The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #16 *ADULT CONTENT*

[missy1974]

Because I provided a link to a previous statement?

Yeah, sure. Whatever makes you happy.

:fence:

you should have plead the 5th ;-)

 

[Sleuth13]

I noticed her snoozing in court during testimony today too. But during a sidebar she would wake up and start chomping her gum and laughing with Jody's family members. Friend or family I wonder? At any rate, they are not making Jody's family look like any one of them has empathy for their fellow man. Just sayin'.

And since when is it OK to chew gum in court? I've seen it in so many courtrooms this past year or 2. Couldn't have gotten away with that 10 years ago.

AMEN!!! She must be the long lost 7th cousin on her mother's brother's side who is the blacksheep of the family!!! And a stripper on the "B" shift!!! LOL

 

[thefragile7393]

OMG KSCORNFED!!! I can't even think of the words to express to you how sorry I am that happened (or how impressed I am that you came forward to mention it!) You have every right and then some to speak your mind on the topic and shame on anyone if they try to attack how you feel on the issue. I hope if someone has a different opinion they will keep it to his/herself! I also hope that b*st*ard FRIED for doing something so horrific!!!! :furious:

There's defense lawyers and then there's....them-ones like the one mentioned in the post before the above quoted one. The Jose Baez's/Mark Geragos/OJ's entire "Dream Team" that I do believe would sell out their entire family for money or for kicks. That type never gets my respect and makes me so sick.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[gitana1]

I just finished the state's cross of jodi's ex. Boy, the prosecutor is very, very good.

He just flowed from one question to the next, barely looking at notes. And for any of you who are fearful that he scored no points because the witness just denied everything, well, he will be impeached with the state's investigator.

 

[StephanieW]

OMG!!! Check her out at 1:15:30 -- looks like she's flippin the bird!!!

I think she is :what:

:moo:

 

[m00c0w]

Ignore feature. Best thing in the world for those that warrant it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

 

[Karmady]

OMG KSCORNFED!!! I can't even think of the words to express to you how sorry I am that happened (or how impressed I am that you came forward to mention it!) You have every right and then some to speak your mind on the topic and shame on anyone if they try to attack how you feel on the issue. I hope if someone has a different opinion they will keep it to his/herself! I also hope that b*st*ard FRIED for doing something so horrific!!!! :furious:

What issue are you referring to, please? I'm not sure whether my opinion on "the issue" is different.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Not all words repeated over and over again are golden. There are times you learn more just by listening.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

I think she is :what:

:moo:

Any way to report this to the courts???

 

[Karmady]

Any way to report this to the courts???

The court has way bigger fish to fry if that's not clear from the trial schedule. Not to mention the fact that there are court personnel present throughout the day who are vigilant about inappropriate conduct like unauthorized picture taking. I think the court would think it was a little "off" for someone to "report" what's depicted in that photo. jmo

 

[AngelWings444]

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.

Do we know that CH said "abuse"? Or that CH meant abuse, as in a defense for his friend being slaughtered. Maybe he was simply telling Travis that if he wasn't going to be with her on a permanent basis (marriage), and since their relationship was toxic (slashed tires, hacked emails, back and forth) to both of them, CH may have been saying it's abusive to stay, have hook ups etc... Not meaning there was ABUSE.

Who knows what the email said..and what the HELLO does any of this have to do with prosecution misconduct?? All this hoopla today about the emails, what's in them, not in them, and they aren't evidence, nor was the jury present. It was a hearing about prosecution misconduct. Kind of random when you think of it, them Gus pleads the 5th? Unusual peeps.

I would say the ex-boyfriends testimony, before the jury, was much more important/relevant. Basically, he confirmed premeditation. He also confirmed these sex acts weren't Jodi's first rodehole, and she had a habit of taking shower pics without permission. Then the gas cans.. :what::what:

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Counting slowly......

