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

[Pensfan]

My question is did anyone hear of this before NG tonight?

Not that I know about. NG, of course, called it "bombshell tonight" like she does way too many things.

 

[katiecoolady]

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:

I am trying so hard not to become that person you have no idea. Whenever I sit in court I feel like I will be overcome with Tourettes and blurt something out and it would not be pretty. Like I do at my screen at home.:blushing:

 

[BritsKate]

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?'

Ironically, iirc, it was the defense that introduced it through Mimi Hall.

Travis never told Mimi it was Jodi who slashed his tires but the jury is able to infer...which is why I was surprised the defense had opened that door. IIRC - geez, the first day of trial seems a couple of years ago now!

 

[Summerfun]

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

:what:

I still remember that Marcia Clark, who was the worst prosecutor ever, and get her off TV!!! She should be under a rock and hiding for what she did.

Sorry off topic, but her opinion is just garbage.

 

[katiecoolady]

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

Such as the T shirt ridiculousness.:banghead:

 

[Sulamith]

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" and with very good vision insurance. 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...

Check out Zenni Optical..I have heard good things about this company. There are reviews on YouTube as well.
http://www.zennioptical.com/#?gclid=CMvL-uPAjLUCFZGiPAodFVwACg

I wear glasses and my friend told me about Zenni..way cheaper than the high mark-up prices of the optician's office.

 

[txbluesman]

Awright, I'm going to go off on a tangent here. Be forewarned, although it is not my intention, this MAY come off to some as being racist and/or biased in some way toward a certain religion. If you think you may be offended, feel free to move along to another post. The opinions expressed below are my own and are not reflective of those of any members of this forum.

I'm going to make some assumptions, some of which may have already been talked about, and reach a POSSIBLE conclusion with which you may or may not agree.

I thought I heard someone say that an interpreter had been called to help one or more jurors understand the proceedings. If this is the case, based on the location of the proceedings, I'm going to assume that this interpreter would be speaking English/Spanish.

If we assume at least one of the jurors is of Hispanic descent and for whom English is not their native language (was it in AZ where a city council person was recently elected who does not speak English?), both attorneys would know this. Thus, I think Mr. Martinez has changed his pronunciation of JA's last name at times to SOUND more Hispanic to "sell" his product to one or more jurors.

Although a stretch, I'm assuming there is at least one person of strong Hispanic heritage on the jury. Give me a little more rope to hang myself with because now I'm going to make another reach. Let's say that this person could have been raised Catholic. Two things we know, 1) Catholicism is the predominant religion in Mexico and 2) there is no death penalty in Mexico.

So, just making generalizations, what does this get us?

PS--I'm currently in Mexico. I have lived here off and on for several years.

 

[TorisMom003]

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

After Jodi's attempt at forging letters in which Travis is portrayed as a pedofile, I would need rock solid proof that the text actually came from Travis. Otherwise there is to much of a chance that it was Jodi sending it herself.

MOO

 

[bobloblaw]

Huge waste


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waste, huge waste! Haha flashbacks.:floorlaugh:

 

[TigerBalm]

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:

I vote katiecoolady, her mugshot photo would be legend! :great:

One for Judge Stevens, one for me. :great:

 

[Boodles]

Haha no no no.. before that starts any rumors.

I expect Madeleine will get this.

Well I know about Cindy and Rosemary but not the other one! Beavers and Zednick were both "butinsky's" in the Jason Young and Bradley Cooper trials, respectively. They claimed to witness things and contacted LE to report them. LE didn't call them back.

 

[JSR]

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.

A insanity defense would have never worked in this case.

You don't drive over 1,000 miles to a victims house, do the extensive clean up, call the victim on the phone to pretend that you never entered AZ, make sure to not purchase anything with a credit card while in AZ, dye your hair while on the trip to said victim's house, make certain to rent a car (and that it's the least suspicious color), turn the license upside down in an attempt to disguise your car, and bring a gun (and possibly knife) with you to said victims house. Not to mention report said gun missing DAYS before you use it to kill the victim.

No, none of that could pass for a woman completely nuts and not in control of what she's doing. The only thing it shows is that it clearly indicates a woman who completely premeditated this murder. She thought long and hard about what and how she wanted Travis to die.

Although on Twitter it's being reported that Jodi agreed to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder but the state said no way. Interesting someone agrees to plead to 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter in what she alleges is a "self defense" killing. Right .... :aktion1::aktion1:

 

[BritsKate]

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

Bouncing off your post...I usually study and follow maternal filicide cases so the best way I have of describing it to others is:

Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates = legally insane
Darlie Routier, Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Casey Anthony = legally sane and criminally responsible (even if the Pinellas dozen disagree )

FWIW a much higher rate of psychotic mothers actually confess to their crimes than non-psychotic mothers.

