trial day 32: the defense continues its case in chief #93

[AngelWings444]

Yes, they were sealed. I'm not sure why that would happen.

Isn't that when JA was representing herself? I seem to recall this was the reason?

ETA: Link to court docs, date of counsel appointed, same date jail visitation records were sealed.

NOTE: TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM VIEWING AND/OR ACCESSING JAIL VISITATION RECORDS
8/26/2009 017 - ME: Counsel Appointed - Party (001) 8/26/2009

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

 

[ctmom]

coakerqueen has it up already!!! It's in three parts - here's the first part:

Jodi Arias Trial - More "memory issues" - YouTube

Part 2: Jodi Arias Trial - Day 32 - Part 2 - YouTube

Part 3: Jodi Arias Trial - More "memory issues" - YouTube

Thank you!

 

[SuperTmo]

There was a definite reason they sealed those records, and it has nothing to do with the witnesses at trail IMO.

Ohh... I see. Too bad!! You really brought up a good point about the # of counselors. Too bad we will never know!

 

[neesaki]

Anyone know what that large book or journal that Odious Jodious keeps herself occupied with in court? She puts all her focus & concentration on it pretends she doesn't know what's going on around her. I think she goes to her happy place.

Then, when she snaps back, she pulls out her itty bitty pencil nub to write something in her book.

Personally, I think her being busy is nothing more than part of her show, just trying her best to look important according to her definition of the word. JA's all about the image she wants to project to everyone. Gawd, sometimes I really do hate being such a skeptic jmo

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Did JW seriously object to JM calling JA a liar? I guess the jury needed a laugh today.

 

[Colt46]

Dr. Richard Samuels has quite an interesting website! There's something 'not right' here. Nurmi and Samuels are both in the 'sex' field in a case that supposedly is about an abused/battered woman. Today, JM was referencing something to do with JA and TA's sexual activities on the day of the murder, and Samuels snapped back that her PTSD had nothing to do with their sexual activities. Well, why are there two 'sex experts' on the case???

Juan Martinez performed two miracles today: First, he completely shattered the defense case with his Perry Mason moment; and secondly, he opened the door for a full investigatioin into the shady Dr. Samuels. My instincts say that Samuels and Nurmi are more or less a 'tag team' and colluded with each other to come up with the crazy Pedo story and battered woman syndrome. All of JA's testimony was based on their script. The only thing they forgot was an acting coach - JA can't act her way out of a paper bag!

Note: 'Immigration Issues" are also included in Dr. Samuels' various specialties.

http://svpexpertwitness.com/evaluations.asp

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Dr. Richard Samuels has quite an interesting website! There's something 'not right' here. Nurmi and Samuels are both in the 'sex' field in a case that supposedly is about an abused/battered woman. Today, JM was referencing something to do with JA and TA's sexual activities on the day of the murder, and Samuels snapped back that her PTSD had nothing to do with their sexual activities. Well, why are there two 'sex experts' on the case???

Juan Martinez performed two miracles today: First, he completely shattered the defense case with his Perry Mason moment; and secondly, he opened the door for a full investigatioin into the shady Dr. Samuels. My instincts say that Samuels and Nurmi are more or less a 'tag team' and colluded with each other to come up with the crazy Pedo story and battered woman syndrome. All of JA's testimony was based on their script. The only thing they forgot was an acting coach - JA can't act her way out of a paper bag!

Note: 'Immigration Issues" are also included in Dr. Samuels' various specialties.

http://svpexpertwitness.com/evaluations.asp

That is interesting actually ... perhaps it is because they are in reality defending a sex offender - do they know that's what she actually is? I think so.

 

[RR0004]

Yeah, He should have re-administered the test... :doh: So at least maybe the good doctor isn't completely dishonest, but quite incompetent...

IMO, he's not really there to tell the truth....just the DT's version of events. He's an expert on BS, IMHO.

 

[paperwing]

lease: don't shoot me!

I kinda agree with what Baez is saying with the small confined area, the small caliber gun (did not kill him), no blood spatter from the shower to end of hallway.

Sorry don't get mad @ me !

I wouldn't shoot you! I didn't hear/see what he said (and by the way - don't hit me either, folks /please?/, but Baez is only relevant because he "won" fwiw. And he's only relevant (for some reason) re this case because both involve women who are somewhat similar at first glance (and identical twins in being diabolical). Baez would be a speck of dust had the outcome been different. It's not right I don't think justice was served AT AlL, but it's what happened.

But ElleElle - I'm confused by what you say: Lack of blood spatter doesn't prove that a gun wasn't fired in a certain location - especially within a crime scene where the killer deliberately rinsed the area/floor with water to dilute blood (foot/hand/finger prints likely) and in the hall - where the act of dragging (and what looks like swiping motions on the wall (?) could have erased spatter.

If she shot him in the shower, she would have rinsed the spatter away.

So GUESS what Baez was saying??? That the gun shot was LAST - Travis had already lost so much blood - there would have been. no. spatter. The spatter at the sink looks like the only 'projectile' spatter at the scene - that was left intact. And that looks like it was coughed up (to me) - Travis went to the SINK after he was stabbed in the major vein near his heart (superior? vena cava) - the blood stains at the sink tell a story, and that story is Travis was not attacking JA after being stabbed, he was coughing, gasping, spitting up blood, trying to hold himself up. HE WAS NO THREAT.

Sorry - got a little carried away. :great:

 

[paperwing]

And none of these yahoos can explain why there was no stippling.

Heck, I can even explain it (barrier - unlikely because of the lack of particle evidence, OR distance. Done)... and I'm not even a yahoo!

