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

[TigerBalm]

:desert:

 

[StephanieW]

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

Sorry if I'm looking at this wrong ( it's late and im tired ) but just in case I want to point out this isn't a unauthorized picture that was taken .. Just two screenshots taken from my ipad and put in a single image .

 

[m00c0w]

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 no 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.

And my question was if there really was another e-mail in the chain.

The prosecutor seemed satisfied with the defense's answer that the e-mail was on page one. Perhaps CH was mistaken and something in the "real world" prompted the initial e-mail (for instance); the first e-mail on the page was actually the first e-mail in the chain.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

:desert:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Karmady]

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 no 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.

The e-mail to which Chris Hughes was responding was on page one of six. The State says I didn't object to him reading it (implicitly did object to him being questioned about it -- presumably on hearsay or speculation grounds) so Hughes then goes on to read Travis's e-mail to which he responded.

 

[Sleuth13]

I think she is :what:

:moo:

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAAAA!!!! awesome!!!!! ♥ it!!

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

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

If you figure it out let me know please....please...lease:

 

[seattlechiquita]

I. Am. Going. To. Bed.

See everyone tomorrow. Good discussion, keeping it civil. Peace out y'all. :wave:

 

[Sulamith]

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:

I wasn't sold on premeditation until I heard the ex-BF testimony. Holy Cow! Really, that was all I needed to hear to believe the murder was absolutely premeditated. OMG, the sex act, shower pics and gas cans. The PA hit the payload with this witness!

 

[minor4th]

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.

I was just explaining when a statement in an email can and cannot be used as evidence in trial.

No reason to believe that Chris would contradict what he previously said -- and no reason to believe that Chris ever said that Travis was abusing Jodi either.

 

[Karmady]

Sorry if I'm looking at this wrong ( it's late and im tired ) but just in case I want to point out this isn't a unauthorized picture that was taken .. Just two screenshots taken from my ipad and put in a single image .

No, I wasn't referring to your pics at all. I was there on a day when some media dude was admonished when he entered the courtroom with a giant camera. I didn't even think of that in connection with the pics in that post.

 

[princesspjs]

If anyone cares, this is what I think. I think he wanted to plead the fifth without knowing what that means. (The guy from prepaid legal that is) I think the judge shut everything down and probably explained to him that he could only plead the fifth if it tied him to a crime. Now he's either consulting a lawyer, or realized that stating the person in the car would get him in dutch with the w

I can't keep up. Goodnight. fftobed:

What? It will get him in dutch with the w??? WTHeck does that mean Deely? :waitasec:

 

[TigerBalm]

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

Matthew Bartlett was held in contempt of court and spent time in jail for flipping off the prosecutor in court

http://youtu.be/CLos0aNQMRc

http://www.examiner.com/article/matthew-bartlett-held-contempt-after-giving-jeff-ashton-the-middle-finger

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Matthew Bartlett was held in contempt of court and spent time in jail for flipping off the prosecutor in court

http://youtu.be/CLos0aNQMRc

http://www.examiner.com/article/matthew-bartlett-held-contempt-after-giving-jeff-ashton-the-middle-finger

Pretty much shows the maturity level on that whole group.

 

[Sleuth13]

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.

I can't figure out how to include the original post in this email (still a newbie on here!) but if you go & hover around my name directly before where the comment starts it should take you directly to the post i was responding to (lemme know if it doesn't work and i'll try to cut & paste it)

**CLICK ON THE ARROW AFTER MY NAME & IT SHOULD WORK

 

[Salem]

Stop bickering in here, please. It is not necessary. If a post is against TOS, alert it and move on. If it just annoys you - move on, leave it be.

But, stop bickering.

Salem

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

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

Found it...used it...almost new woman!:great:
Thank you!

 

[thefragile7393]

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

If you figure it out let me know please....please...lease:

go to website if you aren't at a desktop...if you are using tapatalk for instance you can't do it..you need the live website. go to the person's profile and then click list....then click on "add to ignore list." i have been around here long enough to see the same names doing the same things in different areas of this forum. those are better off just ignored.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[LaneGirl]

And my question was if there really was another e-mail in the chain.

The prosecutor seemed satisfied with the defense's answer that the e-mail was on page one. Perhaps CH was mistaken and something in the "real world" prompted the initial e-mail (for instance); the first e-mail on the page was actually the first e-mail in the chain.

CH sure firmly believed there was more to that conversation from TA.

 

[m00c0w]

Found it...used it...almost new woman!:great:
Thank you!

Congratulations!