weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[yuzu-lemon]

Kinda new, ex-LDS also, so there is a bit of perspective going on for me too, live in Arizona and have PTSD...so those are my 'agendas', so to speak:blushing:

:greetings:

Nice to see another Ex-mo here! I wonder how many others are on this site.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

But, saying most murderers are psychopaths could be a true statement.

Based on what?

 

[pferrin]

BBM~ I don't think they're afraid of her per se, maybe enchanted by her?

I agree and I also think that thru the years she has found a way of black mailing folks. Maybe she talks them into sneaking a paper(picture...whatever) to her mom in court then she threatens them after the fact with doing the act. I have a feeling she can be quite the charming victim and persuasive...thus keeping folks under her thumb.

 

[pip]

The bear/tiger question bugs the chit out of me. The person who posed it either has an inflated ego or is dumb as chite can be. What was the point? What were they trying to understand? HINKY METRE (Pinellas effect_ for me. Bleh.

I hope that I am wrong or that the person gets eliminated.

For or against the State, there is something not quite right with that question.

moo

Agreed. We don't need no stinking hung jury.

Hinky.

 

[Ammonitida]

The bear/tiger question bugs the chit out of me. The person who posed it either has an inflated ego or is dumb as chite can be. What was the point? What were they trying to understand? HINKY METRE (Pinellas effect_ for me. Bleh.

I hope that I am wrong or that the person gets eliminated.

For or against the State, there is something not quite right with that question.

moo

Yeah, it's a snarky question.

How about this crap question;

Would you consider deleting pictures and washing the camera an attempt to destroy evidence?

Why would anyone ask a question that has such an obvious answer?

It's like asking Demarte, "does two plus two equal four?".

 

[Nhic]

According to our verified Lawyers (here) only way that would happen is with really NEW evidence.

Not happening. IMO.

Thank you! (breathing sigh of relief!)

 

[DairyGirl]

I was actually stunned that JW took that much time with Dr. D.

I really believe that the defense knows they are on a sinking ship and their strategy is now to delay the inevitable. Maybe they think the world will end before a verdict is reached. That is probably the only way they won't lose. Or maybe that JA will die of old age before she gets the DP.

 

[Pink Panther]

Based on what?

Why would DB not want his face filmed?

 

[DairyGirl]

What if the judge allows a surrebuttal?

Then the networks will pick up the trial and put it on their Fall schedule.

 

[Nhic]

ALL are (001) on that case history = State of AZ v Jodi Arias.

The only time I've seen it otherwise was in the Gabriel Johnson case where we did have two defendants with the same case: Tammi Smith and Elizabeth Johnson. They were delineated with (01) and (02). Same county: Maricopa.

I'm confused. (please - no laughter necessary!:facepalm

Why does it have 002 beside the defendant's name? TIA!

 

[GoAskAllie]

a few thoughts-If Juan has 16 witnesses,maybe he will only ask a few questions of each then JW can only rebut those few,meaning none will be on the stand long Thank God

I wish DD would give an interview about her experience in this trail,but I am thinking she might find it unprofessional.

I do think we will have a verdict at the end of April..

Doubt that JM will call 16 witnesses in rebuttal. If you go back and watch the case-in-chief, he's a master of efficiency and won't put on more evidence than he thinks necessary to convict Jodi. A few of us posted earlier in the thread that we think the "Sixteenth" in the "Sixteenth Supplemental List of Witnesses" refers to the numbers of revisions to the list/document over time.

 

[getReal]

I'm guessing that if the entry way is enclosed before the front door of the house, it's a vestibule. If it's not, it's just an entry.

How about "foyer"?

 

[snowcat]

I suspect it was to protect his young son.

and the fact that his hands among other things appeared in a photo attributed to Travis ? jmo

 

[ElleElle]

:rocker:

Bingo! MOTIVE. :seeya:

I think that JA's ultimate humiliation was when she had to uhaul her azz out of Arizona. She was forced (by circumstances) to ask her family for emotional and financial help and spent a night sleeping in that uhaul (after she'd rejected her mother's help) all because of TA (in her mind). I think that night, is when she hatched her plan and she never looked back. For me, that was the turning moment for her; she couldn't idolize anymore and she went into "discard" mode.

moo

 

[aa9511]

I think that JA's ultimate humiliation was when she had to uhaul her azz out of Arizona. She was forced (by circumstances) to ask her family for emotional and financial help and spent a night sleeping in that uhaul (after she'd rejected her mother's help) all because of TA (in her mind). I think that night, is when she hatched her plan and she never looked back. For me, that was the turning moment for her; she couldn't idolize anymore and she went into "discard" mode.

moo

I had thought she deliberately left Mesa because she had actually thought of the plan BEFORE and needed to move in order to (in her mind) not be a suspect when his body was found. However, then I saw the mom's interview with Det. Flores where she said they "convinced" her to move back to Yrecka to be closer to them. So it very well could be that she made up her mind on that trip and hatched her plan. Also, interesting to note that both parents say their relationship with Jodi was the best it had ever been in that time when she went back...that would support the fact that she "discarded" Travis in her mind and replaced him with her parents' attention. She had latched on to her parents so it was then okay for her to get rid of Travis, b/c in her mind now she had other people.

 

[lil_buddy]

How about this crap question;

Would you consider deleting pictures and washing the camera an attempt to destroy evidence?

Why would anyone ask a question that has such an obvious answer?

It's like asking Demarte, "does two plus two equal four?".

That question was a set up for the following question:

11. Do you think deleting pictures from a camera and then washing that camera is an attempt to remove or destroy evidence?

12. If you had not seen pictures proving that the evidence/photos was recovered, given your knowledge of cameras, would you have viewed this as an effective attempt to destroy evidence?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Why would DB not want his face filmed?

Umm what? Not following...

 

[Pink Panther]

Yeah, it's a snarky question.

How about this crap question;

Would you consider deleting pictures and washing the camera an attempt to destroy evidence?

Why would anyone ask a question that has such an obvious answer?

It's like asking Demarte, "does two plus two equal four?".

Snarky or stupid. If snarky, the questioner thinks they're the cat's zzz, if stupid..."oh no"! I've read many sites tonight trying to figure this question out one way or another and so far, I've not seen a single reason for this bizarre question. I'm leaning toward stupid.

moo

 

[ElleElle]

I totally agree. When Jodi hauled a$$ back to Yreka she stole the ring upon leaving Travis' and when she made her plan, she used the ring as a reason to stop at his place on "her way to Utah".

My gosh lol. We ARE brilliant! :rocker:

Another poster (sorry, I forgot who! But you are super smart!) posited that perhaps the stolen engagement ring was not only the crux of the venomous emails from TA to JA in late May, but also the reason for which he allowed her to come back on June 4.......

To return the property (ring) she stole from him. Before he outted her as the liar and thief she was.....to everyone they knew!

To me, anyway, that theory makes all the pieces fit.

Nice thinking, poster! Sorry I spaced your name!

 

[cubbeegirl]

Why would anyone ask, "Do battered women sometimes resort to killing their abusers to escape them?"

Why???????????????????????????????????????????????

She traveled 1000 MILES to murder him! She wasn't trying escape Travis!

But nevertheless, a juror asked that question!

There's one or more people on that jury that are pro-defense. I know it.

It is so great to be able to hear how others interpret things and then to think about them from a whole other angle.
that question to me says that this person does not buy into the whole battered woman smoke and mirrors...