer to the bone, and the shape of the projectile in the gel. The bullet had a given energy when it met Mr. Alexander, and essentially all that energy was transferred to his head and brain. That energy was sufficient to penetrate the skull, pass through the brain with enough energy left to then penetrate the bone at the base of the skull, and eventually embed itself in the bone called the maxilla... I don't really want to give a physics lesson on WS, but perhaps someone else would. It passed through his brain with sufficient energy to cause cavitation, which is what the bullet tract in the video is showing, as well as cause the damaging 'movement waves' throughout his brain.
imho

 

[Linda7NJ]

Linda7, understand if you don't feel comfortable answering this question. Do you happen to live in Maryland?

Nope.. New Jersey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

I believe Jodi should pay for her crime, don't get me wrong. But I don't believe everything Chris Hughes says, for example, I don't believe his and his wife's email were taken out of context. If Juan could have done something about what was said in the email to turn it around, he would have. All Juan could do was to try to get as many objections in as possible. It is understandable that Chris Hughes doesn't want any excuses for Jodi and does not want to help the person who murdered his friend in cold blood. I think that the Hughes really believed that Travis was a womanizer, in context or not. They were warning Jodi about Travis' past, that can't be taken out of context. I know we want justice for a cold-blooded murder but the truth is the truth. Whether this will make a difference, maybe in the sentencing phase. I don't defend murderers or liars.

Also it depends on a person's own perceptions of what's "right" and "wrong." There is no doubt he considered Travis a good friend, but you can be friends with someone and not agree with everything they do. Chris was already married with kids, I don't know he and Sky's history, but I'm assuming they got married young and didn't date a lot of people before. He was at one point in his life, and Travis was at a different point...he was married doing the married thing, Travis was single doing the single thing. Sometimes people in these two different statuses can't really understand the other. But obviously it wasn't a big deal to them, they were still very good friends.

I don't understand why people think it's so strange that a young, successful, outgoing man would flirt with women and flirt with as many women as will flirt back with them. I think this is just normal behavior. Even the sexual jokes on text message is normal for young single guys. There are married guys who do the same thing...which is worse? I can't believe the defense is trying to paint Travis in this light. He did nothing wrong...even if he had been having sex with a couple of the women at the same time (which he wasn't), there are many guys who do that, and he was not married so who is anyone to judge that that would be anything wrong?

I want to really scream at the defense when they bring up Travis flirting and how this went against his religion, etc...I just want to say, "it was HIS religion, it was HIS life." If it was going against his "moral code," then it's HIS OWN MORAL CODE, not anyone else's. What I'm saying is that if there was a conflict b/w what he believed and what he was doing, then it was HIS OWN INTERNAL CONFLICT. I don't see how that would affect anyone except him, so I'm not seeing the big deal in that. Hopefully the jury will see this.

 

[Whack A Mole]

Morning happy people! Has anyone actually seen what this is yet?

4/29/2013 LOW - List Of Witnesses/Exhibit/Evidence 4/30/2013
NOTE: STATE'S SEVENTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF WITNESSES

 

[JayB12]

Who was the guy sitting behind Travis's family during JM's opening statements...the one who seemingly was mouthing words or muttering to himself?

 

[Lilly12]

This is O/T, can someone tell me how to put a signature line at the bottom of my page. I think that is what it is called.
I want to put--Within your heart, keep one still, secret spot where dreams may go. Thanks!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

His rebuttal is done. He gets to cross their witness but that's it. All that's left is closing arguments.

Not if he gets this extra witness..

 

[dani]

I always start from my bedroom and never seem to make it to the back which is the kitchen :floorlaugh:
I went zig zagging about this time so I did ones I missed

Sent from my 'alternate reality' using my hippocampus

I think I may be 'obsessive compulsive' or maybe there is some truth to the thing about 'old dogs and new tricks'. I just can't seem to break my routine. :blushing:

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Has it been established beyond doubt that JS added the lesser charges the DT wanted?
We never even heard the outcome of the surrebuttal decision on JS's part, until the later motions were filed. Isn't it customary to document JS's decisions?
Seems she does many many things out of the eyes of the public.

 

[ElleElle]

OMG... that would be awesome! :rockon:

We would have a big arty:.

Going out on a limb and predicting if the jury gets the case right after lunch on Friday, verdict will be M1 by end of day

 

[Celeskitty]

Not if he gets this extra witness..

I believe that's for the penalty phase (aggravating circumstance).

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sorry all, I was being a little facetious when I meant "she would walk". However, given the highly public nature of this trial, having a hung jury or mistrial would be disastrous. Getting an impartial jury smarter than a pack of orangutans for a retrial would be a tough undertaking at this point IMO.

That's what they said about Phil Spector and the Melendez Brothers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElleElle]

Any news on the DT's second sub-rebuttal witness motion? tia

 

[bznbear]

I understand what you're saying, but I DO believe that LE have to be very strategic and careful in their "interviews" .. they have to be careful about being perceived as "coehersing" a statement etc. That's the last thing they need on the record ... gives too much toward the accused case.

Not good at explaining this or even understanding the legalities, but I think the interviews were conducted in a very intelligent and strategic way. It was very frustrating for me to watch because I just wanted to blurt out some obvious stuff (questions) ... but ... because she didn't have an attorney .. they had to be careful and not make it seem like they were "forcing" her into a confession. I dunno .. just my opinion ... but I think they did it right. Cuz there is nothing that the defense can derive from these videos to use in their case .. like a cohersed (sp) confession.

At one point she even said something like, "well if I just confessed right now, would it help my case?" ... Flores said something along the lines that we don't want you to do that, if that's not true" ... can't quite remember.

Ha, I love "coehersed"! Rehearsed+coerced - perfect!!!

 

[princesspjs]

Do we know if the judge is going to allow the new Dr to testify and rebut Dr Horn's testimony?

According to the description of what neuropsychology is, wouldn't his "expertise" limit his testimony only to how Travis would feel emotionally after Jodi fired a bullet into his frontal lobe? I don't remember Dr Horn testifying to any emotional distress that Travis endured so what is there to rebut?

Does the DT think that just because the word has NEURO in it that he can testify to anything having to do with the brain? Please someone tell me that the judge will not allow any other type of testimony to come from him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology studies the structure and function of the brain as they relate to specific psychological processes and behaviors.

ETA: Aren't psychological processes and behaviors all internal brain activity with nothing to do with mobility, limb function, etc.???

 

[dani]

This is O/T, can someone tell me how to put a signature line at the bottom of my page. I think that is what it is called.
I want to put--Within your heart, keep one still, secret spot where dreams may go. Thanks!!

At the top of the page, in the blue bar, click on "User CP". Scroll down to "Edit Signature".

 

[Hopeful One]

I may have to saw off my bedroom! When there IS a break in the trial, I start cleaning in the living room and work towards the back of the house. I don't seem to make it to my bedroom by the time the trial starts again.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

My bedroom is my little cave where I go to watch all things trial-related if my kids or my husband have the TV in the living room. The thing is a disaster area because I don't move other than to use the remote and get on WS via my ipad. :blushing: