trial day 44: the defense continues its case in chief #134

[Kamille]

OK, this right here? This is key. I don't remember reading about that statement before.

If you follow crimes at all, think back to how many missing women have issued this same statement. Think~ Stacy Peterson for one.

(Think myself for two, I actually typed up a letter and left it in my fire safe that said, hey, if I'm missing you know who to look for and I'm probably out in the fire pit where he said he'd put me.)

This is a crucial piece of evidence and NO WHERE is there a statement like that from Jodi Arias is there?

Well ironically I don't believe they can bring that statement in can they? As it would be considered hearsay? I really don't get that. Anything the victim has said is hearsay and is inadmissable. Anything the murderer has said is evidence.

MOO

 

[kayice]

Image credit - anon? I wonder who took them...

Dave Hughes, I think.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I have a question that has been bothering me...the defense has referenced it quite a few times during the trial and it seems to be part of the reason why Jodi was so-called abused.

Their first sexual encounter, oral sex, was upsetting to Jodi because she felt it was too soon. Why is this used as part of her being abused? She never made it known to TA that she was uncomfortable/didnt want it and she never said NO! Fear of rejection is HER craziness not his. How was he to know she wasnt enjoying it fully if she never said no and she never said she was uncomfortable! Same with anal sex...I dont get where this is a serious issue with TA when it was never made known she had issues with it, and in fact quite the contrary, she acted like it was great. I feel like i am missing something here since so much time and energy has been spent fighting over this....what am I missing?

Please remember, JA is the only person claiming that this took place in the home of Travis's friends' house (first date kinda like). It is my opinion that she said this to make Travis look like a really horrible guy - She planned all this out to try to make Travis look disrespectful and awful. I don't believe it ever happened. JMO

 

[IBsleuthin]

Well ironically I don't believe they can bring that statement in can they? As it would be considered hearsay? I really don't get that. Anything the victim has said is hearsay and is inadmissable. Anything the murderer has said is evidence.

MOO

In my humble opinion they need to go get the person that said that and bring them on into court and have them testify. I'm too lazy to go look it up, does anyone remember who it was that said Travis told them this?

 

[BritsKate]

And why would you take out a restraining order on someone who lived 1000 miles away? But Travis did tell someone about it. In fact I believe he told a few someone's about it. Like the poor girl who had her tires slashed. Not sure if she was the same one who he told it to in the IM chat. And he did tell the church elder if he didn't show up for dinner one Sunday that he was likely dead. I'd say he was talking to people about it in those final weeks/days. He just didn't take it seriously enough himself. That's of course assuming that he did let her in his house in the early morning hours of June 4th and spent the day sleeping with and having sex with her.

MOO

I pointed out earlier today I didn't call the police or pursue another restraining order either but I too told friends and even family. I was in the middle of a hotly contested custody battle, the court had already given him unsupervised visitation, and I feared doing anything to provoke him could also exacerbate an already bad situation.

He had the ability to spend several hours a week with my children alone, by court order! The absolutely most efficient way to hurt me is through them. There wasn't a moment they weren't at the forefront of my mind. And the very real, very scary possibility I could lose custody to someone I knew was dangerous.

I even let him into my house, after he'd pulled a gun on me and threatened to kill me repeatedly, so I guess using LaViolette's definitions I was neither stalked nor fearful. I say poppycock! (Mostly just because I really love the word poppycock. ) It's kinda blatantly obvious her perceptions are wholly biased and dangerously skewed.

MOO

 

[IBsleuthin]

It seemed to me that after the first question---and then the immediate side bar---she shaped up for a few minutes. But then unfortunately, she fell back into her usual.....what should I call it...........let me think here now for the word I'm looking for............oh yes, I have it now............PATTERN.

I thought ALV looked a bit shaken after two of the recesses. Even after some of the side bars I thought she looked shaken. She can hear what they are saying up there.

I can't imagine being in her shoes. WHY doesn't she just answer the questions.

Arguing over the word stalking when it is CLEARLY in the terrorism column was a huge mistake and in my opinion just made her look non compliant.

