What did people think of the prosecutor today? I'm glad he's tough, but I'm hoping he is not alienating the jury...
I feel what you're saying. I worry that he may turn off certain people.
Change your settings. I have mine set for 100 posts/page, so I only have 4 pages on this thread so far.
I never knew you could do that!!!
Thank you PrincessSezMe.
And thank you for adopting a shelter pet!
I'm a true animal lover and when I heard about what Jody did - kicking a dog in the head and also what she did to the poor cat by putting it in a room with "plenty of food and water" for 2 WEEKS, well I was just sick. I have 3 cats so it really hit me hard when the lady who called Nancy Grace about the cat abuse said that the 6 yr old cat (Jody was babysitting the beloved pet) was shaking badly and Jody didn't understand what was wrong with it... *sigh* I just reached down and petted my pampered 2 yr old Blondie cat and cried. If somebody treated Blondie like that I might be the one in jail. Seriously, to desocialize (sp?) an animal like that and expect any different outcome only lends to the idea that the abuser is a sociopath IMO.
I really hope the state talks bout this in rebuttal. Now that the defense has brought forth testimony as to how nice and sweet jodi is, they can bring in evidence to the contrary.
Y'all are making me dizzy lol. I wish we could have a day summary of what happened (in the courtroom). I feel like Winnie the Pooh without honey, all crazy.
Time line thread, girl!!
Ok reading the email from TA and "wanting it in" or on record are two different things right? Otherwise why would the PA say he was not objecting to CH "reading" TA's email.
I was so clear on this now you guys are making me doubt what I saw and heard
.
Two totally different things.
It was decided by the judge when they approached. The defense offered the exhibit, including Travis's e-mail and Chris's reply. The State objected to the Travis portion and the court, apparently, sustained. Then, when the witness wanted "context," the State changed its mind and Nurmi mentioned that on the record. Chris still wasn't satisfied with what he had before him and wanted the entire e-mail thread, not just Travis's e-mail that he responded to by saying the Travis was treating Jodi badly in some way.
Please see above. I think you may be misunderstanding? The state did not want the e-mail entered into the record but did want the witness to be able to view it for context purposes. IIRC, that's how it went. They wanted the witness to be able to read it to refresh his memory and to be able to give a concrete response. But, I;d have to replay it to be sure.
I guess I'm not quite understanding the difference.
Would talking about how Travis needs to stop abusing Jodi not impeach the notion that Travis never abused Jodi?
I guess my question is - why would he be telling Alexander to stop abusing Arias if he never witnessed any of it? And again, this is beyond that one singular e-mail and on to any e-mail in the realm of possibility.
I would assume the lesson here is not to speak in absolutes, lest it be taken the wrong way.
Ok. So IMO, no, talking about how Travis needs to stop abusing jodi would not necessarily refute the notion that Travis never abused her, especially if the witness is able to testify. IMO, it only would if it included specific information that the person making the statement witnessed.
Of course, as a defense attorney I would certainly want it and would try to enter and use it and, I'm sure it would be information the prosecution would have to turn over to the defense. However, I think what the poster was stating is that the context of any kind of statment about Travis being abusive makes such a statement irrelevant because it is an opinion based on moral values, not on actual, definable abuse, or witnessed abuse.
I really have a feeling that Chris may have said it was 'unhealthy' in those emails. Which does not mean abusive. JMO Although, the Prosecution really did not want those emails read in open court, did they? Maybe it was the wording that Chris used in the emails would leave it open to interpretation.
Well, if it doesn't include more than an opinion not based on actually witnessing actual abuse, it's irrelevant and could serve to confuse the jury. I would argue relevance.
He could have raised his fists to her...and she snapped. I have had that happen to me long ago but I did not snap.
Wow. That's one heck of a snap. But just raising his fists would not allow jodi to sustain a self-defense claim based on the enormity of what she did to him. One stab to the heart? Perhaps? Maybe even a few more. But what she did? No way.
And the fact of the matter is the timing of the photos and the photos themselves, do not support a self-defense theory. He was very relaxed and naked in the shower, posing. He was sitting on the floor of the shower. She was taking photos. The very next moment after the last pose, a commotion is occurring. And she had with her, obviously concealed (or there would have been awkward questions), a knife and gun or at least one of the two right there. Because as the timing and blood evidence indicate, he didn't chase her through the house with a raised fist until she found a knife or gun. He was posing in one minute and the next he was being killed.
fftobed:
