State rests rebuttal case- thread #166

Status
Not open for further replies.
I sooo wish Juan would have asked Jodi, " it's true that you were the worst thing to ever happen to Travis, right?"

ETA: correction, Juan said it to ALV, not Jodi (thanks to the poster who pointed that out)
He did! And Nurmi about busted an ankle jumping out of the chair to object!
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
Did I hear this correctly?....One of the female panel members was complimenting her and said she looked like a mermaid?

Hahahaha! I must have missed that. Mermaid with the **** scared out of her.

:offtobed: Because ....I want to hang out with you all tomorrow!
 
Karmady, could you direct me to this link. TIA

The pedo letters were basically TRASHED as forged. Nothing to look at, move along. They were not allowed in trial. The DT didn't even try to sneak them in. Here is CH's testimony in the evidentiary hearing at about 1:24:

[video=youtube;_qVnAogvSzw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qVnAogvSzw[/video]

Nurmi is lucky that JM had his own reasons for not wanting to call CH to the stand. It was quite clear that the DT had played dirty and that CH would have said as much had he been called.

moo
 
I could be wrong but didn't Juan play the recording in court of JA talking to Flores about Travis never owned a gun. His only weapons would be his bare hands ...he wrestled - something to that affect ?

Yes he did. He played two, IIRC. One from the interrogation and one from when Jodi called Flores.
 
What was her name again? I'm asking because I've seen the lists and I don't think she was named as a surrebuttal witness, but just a regular witness a long time ago. My feeling was that her current job had nothing to do with her potential testimony. But I've seen a lot of speculation about that, so maybe others know for a fact that fraud was to be her topic?
Suzie Dittman was on the State's rebuttal witness list.
 
Thanks. You just have pull yourself up, and go on. It took me awhile to even attempt that, but I did eventually.

Thank God your Mom has you to be there for her. Losing a child, no matter the age, is the hardest thing I could ever imagine. And a tragic loss that's just unspeakable. My hugs to you and your family.
 
I sooo wish Juan would have asked Jodi, " it's true that you were the worst thing to ever happen to Travis, right?"

He got to say it to ALV....

4:45 p.m. ET: LaViolette and Martinez begin talking over one another after he asks her if she can read into the meaning behind things. The judge tells them to go one at a time.

4:43 p.m. ET: "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me," said one of the text messages.

"And that is true in this case, isn't it?" asked Martinez. The defense objected and the attorneys went to a sidebar.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/10/did-arias-expert-intentionally-ignore-stalking-evidence
 
Sky Hughes said that Travis stated that he couldn't break up with Jodi because she would commit suicide.

God it really is a shame the jury can't hear all this.

Take note ALV. Who was the one "emotionally terrorizing" the other?
 
Thank God your Mom has you to be there for her. Losing a child, no matter the age, is the hardest thing I could ever imagine. And a tragic loss that's just unspeakable. My hugs to you and your family.

Thank you. Does it make sense that I was really really angry with my sister for a looooooooooong time, for leaving me in this pain in the butt world, by myself?
 
In order to successfully argue self defense justification in AZ two things must be present:



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


>snipped for space<

Are you quoting the 2011-12 A.R.S. or 2008-09? From my experience, the Prosecutor uses the laws that were in place during the time of the crime.....ok, just pulled my copy of 2008-2009 off the bookshelf.......am going to check it out cause I know there was some changes............:truce:
 
...<snipped> but I wonder why TA did not have one of his brothers or sisters names as his executor. Actually, I think it was TMI to have even heard that CH was TA's executor.

1.
Sometimes a person designates an executor other than a family member, to prevent bruised feelings in the family (if more than one thinks of themselves as a good candidate for being the exec'r).
In other situations, none of the family members want to be the exec'r.

2. TMI??? that Chris was the exec'r of TA's estate?
Although not be something you or others in his shoes would bring up in a media interview, it's a matter of public record (I believe in any state in the union). Personally, I'm not inclined to check, but people could.
A while back I checked county property records showing his house was held in his single name (his alone, not joint, not a trust) so presumably there should have been a probate/estate case opened in Maricopa co after his death.
Identity of exec'r is not a secret.:twocents:
 
Doesn't anyone find it strange that NO ONE on MSM has even ever mentioned MM and his potential role in all of this? I do. WTH is that all about? Does not one of the shows have the investigative hoopla to even mention this???

Pffttt...

moo
 
Appeal or no appeal. JA can pay for it with her art funds.

This whole issue of reducing the possibility of appeal is starting to get on my nerves. Does a judge really want to do everything possible to avoid appeals at the cost of justice being carried out and served? Where does one draw the line? An appeal is an appeal. It's not a "get out of jail free" card to quote a very shady witness. It's not an easy process either. So, maybe there are some fine lines that the judge also needs to consider. Maybe an appeal or two will go through but they don't necessarily mean that someone who is found guilty will automatically get a second chance.

A sur-rebutal on a sur-rebutal for something that really does NOT speak to innocence
or guilt is silly at this point.

She should deny both now and just get on with closing arguments.

moo
 
Reminder: NO OFF COLOR OR SEXUAL JOKES PLEASE
This has been repeatedly posted, please post responsibly if you want to participate during the presentation of closing arguments.
 
Not to make light of this tragedy, and it IS late, so I'm not fully responsible for anything I write here.... I would have LOVED to have seen this trial if JA would have continued to represent herself. O. M. G. Can you even imagine? If we think we're addicted to this now, imagine this dog and pony show if she proceeded pro se? JA vs. JM..... In all seriousness, though, that's how narcissistic she is. She is facing murder charges...oh sure...I'll just represent myself! SMH here....
She wanted to star in the JA Show, not be a supporting cast member. Having to sit at the table probably drives her batty.
 
I'm sure it would have been in regard to particular testimony that was untrue, thus would constitute perjury. So, yes, Juan may have said if MM perjured himself he would pursue it. Sounds OK to me.

It may be in regard to the coded message to MM that he'd better come in and change his story because whatever he said contradicted what Jodi had already said.

Or maybe just in regard to the forged letters which he apparently was also somehow involved with.

Whatever MM was planning to say for Jodi I'd pretty much bet it was a lie.


Juan threatened a witness with a perjury charge if he testified at trial -- in those words?! yikes
 
Karmody, As to the forged pedoph. letters....I would not put it past JA to have done that dirty deed. She probably forged them just like her drawings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
481
Total visitors
630

Forum statistics

Threads
627,026
Messages
18,536,760
Members
241,167
Latest member
d3c4y
Back
Top