 

[katiedid2]

Hope Jodie's food diet for the rest of her life will be peanut butter and boloney. No Starbucks, or I hop. None of the things our pallet gets to enjoy. I think she only gets three showers a week.
No cell phone and all the things she once enjoyed. No running in the rain, not able to control her own life. She belongs to the system.

They say jumps she jumps. No pens the simple things in life. no privacy!

 

[Truth Detector]

I have a question that has been bothering me...the defense has referenced it quite a few times during the trial and it seems to be part of the reason why Jodi was so-called abused.

Their first sexual encounter, oral sex, was upsetting to Jodi because she felt it was too soon. Why is this used as part of her being abused? She never made it known to TA that she was uncomfortable/didnt want it and she never said NO! Fear of rejection is HER craziness not his. How was he to know she wasnt enjoying it fully if she never said no and she never said she was uncomfortable! Same with anal sex...I dont get where this is a serious issue with TA when it was never made known she had issues with it, and in fact quite the contrary, she acted like it was great. I feel like i am missing something here since so much time and energy has been spent fighting over this....what am I missing?

BBM

"what am I missing?"

Nothing but a heaping helping of BIAS.

With enough of it you can be as smart as the Einsteinian defendant and her 'experts'.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Jumping off your post.

For any attorneys: does the basis for whether or not a judge gives the jury instructions to consider a "battered woman's mind-set" for a lesser charge, be based on whether or not she feels the defense has proven that in testimony? TIA!

As I understand it, the attorneys will plead their cases before only the judge - then she will decide. And she is SO afraid of an appeal, I can guess what her answer will be.


BTW - I'm NOT even close to being an attorney. lol

 

[kayice]

So the sex at Starbucks, was it? AL said that Travis just got out of the car after and left. So, were they in Jodi's car? Hearing AL describe it, I don't believe this story either.

 

[Kamille]

Besides, so what if he didn't fit her definition of stalking, he was still abused by her own definition. She was just quibbling that he didn't stop contact (though he did attempt it, so she's wrong), which means he still fits an abuse victim, abuse by invasion of privacy and deceit and manipulation. She's a fraud.

And she doesn't care about truth. She kept going on about it's the context, it's all the information. But if the information is faulty, then your assessment will be faulty. She has no concept of scientific standards of investigation. She's winging it. She's an expert maybe on counseling, but she's not an expert on determining if someone is telling the truth about abuse. There is no research or paper she can point to that validates her approach as scientific. Blah!!!

I think she's an expert in taking a 30yr old college degree and turning it into a lucrative business doing seminars, mandatory anger management courses, getting her name on books written by other people and "fudging" her CV to make people think she's an "expert". IMO, she's nothing more than a person with a gift of the gab and an ability to BS with the best of them. Oh and a sneaky "business woman". She did this for the money. Period. And her attitude with JM is just her absolute dislike for him which likely started in the pre trial hearings and interviews. She had it out for him before she ever took the stand in the actual trial. For her it's about power and control over him and trying to get him to "lose it" in front of the jury to prove her point about abusive men.

MOO

 

[wasnt_me]

First, I put no stock in what alv says regarding either issue, but I think to answer your question, in my view, the police and courts have been forced to act upon a DV situation after years or decades of inaction. They haven't come to address stalking yet in the same regard. Is it just as frightening and dangerous, absolutely and does there need to be more strides made, yes. My thought is that in a dv situation you can usually see an immediate "proof", ie black eye, etc., whereas in a stalking situation you have a she said/he said and no immediate proof of where the truth lies. Is there more work needing to be done and should it be taken more seriously, resounding yes. I have no idea however of how long it will take for both matters to be equally reacted upon and defended and protected in a court of law tho. Computers and technology make stalking so much easier in todays world and laws are not keeping up with the the changes. Hope I answered some of your thoughts.

Yes, I was speaking rhetorically with the questions. Thanks for your input. My soapbox tirade has to do with victims taking action. ALV seems to believe a stalking victim must be immediately afraid, like it's the movie "scream" or something, and that they must cut off all contact with the stalker, and call the police. She doesn't think a DV victim must do the same things.

