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

[Isabelle]

I do think Travis wanted to win Mimi over. She's a doll and he was handsome. They would have made a beautiful couple and beautiful babies!

 

[Isabelle]

I wonder if anyone on the jury wears glasses? JA is on at least the 3rd pair of different glasses today during this trial. I highly doubt these are prescription. Speaking as an eyeglass wearer myself: I end up paying at least $300 for basic, non-designer frames + non-glare prescription lenses, even shopping the so-called "$99 sales." Because of cost, I wear the same ONE pair for at least 2-3 years. And I make a lot more than a currently unemployed waitress. Considering vision prescriptions last 2 years (at least where I live they do), I would think around 2 years is pretty average for most people to buy new glasses, if not longer. Non-prescription glasses can be bought very cheap though (and subliminally reiterates her fake persona).

In other words, this whole pretending-her-murder-trial-is-a-fashion-show is not going to go over well with jury at all IMO. Even if they stop this charade now, the damage is probably already done on that front. Especially if there is at least one eyeglass wearer on the jury...I would think we are more prone to noticing, since we buy & wear them also...

Dollar Tree $1.00! Mama probably bought Jodi a whole wardrobe of glasses with the money made off of Jodi's artwork!

 

[dgfred]

I wasn't claiming it would. There were many, many folks here who questioned if someone slashed his tires why he didn't call the police - as oceanblueeyes too well knows. But he did.

Oh I know... I was just saying the slashed/stabbed tires will not be relevant.

I am an insurance agent. Vandalism is not covered (and only if you have full coverage) unless you make a police report.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wasn't claiming it would. There were many, many folks here who questioned if someone slashed his tires why he didn't call the police - as oceanblueeyes too well knows. But he did.

I hope in rebutal they have the tire dealer that replaced the slash tires twice. He probably had a personal conversation with Travis about it. Man I hope that was covered under his comprehensive insurance. All four tires can add up to a lot of money.

And enter the police report too. Imo they are going to think it was doggie door Jodi who did it.

IMO

 

[BritsKate]

JMO
I think Jodi really should have just gone with some sort of insanity defense. She easily could have gotten an insanity verdict.

All she had to do was get on the stand in her soft calm voice while calmly explaining in graphic detail how she stabbed him 20+ times repeatedly to try to not make him suffer, and when that did not work then she knew to slice his throat and to really make sure he would not suffer anymore she risked getting caught and fired her weapon all for his benefit.

Then, she would break out in song and not stop singing until the bailiffs drag her away.

Would have been a slam-dunk defense.

Seriously though....an insanity defense seems like it would be a valid defense for her. Something is wrong with her.

In my opinion there is no way she would've won on insanity. Psychopathy isn't the same as psychosis which is more a dx the legal definition of insanity would support.

AZ uses a modified version of the M'Naghten rule. As such it is notoriously difficult to obtain a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. The burden is incredibly high and few defendants ever meet it - especially one with such clear and convincing evidence of both premeditation and collusion. MOO

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/M'Naghten+Rule

 

[TigerBalm]

JMO
I think Jodi really should have just gone with some sort of insanity defense. She easily could have gotten an insanity verdict.

All she had to do was get on the stand in her soft calm voice while calmly explaining in graphic detail how she stabbed him 20+ times repeatedly to try to not make him suffer, and when that did not work then she knew to slice his throat and to really make sure he would not suffer anymore she risked getting caught and fired her weapon all for his benefit.

Then, she would break out in song and not stop singing until the bailiffs drag her away.

Would have been a slam-dunk defense.

Seriously though....an insanity defense seems like it would be a valid defense for her. Something is wrong with her.

:floorlaugh:

With Gus coming from behind the curtain :Banane53: to dance with her.


There is definitely something wrong with her but she knows right from wrong, she isn't legally insane.

 

[kscornfed]

Why did Marcia Clarke become a superstar, she lost the OJ case?

I think the passage of time has helped her, plus some extensive plastic surgery so she looks nothing like THAT Marcia Clark!

:what:

 

[Summerfun]

Because she was good at it.
Or
Because she got a makeover... or several.

Lol!!!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

In my opinion there is no way she would've won on insanity. Psychopathy isn't the same as psychosis which is more a dx the legal definition of insanity would support.

AZ uses a modified version of the M'Naghten rule. As such it is notoriously difficult to obtain a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. The burden is incredibly high and few defendants ever meet it - especially one with such clear and convincing evidence of both premeditation and collusion. MOO

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/M'Naghten+Rule

ITA! The defense would have rather gone this route if they could rather than the ridiculous self defense claim.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She meant to do it and doesnt have one dab of remorse either.

IMO

 

[Hatfield]

Haha, I forgot about that! I think he got to spend a weekend over at Casey's place, didn't he?

I miss the "outburst lady". We need an outburst in this trial before it is over. Any volunteers that dont mind spending a few days behind bars. :floorlaugh:

 

[Karmady]

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

Yes, Sula. I thought of that after I posted but had already corrected in another post

 

[Laceybug]

That's what I thought as one possibility too. You don't tape yourself engaging in consensual phone sex for an innocent reason (I don't think :waitasec. Blackmail or she wanted it as a treasure, I guess.

