weekend break: discuss the latest here #123

[JustJudy]

I'm sure she doctored those journals before she was arrested. Maybe she even made the whole dang things up. I put nothing past her.

I really don't think they would be taking this journals seriously if she had them in jail with her.

In the previous thread, I think it was Manzana (no abuse please if tweren't you, M) who half jokingly suggested Jodi probably was both voices on the sex call also.


Well, I think her other old boyfriend is some sort of a tech guru who invented voice recognition technology....can't we ask him to check that out for us? The voices on the sex tape, I mean. :fence:

 

[gcharlie]

Because this trial has dragged on for so long, it is easy to get caught in the minutia of things and lose sight of things in their entirety. If this trial had lasted less than three weeks and focused on the real issues, like it should have, we would not be picking on minor points. It may be part of the DT strategy, hoping the jury can't see the forest for the trees. Closing arguments will put things sharply in focus again.

Yes good point. I think we are forgetting this isn't the first time for them to meet. He ripped shreds off her in the pretrial re the claim about where the picture of the boy was as she said the pic was on Travis's computer. They each know what each other are like and now its in JM's court.

The jury does not know that they have met before. Because this trial has turned into a marathon, I forgot that JM and ALV have exchanged pleasantries in what has been reported as a heated meeting (the pedo incident in an evidentiary hearing).

Anyone think it is strange that the two people who were suppose to give an objective report for court regarding the defendant end up sending her books that would help Jodi with her defense? jmo

KIM that ALV was first brought on as the mitigation specialist; this role has significant latitude and is often considered the most important DT postion in a death penalty case. You are also making assumptions as to what kind of books JA was given; IIRC, the details have not been disclosed.

What really jumped out at me was when she actually verbalized it and answered something to the effect of wanting to know where Juan was going with his questioning. The jury must have wondered about that response.

Going back to their prior history, she knows how sharp he is. Burned me once...


Anybody know what's going on with the smilies? The selection won't expand for me???

 

[VALee]

These are in my back yard... how much will you guys give me if I dress up as Snow White and sit in the audience?

A: It depends, we'll want to see video first.

 

[Hopeful One]

Ironically she will not be speaking this weekend as they were inundated with furious calls. True story you can call, they have replaced her.:what:

Really?? How do you know they were getting calls?? Interesting! I want more details! lol

 

[SunDawnn]

I would like if someone could brief me about Gus Searcy and the 'passenger' he didn't want to mention when crossed examined by Juan.

What, when and where was that about? I've always found it unsettling that according to both he and Jodi, Gus was the one to receive a phone call from Jodi the night she murdered Travis. Why is that being treated as such an incidental? So another words, Gus went to Cancun fully knowing Travis was dead and yet said nothing to no one?. Did no one mention his absence? Was there no talk down in Mexico?

I came across Gus' alleged calendar for that month. Although I see what was pointed out (the same conference call as Chris and Travis were supposed to have) I don't quite grasp the overall connotation. Can someone please help me to understand this?

Gus and Matt are the two areas I'm not crystal clear about except they were involved somehow.
Jodi said (or slipped) during her testimony, that Matt was suppose to be 'there'. What was THAT all about and why didn't Juan jump on that?

Gus Searcy

"Matt hadn't answered his phone until he was THERE" says Jodi
Starts at 30 minute mark.

Jodi Arias Trial - What The Hades Does This Mean - YouTube

 

[rose222]

Hope I'm putting this in the right place. First time caller, long time "listener" to WS. Really enjoy the insight!

I just have a few minutes, so I'll have to come back to see if there are any replies, but I have two questions/observations:

1. If LaViolette had a talk entitled "Was Snow White Abused?" and it wasn't really about Snow White being abused, then that is misleading. And misleading is what this lady has been from day one.

2. I haven't heard/seen any comments on how coerced Travis looks in the shower photos. He looks cowed and afraid. In one, I think he seems to have the beginning of tears in his eyes. Wouldn't this be an important part of the trial? Maybe someone has covered it, and I didn't see, since I've only been watching since Arias came to the stand. I knew that was crazy in and of itself, given the circumstances, so it was like a car wreck - you want to look away, but your curiousity gets the better of you.

Thanks in advance for any input! :seeya:

Welcome Jane! Great first post!

