trial day 39: the defense continues its case in chief #117

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did they actually take the IQ test? Does anyone know what her IQ actually is?

I wouldn't doubt she has a very high IQ.

~~BUT~~

I've known some very gifted scientists who could not comprehend the 'hold' button on a phone when they pushed another flashing button. They'd get so frustrated because the people weren't just there when they decided to talk some more to them.

Way back in the stone age of communication. Ages me, huh?
 
Someone THOUGHT she was coaching Jodi and brought it up to the judge. Seeing as it was nothing considered to be misconduct by the judge #5 stayed on, so that whole business turned out to be nothing.

As for #5's dismissal... she earned it. The judge interviewed each juror and whatever #5 did, said or saw was deemed to be enough misconduct to dismiss her, and this was discovered during those interviews. Jodi nor her defense team could have had her dismissed on a whim. The defense found out about it or another juror might have let it be known they thought it wasn't appropriate and/or showed bias and whatever it was that caused her to be dismissed is on her.

I don't care if she was pro defense or pro prosecution, and at this stage she shouldn't be EITHER - and same goes for the rest of the jurors. If she did something or said something or saw something that showed bias to either faction then she deserved to go. And whatever that something was the judge agreed that it warranted dismissal. I'd FAR rather her be dismissed than not and end up having whatever the issue was be a cause for a guilty verdict to be successfully appealed and a new trial granted for Arias.

I feel badly for her that she was dismissed seeing as it upset her so much, but she DID do something considered to be misconduct by the judge and deserved to be dismissed for it. Hopefully, this one dismissal will be a lesson to the rest of the jurors that they have to be diligent in adhearing to the admonitions and keep their lips zipped and an UNBIASED mind until they begin deliberations since that's their JOB, and it doesn't matter if a juror is biased to one side or the other since NONE of them at this stage should be as that would make them unfit for jury service.

This is my issue with some folks inciting others to call/write in to State/DT/Judge etc. We have no idea what shaking a head means. I think folks should just sit back and watch the trial and not become "involved". idk.
 
You can be heartbroken and also resigned that you are raising/have raised a dangerous person.

As a mother, you have all the same love and feeling for the angry one and you wonder what you did differently. You blame yourself until their behavior becomes so bad you begin to think of mental illness. Then you find out there is no cure. When I was raising children in the 70's and 80's they didn't give kids pills and I never heard of a mentally ill child - just retarded.

Certainly parents never looked for signs of sociopathy or autism or ADHD. The diseases were around but they just didn't have the names. I took my son to MANY psychiatrists and doctors - the best in the field and the consensus of all their advice - get ready for it - was "You have a difficult violent child. Be sure to give him lots of attention and my favorite, "Try to be a good listener--and if you can, remarry."

If you have ever seen "The Bad Seed" imagine being that girl's mother. My heart goes out to her mother. She probably didn't have the money or time to give her daughter the extra care and supervision she needed. I did and, hate to say it, but it didn't really matter. One psychiatrist saw my despair and said, "Hey, don't feel so bad-- if it weren't for you and all you've done, he would have been institutionalized before he was ten."

I have seen the movie "The Bad Seed". Are you saying you had a bad seed evil child? Why would the doctor advise you to remarry?
 
Someone THOUGHT she was coaching Jodi and brought it up to the judge. Seeing as it was nothing considered to be misconduct by the judge #5 stayed on, so that whole business turned out to be nothing.

As for #5's dismissal... she earned it. The judge interviewed each juror and whatever #5 did, said or saw was deemed to be enough misconduct to dismiss her, and this was discovered during those interviews. Jodi nor her defense team could have had her dismissed on a whim. The defense found out about it or another juror might have let it be known they thought it wasn't appropriate and/or showed bias and whatever it was that caused her to be dismissed is on her.

I don't care if she was pro defense or pro prosecution, and at this stage she shouldn't be EITHER - and same goes for the rest of the jurors. If she did something or said something or saw something that showed bias to either faction then she deserved to go. And whatever that something was the judge agreed that it warranted dismissal. I'd FAR rather her be dismissed than not and end up having whatever the issue was be a cause for a guilty verdict to be successfully appealed and a new trial granted for Arias.

I feel badly for her that she was dismissed seeing as it upset her so much, but she DID do something considered to be misconduct by the judge and deserved to be dismissed for it. Hopefully, this one dismissal will be a lesson to the rest of the jurors that they have to be diligent in adhearing to the admonitions and keep their lips zipped and an UNBIASED mind until they begin deliberations since that's their JOB, and it doesn't matter if a juror is biased to one side or the other since NONE of them at this stage should be as that would make them unfit for jury service.

BBM
In an ideal world maybe. In reality, they've all formed opinions already about guilt. They may not be fully formed opinions, but you'd have to be a robot not to have a feeling one way or the other at this point.

I'm not saying #5 was justified in whatever she did and we don't even know if forming an opinion was why she was dismissed.

But on that note....if you were a juror and you formed an opinion before deliberations, would you turn yourself in?
 
Wonder what the fight infraction was all about. Jodie attacking someone in jail. .
 
Sorry if this is not the right thread. I'm wondering if provisions have been made for TA's family......support from the mormon church? etc..........I know it's been asked before but I've not seen an answer. ty
 
Ditto Bundy. The love of his life dumped him, after which he went on a murder spree killing more than 35 women.

