The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #18 *ADULT CONTENT*

[JusticeJunkie]

Thanks posters. You know you sometimes get hooked on something niggling at you? That one was mine, and I thank you for helping me understand.

 

[kscornfed]

I'm not saying it's valid, a great defense or anything like that. I'm only saying that I think that is where the defense is headed. They have given us little hints with by the way they portrayed the pigtails, orgasming like 12-year-old and little boy underwear. I do hope I am wrong about this, I really do.

Oh I know you aren't saying that! And I know that's what they want the jury to think. I just don't see how they do it when there's no evidence this guy had a thing for kids. I don't see how they get it in since they can't introduce the letters.

Nurmi keeps talking about the boy briefs, but like Linda said, we know what those are---boy shorts, and they're really cute. I'm hoping the female jurors (and even some of the men) know what TA meant.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I'm rocking my boy panties right now....I'm not a pedophile and neither is my hubby




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean your whitey tighty little boys underwear?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Abe is souring, eh? How is he being d-baggy?

I've lost remote control priveledges for the night...

This guy, Abe seems a tad miffed he wasn't called to testify by either side about what he knew and when. He claims he doesn't care.... But I find that really hard to believe.

I wouldn't call him either. He's annoying as hell no matter whose talking to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

Still watching Lisa's testimony. Jodi's eyes are actually red like she's been crying. I bet those are tears of frustration and anger because Travis preferred Lisa, and everybody just thought crazy Jodi was a stalker.

 

[Linda7NJ]

You mean your whitey tighty little boys underwear?

Awww heck no! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Still watching Lisa's testimony. Jodi's eyes are actually red like she's been crying. I bet those are tears of frustration and anger because Travis preferred Lisa, and everybody just thought crazy Jodi was a stalker.

It was probably from the nose hair she pulled out while hiding behind her hair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

Are you talking about the pedophilia claim? Isn't the only basis for that from her, and contained in those phony letters that won't come into evidence?

If they can't find a child he molested, I don't see how they get that in. All his relationships were with women. And sexual fantasies don't count, IMO. They're perfectly normal.

Ideas how they'll wiggle this in other than the little innuendos like 'boy's briefs'?

Nurmi said in open court that an expert has said that the letter used in Chris Hughes' testimony was probably written by Travis. The Judge allowed that statement by Nurmi and the State did not object, afaik, or the objection was overruled. So, as of right now, I have no reason to think that the letter has been proven phony. And I have never seen an instance where experts have disagreed over the validity of evidence and the court didn't allow it unless there was some other objection to it -- probative value outweighed by prejudice, relevance, etc. I'm very curious about this aspect of the defense case.

 

[Carol2]

He, for some reason thinks its no longer the DrDrew show ....it's the I Know Everything Abe Show and Drew let him! Lol he talks over everyone, it's extremely combative by nature. IMO

Yeah, we got a hint of that when Abe said to Nurmi (by telephone, no less), "Just want to make sure we have that clear." I almost dropped my teeth.

 

[m00c0w]

I don't know. But since there is zero actual boys underwear in evidence... I'm going to believe the defense is mis characterizing the panties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true, but I thought these were based off of text messages or phone calls. I guess it doesn't really matter in the grand scope of things; a fantasy is a fantasy. People just keep characterizing it as boyshorts, and I was wondering if there was any factual basis to that characterization.

 

[norest4thewicked]

These are boy shorts. They are worn by a LOT of women.

http://www.fredericks.com/Booty_Boy_Short_Panty/53665,default,pd.html&003=5701727&010=SKU-5366553665

 

[LotusPawprint]

He, for some reason thinks its no longer the DrDrew show ....it's the I Know Everything Abe Show and Drew let him! Lol he talks over everyone, it's extremely combative by nature. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's become a requirement for all HLN shows to be combative and/or annoying. Remember it used to be Headline NEWS? Ah the good ole days!

 

[LaneGirl]

We need to start keeping a list of "Juan moments."

1. "It's not like he was saying 'we need to get down, baby', right?"
2. "Your hindquarters"
3. "You don't get to ask the questions. I ask the questions!"
4. To Gus' "irrelevant" comment, "That's not how it works."

Juanisms

 

[minor4th]

Nurmi said in open court that an expert has said that the letter used in Chris Hughes' testimony was probably written by Travis. The Judge allowed that statement by Nurmi and the State did not object, afaik, or the objection was overruled. So, as of right now, I have no reason to think that the letter has been proven phony. And I have never seen an instance where experts have disagreed over the validity of evidence and the court didn't allow it unless there was some other objection to it -- probative value outweighed by prejudice, relevance, etc. I'm very curious about this aspect of the defense case.

This was a proceeding in front of the judge, no jury present. There's no issue of whether something is too prejudicial. And yes, the state did object, strenuously. Then there was a sidebar and no further mention of the letter by Nurmi.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Boyshorts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Boy shorts, also known as boy short panties, boys' cut, booty shorts, shorties, tap panties or boyleg briefs are a kind of women's underwear that goes all the way down the hips, named for their similarity in looks to men's knit boxer shorts, which themselves are a variation on traditional boxer shorts. Some even resemble men's briefs, complete with fly and contrast trim. Unlike men's briefs, however, this style is usually lower cut, and is designed to fit and flatter a woman's figure. Boy shorts often cover most of the buttocks area.