 

[Donnareit]

I don't agree that LaViolette hates men, per se, but I do believe she is extremely biased and even to some degree naive about abuse victims altogether - who are predominantly women.

She leaves little room in works I've seen to account for male victims and in addition seems to 'whitewash' female abuse victims into a (sometimes very inappropriate) virginal, innocent, helpless maiden simply awaiting rescue.

And in so doing, I think she's very unfair - and even potentially dangerous - to the very complex issues at play. Not all abuse victims are snowy white but many are in some way vulnerable - I'd consider compassion or empathy 'vulnerabilities' for this purpose, in addition to many, many others. Abuse, as I see it, is a predatory process in which an abuser targets their victim and uses a series of abusive, manipulative, and controlling behaviors to use a victim's vulnerabilities against them - solely to keep them in the relationship and complacent.

So if we flip this case around, and lend credence to Travis' many friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances accounts they shared online prior to the beginning of this trial - that he gave people the benefit of the doubt, was very trusting, and that he had a nature of being generous, sometimes to a fault and his own detriment; if we also add in he likely lived in a very insulated world due to his religion being the focal point much of his life revolved around; and if we concede he'd likely never encountered a psychopath before...

I think it becomes a very apparent, very clear-cut pattern of a very typical abusive relationship, and Travis a very similar profile to other abuse victims.

:goodpost:

I concur. And I think ALV probably is coming from a perspective when male/female upbringing was geared toward one-income families and rigid sexual mores. The Snow White/Prince Charming model of gender stereotypes is changing.

However, in a world where violence is practically worshipped in sports and movies, power is still equated with winning. And winning is everything.

 

[Truth Detector]

Sorry for the earlier rant about the judge.

I feel in the last years that the tail is wagging the dog in our courtrooms.

Judges are so afraid that their verdicts are going to be overturned they go overboard in appeasing everyone in site.

I feel that was part of the CA trial and I see it going on here.

I just feel it is disrespectful to the court and the judicial process.
IMO

I missed your earlier comment, but having suffered the digital slings and arrows of the Judge Sherry K. Stephens fan club in this forum, I continue to maintain that she ceded near-total control of her Maricopa County Superior Courtroom to JA and her DT weeks ago.

Here we go again.

Let 'er fly, folks...

 

[G&AMom]

Wow! It's amazing how it just so happens she mentions all the pertinent points of her testiphoney in the 5/22 journal entry. Phone stolen - check. Mimi - check. "Scandalous text message - check. Recorded phone calls - check. She even says she never figured out how to play back the phone calls for him and goes on and on about how she doesn't want those calls and messages to come to light - yeah right.

And she called him bi-polar - suuuuuurrrreeeee, he's the bi-polar one!

Interesting, isn't it? And notice how there's nothing like, oh Angela called and wants to borrow my blue sweater again, why doesn't she buy her own, or it was a slow night at the restaurant, I hate it when it rains and nobody shows up, or (if all that is too negative), how about, gee, we're getting some great sunsets this time of year, have to get my camera out, or maybe, I've decided I like my hair this darker color, it's more ME, or whatever.

 

[Kamille]

No lawyer here, but I don't think it's any kind of crime or even an issue for anyone to look at anyone in a courtroom. She could even talk to a juror, in an appropriate situation (outside of the courtroom) as long as the real juror followed the admonition and didn't say anything about the case.

I beleive the judge would have kept her out of the courtroom if she thought there was any risk of a mistrial. I believe that is totally within her purview.

As much as I find her behavior distasteful, I believe she has every right to look at, and make eye contact, with whoever she wants.

I thought the judge instructed the jury that they were to have no contact with Juror 5?

One thing that does bother me is that it may have been someone or more than one someone on the actual jury who had the agenda to get rid of Juror 5 for their own personal reasons. If that's the case then they've really got some troubles. I still believe that the whole issue with the Casey Anthony jury were a few very strong personalities who were there with their own agenda (anti death penalty? pro FCA?) and who were able to force some weaker personalities to change their views, very quickly without benefit of even one piece of evidence since they never asked to see any.

MOO

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Replay of Opening Statements on HLN next

 

[rose222]

Ironically she will not be speaking this weekend as they were inundated with furious calls. True story you can call, they have replaced her.:what:

Please provide a source. Thanks.

 

[thefragile7393]

In the previous thread, I think it was Manzana (no abuse please if tweren't you, M) who half jokingly suggested Jodi probably was both voices on the sex call also.