 

[paperwing]

Patricia Cornwell was on Peirs Morgan tonight. Her take on what happened (based on the autopsy photos) was that JA surprised Travis, he came out of the shower, JA stabbed him in the chest area, he threw up his hands to defend himself, turned and stumbled to the sink trying to get away. JA mercilessly and savagely stabbed Travis over and over again in the back as he fought desperately to escape. THEN she shot him.
People hate Piers (many hate Cornwell) but unlike Vinny and the Goof Men Crew on HLN, their brief discussion on JA was somber and sincere.

I almost agree with Cornwell (enjoy her books!): I believe she somehow caught him unawares (yeah I know, sounds odd but isn't) by dropping the camera, etc. and stabbed him in the chest. It was so unexpected that he didn't realize what had happened really, and went to the sink, coughed, saw his injury, tried to process. JA started stabbing again - defensive wounds. He tried to flee down the hall but weakened from blood loss and ended up crawling to his bedroom. JA continued her attack. He got to his bedroom, seriously injured, a threat to no one. The cluster of stabs in his back (the ones all at the same angle - 4 or 5) while he was down, yet he was still alive so his throat was slit.

The volume of blood was unexpected by JA - and she may have even worried it would smell or soak through to the ceiling downstairs. I believe the volume of blood from his throat injury is why she brought him back to the shower - that and she had cut herself. (He'd already washed any 'sexy' DNA off by being in the shower previously), but he likely had her bloody prints on his skin and blood was getting out of hand. She easily got him into the shower (blood is extremely slippery). I don't know when she shot him, but it was at a time when he had suffered severe blood loss. She diluted the floor with water (it was already somewhat wet from Travis' being wet) to erase any discernible prints. She wore probably several pairs of socks (later put in the wash with the camera), showered Travis and herself off and stripped next to where Travis' throat was slashed, making her exit without leaving a blood trail.

Travis was soaking wet, in the shower. Not a threat. Upon being stabbed, he went to the sink - that's not a threat. Travis tried to escape (the bloody hall and blood stain in the bedroom). Not a threat.

Travis was not a threat. He tried (and failed) to defend - and save - his life. Period. imv.

 

[paperwing]

Anything is possible. Either way, even IF the state believed the gunshot came first, like that defense chick on HLN said, they could've of still had premeditation anyways. re: Gun stolen from grandparents, shot Travis first... etc.

The sequence of injuries is not an issue - the judge and the AZSC ruled that no matter what the sequence is/was, the cruelty of this murder qualifies it for the DP.

An uninjured JA (prove otherwise, JA) who may have needed a band-aid or two (I call that uninjured) - shot, stabbed and slashed a man who's wounds include his attempts to defend himself. Only. There was no evidence of bruised knuckles or other physical signs indicating ANY aggression on his part.

It doesn't matter which came first. In fact, I don't believe that her supposed 'gun in the closet' story-cough-lie matters either.

There is significant evidence of premeditation. There is ZERO evidence that JA was ever attacked - that day or any other.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Not that the trial should be entertainment, but that was probably the most entertaining expert testimony I've seen. Usually, the expert stuff is such a drag, but I was LOLing at times.

JM is starting to remind me of Colombo, if Colombo had more attitude.

 

[paperwing]

Yes. Of course but she has written about female abusers and she's implied that when they act they are in a position of power - aka "armed". Sound like something we've been hearing?

moo

Thanks, PinkPanther - I do recall something about this, but I thought it was in regards to a female victim using an 'equalizer' (weapon) against her abuser. I'll defer to you on this - you pretty much always end up setting me straight.

 

[KandyKane]

KandyKane, Thank you for posting todays trial. I would appreciate it if you were able to do it again on Tuesday. Any idea when it goes for deliberation? Again, a great big thanks.

You're very welcome! I've been watching all the stuff I miss from whoever that wonderful person is that puts the videos on YouTube and so quickly (croakerqueen I think is the person). I was only able to catch the last few minutes of it live today so I was dying to know what I missed especially since that last few minutes was so awesome, so I started searching YouTube almost right away after court quit for the day, and all of it was already up on YouTube. Very little of this trial I've been able to watch live, so I'm soooo grateful for the full testimony every day in court put up on YouTube so I can still see it when I have the time (and I get to skip all the boring bits... all those sidebars are just maddening!).

On Edit: forgot to mention that yes, I'll keep checking YouTube for the videos of the day's trial and post the links when I find them. That's how I usually have to see most of the trial myself anyway, and I'm dying to see the rest of JM's cross of Samuels.

 

[paperwing]

Version 3. I just heard him say that in the part that I'm watching

minor4th <--- awesome

 

[KandyKane]

Yup - with her shirt unbuttoned far too low. ICK.

That was impossible not to notice. She was practically falling out of her blouse! I can't believe she was allowed to sit in court like that especially when it's being filmed.

 

[Dr. Know?]

When you have an obstinant witness or three, you cut to the chase. JM does it so very well. I'd be frustrated with some of their answers and avoidance to say the least.

 

[MeeBee]

Heck, I can even explain it (barrier - unlikely because of the lack of particle evidence, OR distance. Done)... and I'm not even a yahoo!

LOL, yes it is the distance one. But I was talking about the yahoos on HLN (Baez and company) who were arguing for Jodi's version of events but couldn't explain why there was no stippling on Travis if he was shot at such a close range.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

That was impossible not to notice. She was practically falling out of her blouse! I can't believe she was allowed to sit in court like that especially when it's being filmed.

Who, what? TTIIUWP!