The state Rests in The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #12

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LambChop said:
After living with her BF for four years she could not get him to marry her. Sounds like she may have figured if TA had sex with her he would feel obligated to marry her. She was almost there. jmo
Click to expand...

Yes, somewhere along the line, it become "OFFICIAL" in her mind. I agree, she was close and almost there, and she wasn't going to just forget about it and go away.
 
bobloblaw said:
I find it offensive to read posts slagging a religion on here, and the gynalocologal talk is really getting old too.
I'm sure we can all bash any religion we want, Catholics/priests/young boys etc.

Makes no diufference what TA's morals were, he was butchered in cold blood.
Click to expand...

BBM I do not intend my question to be snarky...but if it makes no difference what TA's morals were, does anybody know why the PA was questioning Mimi Hall about Mormon sins? I don't understand why he questioned her about that.
 
Sulamith said:
BBM I do not intend my question to be snarky...but if it makes no difference what TA's morals were, does anybody know why the PA was questioning Mimi Hall about Mormon sins? I don't understand why he questioned her about that.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that too. Didn't he also get into that same territory with Lisa? I have to go back and look.

Weird that he would even go there because you KNOW the DT will try to drag it into the mix.
 
Sulamith said:
BBM I do not intend my question to be snarky...but if it makes no difference what TA's morals were, does anybody know why the PA was questioning Mimi Hall about Mormon sins? I don't understand why he questioned her about that.
Click to expand...

I was listening to day 1 today and I had the same questions.
 
JusticeJunkie said:
OOh, never thought of that. Excellent point!!
Do you think the fact that the defense already brought it up in opening means it's already approved?
Click to expand...

I would say probably. It would have been a likely subject for a motion in limine, imo. But the judge also could have denied such a motion saying that she'll rule as it's offered into evidence. That would be safer to not give a better grounds for appeal by excluding it in its entirety on motion. Pure speculation on my part, though.
 
popsicle said:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't explain it to you but she does have a right to put on a defense, whatever her defense may be. The media plays no part in what the judge chooses to let in as evidence. jmo
Click to expand...

I agree. Why should him being mean to her not be allowed as evidence
when her supposedly stalking him does. They are both just as provable and they
Are equally relevant to the specific side.
 
Hatfield said:
I realize the 9mm gun wasnt the same gun as the .25 caliber that was used, but the fact she was attempting to flee according to LE. The PA could have gotten the LE people to testify they thought she was about to flee the area. That wold have showed the jurors more that she felt guilty and was trying to leave her mom's house to get out of town and maybe disappear.

I guess I just wish they would bring everthing out on the table for the jury. If the defense brings up these "surprises", it will surely look like the PA was trying to hide things. No matter if they were or were not. It will look like it to the jury.

I think the PA should just bring everything out. No sense in hiding anything. Especially stuff like attempting to flee, and having knives and guns again. LOL
Click to expand...

Maybe he tried and the Judge ruled it too prejudicial. One Judge can rule one way and another will rule the opposite.

There is a valid reason why he didnt enter it. imo
 
LambChop said:
After living with her BF for four years she could not get him to marry her. Sounds like she may have figured if TA had sex with her he would feel obligated to marry her. She was almost there. jmo
Click to expand...


Excellent point. I had always tried to figure out what would bring her to leave that guy after 4 years. That makes total sense.
 
Sulamith said:
BBM I do not intend my question to be snarky...but if it makes no difference what TA's morals were, does anybody know why the PA was questioning Mimi Hall about Mormon sins? I don't understand why he questioned her about that.
Click to expand...

i think they were setting up proof about JA and TA's illicit relationship - since he never discussed his w/ his friends - by saying he was no longer temple worthy bolsters the fact they were having an affair- and gets it out before the defense can bring it up (that he wasn't temple worthy) and cause damage to the states case
 
popsicle said:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't explain it to you but she does have a right to put on a defense, whatever her defense may be. The media plays no part in what the judge chooses to let in as evidence. jmo
Click to expand...

Inadmissible evidence usually lacks reliability, which means that it is not trustworthy. Demonstrating the reliability of evidence typically requires laying a foundation. For instance, if an expert witness has been called in a case, a lawyer may ask him questions about his background, education, and training in the area he is testifying about before asking him to give an opinion. This background testimony helps establish that the expert’s opinion is trustworthy.