The parallels between the 2 are striking. Thank God JA was caught right away. :what:

IIRC Bundy's aunt said he did something with knives around her when she was sleeping. He was only 3.

And then there's that whole mother/sister thing like with Bobby Darin.

So Bundy's strangeness goes back long before his first gf.

JMO.
 
If I were Jodi's mother, I'd be there to show my daughter that she was not alone. I would never taunt, or demand that the victims family behave in a certain way. Not one time has Travis' family done anything to them. They need to show the same class.

Wearing the DV ribbon mocks Travis' family's grief and distress. That's all I need to know.
 
Well, maybe she was worried about getting a sunburn in Cancun.

I don't understand why she bought it at all. What did she need it for? Either she was planning to be invited to Cancun or getting lost in the desert after the heinous crime.

ETA... If Jodi really had the flat tires in the rental cars, the car company would have a record of it.
 
BBM
In an ideal world maybe. In reality, they've all formed opinions already about guilt. They may not be fully formed opinions, but you'd have to be a robot not to have a feeling one way or the other at this point.

I'm not saying #5 was justified in whatever she did and we don't even know if forming an opinion was why she was dismissed.

But on that note....if you were a juror and you formed an opinion before deliberations, would you turn yourself in?

Theres nothing wrong with forming an opinion before deliberations. Im sure everyone does.
 
I'm glad Juror #5 was dismissed - The Judge needed to nip this in the bud and not have anything come out later as a reason for appeal. She probably mouthed off and maybe even wanted to be the foreman. MOO
 
BBM~ Most sociopaths do. Ted Bundy did. ;)

However, this is neat reading. (not sure how accurate it is but, does sound Jodi-esk)

Disorganized types (Sociopaths) are often of low intelligence, have a below average IQ (80-95), and commit their crimes impulsively. Whereas the organized killer will specifically set out to hunt a victim, the disorganized will murder someone when the opportunity arises, rarely bothering to dispose of the body but instead just leaving it at the same place in which they found the victim. They usually carry out “blitz” attacks, leaping out and attacking their victims without warning, and will typically perform whatever rituals they feel compelled to carry out (e.g., necrophilia, mutilation, cannibalism, etc.) once the victim is dead. They rarely bother to cover their tracks but may still evade capture for some time because of a level of cunning that compels them to keep on the move. They are often socially inadequate with few friends, and they may have a history of mental problems and be regarded by acquaintances as eccentric or even “a bit creepy.” They have little insight into their crimes and may even block out the memories of the killings. :what: Is this ringing Dr. $ ?


I wouldn't doubt she has a very high IQ.

~~BUT~~

I've known some very gifted scientists who could not comprehend the 'hold' button on a phone when they pushed another flashing button. They'd get so frustrated because the people weren't just there when they decided to talk some more to them.

Way back in the stone age of communication. Ages me, huh?
 
I agree completely.

Unfortunately, the essence of bigotry is that it's unexamined and there's lots of subtle misandry in the way some people view this case. Most of it comes from "white knights" like Samuels or true believer anti-male bigots like LaViolette. In fact, some people may think that calling her an anti-male bigot is way out of line, but I think the recurring dogmatic assumptions in her testimony speaks for itself and really comes down to Travis Alexander behaved like a self actualizing human being who finally made a choice of who he wanted to be with and that constitutes abuse on the level that self defense in the form of murder by Jodi Arias is warranted.

[. . .]

But some people in this forum are doing it too, believing Jodi's story that she arrived at 4:00 am, they slept together and then, in the morning, slept together in earnest. Of course most people don't believe the anal rape in the study story, and her tale of being attacked, but the idea that Travis Alexander had consensual sex with Jodi Arias simply because she showed up and her lady bits were convenient, even though everything he blogged about and his text messages to her indicated he was done, done, done with her, prompting her stealth death road trip in the first place.

Ask yourself why you assume they did have sex, that Travis was a not only willing to tolerate Jodi Arias' presence, but her advances and ask yourself, is it due to something you know about Travis Alexander (who you probably didn't know, even if you think you do now) or is it a generalization based on, well, "you know how men are"?

BBM.

Because of the pictures.

Just as every opinion about a woman doesn't have to be through a prism of misogyny-or-not, every opinion about a man does not have to involve the question of misandry.

Some people really don't care about the gender of the victim. I think gender stereotypes are very overrated, so I don't like to include them in my thought process about cases like this or most others. People have more variability between each other (individuals) than the genders have between each other, imho.

When it comes down to why one man had a certain kind of evening/morning with one woman, gender stereotypes are hardly of much use the way I see it. Photographic evidence is a much better guide, imho.
 
I can't wait for tomorrow, when I will be in a special place I call "Alyce's World". Kinda like the land of make believe on Mr. Rogers.
 
If she was in fact suicidal, she'd been on suicide watch. Of course, moo.

When they found the gun in the second rental car, I don't think she was intending to kill herself. She had a target(s).

No ma'am if she wanted to commit suicide ..she already had a gun and knife she could use. Or if she had discarded them ..she could stop by wallyworld and get a big ol knife to do herself in.

That 9 mm was for more murder...imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
2,576
Total visitors
2,646

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,937
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top