trial day 36: the defense continues its case in chief #106

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I have the feeling there is no way the judge would allow this to be shown to the jury - it's the epitome of prejudicial.

You are right - That is the reason why the jurors will never hear about Jodi climbing into the house thru the doggie door (which I have heard here).

 

[Pink Panther]

I have the feeling there is no way the judge would allow this to be shown to the jury - it's the epitome of prejudicial.

Well, it was never proven that she did it. TA did call the cops but apparently they didn't show up and a report wasn't filed. So, not in evidence.

So many people just hanging around TA's house while he was on a date, waiting to slash his tires two nights in a row!

Something is terribly wrong. The DA can say that TA was a pedophile but the State can't even mention a tire slashing incident that they believe she could have been involved with?

moo

 

[fabvab]

Give it a couple days, and everyone will be making fun of LaViolette too! I have ZERO respect for Dr. Samuels, as he was unprepared, his work was sloppy, and YES, he looked liked Gus Searcy.

I agree! He sure seemed incompetent for someone with "35 yrs." experience!

I mean shouldn't JA have one large file and all info on her goes into that file...instead of on top of his desk or in a drawer.... Guess he thinks being "sympathetic and impartial for 35 yrs. overrides any improper paperwork, testing, and about a zillion other things he did wrong...:notgood:

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Did anyone notice JA meticulously taking notes while Dr. Samules was rambling on about how she has trouble concentrating? I thought that in itself was a sure sign is hypothesis was off.

 

[lil_buddy]

:seeya: I do not recall this coming into evidence -- unless I missed it -- I remember something about a cat ?

The veracity of the cat story is questionable (by me)

yes, i'm linking my own posts.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8746574&highlight=veronica#post8746574

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8746578&highlight=veronica#post8746578

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8746760&highlight=veronica#post8746760

 

[Pink Panther]

You are right - That is the reason why the jurors will never hear about Jodi climbing into the house thru the doggie door (which I have heard here).

Exactly. The State cannot arrive at a "reasonable" deduction and the DA can throw out anything they want without a shred of truth. That's justice in America.

moo

 

[chijojo]

Worry Wart, I think Arias is trying to mimic the facial expressions of Wilmott.

As far as this witness testimony goes - do we need to know, "I thought it was a volunteer job. Then I said I assume this is a volunteer job. Then I was told it was an actual job. So, I was surprised to find out it was a job ... then I thought volunteer positions are jobs too they are jobs but a person does not get paid a salary a salary is what a person gets paid a year or per hour then I thought volunteers to not get paid yearly or hourly but a volunteer position is still a job then I thought that that thinking this job was a volunteer job instead of an actual job was not the right way to think then I thought that I was actually surprised to find out that I was going to get paid for the job then I thought it's still a surprise ...

The words in italic were not said by the witness - it just seems as though the testimony is a lot about nothing.

Let's assume that Arias was a victim of abuse perpetrated by Travis Alexander. Scared Arias went to great lengths to get to Travis Alexander's without detection - Arias plans required a great deal of effort, time, and work on her part. According to Arias, she was able to "fly" up reaching the top closet shelf and finding the gun on her first try - Travis Alexander was not in the closet trying to stop her - According to Arias she pointed the gun at Travis Alexander - Arias, assuming she is a victim, had the upper hand.

Plus, if Arias was convinced that she was a victim of Travis Alexander's abuse - that she had to murder Travis Alexander to save her own life - why did Arias clean up the crime scene, flee the area, not tell anyone, avoided notifying police. If Arias knew that she acted because she had to - Arias would have called the police - Arias would have believed that she did nothing wrong as she was saving her own life.

No one, IMO, can excuse, mitigate, explain, or justify Arias' slaughter of Travis Alexander. Again, if her plan to visit Travis Alexander was innocent - Arias would have no reason to work so hard to conceal her travel to TA's house. More so, Arias would have called the police because according to her she acted to save her life - and when she saw blood on her hands she knew that something bad had happened but she knew that she acted to save her life.

Arias did not call the police because Arias knew that she had planned and executed the slaughtering of Travis Alexander.

I believe that Arias took Travis Alexander prisoner on June 4th - Travis Alexander was not "free" to do what he wanted - he was her prisoner, her hostage. Arias weakened her prey "playing" with Travis Alexander. When Arias decided that she was done "playing" with her prey she murdered Travis Alexander savagely.

I couldn't agree more. I think she brought the gun out a lot sooner than she say's she did and it was used to control him until she could "do the deed"

 

[Pink Panther]

Could anyone tell me the story of her hitting her brother with a baseball bat?

