The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #14 *ADULT CONTENT*

[oceanblueeyes]

It may very well be that she did do that. But I don't think we're going to hear much more about it other than, possibly, to support the possibility that it was someone other than her (the girl's ex?). And even if that doesn't work out, there's no way, imo, that there will be proof that she did it and certainly not to prove that she carried that knife with her the night she killed Travis and used it for that purpose. The jury could infer it, sure. But, imo, no way can the prosecution prove it. The gun is much, much stronger, imo, and I don't think the prosecution even put any affirmative evidence on about where the knife came from. Maybe I missed it, though.

This is a circumstantial case.......the tire slashing came from the witness stand so its in. The jury can take the overall behavior of JA and indeed believe she was the tire slasher.......account hacker and stalker.

To infer is what circumstantial cases are all about. It is taking one set of facts and linking them with other CE facts.

IMO

 

[GobBluth]

Granted she says this is if she was "wrongly convicted", but nevertheless Jodi WANTS the death penalty as opposed to spending her life in prison - go to 40:56 on this video

Picture Perfect: The trial of Jodi Arias - 48 Hours - CBS News

OMG, Sleuth13, I can't get this to play, but I'm going to try on a newer computer. I have been trying to find this for WEEKS and WEEKS!! :great:

ETA: OK, this was a new ep, but it still showed clips from the last one, so thanks Sleuth13! I have no idea how I missed this, lol.

 

[BritsKate]

Everyone knows now that it was announced on the NG show. I still don't understand why this jury isn't sequestered.

To avoid another Casey Anthony verdict? I think sequestration depends on many factors - some of which legal professors and experts argue greatly outweigh any of its benefits.

I for one believe the sequestration in the Anthony case worked against the prosecution. Those jurors appeared to just have wanted it over with already.

http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_privacy_sequester.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/05/nyregion/compulsory-jury-seclusion-new-york-benefit-or-waste.html
http://www.law.wisc.edu/blogs/wisblawg/2004/11/legal_research_report_jury_seq.html

 

[Karmady]

Can you imagine if some young lady, perhaps your daughter, was murdered by Jodi because she thought Travis was seriously dating her?

I honestly see that happening with Jodi in how she felt Travis was officially hers and was possessive of him in the company of others.

Is this directed at me? Can't tell, but since it's right after mine I think, I'll answer as though it were. Honestly, it doesn't matter at all to me if I can imagine that. "It could have been my [insert family member/friend]" generally doesn't effect my take on any particular situation, including this one. If I personalized every egregious thing I've ever seen or heard about I'd be rocking in a corner 24/7.


If the question is do I think she might do that, the answer is I have no idea.

 

[Madeleine74]

Mimi was very clear with Travis (according to her sworn testimony) that she was not interested romantically in Travis, told him so, and said they would only be friends. When Travis invited her to Cancun before she accepted she again made sure he understood there was nothing romantic about her going and she would only go as a friend, nothing more.

Travis may have continued to harbor feelings for Mimi, but they were not dating, she was not interested in him romantically, and that's the sworn testimony. Anything else is pure speculation...fiction.

 

[Pensfan]

Has anyone heard of this before? I am following this case like it is my full time job, but this is the first I have heard of this. Did I miss something?

NG announced tonight that Jodi's attorney stated Jodi would plead guilty to second degree murder. The prosecution wasn't interested.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Agree. I read your post to suggest that Travis was NOT serious about Mimi. My bad if I misinterpreted it.

Same with the doggie door. I interpreted your post as stating it as established fact.

No, just my opinion. I wasn't there. But his roommates said she went through the doggie door often and some of his friends said they had the garage door code and I bet she sure did, since she had his pin number and other access to things.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She didn't hide this fact from her brother or sister-in-law. She went back to her brother's house in Redding to take a nap, and her sister-in-law took her to rent the car. Then she went to see friends in Santa Cruz/Monterey with the rental car. It doesn't seem to me, now, that she was hiding it.

Now whether she did not want the car to be recognized in AZ is a separate question, and that's certainly possible.

BBM

And that is the most relevant part imo. If she didnt hide from her friends then why try to hide the fact that she was in Az..the very state she went to and murdered her ex?

IMO

 

[TorisMom003]

She didn't hide this fact from her brother or sister-in-law. She went back to her brother's house in Redding to take a nap, and her sister-in-law took her to rent the car. Then she went to see friends in Santa Cruz/Monterey with the rental car. It doesn't seem to me, now, that she was hiding it.

