State rests rebuttal case- thread #166

[Mrs G Norris]

So IF Jodi was going to go ahead and accuse Travis of being a pedophile (which led to the text argument between them) she told Travis FIRST? As in a 'I heard something about you from <insert mysterious man Travis references here> .. if that is true I feel like I am duty bound to tell <insert Chris Hughes, the Bishop, EVERYONE here>.

It's definitely a possibility since pedophilia was high on her list of things to accuse Travis of and would severely disrupt his life in every conceivable area .. the church, his relationship with the Hughes' (and therefore work) his love-life etc ..

A sort of past behaviour is a good predictor for future behaviour hypothetical.

 

[Lisa57]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. It's the states job.
I just am having a hard time with it... Pay no attention to me... Carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be true according to the law however the jury is made up of human beings. I think if the defense is claiming self defense the jury expects them to prove it. I totally get that the defense has no obligation to prove anything one way or the other in the case of premeditation but I think they have to prove self defense or they lose the jury.

 

[ElleElle]

:floorlaugh: Nurmi is alooooot bit on the sleazy side. He likes to talk about sex, there is no doubt about that. lol

Is it just me or does Nurmi seem as weee bit on the sleazy side?

 

[indicat]

But again, they were told that by the guy DEFENDING the woman that brutally killed him. At what point do they question his word before responding with 'I knew Travis had issues but...' and 'what ages did he like'? (not sure if those were the exact words but they were similar)

I've never been in their shoes so I can't answer this. I would be lying if I said I understood everything they were thinking.

 

[nawd68]

I'm confused again. Surprise surprise!

I need some background on the Hughes' issue everyone is discussing.

So why did Nurmi tell them about the letter? And how do we know they believed it?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Or that their surrebuttal witness cannot rebut Dr. Horn's testimony. I think JM additional witness move was perfect. I think the judge has had enough. This will be never ending if this Dr. Gefner is allowed to rebut the ME and so on and so on. JMO

Oh yeah!! I hope so...

 

[lil_buddy]

I do see your point, Linda. Nurmi was slimy for presenting false evidence to the Hugheses.

I still cannot see myself suddenly believing such toxic lies about my dear friend for whose safety I had serious concerns, especially if I were so alarmed by his girlfriend that I had ordered her out of my home forever.

I would assume that this was just another of JA's nasty lies, and would scream to the mountain tops that my friend was NOT a pedophile!!!! I am not even TA's friend and I know with every fiber of my being that he was NOT a pedophile.

The Hugheses are not on trial here, nor should they be, but I do think their credibility is relevant.

That said, I think you are one of the smartest and most thoughtful posters on WS. Oh. And funny as H-E-7-7!!!!

Since the Hughes are not testifying before the jury, their credibility is not relevant.

 

[Schuby]

But what about Casey Anthony? She did the same thing?

And I can't think of names right now, but there are other cases where the very clearly guilty defendant has used an "offensive defense".

I'm not trying to argue with you just to argue. I would really like to understand. You clearly have a legal framework that I do not. But I used to have respect for the law and courtrooms and judges....and after the trials I've watched I just have a fear of more injustice being done.

Maybe I've just seen too small a picture of the whole system and therefore my "sample size" is too small. Lol!

That's why I appreciate the legal minds on here. They help me understand these things.

Offensive to who?

 

[FrayedKnot]

Ah, yes, thank you. There are so many emails and so many stories my brain tends to scramble (where have I heard that? :waitasec

My take on the Hugheses is that they are somewhat naïve. Jodi tells Sky a bunch of stories about Travis and Sky believes them -- until somebody says otherwise. Nurmi spins some tale about the letters and Sky and Chris believe them -- until somebody says otherwise. To a certain extent, it shows how Jodi could have a field day with Travis and his social circle.

Only, Sky said she had a bad feeling about Jodi and she ordered her out of her home. Not exactly naive. She had Jodi's number down pat. Sky knew EXACTLY the evil mess that Jodi is. Which is why it's weird that she would take Nurmi's bait on the pedo BS.

 

[Quester]

Reposting link:

Travis' friend feared for his kids around Jodi
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/2...ds-around-jodi

* * *

In light of CHughes account of JA eavesdropping on Hughes private conversation with TA ...

Here's the timeline following that event:

4/__/2007 TA/JA visit the Hughes at their home. Hughes have powwow with TA to alert TA to JA's disturbing behaviors and JA was found, TWO TIMES, eavesdropping at their bedroom door.

6/29/2007 TA & JA were officially NO LONGER boyfriend/girlfriend

7/__/2007 JA moved to Mesa AZ

12/__/2007 TA began dating ?LisaA?

 

[missy1974]

Sorry still have to strongly disagree!

I'm erring on the side of caution when it comes to my kid. An accused pedophile isn't getting anywhere near mine. Period.

I realize Travis was dead at the time...

But I would bet my last dollar Sky thought back to all the times Travis stayed overnight, was he ever alone with the kids, omg omg omg!!!

That's how my mind would race.

And I would be beyond furious upon learning Nurmi lied about such a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you to a point Linda. I just truly believe that I would never respond in the way that she did, and I would never expect any friend of mine to either. JMO At least not to the lawyer defending the accused murderer.
Thanks for disagreeing in a nice way ;-) :seeya: I would like to think that maybe my mind will change when we can read everything, and the context of some of the excerpts we have heard.

 

[ElleElle]

He mentions everyone. Her family, friends, everyone. Who of those people would be affected by her actions/words?

IMO, it had to be something really bad to him. He was utterly betrayed and I don't think it had anything to do with thier sex life or sex tapes, he could have survived that betrayal...this was something worse.

 

[G&AMom]

Then possibly the pre-trial hearings need to have new "guidelines"? I don't know what the correct terminology would be.

And you're absolutely right, it is solely a desire on my part to see people like Jodi Arias denied the chance to slander everyone she "feels" like, just to save her own life, after she so cruelly and viciously took someone else's.

I have no idea what the proper solution is. I do think it needs to be considered and looked into by people who understand the law, to see if there is anything that can be done. Maybe there isn't... :/

BBM. I think this has always been a facet of court trials. Remember the good old days when attorneys could trash a rape victim's reputation?

But I also think it will get worse. I watched some of the George Zimmerman hearing this morning, and it goes double for Jodi. We can watch her interrogation by the police on line. She gives interviews to 48 Hours and Inside Edition. We can read the police reports online, and see copies of court documents and evidence. So how are people going to defend themselves? They're going to throw bigger and better atom bombs in the works -- and the pedophilia charge is one big bomb.

Don't know how the courts are going to stop this in the future. Hopefully they'll come up with something, because those "charges" live on the internet forever.

 

[missy1974]

I might be reading the Twitter wrong, but is CH saying he has read ALL of TA's emails and chats? If so, how did he get them? They have not been released to the public yet as far as I know. I do remember that Sky had some of TA's journals and wondered how she got them. But a PP said that CH was the executor of TA's will so maybe that is how SK got them.

I feel rather nosey wondering about all this but then again, it was TA's friends who went on TV to talk about what they know and now I am curious.

weren't the computers/phones, etc all taken into evidence when TA was found? I imagine they were.
When I read that, I have to say I wondered too.

 

[Linda7NJ]

But again, they were told that by the guy DEFENDING the woman that brutally killed him. At what point do they question his word before responding with 'I knew Travis had issues but...' and 'what ages did he like'? (not sure if those were the exact words but they were similar)

I don't split hairs when it comes to protecting mine.

Her questions reflected she was scared for her children. I would hope everyone would think of their children upon hearing such information regardless of the source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

But again, they were told that by the guy DEFENDING the woman that brutally killed him. At what point do they question his word before responding with 'I knew Travis had issues but...' and 'what ages did he like'? (not sure if those were the exact words but they were similar)

What is the source of these quotes/paraphrases: "and what ages did he like?" and "I knew Travis had issues but ..."

Have they admitted to saying these things? From where did you find these statements?

I think they acted in good faith. Kirk Nurmi acted in bad faith. The hypocrisy of filing motions left and right accusing Juan of misconduct? Approaching potential witnesses and lying to them about what he claimed to be authenticated letters that would be admitted into evidence is the epitome of misconduct.

That says more about Kirk Nurmi's lack of character that it does about any gullibility on the part of Sky and Chris Hughes.

 

[dhunter]

You both raise some valid points to consider. Especially the friendship loyalties and Nurmi's influence.

That is exactly how I feel FrayedKnot, and I have been hesitant to post about it today. So I thank you for putting it into words for me! The breaking point for me was Skye's willingness to believe Nurmi, that was it, I don't want a friend that would even consider the possibility that I could do something like that. I have seen comments that Nurmi was an authority figure or an officer of the court, that doesn't explain it for me, nope, it doesn't. That officer of the court is DEFENDING the woman that brutally killed my good friend. Nope, never gonna believe a word that guy says, wouldn't even talk to him unless I was ordered too. But I guess that's just me. As for the other emails.... CH said that he went on to say in those emails that saying abuse was being harsh. I can't believe that not once did Juan bring that up? I find that hard to believe too. JMO

All just my opinion, and I apologize if it offends anyone. But this is a forum, to discuss things, and unfortunately for the Hughes', their words were used in this trial an awful lot.

 

[Amster]

Since the Hughes are not testifying before the jury, their credibility is not relevant.

Thank you!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Woah,
I think the Hughes, while I don't know them, do deserve some consideration. They aren't just witnesses thinking of self preservation. I never ever had that impression of these people. They are grieving over the unnecessary death of a close friend and, with all due respect, my heart goes out to them and will for their loss.

Again, I hope I am not coming across as snarky but this is my two cents worth.:twocents: To those who make mean comments about them I ask: What if it were your best friend who was violently brutally murdered by his ex? :waitasec:
How would you deal with your loss? :hero:

It is so disturbing, the way we try to excuse the perpetrator and vilify the victim. This case seems to painfully demonstrate our loss of reason and focus on what's really important. A young beloved man was murdered; not by a stranger but by someone he trusted, took places, cared about, helped unconditionally. When we ask why? Try to understand how? I think the words of those involved, like the Arias family and the Hughes, help us to learn and maybe do things hopefully better, more informed, when faced with similar scenarios.

IMO they are also victims of Jodi and her defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

Since the Hughes are not testifying before the jury, their credibility is not relevant.

To be fair, Matt also is not testifying before the jury and also testified in court outside the jury's presence like Hughes did. There has been much discussion of Matt's credibility. I can't really see much difference between the two other than which side they're perceived to be on. jmo