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

[hindsight2020]

How does any email from Chris prove the defendant was in imminent danger at 5:30pm June 4, 2008, with a naked, weaponless man for a self defense claim?

My sentiments exactly.

Travis looks really furious in that last photo where he was alive, he is sitting down in the shower just ready to burst out with anger to beat the daylights out of the gentle soft spoken JA:furious:because she dropped the camera, :what: I've got two bridges. . .

 

[popsicle]

Correction: Spelled his last name wrong. It is Millea

Nice and totally believable to me. Does he say what the incident was...ie: should I check out the FB page? ty

 

[princesspjs]

I do not mean any offense by this, but you're operating backwards (Going from already have formed a conclusive opinion to a different opinion, not starting from nothing and going to something). The defense is trying to show it was self defense, because Arias was abused. It is then necessary to show that Arias was actually abused. If there are e-mails from the victim's best friend to the victim saying that he's not treating her right, and it may be interpreted as he's being abusive to her... It certainly matters to the defense case. The question is no longer did Arias do it; we know she did. The question the defense is hoping to bring up is if Arias did it in self defense.

m00c0w, there is no proof that Arias was abused.

With all due respect, he/she is saying that is what the defense is trying to prove, not that he/she thinks she was abused. You need to read the whole sentence, not just the last part.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I find that extremely disrespectful. I have heard that is either JA's sister or her BFF, either way that this girl is there with Ja's Mom speaks much of that family. imo

Oh wow. This was the woman laughing with her mother. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

 

[TigerBalm]

No, but I did find a picture of his home in Yorba Linda, but didn't know if it was ok to post a link. :waitasec:

Sure, we can post links to pages with photos.

 

[nursebeeme]

Dealing with your fellow posters (tips and tricks)
Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

REMINDER: DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER POSTERS. THAT IS A :nono:

 

[nursebeeme]

:gasp:Folks, what in the sam hill happened in here last night? Please do not be snarky with one another. No matter what case or what trial all opinions are welcome. If you don't agree you can discuss but you CANNOT get all snarky with one another. I have just cleaned up the thread so let us move forward sans the snark.

:nurse:

there will be zero tolerance from here on out for this folks. ZERO. Everyone is entitled to their opinions here.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Good Morning Everyone!:seeya:

After listening the Darryl's testimony yesterday I have come to the conclusion that Jodi Arias is a sexual deviant.

What better way to try and conceal that fact than to blame her dead victim and make him into the one that was the sexual deviant. It will explain why she engaged in it. If she testifies she will just flip flop her own deviant behavior and make them Travis'.

One thing that happened yesterday imo is Juan shot the 'little pure conservative damsel in distress' out of the water. This simply is who Jodi Arias is and has been for years.

I am so thankful that Darryl was honest and just laid it all out there even though it had to be so embarrassing for him.

 

[Carol2]

From what I could understand Jodi stopped in Las Vegas to see GS when she was moving back home to California. Isn't that when she blew the engine on his BMW? Could that have been the reason TA was angry with her?????

It was written somewhere that the engine was damaged by pulling the car behind her trailer when she was moving (car behind the trailer, not vice versa, in case your mind works like mine. ).

 

[Snoopy1]

Good Morning Everyone!:seeya:

After listening the Darryl's testimony yesterday I have come to the conclusion that Jodi Arias is a sexual deviant.

What better way to try and conceal that fact than to blame her dead victim and make him into the one that was the sexual deviant. It will explain why she engaged in it. If she testifies she will just flip flop her own deviant behavior and make them Travis'.

One thing that happened yesterday imo is Juan shot the 'little pure conservative damsel in distress' out of the water. This simply is who Jodi Arias is and has been for years.

I am so thankful that Darryl was honest and just laid it all out there even though it had to be so embarrassing for him.

BBM :rocker: Thanking your post wasnt enough!!

 

[TigerBalm]

:bdsurprise:

 

[hindsight2020]

With all due respect, he/she is saying that is what the defense is trying to prove, not that he/she thinks she was abused. You need to read the whole sentence, not just the last part.

I respectfully disagree, I read the sentence/paragraph in its entirety, the statement reads:

The defense is trying to show it was self defense, because Arias was abused.

. . .stands on its own as factual. The next statement that follows does not negate the previous one stated: 'It is then necessary to show that Arias was actually abused', this just reiterates that defense has to prove the actual abuse, not it was an alledged abuse.

The inference here is that JA was abused but the defense has to prove it.

 

[nursebeeme]

reminder: Minor4th is a verified attorney as is Gitanna

 

[m00c0w]

I respectfully disagree, I read the sentence/paragraph in its entirety, the statement reads:

The defense is trying to show it was self defense, because Arias was abused.

. . .stands on its own as factual. The next statement that follows does not negate the previous one stated: 'It is then necessary to show that Arias was actually abused', this just reiterates that defense has to prove the actual abuse, not it was an alledged abuse.

<modsnip>. That's not what I meant, and I attempted to clarify this with you. Another person has also agreed this is not how it comes across.

The inference here is that JA was abused but the defense has to prove it.

If anything is being "inferred," it's by you. I cannot be held accountable for how you infer things. It certainly doesn't make your opinion invalid, but it certainly doesn't make it factually what I was trying to say, either.

 

[Tulessa]

there will be zero tolerance from here on out for this folks. ZERO. Everyone is entitled to their opinions here.

You BEE special! :blowkiss:


Hi My friends that only exist in my mind & Good Morning!! Who's hubby said we were imaginary friends? I forgot! :floorlaugh:

 

[princesspjs]

I respectfully disagree, I read the sentence/paragraph in its entirety, the statement reads:

The defense is trying to show it was self defense, because Arias was abused.

. . .stands on its own as factual. The next statement that follows does not negate the previous one stated: 'It is then necessary to show that Arias was actually abused', this just reiterates that defense has to prove the actual abuse, not it was an alledged abuse.

The inference here is that JA was abused but the defense has to prove it.

OK, here is what the OP of the discussion says about their own post. I didn't know they were online when I first responded so that is why I put my 2 cents in at the time, now I'm out of it.

Did you read the entire sentence?

The defense is trying to show it was self defense, because Arias was abused.​

The defense is attempting to prove that Arias was abused and led to self defense.

Even if somehow that statement was murky on its own, the next sentence puts it in context and maintains that this is what the defense is wishing to prove:

It is then necessary to show that Arias was actually abused.​

I implore you to please examine the entirety of my post before putting words in my mouth. No offense intended, that's just so far from what I actually said...

Also: I'm a he.

 

[minor4th]

Ugh. Please let it go.

 

[princesspjs]

Are we allowed to sleuth witnesses? I was under the impression that we can only sleuth people who are at least named a suspect in a crime.

 

[thefragile7393]

Are we allowed to sleuth witnesses? I was under the impression that we can only sleuth people who are at least named a suspect in a crime.

I can't imagine what point it would serve honestly. JMO

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Good Morning gang!

Has anyone else figured out who the unknown passenger in Gus's car was? I wracked my brain (lie) and finally decided it was OJ. Jodi and him have a lot in common and I heard from NG last night that Jodi has a new 'friend' in jail. Or maybe not...

I did learn that JA didn't go ape$hit on TA without ever showing any signs of being a murderess. Yes it was on one of those TV shows, anyhow Jodi took a baseball bat to her five or six year old little brother. Wacked him @ five times with it. Poor lil boy lucky he didn't get his block knocked off. Wonder if that is when Jodi's parents started thinking Jodi growing up away from smaller people and pets (easier targets) may not be a bad thing and started eyeballing grandpa and grandma's house?