trial day 33: the defense continues its case in chief #96

[LambChop]

What type of behavior describes driving to a former boyfriend's house to confront his current girlfriend?

I guess Jodi forgot to mention that part. I would imagine JM will cover it with the State's psychologist on rebuttal. So far most of the defense witnesses seem to help the State even if it's just a little bit. jmo

 

[katiewonders]

:tmi::tmi:

I coulnd't follow yesterday. Anyone want to give me a little recap? Was it a good day for the prosecution?

Nali, you do remember that HLN follows the trial ad nauseum, right? But what I remember is (not in chronological order):

Juan ripped Samuels a new one, got him to admit on the stand that he was speculating and that speculation means "made up"; asked him if he had memory problems and after a long pause, Samuels said "no"; asked Samuels if he understood that he (Juan) was the one asking the questions; tried to ask questions about his reports but Samuels told him that he had not dated any of them; Juan asked about an addendum to his report in which he added some more criteria because Jodi hadn't exhibited enough for a diagnosis; Juan asked Samuels how much he was being paid - answer $250/hr. :what: ; and ended saying if he was paid that much, wouldn't he have paid attention to writing/dating the reports?

Willmot got up to rehabilitate Samuels: maybe she did, maybe she didn't. More blah, blah: Jodi wasn't assertive; ...that's all I remember of his stuff.
Good day for prosecution: I vote yes.

Cliff notes on the day: :seeya::rocker: :great::floorlaugh::great::great::what::clap: :facepalm: :furious: :furious: :banghead: :banghead: :yuck: :sick: :cow:

 

[Southern_Meadow]

With Nurmi sitting quietly at the table the last few days, I get that vibe from him that he is over it. Not only do I think he dislikes her, I think he knows her story is a bunch of BS and isn't going to care what the outcome is. Just a feeling I have.

 

[Schuby]

I think part of the purpose of the DV expert will to explain the 'seemingly' heinous nature of the murder. That after years of abuse it is not uncommon for a battered woman (who had just defended herself after one last instance of domestic abuse) to emotionally exorcise the years of torment on her abuser in such a manner.

I don't agree with it for a second, but it is what I am expecting to hear.

Yes, at one point when Nurmi was on direct with Jodi, Juan objected to one of his questions and Nurmi turned to the judge and said, "It speaks to battered women's syndrome." So that is definitely their plan.

 

[Wake_me]

I recall people speculating that the reason why JM didn't tell the judge to make JA answer the questions instead of going on tangents is because he wanted to keep her talking to catch her in lies.

I tend to believe this, especially seeing how JM did mention to the judge that RS was not responding to his questions on numerous occasions.

 

[Nosey Parker]

This is virtually the only thing I'm going to give the "doctor" a pass on. I don't think men really distinguish that much between shirt/sweater/top/blouse.

Agreed, and this confusion might apply if he was describing seeing her being grabbed by Travis, but he didn't witness it. He was 'told' by Arias, so which word did she use? That's what should be in his notes.

 

[Threeplus1]

Did anyone notice Jodi's eyes when she took the pill yesterday? It was a look of irritation and "what-everrr" to me.

Also, this may be O/T and if it is, I apologize. But in the below clip, when Juan had put the photo of Travis on the autopsy table (the neck wound - NOT shown on video), just watch JA's expression. Even though TA's siblings cry out (it was a surprise they weren't expecting), and her attorneys objected (Nurmi even looked over at the family and did seem concerned for them), she has an almost gleeful look. Sort of a "holy crap I did THAT, woww" look (pleased with herself). Start watching around 1:31:10. It is only AFTER she sees others react, that she starts to do her pretend "shock and sadness." She is truly one sick, dangerous person.

Jodi Arias Trial Day 11(Full) - YouTube

The significant thing I took from this video was how succinct and straight-forward her answers were. Simple yes or no. No worming around, no looking out at the other attorneys, no "could you repeat the question," no "I'm NOT asking you blah, blah, blah". Isn't it amazing how easy the questions and answers go when people can just be honest and aren't trying to remember which version of their story they are telling today?

 

[katiewonders]

What type of behavior describes driving to a former boyfriend's house to confront his current girlfriend?

I dunno, but I think if that doesn't scream assertive (more like aggressive) than I don't know what would. If JA were a wallflower, she definitely wouldn't do that. :what:

 

[Seasidepch]

Please understand - I feel NO sympathy whatsoever towards JA. NONE. Zip. I agree with everything you say. My struggle is with a fallible process. But I don't want to get in trouble for being off topic. I just need to clarify - I can't even type what I'd like to see JA suffer through - but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a process that may be her fate - but that makes lethal mistakes as well.

