weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139

Status
Not open for further replies.
She has the words, she has the time they were sent, and she has the date.

It's pretty easy to figure out the length of time.

Everything is timestamped and dated.

IMO
Are you assuming that there was CONTINUOUS chatter back and forth for that entire time? We aren't privy to that evidence, but it's entirely possible that there were considerable lengths of time between the responses.
They may have been responding to the same subject, but unless I see the evidence, I have a hard time believing there was constant chatter the entire time.
 
Re listening to the trial today and the reality of the jury questions was very powerful. They sent Jodie and her DT a message LOUD and CLEAR!

We do not believe you were battered. There is no proof other than angry text messages! Everyone has arguments its normal.

They clearly didnt buy the domestic violence allegation, absolutely no proof.
 
Speaking of those evil, beady eyes....

I wonder if the DT didn't make a huge mistake by putting those hideous glasses on her. They don't make her look like a librarian....or a bookworm....they make her look like the wicked witch of the West. She seems to have some sort of eye problem - she's almost cockeyed. The glasses only serve to enhance that problem. Her eyes are bone-chilling to begin with - but I would never have put her out there for 3 months with those specs.
MOO

Do you think it might be possible that the glasses are causing her headaches? I doubt she was taken to the eye doctor for an exam. Eye glasses are often donated to prisons.
 
Based on my limited knowledge, I would say no. I think it MIGHT be grounds for appeal if Jodi hadn't gotten on the stand. I believe a defendant as a Constitutional right to speak in their own defense. But getting screwed because you took the stand? I think you are just, well, screwed.


That was my thinking as well, but definitely no legal eagle here.

This has been one roller coaster of a case. At least for me. Just slogging through the stuff that didn't seem to make a difference..aka sex..just was really hard. So much seem to cover the bottom line. Or they tried to.

Idk. Someone asked earlier about LWOP/DP and being disappointed. I guess I would be disappointed in a way if DP was not the final punishment. JA has done so much damage to so many people in so many ways just in this trial. I can't imagine what else is out there. Plus we aren't even contemplating whether she did or did not murder him. She admitted that. It feels like I am immersed in semantics for the last 50 days.

I don't think I will be disappointed as in the FCA case. But I would feel like she certainly deserved it if that is what she got.

K
 
Eggtree's post on JA"s Einstein brain.

One of the finest gems that came out of yesterday’s testimony was the revelation that murderess Jodi Arias considers herself an intellectual equal to genius theoretical physicist Albert Einstein. Just take a moment to wrap your head around that.
Having trouble? Let me help…
Remember that time award winning physicist Albert Einstein took pictures while he murdered someone? And then left both the camera and memory card at the scene of the crime? That was genius.
I also read that one time, shortly after discovering the theory of relativity and redefining the way we perceive the universe, Einstein stole a gun from his grandpa’s house, and used it on his ex days later, despite it already being reported missing to police.
And then, there was that time when his mass-energy equivalency formula became the most famous equation in the world (but before he discovered the laws of photoelectric effect that would lay the groundwork for quantum theory), when he denied seeing himself posing in crime scene photos placed right in front of him.
And I’m pretty sure that Jodi Arias had already won a Nobel prize and initiated the Manhattan Project when she cried amnesia regarding the details of that whole “knife attack” she had already blamed on intruders.
Yup. Genius.

This is one part ofthe trial that I can't find!! It's driving me nuts! I was away on business and although I tried to watch the YouTube videos of the trail each evening, I fell asleep to a few. These were very long work days and I had to get up early.

If someone could guide me to the trial day or video, I would be most grateful!

I have gotta see this part!
 
The DV expert's examples of her open ended questions she asks clients or persons she is assessing in an unbiased non-leading way: (during

JODI ARIAS TRIAL COVERAGE 4.12.13 PT. 5 @ http://youtu.be/OCyXhjPI6Vo)
"Do you like your parents?"

Do you like your partner?"

My example of an open ended question as I learned at the university psych 100 freshman level class:
"What can you tell me about your relationship parents/partner?"
 
