The state Rests in The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #11

[katiecoolady]

i don't know why the defense would make such an issue of it if they weren't going to call an expert to refute it.

but it seems to me it sort of diminishes the self defense claim too because if he was disabled by a bullet or a stab wound either one, she had the opportunity to RUN AWAY!!!!!

Yeah, she sure did. While he was RUNNING AWAY from HER.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

martinez argued that because the gun came last - after he was dead - that constitutes extreme cruelty, so she can get the death penalty

No matter how fast I read, I get farther and father behind! Please excuse me if somebody already posted this idea.

IIRC Flores testimony, he said he misunderstood what the ME had said about the bullet coming first.

The ME testified that the shot was probably last because from the angle of the shot from the forehead above the right brow, the bullet had to pierce the frontal lobe because, in young people, the frontal lobe is flush up against the skull. He said that the bullet would have incapacitated Travis or rendered him unconscious.

Then, Nurmi called for a mistrial, stating that the prosecution had changed the sequence. Somehow, by changing the sequence made null the argument of the crime being heinous and cruel.

Let's remember, Duncan, the first judge, ruled that the bullet being first (based on Flores' "mistake"), made the crime heinous and cruel.

Nurmi argued that if the bullet was last, the crime was not heinous and cruel, effectively removing the death penalty.

I recall this well because I kept thinking to myself that a bullet wound through the frontal lobe first was heinous and cruel while stabbing the victim 27 times and slitting his throat was LESS cruel? It made no sense to me at the time and it still makes no sense to me now.

The judge ruled that either way the sequence occurred, the crime WAS heinous and cruel. Thank you, Judge Stephens.

BTW, it turned out that the ME never listed sequence in his report and Nurmi didn't ask about him in his deposition/interview prior to trial. Also, the prosecution never mentioned sequence either.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure some great sleuthers here will be able to straighten my memories!

 

[danzn16]

Have they found any pictures of her in those sweatpants/trackpants that match the dragging picture?

 

[katiecoolady]

Below is a picture of kerosene sold at Walmart. This is not a substitute for gasoline but a fuel used for certain outdoors/camping equipment such as heaters, cook tops and lanterns. This is the largest size they have, and it's approximately one gallon. It cannot be used as a gasoline alternative but can be used as an accelerant to start or fuel a burning fire.

IMO she bought the kerosene to burn her clothes and other murder items. We have not heard that the kerosene was recovered in subsequent searches -- because it was used presumably, probably in the desert that she drove to after her murderous rampage.

Wow, I wonder if one day someone will come upon *that* scene.

 

[LambChop]

He doesn't sit there the entire time, but at least when I was there, he was there most of the time. The rest of the witnesses sat in the hall while they wait, and never at counsel table that I saw. For example, the fingerprint witness testified 2 or 3x the day I was there, and she waited in the hall in between. As did Heather Conner. In fact, it was Flores who went out to fetch them back a couple of times.

I'm sure he assisted the prosecutor while he was sitting there. No reason for him to leave as no one else sits with Juan at the table. He is alone. Flores is the chief investigator and they wouldn't want "misconduct" charges by JA's family members, now would we when a witness out in the hall asked Mr. Flores how his day was going?

I believe the State is being very careful. The State does not seat witnesses at the table with them. jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

it is going to be terrible.. I just have a feeling after hearing the opening statement by the defense.


I seriously don't know how Travis' sisters will be able to keep themselves from going over that little wood partition either.

So the female atty (I don't even know her name) did the opening and Nurmi has done most of the cross. Do we think the female will handle most of their CIC? Then bring back Nurmi to cross during rebuttal? To me it's just so distasteful that a woman would float this horrific theory of abuse. And that apparently she's calling female abuse experts to back it up. What is wrong with these people? Seriously? What is wrong with them??? Is it all $$$$$$$$$$$$$????????????

 

[minor4th]

Uggg I hope they dont have someone like Dr. Spitz who will say anything for the bucks.

Juan accomplished what he wanted out of the last witness and that was she really didnt know Jodi Arias at all. All she saw and knew was what Jodi wanted her to see.......psychopaths are chamelions and adapt very well. They only let you see what they want you to see.......not what is really behind the mask.

IMO

Unlike most people who have commented on it, I think the last witness was the perfect way to end their case in chief and put the jurors in a particular frame of mind as they begin hearing the defense case and possibly hear from Jodi herself.

In her jailhouse interviews Jodi does come across as soft spoken and gentle and even meek (unlike her police interrogations). She is of small stature as well, and if you just saw her and listened to her without knowing about Travis' murder, you would not think she would be a vicious brutal murderer.

I think the prosecution wanted to make sure the jury had some reference to keep in mind that her outward appearance that she chooses to present to the world is just that -- a portrayal -- but underneath the surface is a Jodi that no one knew because she kept it hidden

 

[callyn]

Is it possible that she did shoot him first, say when he was seated in the shower, and that he was unconscious for a while? Her gun jammed so she only gets off one shot. But he's taking too long to die so she knifes him in the chest which bled profusely and washed conveniently down the shower. She sits/leans on the sink trying to figure out what to do next. He wakes up after a few minutes and runs toward her. He is weak, confused, and probably with diminished eyesight (at least in the right eye). She easily evades him. He is unsteady and leans on the sink and coughs out the blood spray. She gets behind him and sets about the business of giving him the remaining 26 stab wounds, which continues as he crawls down the hall. He finally collapses at the end of the hall but still manages to scream for help. At this point she's in a state of frenzy, fury and adrenalin. She cuts his throat to shut him up and end the crisis. Then back to the shower to wash him off.