Well, I think her other old boyfriend is some sort of a tech guru who invented voice recognition technology....can't we ask him to check that out for us? The voices on the sex tape, I mean. :fence:

His family heard the tapes before they were played in court. If it wasn't his voice they would have known.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have to agree. I really, really want to like him but this prosecution team, to me, seems just all over the place. As you say, the evidence is there, the facts are there, hammer those home and let's get done with this!

Between battering the witnesses for no real apparent reason (I can understand getting angry here and there, but not constantly), long, involved questioning of the 'specialists' (only one question to ask here, of either of them: "Are all of these speculations you have given us based on the story Jodi Arias told to you?" Answer: "Yes". "Prosecution rests.") and the cane-signing and picture taking I'm having real trouble understanding the point of any of it. And that was before we even got to Snow White.

I really really do like and highly admire Juan Martinez. Since I have had the pleasure of watching him throughout this case and also watching youtube videos of other cases he has tried... I find him to be the very best Prosecutor I've seen in over two decades of watching criminal trials.

I did not see any badgering. Anytime he raises his voice in indignation it is because the witness is trying to be evasive or arrogant, combative.. or wanting to spar with him rather than answering his questions just like JA, Samuels and ALV has done. He is no shrinking wallflower nor should he ever be.

He put on tight clear case filled with overwhelming evidence of premeditation and did it in only 9 days then he rested his CIC. He is not the problem for prolonging this case and making it into a farce. The DTs CIC has been ongoing for months now. Imo, Juan's questions are fast, clear, and relevant. But he is a thorough Prosecutor and he will ask as many questions that it takes to get the evidence out and the truth known yet he never takes as long in his cross of defense witnesses as the defense did with their droning on and on boring directs.

I have said from the very beginning.. after researching Juan Martinez' history since being a Prosecutor for over 25 years.. and that is he must do what he does best and that is to try cases just like he has done in the past that have given justice to so many victims and their family members. Juan should be himself and he is. He is honest, credible, passionate and a justice fighter who will take as long as necessary to see that justice is done.

IMO

 

[audreyparker]

What does it say? It only goes to the directory page.

Hello everyone! I used to be KY Gal on the In Session board, but decided that would be rather tacky now. So I spelt out Kentucky. I read here for the longest time and finally decided to join. Keep up the good work and Carry ON!

I live in Kentucky too! I used to have no problem abbreviating the state, but after this trial - no way!! :floorlaugh:

 

[thefragile7393]

Because this trial has dragged on for so long, it is easy to get caught in the minutia of things and lose sight of things in their entirety. If this trial had lasted less than three weeks and focused on the real issues, like it should have, we would not be picking on minor points. It may be part of the DT strategy, hoping the jury can't see the forest for the trees. Closing arguments will put things sharply in focus again.



The jury does not know that they have met before. Because this trial has turned into a marathon, I forgot that JM and ALV have exchanged pleasantries in what has been reported as a heated meeting (the pedo incident in an evidentiary hearing).


KIM that ALV was first brought on as the mitigation specialist; this role has significant latitude and is often considered the most important DT postion in a death penalty case. You are also making assumptions as to what kind of books JA was given; IIRC, the details have not been disclosed.



Going back to their prior history, she knows how sharp he is. Burned me once...


Anybody know what's going on with the smilies? The selection won't expand for me???

I have found cleaning out my cache helps

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Juan does this "pulling the rug out" tactic quite a bit. He goes down one track of questions, then quickly switches to a parallel track. The witness is still giving the same answer when he points out to them the question changed. "Did, I ASK you . . .? Now the witness is confused and almost always gets defensive.

I suspect this is a well-learned tactic in rhetoric to hone in on the truth of a matter. It would certainly scare the bejesus out of me.

Yeah, she had just answered the other question, so he switched.

 

[rose222]

And oddly enough his case record is excellent. People can complain all they want but that case record speaks for itself and its not coincidence.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. Try the soft approach in cases as horrendous as this. I bet there won't be any convictions at all. Just 'not guilty' verdicts. :what:

 

[Kattrca]

Please provide a source. Thanks.

Will do, give me a sec to find it

 

[TotallyObsessed]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

These are in my back yard... how much will you guys give me if I dress up as Snow White and sit in the audience?