 

[Karmady]

Awright, I'm going to go off on a tangent here. Be forewarned, although it is not my intention, this MAY come off to some as being racist and/or biased in some way toward a certain religion. If you think you may be offended, feel free to move along to another post. The opinions expressed below are my own and are not reflective of those of any members of this forum.

I'm going to make some assumptions, some of which may have already been talked about, and reach a POSSIBLE conclusion with which you may or may not agree.

I thought I heard someone say that an interpreter had been called to help one or more jurors understand the proceedings. If this is the case, based on the location of the proceedings, I'm going to assume that this interpreter would be speaking English/Spanish.

If we assume at least one of the jurors is of Hispanic descent and for whom English is not their native language (was it in AZ where a city council person was recently elected who does not speak English?), both attorneys would know this. Thus, I think Mr. Martinez has changed his pronunciation of JA's last name at times to SOUND more Hispanic to "sell" his product to one or more jurors.

Although a stretch, I'm assuming there is at least one person of strong Hispanic heritage on the jury. Give me a little more rope to hang myself with because now I'm going to make another reach. Let's say that this person could have been raised Catholic. Two things we know, 1) Catholicism is the predominant language in Mexico and 2) there is no death penalty in Mexico.

So, just making generalizations, what does this get us?

PS--I'm currently in Mexico. I have lived here off and on for several years.

When I went that one day there was one man on the jury that appeared obviously Hispanic. There may have been others, but I noticed that man in particular. He's youngish compared to most of the others.

 

[LambChop]

I don't think it shows self-defense, but it allows a better argument for it. It's far more clearly established that she brought a gun than a knife. So, if she "definitely" brought a gun, and she fake stole the gun in the course of premeditating murder, the obvious question is why didn't she use it? That allows for an argument that something happened to change her plan. Plus, it allows the argument that if whatever it was that happened HADN'T happened, she wouldn't necessarily have tried to kill him with the gun at all, so also leaving open a space for argument on no premeditation. Do I think any of that is likely to persuade the jury? No. But, imo, there's NO chance if she shot him first with the gun she fake stole presumably with the express purpose of killing him with it.

jmo

LOL. This is the same woman who said if she did it she deserves the death penalty. jmo

 

[m00c0w]

That's why it's important to read the facts of the case.

And I was correct.

the ME testimony is in the timeline and media thread.



The dragging picture: ME testified that the blood matches with the throat slash.. he would have been dead or dying here: it was a few minutes into the attack. All the pictures (see time synopsis post with Photos by Harmony) show a blow by blow of what happened when to include what wounds were hemorrhagic (meaning he still had blood left to bleed into them and his heart was pumping).

The pictures will be her downfall as will the testimony of the ME. There is no way to argue around the science of the issue of what killed him and the photos back this up.

But the ME testified that it would be associated with the throat injury, assuming that was TA with all of his injuries. In fact, he said that the head area was too dark to tell if there was any sort of bleeding occurring there. The ME did not assess this all on his own. He was prompted by the prosecutor with a set of constraints.

"If you see the blood coming from the neck area, and you know the injuries, and you assume this is Travis Alexander, which injury would you associate this with?"

It's speculative. There is no substantive factual basis for the assessment.

Furthermore, the ME claims that the throat wound would have immediately incapacitated him and he'd not be able to perform purposeful movement, like holding his arms up... While he later says that TA could still move around, hold his head and arms up, after such an injury when questioned about the photograph. So, which is it?

 

[com n sense]

1) Would you have sex/at least get nude with a person that randomly showed up in your house, uninvited or unannounced? Especially if you were getting serious with another person, and about to take them on a trip out of the country?

2) I don't believe he didn't know she was there, unless you're claiming he never once looked through the clear glass door. I think it's highly probable he knew she was there, and didn't care.

3) Do you believe that the photos of her were magically taken that night?

No one knows what happened that day. I can get a general idea from looking at the pictures though.
How do we know she didn't come with threats or promises if he bedded her one last time?
Maybe he was a sucker for her tears or maybe she is talking about all the abuse she put him through when she made her defence.
The pictures to me show a very unhappy man. There is no smile nor do I see him wanting to be near her. He waves the peace sign in one which tells me she was putting him through the grinder & he was begging for peace.
Just how many pictures did she snap of him that day & there's not one where he looks at peace or happy to see her.

 

[Carol2]

A perfect example is the report that Troy did with her.

An exclusive look at Jodi Arias' life behind bars

 

[Karmady]

LOL. This is the same woman who said if she did it she deserves the death penalty. jmo

Not sure I understand your point. The defense team is clearly going to argue self defense and, therefore, lack of premeditation.

 

[Curious Me]

Real abused woman caller on Dr.D seems to see her abusive husband in Jodi. Her ex came back after they'd been separated three yrs. and hit her with his truck disabling her for life.

Jose Baez, the fluke expert, mumbled something about we'll have to see what defense presents. He didn't say anything brilliant, that's for sure.