***Based on what ifs from JA story, so I realize many parts are probably not even true*** Just playing sleuth :)

'If she was going to do this she would have planned it better', huh?? Pre-meditation does not require you to tell a good lie, or even determine the best way to clean up the scene.
Leave out the gas cans, the 1000 miles, etc. all of that stuff I like to call corroborating data. Let's say TA was verbally abusive, fine. From what I understand you don't have to have any type of 'pattern' to decide your ready to kill, and according to ALV even 'victims/survivors do kill.
______
'JA got out of the bathroom'... Couldn't it be argued that her 'plan' of reaching for that gun after getting out of that bathroom was pre-meditation as well?

According to JA prior to her killing him
1. They had sex; this QUELLS his anger.
2. She was taking pictures of him in the shower; he was not angry, in fact, he wanted to do this, to remember his cancun figure.
(At this point I see no reason to believe JA fear factor)

Then, she drops the camera!
3. He yells means words to her, then makes no more mention of further mean words (so no rant)
4. Body slams her, she rolls over and gets away (he let her go, no escalation)
NOTE: They were both crouching down, why stand-up then pick her up when if you are a wrestler the simple thing to do is an immediate take-down, pushing her backwards to the floor)

5. According to JA, in the bathroom TA did not threaten to kill or harm her at this point.
NOTE: If he was so angry why did he stop? To her own account the wind was knocked out of her, he could have:
• continued slamming her,
• jumped on top of her, pinned her to the ground
• beat her with his hands
• used the camera as a weapon....

6. She runs into the closet, and immediately grabs the gun.
NOTE: does not choose to run outside, grab a shoe or hanger to throw, goes right for the gun and does not even know if he is behind her, interesting choice when you don’t even know if there is a threat, and you don’t think the gun is loaded)

7. Continues into the bathroom, aims the gun.
8. He lunges, gun goes off, she says she has no choice
NOTE: She also has said, didn't think gun was loaded, and did not intend to shoot, ALV made no statement of 'gun just going off' said she shot

9. NOW he threatens to kill her.
NOTE: now would have been a good time to call 911; instead her choice was a knife. I wonder if there was a phone next to the knife on the bedstand. Was she not intending to stab him, or now is when that Self-Defense part comes in?
10. Everything is now foggy….. (except at one point she was holding a knife screaming, and that it appears to have been on the bed stand the whole time)

NOTE: Possible that TA never even left the bathroom, or was heading into the closet to get dressed; he was naked. Lunging? Could he have been trying to protect himself? Lunge also a male instinct when your parts are out, and a gun is aimed at you

I see many pts where TA was much more vulnerable, and balance of power was in JA favor. I hope the jury clearly understands that you don't have to have a good plan, just have to know ahead of time that you want to kill the person. 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..... Some don't even care if they are caught, and might enjoy telling a few good stories along the way to include as part of their manefesto...
 
The DV expert's examples of her open ended questions she asks clients or persons she is assessing in an unbiased non-leading way: (during

JODI ARIAS TRIAL COVERAGE 4.12.13 PT. 5 @ http://youtu.be/OCyXhjPI6Vo)
"Do you like your parents?"

Do you like your partner?"

My example of an open ended question as I learned at the university psych 100 freshman level class:
"What can you tell me about your relationship parents/partner?"

Perfect example.
 
<<The Heat is Juan>>

[video=youtube;rJgkugEsZWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJgkugEsZWI[/video]
 
Under the harsh light of questioning, ALaV has scraped and sanded her assessment until there is nothing credible left of it. Nothing. Since she only considered, according to testimony under oath, what Falsity told her plus the journals and various forms of messaging, she cannot now maintain that her knowledge that the gun was fired in the closet came from Richard Samuels. She didn't consult with him. Even if she succeeded in pinning this to him, why would he believe it? We also know that the defendant toyed with that location for the shooting because she slipped and nearly said "in the closet" but retracted it, on the stand. I noticed in reading the journal excerpts we've been shown, Falsity wrote in a passage about their money and bank account quarrel that Travis "yelled " at her. That would net a big blot on her copybook under The Law of Attraction. She felt free to write it, however, so she could have noted the other occasions of verbal abuse if they had occurred.