A woman who was 13 or 14 at the time babysat JA and her brother and said that on one occasion JA hit her brother with a baseball bat. She was interviewed about this on tv.

moo

 

[Trainfan34]

And thats fine but i don't know how anyone can this guy doesn't let it go he rammbles you can't tell me your not sick of this trial and he has had the floor for 90% of it. And who knew that crime around the world would simply stop or so they would have you believe in 36 days we have not heard about another crime no updates no new cases murders disappearances absolutly nothing . So respectfully disagree all you want but if your not sick of one guy rambbling for 90% OF 36 DAYS then hey I guess iam alone in my thinking with being more then annoyed with this guy...

90% you say... I must be watching a different trial, or you have blocked out all the time the Defense has had the floor..

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Based on the jurors' questions today for RS, I think they already know they are going to round two of yet another defense witness that bases her opinion on JA's LIES. It is obvious to me that the jury already knows JA lied to them. We are going to run some errands tomorrow during the lunchbreak in the court and if we miss anything from this witness, it will not matter.

 

[Pink Panther]

I couldn't agree more. I think she brought the gun out a lot sooner than she say's she did and it was used to control him until she could "do the deed"

This testimony is not at all about nothing. They are setting JM up to ask her how much she is being paid. She will answer NOTHING. I hope he doesn't go there and I hope that she ends up being paid the NOTHING she agreed to....

lol

 

[Sydni]

Yes, we are in a true sex, lies, murder, and audiotape bubble. :rocker:

Have you looked at the autopsy photos? Have you put the premeditation pieces together?

Okay .... not sure if I wanna go there, but I did not realize that autopsy photos were available to the public (link?)

I will be so glad when this PTSD/Domestic Abuse stuff is over, because then we can get on to what this travesty is really all about. Premeditated 1st Degree Murder ... Death Penalty. That is what Juan needs to prove (and he will). Please let's get on to the rebuttal case. This jury is done. They are ready to deliberate. I really feel for them.

Anyway ... about those autopsy photos. Thanks ElleElle

Edited: Never mind, I found them ... and OMG I wish I hadn't. What a monster to do that to somebody. My heart breaks. Gotta get out of here .. this is taking over my life and it's not healthy.

 

[lil_buddy]

Well, it was never proven that she did it. TA did call the cops but apparently they didn't show up and a report wasn't filed. So, not in evidence.

So many people just hanging around TA's house while he was on a date, waiting to slash his tires two nights in a row!

Something is terribly wrong. The DA can say that TA was a pedophile but the State can't even mention a tire slashing incident that they believe she could have been involved with?

moo

I was talking about the dog thing.

Jodi can testify to what she (claimed to) witness. If no no one WITNESSED Jodi slash the tires, then they can't prove she did it.

Seems unfair, but it is the law.

 

[Pink Panther]

90% you say... I must be watching a different trial, or you have blocked out all the time the Defense has had the floor..

LOL...I'd say about 60% of the time has been at sidebars called by the DA so that they could discuss the law in their effort to figure out where JM is going with his questioning. And the judge who is (apparently) on her first DP case ever is using the sidebar for her own education as well. The sidebars are pathetic and non conducive to a fair trial. The State gets no "appeal".

Booohhh. Like a downward turn of the thumb.

This judge is avoiding appeals but it would be great if she would spend a bit of energy on "fairness" for both sides.'

moo

 

[Hatfield]

Well, it was never proven that she did it. TA did call the cops but apparently they didn't show up and a report wasn't filed. So, not in evidence.

So many people just hanging around TA's house while he was on a date, waiting to slash his tires two nights in a row!

Something is terribly wrong. The DA can say that TA was a pedophile but the State can't even mention a tire slashing incident that they believe she could have been involved with?
moo

Re BBM

It really is crazy. The state could have used that girl witness to at least testify that his tires were slashed right about the time Jodi was mad at him. They wouldnt have to claim she did it, but it is important evidence and let the jury decide if she may have done it.
ok, i could see maybe not allowing it, but then the judge should be fair and never allow Jodi claiming Travis was a pedophile with no corroborating evidence.

It is just crazy. I am so sick of the excuse we have been given that since it is a death penalty trial that the judge has to be leniant. Leniant to a reasonable extent, but that is not reasaonable at all with those pedophile allegations. That is ridiculous.

 

[kkdj]

It's my opinion that when a woman issues a restraining order against a male that might be abusing her, this causes the male to become extremely agitated and threatened, and sometimes ticks them off so bad that the male does something extreme to that woman for "turning them in to law enforcement".

It sure as heck could go that way. In our case everything just kept escalating. I have a blind dog to prove it.

 

[seguek9]

:ducttape:


fftobed:

Goodluck night shift :hug:

 

[Pink Panther]

I was talking about the dog thing.

Jodi can testify to what she (claimed to) witness. If no no one WITNESSED Jodi slash the tires, then they can't prove she did it.

Seems unfair, but it is the law.

Agreed. And that's what I was alluding to in the attached post. They can't submit the evidence that TA's tires were slashed because it wasn't proven that JA did it. That's the law...But the DA CAN and DOES submit that TA was a pedophile - without ANY proof apart from JA's word. TA can't get up on the stand to say what he thinks.

Something doesn't add up in our justice system.

That's my only point.

moo

 

[chijojo]

This testimony is not at all about nothing. They are setting JM up to ask her how much she is being paid. She will answer NOTHING. I hope he doesn't go there and I hope that she ends up being paid the NOTHING she agreed to....

lol

I've said it before and I'll say it again...How the heck can someone trust the words of a confirmed liar. And testify about a person who is dead at the hands of that liar. Knowing she is only saying those lies to save her own skin? I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror, if I were these defense witnesses.

 

[paperwing]

There is a good chance she will be a formidable opponent, however, in the end I believe Juan Martinez will win.

MOO

panthera, I am curious as to why you think she'll be a formidable opponent (although, truth be told, she'd be the first and it'd be almost refreshing in a way - only because I know she can't best JM. Not if she has ANY integrity regarding ALL victims of abuse and violence).

I actually think Samuels (with his rather pedestrian presence, which some probably found him relatable because of it (so far) connected better than ALV... (I know, she just started).

I think that ALV could foster early (and strong) opinions in the jury... given her testimony thus far. at least (no, not because of - whatever - though I know folks have gone there and it's likely someone on the jury will go there too :sigh, because her focus is so narrowly focused along gender lines - and while statistics do back that up, generally, it in NO way means that this case falls within those parameters. At all.

If ALV is worth her salt, her testimony should be defined by this: that abusers and batterers come in all shapes and sizes, and while less is known about female abusers (especially those who kill).

THIS is the moment - while I wish this trial will define it, historically, but at best, some jurors will 'get' that this - should be the moment when society should stop, listen and understand that abuse definitions are not gender or type specific (in the eyes of the law: physical.

The law (in the US) ignores emotional, financial, proximal, abuse (harassment and stalking laws supposedly cover some of these, but they don't and both victims and abusers know this).

Or that extreme abuse (also not criminal/not recognized) can only be categorized as proactive: aggression, violent, physically hostile (re: an individual, material items) - but that it should also be recognized by controlling passivity, withdrawal as a means of penalty/pain/punishment, etc., secretly undermining employment, relationships, family, or denying access to - support, children, etc., or worse - threatening harm and/or promising to turn loved ones (children, or in JA's case - their friend/work community) against the victim.

Many such behaviours (passive, aggressive, physical, legal) are prevalent among abusers who know about and understand the stigma of physical abuse and are extremely adept at avoiding getting caught until/unless... and that female (and likely more and more male) abusers may very well use such 'sub-type' knowledge of abusive rationales and manipulations because they themselves get off on being able to do SO much - legally - and/or do not believe that physical confrontation with a larger, stronger partner will prove successful... UNLESS, (per ALV) they arm themselves...

I cannot imagine, in any way, shape or form, someone who has basically devoted her life to being a victim-of-violence advocate - dismissing or negating not only the crime and the premeditation involved, but the histories of both individuals and the weight of their respective testimony (Travis' by proxy and the total absence of proof of anything untoward, and JA's - that cannot be trusted what.so.ever), as well as (though alleged and known to us at the moment, perhaps not admissible in court) respective histories of abuse (animal abuse, familial abuse, drug alcohol abuse. rebellion, vandalism...). Only JA has a history in all these categories.

I also want this expert to admit that many people/couples/partners have fantasies (some include 'non-consent') but are engaged in with CONSENT of both/all parties - and that this is NOT abnormal or indicative of ANYTHING. Period.

Engaging in tying one's partner's wrists with soft rope does NOT indicate that one is a rapist. Even SAYING the word does not indicate that one is a rapist. Costume, even 'pain' within the sexual experience of consenting adults IS NOT DEVIANT. Until or unless a partner says NO, and JA already testified that she was never at risk, and Travis ALWAYS stopped if she was uncomfortable, physically or otherwise - in any way. There is no abuse here except on the part of JA abusing Travis.

(sorry - long, disjointed - trying to multitask and failing).