It's amazing to me because she has stalking on her DV "continuum." I wonder if she's aware that an abusive spouse can stalk the abused spouse--even as they live in the same house? Or is she calling that jealousy? Who knows.

I understand the reasons a DV victim may not seek help, call the police and continue on with the abuser. But what I'm getting at is ALV is purporting in court that a stalking victim wouldn't react in the same ways as a DV victim. She's wrong and I hope the jury is not buying it. A stalker victim also has valid reasons not to seek help, call police and/or continue on with their stalker.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Well, isn't this just charming?

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...ting-twitter-page-from-jail-with-outside-help

Good heavens, TXHoney. That is totally disgusting. She just can't keep her darn mouth shut, can she?? I'll bet Donavon and Arias BOTH are just loving the spotlight. BARF

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

You know, If I were a Juror, I would wonder why there are no friends or family coming to her defense as witnesses for her Life. Think about that.

 

[mollyf]

I have a question that has been bothering me...the defense has referenced it quite a few times during the trial and it seems to be part of the reason why Jodi was so-called abused.

Their first sexual encounter, oral sex, was upsetting to Jodi because she felt it was too soon. Why is this used as part of her being abused? She never made it known to TA that she was uncomfortable/didnt want it and she never said NO! Fear of rejection is HER craziness not his. How was he to know she wasnt enjoying it fully if she never said no and she never said she was uncomfortable! Same with anal sex...I dont get where this is a serious issue with TA when it was never made known she had issues with it, and in fact quite the contrary, she acted like it was great. I feel like i am missing something here since so much time and energy has been spent fighting over this....what am I missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. The defense is absurd.

 

[DairyGirl]

I am just now listening to DD and listening to ALV again. I just cannot understand how a person who is as intelligent and educated as her, who has seemingly devoted her life to helping DV victims can say she believes JA, a person that even Stevie Wonder can see is a pathological liar and most likely a psychopath and whom she herself has caught in several "inconsistencies", yet she insists that JA's story is believable and, to her, true. And how she can label JA a victim and Travis as the perpetrator even though JA has never had one documented mark on her body from Travis and, sadly, we have seen the results of JA's handywork. And I can't understand how, even if she believed with all her hear that JA was a victim of DV how that in any way excuses the savage murder of Travis or in any way justifies what she did to him. It is like she hates men so much that no matter what they do they are abusers and no matter what the woman does she is the victim.
There is not one iota of evidence that shows that JA was in any way physically abused by Travis, nor nothing to show that he was a pedophile yet ALV believes those things to be facts. She denies JA stalking behavior because Travis didn't act scared, didn't call the police or avoid JA, yet when JA does the exact same thing in regards to her claims about Travis ALV thinks that's okay because JA was only afraid of Travis when he was angry. I just don't get it. Is she that deluded or is she that desperate for money? She must know that she will be the laughing stock of those in her profession and anyone else who has heard her defend this butcher.

 

[ljs713]

This picture scares me. The extreme closeness to Wilmott, the stare that goes right thru Wilmott, the beady eyes. It even captures a moment of disgust from JW . It screams creepy murderer to me.

That is a creepy photo. I just got the chills looking at it. She is pure evil!

 

[SassyMom]

She's despicable but why would anyone want to hack it?

I just want her to get the DP asap and leave everyone alone. :twocents::twocents::twocents:

Just to bring it down.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

It infuriates me.

Nurmi doesn't want to be in this case - He is anxious to move on with his new business (but he is stuck with this one)...He will do ANYTHING for a mistrial. JMO

 

[mollyf]

I thought ALV looked a bit shaken after two of the recesses. Even after some of the side bars I thought she looked shaken. She can hear what they are saying up there.

I can't imagine being in her shoes. WHY doesn't she just answer the questions.

Arguing over the word stalking when it is CLEARLY in the terrorism column was a huge mistake and in my opinion just made her look non compliant.

That was just nuts, wasn't it? At that part, I had to pause the YouTube player and mindfully consider if I really want to voluntarily subject myself any more of her. Answer is no.

I hope you're right. I hope it was a huge mistake. It was enough for me.