We know about the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive but the knot ALaV and Falsity have tied, as ALaV would say, "collaboratively", is so enormous and so twisted that it will not roll out the courtroom door. The defendant, all counsel and the jurors, will confront it daily in the weeks to come.
 
JM to smart to risk this with JA......he doesn't want an OJ glove moment ....

I agree. There are tons of ways for the defense to question the exhibit boiling it down to: how do we know the exact same materials were in the closet on the day she stepped on the shelf?

Opening that door will lead to days and days of back and forth. It isn't necessary to prove, considering how over the top she killed him. It isn't necessary to prove each and every lie, in my opinion. The jury has been through enough.
 
Do you think it might be possible that the glasses are causing her headaches? I doubt she was taken to the eye doctor for an exam. Eye glasses are often donated to prisons.
Actually, she WAS taken for an eye exam. My question is who paid for the many variations of frames we saw?
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I am still :banghead: from ALV's "No" answer yesterday in response to the question about whether the physical abuse - a brutal murder with gun and knife - that Jodi inflicted on Travis was worse than the verbal (emails, texts, etc.) abuse that Travis inflicted on Jodi. I hope the jury is as :furious: about this as I am and that LaViolette's extreme bias towards the defendant resonates loud and clear with each and every one of them.

I feel the same way. Of all the nasty, derogatory things she said about Travis.....this is IMO the sickest. I hope, if there were any jurors who might have been on the fence about her credibility, this statement knocked them over and allowed them to see her bias and refusal to disbelieve anything JA said. My DH screamed and turned around and asked me, 'did she REALLY say that?' We were both shocked.
 
Yes, I wondered the same thing earlier but they said in the wake of the overkill (which to me looks like a raging frenzy), the repeated lies and no record of prior abuse or complaints, she had no choice.

I wish she hadn't realized she was in over her head back when she wanted to represent herself. I would have paid to see that.

I have a different of opinion of JA's "intent" to represent herself. I think it was more clearly a case of her attorney's refusing to become involved in the presentation of forged letters and therefore JA had no choice but to drop that game plan, or drop her attorneys while she attempted to see of she could out smart the system. As soon as her attempt failed, she became represented again. Cal her DT what you will, but they weren't willing to lose their license to practice law for Miss Murderess.... Nooooooo way.
 
Yes, I wondered the same thing earlier but they said in the wake of the overkill (which to me looks like a raging frenzy), the repeated lies and no record of prior abuse or complaints, she had no choice.

I wish she hadn't realized she was in over her head back when she wanted to represent herself. I would have paid to see that.

I have a different of opinion of JA's "intent" to represent herself. I think it was more clearly a case of her attorney's refusing to become involved in the presentation of forged letters and therefore JA had no choice but to drop that game plan, or drop her attorneys while she attempted to see of she could out smart the system. As soon as her attempt failed, she became represented again. Cal her DT what you will, but they weren't willing to lose their license to practice law for Miss Murderess.... Nooooooo way.
 
This is one part ofthe trial that I can't find!! It's driving me nuts! I was away on business and although I tried to watch the YouTube videos of the trail each evening, I fell asleep to a few. These were very long work days and I had to get up early.

If someone could guide me to the trial day or video, I would be most grateful!

I have gotta see this part!
I know "about" when it was covered - I'll try to find it for you.
 
Do you think it might be possible that the glasses are causing her headaches? I doubt she was taken to the eye doctor for an exam. Eye glasses are often donated to prisons.

She is not in prison. She is in jail and while there the jail is responsible for her health. So I really doubt these are donated.
 
I have a different of opinion of JA's "intent" to represent herself. I think it was more clearly a case of her attorney's refusing to become involved in the presentation of forged letters and therefore JA had no choice but to drop that game plan, or drop her attorneys while she attempted to see of she could out smart the system. As soon as her attempt failed, she became represented again. Cal her DT what you will, but they weren't willing to lose their license to practice law for Miss Murderess.... Nooooooo way.
I also remember reading somewhere that she wanted to be her own defense team in order to access the evidence that the investigation wasn't showing her (especially the last crime scene photos) as a mere suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
972
Total visitors
1,060

Forum statistics

Threads
626,049
Messages
18,516,283
Members
240,904
Latest member
nexy9522
Back
Top