 

[Sleuth13]

:floorlaugh:

I live 4000 miles away now so let's hope not. True mark of an abusive personality? He blamed me for him raping her because it happened after I left him. Uh huh. :banghead:

BTW she's now 19 and has a gorgeous little girl all her own. She's doing really well considering everything. I am very proud of her resilience. :great:

If on the looooooong journey you needed a place to stay, Id be happy to help! (Just don't ask me for a cell phone or a coupla' gas cans!!!)

And kudos to your niece for "rising above" and doing so well ♥

 

[GobBluth]

Since you asked, I still think that it can be argued that it doesn't really show that she set out intending to kill anyone. She may have thought about it and prepared, but the decision may not have actually been made until whatever the catalyst was that night occurred. In an instance like that, I think premeditation becomes a large gray area.

BBM.

That is premeditation.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Travis' admission to abusing Jodi would be relevant and would be an exception to hearsay, if it could be authenticated. Chris Hughes' statement to Travis that he should stop abusing Jodi would be hearsay because it's an out of court statement and Chris Hughes is available to testify live.

For that matter, *any* email where Chris Hughes makes any type of testamentary statement would be hearsay and would not be admitted, unless it's used to impeach Chris' own testimony that's contrary to what he previously wrote in an email. If the defense wants the jury to know what Chris Hughes observed, they have to call Hughes to testify about it.


That said, there is no indication so far that Chris Hughes ever referenced Travis abusing Jodi in an email or otherwise.

 

[Sleuth13]

There's defense lawyers and then there's....them-ones like the one mentioned in the post before the above quoted one. The Jose Baez's/Mark Geragos/OJ's entire "Dream Team" that I do believe would sell out their entire family for money or for kicks. That type never gets my respect and makes me so sick.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed and agreed! There needs to be some damn good ones out there for people wrongly accused by their psycho ex's or scorned family members.

It's the ones that want to make the big bucks at all costs and try throwing innocent victims like kscornfed under the bus that DISGUST me!!

 

[LaneGirl]

ok just rewatched CH/TA video


PA objected to relevance of misconduct aspect of the email exchange because DA says CH
brings up abuse of TA
Sidebar
DA to CH read your response
CH reads and asks where is TA's original email.
DA says read your response.
CH wants original email for context
PA says something to the effect of if he's being impeached he should get context
DA says to Judge first he doen't want it in now he does
PA says no I'm saying he's entitled to read it which is different
Judge asks DA do you have the original email
DA says its on pg 1 of 6
CH says no I'm talking to TA and I don't know what I'm talking about I want the whole conversation
DA says just read what I asked you to.
CH reads.

So CH never got the original email from TA.

This is basically what I was saying. PA never objected to CH reading the email just didn't want it brought in.

 

[m00c0w]

BBM.

That is premeditation.

Perhaps. I believe what I was thinking of was if she prepared to do it, decided not to, and then something happened to cause her to snap and do it anyway.

As in:

JA prepares to kill TA
JA unites with TA, realizes she doesn't want to kill him, drops the plan
JA either snaps or her "self defense story" comes into play, making it more second degree murder

However, that's a tenuous claim and pretty much unprovable in court. So a moot point for all intents and purposes.

 

[Karmady]

Travis' admission to abusing Jodi would be relevant and would be an exception to hearsay, if it could be authenticated. Chris Hughes' statement to Travis that he should stop abusing Jodi would be hearsay because it's an out of court statement and Chris Hughes is available to testify live.

For that matter, *any* email where Chris Hughes makes any type of testamentary statement would be hearsay and would not be admitted, unless it's used to impeach Chris' own testimony that's contrary to what he previously wrote in an email. If the defense wants the jury to know what Chris Hughes observed, they have to call Hughes to testify about it.


That said, there is no indication so far that Chris Hughes ever referenced Travis abusing Jodi in an email or otherwise.

There's no point in Chris Hughes saying anything contrary in his direct testimony than what he said in his e-mails. They'll be used to impeach and he's aware of this. So, practically speaking, he's stuck with what he said in e-mail, etc. and can only try to explain what he meant.

 

[Sleuth13]

Ignore feature. Best thing in the world for those that warrant it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

YAY! (where might one find that "must have" feature? I'd imagine options or settings!?! on my way!!)