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

[Karmady]

He was "taking" sex? You can't take what is given for free. JMO. Obviously, it wasn't excellent timing on his part, to allow her to come there that evening and have sex with her. He paid dearly for that "mistake" and I'm sure he had no clue she was a homicidal maniac. I hope she pays the ultimate price.

JMO

Yeah, he played with fire that he probably didn't fully appreciate the capacity of (although he did say he thought she might kill him but had sex with her anyway?). And yes, you can take something that's offered for free (assuming it was) or you can reject it -- clearly and consistently. Obviously, that's not what happened here. And yes, he did pay dearly for his "mistake." I think he paid dearly for his deliberate actions, not by any mistake, but that's just me.

 

[GobBluth]

Ahhhhhh!!!!!! (throws herself off cliff...)

I'm going to bed before I say something that I'll regret. 'Night, WS friends!

fftobed:

 

[Karmady]

She should have stopped having sex with him if that's not the kind of relationship she wanted.

And vice versa?

 

[minor4th]

And vice versa?

Apparently it was the kind of relationship Travis wanted. Jodi is the one who had a problem with it.

 

[Sleuth13]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
May we rate them??

Absolutely!!!!

The weekly winner can wear: :goldcrown:

 

[Curious Me]

Thank you! The Universal Websleuths sign will be....let's see...I'll hold up 3 fingers to my mouth like a W. And look pensive. LOL

:seeya: Nite! Headin in too...long day manana.

:thumb: Alright! I'll look for a pensive woman throwing gang signs.

:idea: Do we have to drink a shot of liquor everytime you do it? :tongue:

 

[Karmady]

Apparently it was the kind of relationship Travis wanted. Jodi is the one who had a problem with it.

So he baptized her into the Mormon church yet had all kinds of sex with her despite all the teachings of said church (which was originally his, not hers), but it's perfectly understandable that he only wanted a sexual relationship with her and because he "made that clear" it's okay. Ask a Mormon. I think not.

eta: and by not okay, I mean excommunication and eternal damnation, not okay. Not just "yeah, we wish you'd done better". More like purgatory in Mormon, but just as bad given the ultimate goal that's unachieved.

 

[Sleuth13]

Ahhhhhh!!!!!! (throws herself off cliff...)

I'm going to bed before I say something that I'll regret. 'Night, WS friends!

fftobed:

Plz use your blanket as a parachute so we can see you again tomorrow!!

 

[AngelWings444]

Ahhhhhh!!!!!! (throws herself off cliff...)

I'm going to bed before I say something that I'll regret. 'Night, WS friends!

fftobed:

Night nite. I'm heading there too. Don't want the needle from nurse in the morning. :floorlaugh:

fftobed:

 

[Journey2Justice]

Does anyone have perhaps a link of yesterday's trial proceedings? I have all the links for all the days, but not day 10.

 

[MissJ]

Eww..
Did you happen to run across any photos of his LV motor home while on your little fb adventure?

OMG! He's wearing a thong, the image is burned into my brain!

 

[princesspjs]

Does anyone have perhaps a link of yesterday's trial proceedings? I have all the links for all the days, but not day 10.

Try this youtube account http://www.youtube.com/user/tawnidilly/videos

 

[Eyesonyou72]

OMG! He's wearing a thong, the image is burned into my brain!

Can't seem to find the CreepyGus thong pic, keeps going to my newsfeed instead. Anyone have the direct link?

Sorry I apologize for this being my first post here lol, but I have been a lurker for quite some time now.

 

[Really?]

I don't have the link, but I do have a great big.....

:fireworks::welcome::fireworks:

 

[Eyesonyou72]

Haha thanks so much for the warm welcome Really?!!
Wondering if Gussy ever gave up the name to the judge or got put in the clink for contempt of court. If only dreams came true..:jail:

 

[Really?]

Sort of O/T Breaking Point - Deadly Women
Juan Martinez/Wendi Andriano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xlNeJU1f4kU#t=1738s

Thanks that was a good link.

 

[Really?]

Haha thanks so much for the warm welcome Really?!!
Wondering if Gussy ever gave up the name to the judge or got put in the clink for contempt of court. If only dreams came true..:jail:

yw. That was unbelievable in court yesterday.

 

[here_now12]

One thing I might have missed over the break in trial for the past weeks, but I'm sure someone here knows the answer:

Whatever happened to that previous motion for mistrial, where the defence claimed that the prosecution did not immediately make those thousands of text messages between TA and JA available to them as soon as the technology to pull the whole bulk of them became available? IIRC, they were referring to some sort of previous motion on this, and the judge said she'd have to deliberate on the matter? Was it dismissed or is this still an ongoing thing?

Another question I have, and sorry if this might get long, but I'm not overly familiar with the American court system and so I don't know if I'm getting this right.

In order to get a conviction, the prosecution has to prove that this was a premeditated murder, but the defence does not have to prove their self-defence claim, right? I mean that of course they probably have to try and put forth some sort of evidence to support their claim of self-defence in order to make the jury accept it as a plausible explanation should the jury deem the prosecution's evidence not solid enough to prove premeditation. But unlike the prosecution, they don't have to prove the self-defence claim beyond reasonable doubt, right?

What I'm trying to figure out (and failing on my own) is what possible outcomes this trial might have.

If the jury decides on guilty, she's going to be convicted of murder. But where does that decision about the death penalty come in? Is that in the hands of the jurors, too? So at the end of the trial, the jury is either going to decide on:
- murder conviction, and death penalty
- murder conviction, and life sentence
- premeditation not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and...she goes free?

I'm really confused about this, so if someone could help me out there it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[LostOldUserName]

One thing I might have missed over the break in trial for the past weeks, but I'm sure someone here knows the answer:


If the jury decides on guilty, she's going to be convicted of murder. But where does that decision about the death penalty come in? Is that in the hands of the jurors, too? So at the end of the trial, the jury is either going to decide on:
- murder conviction, and death penalty
- murder conviction, and life sentence
- premeditation not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and...she goes free?

I'm really confused about this, so if someone could help me out there it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Snipped for space

There are two phases in American criminal court. The guilt phase and the penalty phase. Once guilt has been determined then the jury will decide the penalty.

 

[Linda From New York]

Ugh. Finally watched end of hearing from yesterday.

Watching that Searcy dude makes me want to take a shower again.

Where oh where is the prosecutorial misconduct? It feels like this has gotten way off track. I forget what it was about to begin with!!!