If testimony, exhibits, or documents are found to be immaterial to a case, they may be deemed inadmissible evidence. In order for evidence to be material, it must be found necessary to prove a key element of the case. For example, if a lawyer attempts to show that a theft victim was diagnosed with cancer in order to glean sympathy from the jury, a judge may find such evidence immaterial to the case at hand and therefore inadmissible.

Inadmissible evidence generally lacks relevance. That is, it does not help prove or disprove any of the issues relating to the case. Sometimes a judge will exclude evidence that is relevant for other reasons. For instance, a judge may bar evidence that may be confusing to a jury, duplicative, or unfairly prejudicial to one of the parties.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-inadmissible-evidence.htm
 
Justme84 said:
I agree. Why should him being mean to her not be allowed as evidence
when her supposedly stalking him does. They are both just as provable and they
Are equally relevant to the specific side.
Click to expand...

sadly because TA is dead and there were never any police reports, there is no way to prove the stalking and any thing JA told people is hearsay - but jodi is allowed to tell her story (or the latest version) because it is the first person - then it is up to the jury whether they believe her or not
 
polleypockets said:
i think they were setting up proof about JA and TA's illicit relationship - since he never discussed his w/ his friends - by saying he was no longer temple worthy bolsters the fact they were having an affair- and gets it out before the defense can bring it up (that he wasn't temple worthy) and cause damage to the states case
Click to expand...

I thought upthread someone (sorry, can't remember who) said that TA did tell his close friends about the nature of his relationship with JA.

As usual, I'm confused. And stuffy headed. Blah. I'll go look. ;)
 
oceanblueeyes said:
That is what made JA alluring. She had no boundaries. She would do anything when it came to sex and Ive never seen a male that didnt like that.

IMO
Click to expand...

you need to meet more men honey. i've met plenty of men that are not thrilled with easy loose women-!
 
Wishbone said:
I just don’t see the connection between sexually explicit pictures of both TA and JA having anything to do with anything other than two people involved in visual stimulation. If the prosecution was trying to demean JA over that, then they also managed to demean TA as well.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it seems like they are trying to make Arias
appear slutty. Why? You have all the evidence to make her
appear guilty which is more important and what
the case is actually about.

The pictures being shown to the friend got under my skin. I know he
was dramatically trying to show that you don't know all
sides of someone but couldn't he have said something about
how there is no question that she did this and she admitted it herself.

In a way it mirrored Travis' sexuality to jump on the well you didn't
know about this did you thing? Just as he's saying you didn't know Jodi
did this no one knew Travis did either.

I was humiliated for the friend.
 
IMO, Narcissistic Rage is very destructive.
 
I just kind of get the impression that if this case was with some guy or an unattractive woman on trial, there would be no media circus for the court to put on a show, and the trial would have been over by now.
 
FrayedKnot said:
I thought upthread someone (sorry, can't remember who) said that TA did tell his close friends about the nature of his relationship with JA.

As usual, I'm confused. And stuffy headed. Blah. I'll go look. ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure whether he told them or they assumed by Jodi's actions toward Travis when they were together. jmo
 
Hatfield said:
I saw NG too. WOW. What really bugs me the most about the new news is that the PA did not bring up during the trial about her buying the 9mm, hiding it in the rental car and was attempting to flee according to LE.

I think the PA has really made some big mistakes in not bringing out everything. Because if the defense brings up important stuff like the 9mm gun she bought, they can spin it as she liked to have a gun for protection.

And the jury is going to automatically think the PA was trying to hide stuff. This is becoming more and more like the KC trial and I am afraid it is heading for same type of verdict.
Click to expand...


All he had to show was the crime scene and Jodi's talking. He proved up the points of his opening statement. The defense has to rebut what was entered and claim it's wasn't her fault. Travis made her do it.

So, Jodi come on down... grab a seat and talk to us. You have some explaining to do. The PA (and WS's) will hang on your every word.

I think this a more informed jury than Casey Anthonys. They are listening, and it seems like they are able to follow a logical thought process and that is good. I like the questions they are asking. I think they want to make it sure in their minds before they give her death. The compromise will be lesser charges that keep her locked up for life. I think the only way out of prison for Jodi will be in a pine box.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 1,432 (members: 124, guests: 1,308)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,308
Total visitors
1,432
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,782
Messages
17,958,749
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top