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

[norest4thewicked]

Whew...reading like a crazy person and still not able to keep up. I give up! I will just start from here...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

I dont think you can rely on that. They were all asked if they could apply the death penalty so this is a death penalty qualified jury.

I remember in Joseph Smith's case when he raped and murdered Carlie Brucia the foreman on the jury was a Minister. He and the others voted for the death penalty.

IMO

 

[TigerBalm]

While listening to the defense attorneys in court, I said I would rather listen to Baez.... I lied. :doh:

 

[JSR]

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.

BBM.

Are any of us surprised? I'm not.

 

[txbluesman]

I dont think you can rely on that. They were all asked if they could apply the death penalty so this is a death penalty qualified jury.

I remember in Joseph Smith's case when he raped and murdered Carlie Brucia the foreman was a Minister. He and the others voted for the death penalty.

IMO

I am not relying on anything. I know what you are saying about being "qualified".

I also know they're not suppose to discuss the trial or watch any media about it. I'm not relying on that, either.

I'm just making a point. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[norest4thewicked]

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

They can argue self defense all they want to, but they have Jodi's OWN WORDS saying that she deserved the death penalty. And, during that rendition, she said nothing about self defense.

 

[atthelake]

Today shows how desparate the defense is getting. I would not be surprised if the defense came in here under guise and started asking silly challenging questions to the group! :moo: :twocents: :wink:

 

[LambChop]

Nobody knows whether she had a knife that she brought with her and we assume (correctly, imo) she had a gun because the same caliber gun was fake stolen from her gp's, presumably by her. She could easily have gotten the knife from the house and there's no solid evidence that she didn't. Just that no knives appeared to be missing. Whatever that means since it assumes that the roommates were familiar with every knife in the house.

Which makes me continue to wonder whether the prosecution hasn't outsmarted itself with the shot-last position. Which is the only position of the two that has ANY chance of allowing a lack of premeditation or self-defense theory to be presented with the slightest bit of a straight face, imo.

I love the story that TA used the knife to cut rope that was decorating a pillow/curtain to tie her up. Sure he did. He obviously spent a lot money decorating his new home why would anyone do that. I believe Juan asked Flores if they found any rope in the house and he said no. One thing I did notice on the tape of Mr. Scearcy was that the bag he carries his pocket pet in has a long black rope or strap which was very similar to what JA described as the rope that TA used to tie her up. jmo

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Kinda like real abused posters have compared her to their abusive significant others? :waitasec: As I've said before - I believe it is very telling.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

They can argue self defense all they want to, but they have Jodi's OWN WORDS saying that she deserved the death penalty. And, during that rendition, she said nothing about self defense.

And Flores gave her several chances to tell the truth..........she was having none of it because she wasnt going to admit she had murdered him in cold blood.

She would think of the self defense claim two years later. Meanwhile she was wanting to plea second degree murder and the state refused.

 

[popsicle]

Today shows how desparate the defense is getting. I would not be surprised if the defense came in here under guise and started asking silly challenging questions to the group! :moo: :twocents: :wink:

Oh oh yep

 

[norest4thewicked]

Did anyone see the photos earlier today of the back wounds on Travis? If the jury sees these, and they have one full brain between the entirety of them, there will be absolutely NO WAY that self defense could be conceived in anyone's wildest dreams.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

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.

I like Marcia Clark. I think she was a savvy prosecutor, who was out maneuvered by an extremely unethical defense team (think shades of Jose Baez - Johnny Cochrane is his hero). I enjoy her commentary on TV, and she looks way better then back in the day :biggrin:

 

[ladonna]

Does the jail provide eyeglasses if the prisoner needs them?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Kinda like real abused posters have compared her to their abusive significant others? :waitasec: As I've said before - I believe it is very telling.

Yes, Travis had all the red flags of someone who was being abused and JA fits the profile of an abuser to a T.

 

[Boodles]

Re-listening to the opening statements. Absolutely worth hearing a second time. Here's the link for anyone that is interested:

http://youtu.be/Ip7EN8uoD-Q

Thanks! I am trying to find a version that has audio and video if possible of the entire prosecution opening argument. The link you have misses the first 15 minutes.

Does anyone have a link to the entire prosecution opening?

 

[katiecoolady]

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

ahem?

 

[norest4thewicked]

Today shows how desparate the defense is getting. I would not be surprised if the defense came in here under guise and started asking silly challenging questions to the group! :moo: :twocents: :wink:

I'm pretty sure that the defense has a bit more on their plate than throwing forum chat ideas into their mix. They have a lot more to worry about at the end of the day than to sit at a computer. I know it's been known that sometimes people come here to read who are on high profile cases, but I have always found it odd to think that this would be a place to come to get ideas. I think they have enough problems with what they have now.

 

[Karmady]

They can argue self defense all they want to, but they have Jodi's OWN WORDS saying that she deserved the death penalty. And, during that rendition, she said nothing about self defense.

Someone asked me to explain why I thought the stabbed first theory was better than the shot first theory for the defense. I explained what I think the defense would be best served to argue on that point and also that I don't think the jury will be persuaded but it's their best shot (not that my opinion on that matters). I have no idea why saying what theory I think is the defense's best shot is countered with lol's and she said she deserved the death penalty. Total non sequiter, imo.

 

[TigerBalm]

Does the jail provide eyeglasses if the prisoner needs them?

I would think maybe 1 pair, not the 4-5 different pairs that she has worn in court so far tho.