So what looks like overkill in retrospect isn't. She wanted to shoot him dead in the shower but her gun jammed and he wasn't dying from the one shot. She thought the chest stab was just insurance to finish the job. But he wakes up and she does what she needs to do to finish the job. The whole scene from when he wakes up to her cutting his throat takes less than 30 seconds.

bbm
Not enough time passes between the photograph of him in shower - eyes, face pic - and the photo of her dragging him, dead or close to it, down the hall for this scenario. IMO

 

[Karmady]

i don't know why the defense would make such an issue of it if they weren't going to call an expert to refute it.

When the defense made a big deal about it, it was on the issue of dp qualification. Now that the judge has ruled that the case is dp eligible regardless of which came first, the defense may re-evaluate its strategy.

but it seems to me it sort of diminishes the self defense claim too because if he was disabled by a bullet or a stab wound either one, she had the opportunity to RUN AWAY!!!!!

I agree there's no good self-defense strategy. My point went to premeditation, not self-defense. I've always thought the better defense here would have been heat of passion if I had to pick between the two. jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

When the defense made a big deal about it, it was on the issue of dp qualification. Now that the judge has ruled that the case is dp eligible regardless of which came first, the defense may re-evaluate its strategy.




I agree there's no good self-defense strategy. My point went to premeditation, not self-defense. I've always thought the better defense here would have been heat of passion if I had to pick between the two. jmo

Me too. And once she's convicted and her first line of appeal is ineffective counsel, they will argue that too. "Mark my words" (ugh)

 

[minor4th]

Detective Flores is playing second chair in this trial. He knows probably as much about the case as Martinez at this point.

Seems that is the case. I have just never seen a witness sit at counsel table like that, and it wouldn't be allowed where I live.

I also think it's very unusual that the prosecutor has no second chair in a death penalty case, but Martinez is obviously very well prepared and handling all of the technology and exhibits just fine.

 

[katiecoolady]

Hey does anyone know if the parts of the media interviews she did that were NOT used can still be used in trial? 48 Hrs. , Inside Edition, her local press conference?

 

[katiecoolady]

Seems that is the case. I have just never seen a witness sit at counsel table like that, and it wouldn't be allowed where I live.

I also think it's very unusual that the prosecutor has no second chair in a death penalty case, but Martinez is obviously very well prepared and handling all of the technology and exhibits just fine.

From my sources (one of my friends is a retired prosecutor who's office was right next to his) he prefers working as a "lone wolf". I've seen other trials in AZ where the lead investigator is second chair. So I guess it's usual for AZ. But yeah it's not for other places.

 

[minor4th]

Hey does anyone know if the parts of the media interviews she did that were NOT used can still be used in trial? 48 Hrs. , Inside Edition, her local press conference?

They could be used if there was anything of evidentiary value. Apparently both the prosecution and defense subpoenaed all of the footage from 48 Hours. This wold be rebuttal evidence for the prosecution - after Jodi spins her self defense tale.

 

[LambChop]

Have they found any pictures of her in those sweatpants/trackpants that match the dragging picture?

I don't think so but there is a picture of her wearing (shown last night on 48 hours) a purple t-shirt like the one found in the washer minus the bleach marks. jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

They could be used if there was anything of evidentiary value. Apparently both the prosecution and defense subpoenaed all of the footage from 48 Hours. This wold be rebuttal evidence for the prosecution - after Jodi spins her self defense tale.

Maybe In Session could get a hold of those out takes to keep us interested in the trial during this hiatus.

 

[minor4th]

From my sources (one of my friends is a retired prosecutor who's office was right next to his) he prefers working as a "lone wolf". I've seen other trials in AZ where the lead investigator is second chair. So I guess it's usual for AZ. But yeah it's not for other places.

I could totally see why a prosecutor would want to have the lead investigator there with him. Like you said, who knows more about the case?

I have a couple of problems with it though: 1. It kind of gives Flores the cloak of being an advocate, as opposed to a neutral investigator of facts; and 2. His testimony could be affected by listening to other witnesses.

I think there's a good reason to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while other witnesses are giving their testimony, but apparently the Arizona legislature doesn't agree with me on this lol

 

[LambChop]

Seems that is the case. I have just never seen a witness sit at counsel table like that, and it wouldn't be allowed where I live.

I also think it's very unusual that the prosecutor has no second chair in a death penalty case, but Martinez is obviously very well prepared and handling all of the technology and exhibits just fine.

He is not just a witness but the lead investigator. I have seen it in other cases from other states. Depends on who the lead prosecutor wants sitting next to him. If it were not okay the judge would have expressed her issues, along with defense. Also if the State needs something, hearing it first hand would allow Flores to leave and return with information for the State's rebuttal of a witness. jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

I could totally see why a prosecutor would want to have the lead investigator there with him. Like you said, who knows more about the case?

I have a couple of problems with it though: 1. It kind of gives Flores the cloak of being an advocate, as opposed to a neutral investigator of facts; and 2. His testimony could be affected by listening to other witnesses.

I think there's a good reason to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while other witnesses are giving their testimony, but apparently the Arizona legislature doesn't agree with me on this lol

In AZ victims are precluded from "the Rule" as they call it (keeping witnesses out of the courtroom until they've testified and been released). So I guess lead investigators also are included in that.

Hey are the opening statements online anywhere? I never saw them and would like to.

 

[minor4th]

In AZ victims are precluded from "the Rule" as they call it (keeping witnesses out of the courtroom until they've testified and been released). So I guess lead investigators also are included in that.

Hey are the opening statements online anywhere? I never saw them and would like to.

You can listen to them here, but I have not seen a transcript:

[video=youtube;Ip7EN8uoD-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7EN8uoD-Q[/video]