 

[SmoothOperator]

So far, I feel the defense has done an alright job of opening the door to the possibility of self-defense. We'll have to see if they have the goods to walk all the way through it. However, a good amount of doubt about TA's character was effectively cast today.

-- Ex-girlfriend Lisa's email was damaging. No matter how the prosecution tries, that bell cannot be "unrung." She read TA the riot act -- and she admittedly didn't even know the half.

-- Desiree's testimony was a problem for the prosecution. TA pulled his car too close to the Grand Canyon for Jodi to get out and take pics? Then he pulled off a bit, as if he'd strand her there? My guy would NEVER play like that. That's MEAN, particularly on the heals of a loud argument.

-- Desiree claimed she couldn't remember TA's exact words once he let JA back in the car. She claimed it was just his tone that was "over the top." I'll bet she remembers the essence of what he said, and I suspect it was a continuation of the mean "drop dead off the edge / get lost" theme.

-- And then comes testimony by Desiree's brother. He had to go upstairs and "diffuse" an obviously loud and embarrassing argument between JA & TA.

Again, the above does NOT a self-defense case make. But depending on what else they have, all of this could be viewed as a down payment.

These testimonies are the "River Cruz" that can cast doubt...

Of course this is nothing more than my own personal opinion as is yours expressed above, but I respectfully disagree with today's testimony being even a teensy, tiny bit positive for the DT..In fact I strongly believe just the opposite in that every single point or issue brought forth today by this DT, if beneficial to anyone it was purely for the Prosecution..IOW the exact opposite of the desired effect that the DT is working toward(or better yet failing to work toward IMO strictly due to what/who they have to work with, JA)

Lisa's testimony IMO only further humanized Travis, only further supported that JA was a stalker, was aggressive&threatening, and caused extreme damage out of anger and jealousy.. Lisa not only was able to successfully establish this through Travis, what Travis shared with her, or through Travis' varying emotions regarding JA's revenge tactics..BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY AND MOST DAMNING TO JODI WAS THAT LISA, HERSELF COULD TESTIFY TO HER PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF SEEING, WITNESSING, AND FIRST HAND DEALING WITH JODI'S EXTREME AGGRESSIVE AND VENGEFUL ACTIONS/BEHAVIORS!..IMO those points made today through this witness are in no way, shape, or form beneficial to the DT..JUST the OPPOSITE THEY WERE FURTHER BENEFICIAL FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Moving on to Desiree's testimony of which I posted earlier at length about just how embarassingly bleak the DT case became in seeing this witness being subpoenaed to the stand today.. IMO absolutely cringe worthy embarrassing to see an at the time of the incident, 13yo kid who is completely unrelated or tied to either the victim or defendant and whose testimony was her extremely vaque recollection of her as a KID overhearing an ADULTS discussion and as a KID interpretating ONE COMMENT she said was "over the top", yet zero, zilch, nil memory of what ONE COMMENT was made.. WoW!...just WoW at what these poor DT have to work with..I mean shockingly WoW as in there is not even anything that holds even a drop of water that even begins to support their claim of Travis having been abusive to Jodi..NOTHING!

Today ending with the jurors questions IMO just absolutely summed it up perfectly.. they went straight to the heart of today's testimony with the exact points of importance that the DT so very badly wanted and hoped that the jury would not notice or feel were of importance...WRONG again DT! ..all in all a day that backfired with any points being made were racked up once again for the Pros rather than the DT.

AGAIN JMO, THO!

 

[Carol2]

It was probably from the nose hair she pulled out while hiding behind her hair

Bwahahahahahaahaha! :floorlaugh:
(yeah, the hair curtain. Love that term)

 

[Karmady]

This was a proceeding in front of the judge, no jury present. There's no issue of whether something is too prejudicial. And yes, the state did object, strenuously. Then there was a sidebar and no further mention of the letter by Nurmi.

So you think Nurmi lied about the expert report or the court found that he couldn't use the letter because it was a phony in spite of an expert report that says it probably was written by Travis?

 

[kscornfed]

Nurmi said in open court that an expert has said that the letter used in Chris Hughes' testimony was probably written by Travis. The Judge allowed that statement by Nurmi and the State did not object, afaik, or the objection was overruled. So, as of right now, I have no reason to think that the letter has been proven phony. And I have never seen an instance where experts have disagreed over the validity of evidence and the court didn't allow it unless there was some other objection to it -- probative value outweighed by prejudice, relevance, etc. I'm very curious about this aspect of the defense case.

The jury wasn't there for that though and I understood the letters are not coming in. The jury will never see them. Right?

 

[minor4th]

I kinda got the feeling that the prosecution team read some comments here during the lunch break and tailored questions according to the public reaction to Lisa's testimony (the email in particular). It sure seemed that way.