Now whether she did not want the car to be recognized in AZ is a separate question, and that's certainly possible.

Has the brother or sister-in-law said that those things actually happened? Or is that information coming from Jodi?

Also, the information about DB, did you get that from the defense's opening statement? If so, that also came from Jodi and IMO is not to be viewed as truthfull.

 

[Anita Richman]

Sheila represented herself! Which Jodi also tried a couple of years ago (would love the back story on how that changed).

She tried to get some evidence in, which the PT objected to and won. She told the judge "she was in over her head".

 

[Love Never Fails]

I thought it was Lisa Andrews Daidone that would not get serious with Travis until he dealt with Jodi.

Not sure JA needed to crawl in through the doggie door. I remember reading in Det. Flores' report that one of the roommates, Zach, said the front door was never locked. See pg. 7

http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/floresinvestigationreport.pdf

Oh that is true. I remember that. How sad.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No, just my opinion. I wasn't there. But his roommates said she went through the doggie door often and some of his friends said they had the garage door code and I bet she sure did, since she had his pin number and other access to things.

They said Travis would come out of his bedroom and find her asleep on the sofa where she had sneaked in.

She really is bizarre......its like some horror film.

 

[TigerBalm]

They all have names that are also euphemistic terms? :floor laugh:

:floorlaugh:

All defense witnesses who injected themselves into a trial and provided faulty "eyewitness" testimony that backed up the defendant. I remember Rosa Lopez well from the OJ trial.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!!

Very fitting, you win this! ::goldcrown:



Gus Searcy - injected himself into this case
Cindy Beaver - injected herself into Jason Young case
Rosemary Zednick - injected herself into Brad Cooper case
Rosa Lopez - injected herself into OJ Simpson case

 

[BritsKate]

This is a circumstantial case.......the tire slashing came from the witness stand so its in. The jury can take the overall behavior of JA and indeed believe she was the tire slasher.......account hacker and stalker.

To infer is what circumstantial cases are all about. It is taking one set of facts and linking them with other CE facts.

IMO

And there is some record of the tire slashing. While no official police report was filed (because Travis and Lisa waited hours with no response) an incident report was filed with the caller's name, address and the reason necessitating law enforcement.

Not that it points directly to Arias obviously...but I was still surprised to see it mentioned in Flores' supplemental report. (That thing is a gold mine for info!)

 

[oceanblueeyes]

She tried to get some evidence in, which the PT objected to and won. She told the judge "she was in over her head".

Isnt this when she forged the letters she tried to say were written by Travis. Seems like I remember in the hearing they had a handwriting expert testify that they were forged and that is when she told the Judge she was in over her head.

 

[Pensfan]

Oh gawd. Baez is on the Dr. Drew show discussing what Jodi Arias has to do to win.....as if he is a wonderful competent attorney.

 

[Laceybug]

QUOTE=Linda From New York;8770411]Looking forward to "watching" the trial and chatting about it tomorrow, here.

If no one minds that this "newcomer" joins in! I was always a lurker here. (I loved watching and live chattting over at the Hinky Meter during the Anthony trial!). It's nice to have people to talk to while watching!

Good night to all![/QUOTE]

Buckle up... it might be a bumpy week! Been waiting forever for tomorrow!!


:Welcome1:

 

[dgfred]

Has there been any talk of the small rope that you can see in the pic of the hair/blood/etc ?

 

[Karmady]

This is a circumstantial case.......the tire slashing came from the witness stand so its in. The jury can take the overall behavior of JA and indeed believe she was the tire slasher.......account hacker and stalker.

To infer is what circumstantial cases are all about. It is taking one set of facts and linking them with other CE facts.

IMO

I believe that's what I said. The jury could possibly infer it, but the State can't prove it. And certainly not that she did it with a knife that she also carried with her to Travis's house and used it to kill him on a completely separate occasion a significant period of time later.

As far as it being a circumstantial case, not so much, imo. But that's neither here nor there for purposes of the tire slashing issue I don't think.

 

[Carol2]

You dont need a tripod to use a timer or remote. One of our granddaughters is a professional photographer and she can set a camera up just about anywhere and then be in the photo and it looks like someone else had to take the photo.

In the scenario with your granddaughter that you describe above, the use of the timer would then show up in the EXIF data. (The use of a tripod never shows up in EXIF data because it is not an internal camera setting. It is where the camera is "setting", LOL!)