Man, I wish I'd never started this... I'm really twixt wind and water trying to work this out.

New Subject!

Just wanted you to know that you are not alone with your mixed feelings about DP vs LWOP. I understand what you are trying to say. I think a lot of members are passionate about this because they have suffered a personal loss to violence which I haven't.

I don't think I would be able to be on a DP jury because of how I feel. It is not that I feel sorry for murderers, monsters are monsters and deserve punishment. Its just my personal belief.

 

[kscornfed]

so when do we start today? is wilmott done? jury questions next?

 

[LambChop]

:seeya: Good morning peeps. Long wait for court today - it will be 4 p.m. here.

A couple of things that Samuels said yesterday:

1. "The trauma of killing would be greater in a woman with no history of violence".

Now we know why Arias said ' I've never killed before.'

2. Samuels observation that false stories are indicated by the same details being repeated almost verbatim, with the same verbage used.

Hmmm! Sound familiar?

So does this mean that every case he has ever testified in will be overturned because he now states his belief that false stories are always the same details and people who tell the truth are inconsistent??????? So the Ninja to self defense makes self defense a believable story because some of the information is the same????? Wow, just, wow. That sets psychology back a bit, doesn't it?

 

[carnnell]

So you mean like....sitting in a car for hours without talking when someone has taken things out of your backpack as a favor because it was too heavy......something like that????? They were suppose to be going on a hiking trip, not a road trip. The poor guy was just trying to help her out, or more likely suspected one of those two men would have to end up carrying her backpack because she'd be whining it was too heavy to carry.

Something like that..... I suspect (MOO) Jodi has PhD in passive-aggressive.

JMHO

 

[scorpio24]

What type of behavior describes driving to a former boyfriend's house to confront his current girlfriend?

YES! I hope the jurors ask that question! :twocents:

 

[ToothPickle Sticks]

:seeya: Can anyone tell me what kind of dog was Napoleon and how old he would have been when Travis had him? TIA. lease:

 

[thefragile7393]

The significant thing I took from this video was how succinct and straight-forward her answers were. Simple yes or no. No worming around, no looking out at the other attorneys, no "could you repeat the question," no "I'm NOT asking you blah, blah, blah". Isn't it amazing how easy the questions and answers go when people can just be honest and aren't trying to remember which version of their story they are telling today?

I rewatched the state's case....from Det. Flores to Dr. Horn to Mimi....state's case was soooo much shorter. None of this pulling teeth and re-phrasing questions. Just flowed relatively well. You are so right about things being much simpler when you tell the truth.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[carnnell]

What type of behavior describes driving to a former boyfriend's house to confront his current girlfriend?

Assertiveness bordering on aggressive depending on her emotional state.

What her motive determines if it is aggressive? Her plan to kill him I think classifies aggressive.

Passive would be never driving down to see her or initiate calling her etc..

 

[LambChop]

I dunno, but I think if that doesn't scream assertive (more like aggressive) than I don't know what would. If JA were a wallflower, she definitely wouldn't do that. :what:

And there was that time that she stood up to Bobbi about her family and he choked her. I think Jodi picked out men who were not assertive and Travis was very laid back but I do believe he was assertive as he appears in his email to her. She loved him for that and hated him for that also. jmo

 

[Nosey Parker]

So does this mean that every case he has ever testified in will be overturned because he now states his belief that false stories are always the same details and people who tell the truth are inconsistent??????? So the Ninja to self defense makes self defense a believable story because some of the information is the same????? Wow, just, wow. That sets psychology back a bit, doesn't it?

I think it not unbelievable that every case he has ever testified in will be up for review, but not for his rendition of the 'truth'. It will be because he is an incompetent expert witness, with dubious ethics, who fudges evaluation tests!

ETA: Oh wait - I think he always testifies for the defence, so it would only be cases where a guilty verdict was reached. That may be a lot!

 

[Veritas_Vita]

Travis was very assertive in this text to JA. This text haunts me...

 

[scorpio24]

I truly think JM has been masterfully setting up his rebuttal case. When HIS expert gets on the stand, we will hear about the investigatory process she went through, interviews she conducted, etc. to arrive at her conclusions. In other words, what Dr. Speculation should have done.

Just because he's off the stand doesn't mean the arrows to his reputation will stop coming. He will look 10X worse when the jurors hear from a true expert witness about Jodi Arias, the tests that were given, the testing "procedures" and the false conclusions reached. :twocents: