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

[Linda7NJ]

I respectfully disagree. Of course Travis (and any other victim) is worth the investment. However, it is a travesty of justice when a defendant and her team can waste time and money on an irrelevant, erroneous and narcissistic rant of a defense that is nothing more than an uncorroborated character assassination of the victim. She has the right to claim it was self-defense, but her testimony better back up the evidence found at the crime scene and it just doesn't come anywhere near. Instead the jury was held hostage for weeks to a litany of self-serving lies and inflated, unsupported claims, an epic and unnecessary recounting of her life story, and "expert" witnesses who have stretched the substance of her behavior to breaking to attempt to support a claim of PTSD or abuse.

The same stuff happened in the Anthony trial. Re-victimizing another person with uncorroborated swill. I think it's the job of the defense to save their client's life, but not at the expense of the victim. Ever. Save the mitigating garbage for the sentencing phase and just stick to the actual evidence for the rest of it.

The defendant said on tape that if she ever hurt Travis she'd deserve the death penalty. Well, let's just take her word for that then because she has certainly admitted to this brutal and horrific crime.

The defense had zero burden of proof.
They don't need to prove anything. That's the states job. That's the justice system in the USA.

I don't care what it costs to give her a fair trial. Justice IMO is worth it and so is our system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElleElle]

I think Jodi no longer "trusting men" will be brought by ALV.

Without joking, I think the strategy is to make the visual seem that Jodi no longer trusts males, even when trying to save her sorry butttt.

 

[cricket49]

I wanted to address an issue that somebody made regarding the crime scene. Many people have stated that it might not be a premediated act since the scene seemed out of control and too bloody. Jodi planned all the other details down to a science.

However, someone posted yesterday that they believed Jodi thought Travis would never leave the shower after the attack. I also think this is true. Jodi never thought after the knife or gun attack that he would get up and lunge or move. She thought it would be quick and he would never leave the shower. That is why she left clues because he left the shower area and the scene became too big to manage.

 

[Ammonitida]

lets hope this woman who is an expert on abuse male and females do not judge men as a main factor in this. if she have kids and one is a male then she is also judging her son

This woman's only article on "abused males" was an attempt to downplay the abuse. She is extremely biased in favor of females. She hates men with a purple rage and everyone will agree with me once her direct is over with.

 

[momof7]

I respectfully disagree. Of course Travis (and any other victim) is worth the investment. However, it is a travesty of justice when a defendant and her team can waste time and money on an irrelevant, erroneous and narcissistic rant of a defense that is nothing more than an uncorroborated character assassination of the victim. She has the right to claim it was self-defense, but her testimony better back up the evidence found at the crime scene and it just doesn't come anywhere near. Instead the jury was held hostage for weeks to a litany of self-serving lies and inflated, unsupported claims, an epic and unnecessary recounting of her life story, and "expert" witnesses who have stretched the substance of her behavior to breaking to attempt to support a claim of PTSD or abuse.

The same stuff happened in the Anthony trial. Re-victimizing another person with uncorroborated swill. I think it's the job of the defense to save their client's life, but not at the expense of the victim. Ever. Save the mitigating garbage for the sentencing phase and just stick to the actual evidence for the rest of it.

The defendant said on tape that if she ever hurt Travis she'd deserve the death penalty. Well, let's just take her word for that then because she has certainly admitted to this brutal and horrific crime.

I think we have to remember that she tried to manipulate things in her favor by saying she would plead to 2nd degree and not have a trial. Supposedly she didn't want to mar TA's reputation. More than likely, it was a last ditch manipluation tactic because she/dt knew the State had a great case. JM probably went to the family and the family agreed that they wanted to take the chance everyone would see her, including the jury, for what she really is. The DT only has to throw out there that it COULD have happened. It would be great if they had the proof via one witness besides good ole Gus, but they don't. They have known when they were trying to do a plea agreement that they had no way to prove it other than what the defendant said. JM knew that too.

It is tragic that TA is being thrown about as somebody he wasn't. But it seems his family is sure that no one will believe that and its worth to them for her to get 1st degree and never walk the streets again. IMHO.

It can't be easy and it has to be frustrating to hear these things and want to jump up. But when it comes to the victim impact statements, I think TA's brothers and sisters will put to rest any lingering doubts, if there are any, on what type of person TA was. Not perfect, but loving kind and caring.

Kelly

 

[missmazzy]

:fence:

Is this the photo that Travis had in his closet? If so, then it probably is where Jodi got the Spidey pants idea.

Didn't she also say the pic she saw was of a kid in his underwear? If we go by the theory that everything she says lies in some sort of truth, that might be where she got the "Travis was a pedophile" defense. She's sick (and don't even get me started about her animal abuse!) :furious:

 

[G&AMom]

I know it is frustrating but it is worth pointing out that this entire Trial is an e ercersize in Travis' rights. That's what we're doing here. Redressing the fact that his rights were violated by the defendant. When people get upset about the money being spent on the trial, what they are actually saying is that Travis' death isn't worth this kind investment in justice.

Whenever I would mutter about defendants getting too much consideration of their rights, my husband the lawyer would point out that I have the same rights, I just don't bother to exercise them (by killing people and then needing them).

 

[carnnell]

Abuse, Premeditation and Aggravating Circumstances


Premeditation
The term premeditation means that a person when attacking another and causing death, did cause the death of the person being attacked who was no longer a threat and the one doing the attack could have retreated but instead chose to continue the attack knowing that by doing so would cause death.
The fact that either Travis was shot first or last should not have any bearing as if he was shot first he did not die from the gunshot.
The time it took to get a knife to do the stabbing after the gun shot to the head was enough time to reflect on the fact that by stabbing him multiple times and cutting his throat would cause his death.
A gunshot wound to the head would likely be enough to incapacitate him and even if it wasn’t the stab wounds he received were and by slashing his throat was way beyond neutralizing an attacker where she could have retreated.
If the event happened the other way around it would still be the same results.
Another oddity is according to Jodie after Travis was shot in the head and he was on the floor grabbing at her clothes he yelled at her once again the phrase (kill you *****).
I think it would be highly unlikely to use the exact same phrase he supposedly used when coming out of the shower the again after he was shot in the head.
After having a bullet travel through your skull I think the chances of using the exact same phrase (kill you *****) would be highly unlikely.

Aggravating Circumstances
Heinous- heinous: hatefully or shockingly evil: grossly bad; cruel: disposed to inflict pain esp. in a wanton, insensate or vindictive manner: sadistic; depraved: marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration.
This means such things as cutting the throat to near decapitation.
Especially “Cruel
To find that a victim suffered mental anguish or physical pain, the Court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the victim was conscious during at least some portion of the crime and that (2) the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer
As to physical pain, the victim does not need to be conscious for “each and every wound” inflicted for cruelty to apply
Physical pain may be found where a conscious victim physically suffered for at least a short period of time
Travis Alexander would have suffered from each and every stab wound as he was alive for a period of time.
The Six Gretzler/Ross Factors: The Court initially delineated five factors to be considered in determining whether the defendant's state of mind was "especially heinous or depraved": (1) whether the defendant apparently relished the murder; (2) whether the defendant inflicted gratuitous violence on the victim; (3) whether the defendant needlessly mutilated the victim; (4) the senselessness of the crime; and (5) the helplessness of the victim

Gratuitous Violence
The gratuitous violence factor focuses on the intent of the killer as evidenced by his actions.
The fact finder must consider the killer’s intentional actions to determine whether he acted with the necessary vile state of mind. The state must make two showings. The state must first show that the defendant
Did, in fact, use violence beyond that necessary to kill. The state must also show that the defendant continued to inflict violence after he knew or should have known that a fatal action had occurred.

I think in summing up here the prosecution will have no problem proving premeditation with facts alone.
The defense has very little in the way of facts to base their case on other than verbal testimony that have come from the mouth of Jodi Arias about three different scenarios as
to how the murder occurred.
The jury has to find beyond a reasonable doubt her guilt.
This does not mean there can me no doubt but that to a reasonable doubt.
Many murderers have been convicted of premeditated murder with much less facts than the Jodi Arias case has produced.
I have faith that the jurors in this case will make the right decision which will be guilty as charged.

Snip for space and point:
BBM
Premeditation instruction in AZ is as follows:

According to AZ jury instruction:
Pr-meditation means intent or knowledge to kill another human being.

"Premeditation" means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first-degree murder and second-degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.] pg PDF 71

REVISED ARIZONA JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL) Third Edition 2011

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

 

[indicat]

I respectfully disagree. Of course Travis (and any other victim) is worth the investment. However, it is a travesty of justice when a defendant and her team can waste time and money on an irrelevant, erroneous and narcissistic rant of a defense that is nothing more than an uncorroborated character assassination of the victim. She has the right to claim it was self-defense, but her testimony better back up the evidence found at the crime scene and it just doesn't come anywhere near. Instead the jury was held hostage for weeks to a litany of self-serving lies and inflated, unsupported claims, an epic and unnecessary recounting of her life story, and "expert" witnesses who have stretched the substance of her behavior to breaking to attempt to support a claim of PTSD or abuse.

The same stuff happened in the Anthony trial. Re-victimizing another person with uncorroborated swill. I think it's the job of the defense to save their client's life, but not at the expense of the victim. Ever. Save the mitigating garbage for the sentencing phase and just stick to the actual evidence for the rest of it.

The defendant said on tape that if she ever hurt Travis she'd deserve the death penalty. Well, let's just take her word for that then because she has certainly admitted to this brutal and horrific crime.

I see what your saying and in fact signed the petition on change.org that Samantha Alexander said a friend started to change the laws allowing unsubstantiated claims about the victim into trial.

 

[jojomonkey]

Well, she'd have to have a passport to go. And, if she was a minor, I would think her parents would have to sign off on that. Not sure they would with her track record... :twocents:

Oh I think she would have taken it so far as to get a passport to make it look more legit.

I have personal experience with a pathological liar/sociopath. I was married to one, he took his lies so far it was mind-boggling. I had never known or seen anything like it until the Scott Peterson/Casey Anthony/and now Jodi Arias. I didn't know others existed for a long time and it made me feel like th biggest fool on the planet!!!

He once told me he was going into business with a friend and had me type up his business plan. It was never a real thing, I spent hours on something that didn't exist. Call me stupid, live and learn, (20 years ago), but I never imagined someone could lie that much about anything and everything. These kind of people do.

 

[nightwatch]

I know it is frustrating but it is worth pointing out that this entire Trial is an e ercersize in Travis' rights. That's what we're doing here. Redressing the fact that his rights were violated by the defendant. When people get upset about the money being spent on the trial, what they are actually saying is that Travis' death isn't worth this kind investment in justice.

bbm i may be misunderstanding you, but i am one of those that think the money spent by the defense is outrageous. tax payer money gives the defense deep pockets to reach into. last i saw total was over $800,000. iirc. look at what nurmi makes against jm. plus all dt expenses. wonder if doc rs padded his bills? i asked last week here and was told there does not seem to be a dt budget. jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

OK...hypothetical question since the topic of root canals makes me think of this case.

If you could choose to eliminate ONE element of this trial by having a root canal, despite you not really needing one, which would you get rid of?

(i) constant sidebars, delays, general lack of control and professionalism in the courtroom
(ii) listening to Nurmi and more sex talk with his slow and deliberate style/delivery
(iii) listening to Arias talk about anything
(iv) watching Arias do anything at the defense table (i.e., popping pills, draw, whisper like a middle schooler to Willmott)

Sidebars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[callyn]

 

[Steely Dan]

I have much respect for defense attorneys. IMO they love the law and the constitution. It's not about if they're defending the guilty or an innocent. It's about the process. Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, everyone. The state must prove their case. beyond a reasonable doubt and if another scenario is plausible ... The state didn't prove its case. It's a tough job, I couldn't do it... But I have the upmost respect for those that do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree to a certain extent. I think JB calling GA a child molester, and Nurmi calling TA a child molester with no more proof than a sociopath's words is unethical. Legally they can do it, but I get the impression they're in it for the money, more than basing a defense on the truth. Nurmi wanted to get out due to losing money. JMO (I know the truth would convict her and lying is a better way.)

I have the same recurring dream! I'm at school & I hate it, and I have Calculus after lunch, but I get lost trying to find the right building. I decide to just leave & go home. I do this several times & then I find myself in class and hopelessly behind & find out I have an F.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN, SD?????:what:

Are you serious, or just messin??

I've had THE same dream...except there a number of classes I couldn't figure out the same thing with, but it started in high school.
THEN, I'd go on to college, and realize I shouldn't be there because I failed all the other courses in high school....LOL
THEN, I'd go to get my degree, but, I STILL didn't finish the high school courses, didn't finish the college courses and kept trying to figure out how to fix it all!!

Oh, Lord.....LOL

(No emu's though....although there MIGHT have been one teaching a Chemistry class......)

That's weird that so many of us suffer from the same weird type dream. :waitasec:

BTW, chemistry isn't an emus strength. They do much better with teaching English, or Aussie I guess you'd call it. :seeya:

In my professional opinion, you suffer from Transient Global Avoidance Syndrome with an overlapping condition which affects many men...Chronic Directional Assistance Abstinence.

Now, my profession just so happens to be actuarial/employee benefit plans so please take that into consideration before acting on my diagnoses.

Did you go to the same school Dr. Samuels did? And finish behind him in your class?

 

[snowshuze]

Are we there yet?

 

[Novice Seeker]

Who cares if Jodi was questioned ? She'd only lie.

The fact the allegations are uncorroborated, supported by zero evidence was put forth by the mouth of a proven liar... Insures no one will believe it and only makes her look worse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I care because the stalking and other fatal attraction behaviors go to the premeditation and the rage involved in killing Travis. And when the witness was questioned she wasn't allowed to go into detail about ALL of the incidents of Jodi's stalking.

 

[kscornfed]

I have always been knife first, for the reasons Rose mentions, but as a side note, another thing that supports knife first is her refusal to talk about the knife attack. Even in the ninja story, she doesn't talk about the knife attack. This memory is very personal, pleasurable and private to her, which leads me to believe it was her preferred and chosen method and the gun was secondary.

i don't think that's why she's lying about the knife attack. she's lying about it because it's the most horrific, awful aspect of this murder. she will never admit to remembering having that knife in her hand (except for dropping it) because it makes her sound like the monster we know she is and puts that picture of her stabbing him in the minds of the jury.

it's been a plan from the beginning to deny any memory of using a knife----a very calculated move on the part of the defense. it distances her from those autopsy photos and that's what they want.

 

[lisalei321]

Court today 1pm EST?

 

[SunDawnn]

IMO, the defense was doomed immediately after JW's first sentence during her Opening Statement.

JENNIFER WILLMOTT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander. There is no question about it. The million-dollar question is what would have forced her to do it?

ALV is going to be hard pressed to come up with any logical conclusion as to why JA was forcedto murder Travis - none of her 'story' adds up. JA did not 'kill' Travis, she brutally murdered him in cold blood.

I, for one, am not interested in hearing any gobbledygook about 'why' or 'what' possessed the devil's spawn to do what she did. I barely listened to the charlatan, Dr.
Samuels...he insulted the intelligence of the jury and all who had the misfortune of listening to him. JM could have preserved much of his energy by simply making a mockery of the ludicrous PTSD garbage.

That said, my first impression of ALV is that she will be someone the jury can identify with - a devoted advocate for victims of DV. She has worked in the trenches along side of the victims...unlike the armchair, pop psycholgist who specializes in sex therapy.

Juan is going to have to be very careful with this witness. He can't lose sight of the fact that JA was in no way a victim of DV - it was Travis who was the victim of a vile predator, stalker, murderer.

Actually, I am looking forward to hearing how ALV is going to weave DV/battered woman syndrome into the murder of Travis, since she will not be discussing anything directly involving Travis. At least that's the way I understand it. Her testimony will most likely be valuable as it pertains to the seriousness of DV; however, NONE of it can be attributable to Jodi Arias. We know it; Juan knows it; and the jury knows it.

Jodi Arias was not forced to murder Travis! She drove 1000 miles to do it - hiding her tracks - under the cover of darkness. GUILTY - Premeditated, 1st Degree! Case closed!

They have conveniently combined an 'accident' in with a 'defensive action' however not one time in these 30 some odd days, have they referred to this event as an accident even though.....it supposedly was.

She didn't mean to kill him. In fact, she didn't even think there was a bullet in the chamber, remember? Therefore it was an accident.

But then she goes for the extra netting-- to catch any fallout from that absurd allegation--- so she created the abusive relationship scenario as an extra layer of lie! And wouldn't ya know it?....not one person has collaborated her insinuation. Her known actions don't even correlated to her
abusive scenario.

I mean, who writes this campy crap? This is like a D-graded movie written by a bunch of 12-year olds.

 

[ClosArgs]

OK...hypothetical question since the topic of root canals makes me think of this case.

If you could choose to eliminate ONE element of this trial by having a root canal, despite you not really needing one, which would you get rid of?

(i) constant sidebars, delays, general lack of control and professionalism in the courtroom
(ii) listening to Nurmi and more sex talk with his slow and deliberate style/delivery
(iii) listening to Arias talk about anything
(iv) watching Arias do anything at the defense table (i.e., popping pills, draw, whisper like a middle schooler to Willmott)

(iii) listening to Arias talk about anything

If I had to listen to even one more minute of JA edifying herself while contemporaneously de-edifying everyone else (Juan, parents, TA, etc...) I too would have PTSD.