I am a Cancer. I have NEVER had phone sex tho lol... BUT.. I briefly dated a guy many years ago that had the best voice over the phone. I knew he was still hung up over an ex and I knew it wasn't going to work out ...So one evening I taped a conversation simply to be able to listen to that amazing voice! (He sounded a lot like Sam Elliot) I'm sure JA kept that tape to remember the moment..the feelings of that moment... like a picture in her head...with sound.

Back to JA being a Cancer... Cancers hold on to things from their past. We are very sentimental. While most of our 'trinkets' would mean nothing to anyone else, even a napkin or wrapper saved from a special date means a lot to us. Same goes with pictures. My pictures are my most treasured possessions. Pictures allow us Cancers to hold onto the moment. Pictures don't change... even when he people in them do. :twocents:

 

[LambChop]

Respectfully, link please. My understanding is she started seeing DB when he was recently divorced, therefore he was not "ready to get into a committed relationship" but ended up with her for 4 years.

What was said was that he was her boss and he could not date her. He promoted her to "event planner" (sound familiar) so he was no longer her boss and he started dating her. What I don't get is they are saying he had a 4 year old child when she left him after 4 years of living with him. That means he divorced his wife while she was pregnant. California has a six month waiting period to get divorced. Do the math. Something does not sound right. jmo

 

[Boodles]

CH has not spoken to the prosecutors office in over three years. The first contact recently was this past weekend, as he testified today.

Gus Searcy is a self promoter. He contacted the defense AND the prosecution, MULTIPLE TIMES. It is entirely up to the prosecutors office what evidence they choose to promote at trial. Maybe someone at the prosecutors office checked him out online, saw what a slimy lunatic he seems to be and decided against contacting him. I think that was smart. But, JMO.

I heard the testimony. I think CH likes attention, also. But in fairness, this premise that CH has not spoken with the pros in 3 years is the issue in dispute. Nurmi didn't frame his misconduct argument, so I can only speculate, but it sure seems to be implied that CH was in contact with the pros. I don't have any idea what the truth is, but they're not done with the issue yet - more testimony yet to come. But Juan sure knew a lot today for having "not been told" about the basis for the misconduct allegation.

I really hope Juan didn't do anything stupid to screw up this case! He has so much evidence; I hope he's being straight up.

 

[minor4th]

Okay I have a different take on today.

WHY is Chris Hughes contacting someone who is going to be a(nother) witness in the case? Did he not know that is a big no-no? And where did Skye Hughes get the info about Gus S. being a witness, and why can't she keep her mouth shut (either)?

Yes, Gus is sleazy, but the Hughes are making things worse by gossiping and trying to get info and then passing it along. Making remarks about anyone in the case (including the lawyers) to another potential witness is really stupid. Doesn't matter if their observations about Nurmi are correct or not, it was not their place to instigate contact with Gus S. And they did. And they not only instigated contact, they specifically asked about his being a witness in this case. Not okay.

So I hold the 2 of them (Chris & Skye Hughes) accountable for this cluster****. Isn't it common sense that if you believe you will be a witness in a murder trial you keep your mouth shut? And that means, say nothing to anyone? That's the only way to protect the integrity of a case. Not just when a judge tells you to, but from the beginning. You talk to the police, you talk to the district attorney or whoever is working on the case, and then you shut up about what you know or what you hear for as long as it takes for a legal case to be resolved. If it's years, like this one, then it's years. You say nothing except to the case principals and only when asked. Sheesh.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=8770144

I dont really disagree ..except that I don't know that either Chris or Sky Hughes were on anyone's witness lists.

 

[dgfred]

They dont have to when she is facing the death penalty. Scott Dyleski was doing internet fraud too and it was brought out in his trial but never charged him.......he is doing LWOP.

But the jury certainly can consider it since its in from the witness stand.

And I think they will.

IMO

You miss my point. Or I am not making it well.

I know she likely slashed them, Travis likely knew, his friends likely knew... but I am not sure the jurors will make that connection as positive.

If I were her defense... that issue wouldn't bother me one bit. I would just ask 'was she charged?'

 

[atthelake]

Well since both sides are arguing so much about it, maybe it's significant information. Personally, Gus didn't bother me. I thought he was straightforward and that Juan was acting borderline insulting for no reason ("you're having trouble with English today, aren't you?" and "isn't it true you just want to be in the limelight?") and defensive. I kind of liked Gus getting Juan on asking a "double negative" - Gus was right, the question was poorly worded. Juan needs to smooth his style. (Sorry to rag on your b/f, Madeleine!)

I wish CH would keep his nose out of everybody else's bizness!

Or perhaps he was trying to scare Jody in what to expect from him on cross .

 

[Anita Richman]

Since only two people know for sure how Jodi entered Travis's home that night, and one of them is dead while the other is a liar who is on trial for the murder, then no there is no evidence that Jodi used the garage door code, the doggie door or allowed to enter by Travis himself. We have no evidence as to how she got in.

Unless there is a text from Travis, inviting her over & saying he'd wait up for her.

 

[PASA]

:floorlaugh:, Troy Hayden pissed me off too. He fell for her act, hook, line and sinker. She worked her magic on him.

I'm boycotting him until he comes to his senses.

 

[TorisMom003]

I can not believe that the female defense lawyer did not burst into flames when giving her opening statement. LOTS of lies going on during the opening. It sounds as if Jodi herself wrote it.

MOO