weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

Status
Not open for further replies.
The drivers license in her possession has a PO Box address. This struck me as odd, since I have never heard of a state allowing PO boxes as physical addresses. You have to usually have 2 documents proving you have a physical address. I would think that Calif. license is a fake, imo.

Somewhat OT, but this is huge issue, similar to all the brouhaha with voter registration...meaning, the requirement to have a physical address is discriminatory against the homeless, battered women (people) who don't want to / have to reveal an address, military personnel who don't have a permanent residence, ad infinitum....

Bottom line, not sure what the exact rules for each state are, but not particularily hung on this point...
 
I understood the question and I remembered it as asked. It still disturbed me because it seemed to be presumptive that Jodi did have PTSD because of something that happened but would the lie about how it happened cause the Dr. to disregard the test. Apples and oranges. Splitting hairs. Dr. D answered in the only possible way as she understood the question which underscored the prosecution's position on it. That answer should have been obvious to the juror, especially at this point. That's why it disturbed me.

i think the jury trusts Dr. D's judgement and wanted her opinion. that question, to me, seemed more like a question regarding the comparison of Dr Samuels's test giving ( and not re-testing) as opposed to Dr. D's method of test giving. I wish the follow up question would be " would you have re-administered the test if the bear was really the tiger'?
 
plus, the poor ninjas were going to have to drive 1000 miles to get to her family and kill them, and hope they got there before JA picked up a phone and called the law after running from TA's house.

:facepalm:

Perhaps JA forgot she'd dyed her hair and assumed Det. Flores would think she was just being a "dumb blond" when she told her absurd stories.
 
MOO, but I think Gus screwed up the dates. I think it wasn't the night TA was killed, but the night he was found-the 10th. Gus' group was already back from Cancun, and Travis' was supposed to have left the following morning.

I may be wrong, tho.

Well that's a MAJOR faux pas!!! I believe he stated it was June 4/5th around 3:30AM.

I need to find his testimony and make sure that's what he said. After all, he had 5 years to get his testimony 'straight'.

I don't trust that dude. He just creeps me out especially seeing him on Judge Judy!! Not too much of a showmanship opportunist, eh?

Gus Searcy on Judge Judy - YouTube
 
I don't want to sound like the devil's advocate but, given what she had to work with, a scheming entitled narcissistic dishonest murderer, she's pretty damned amazing! I mean, the defense team are in for a penny, out for a pound. They can't back out of this nut case from hell. They've got to stay the damned course and look like they are doing it for all they are worth, otherwise, back to the drawing board!

Yes, this point was raised in the legal thread. Our verified attorneys think she is doing a competent job based on what she has to work with.
 
Well that's a MAJOR faux pas!!! I believe he stated it was June 4/5th around 3:30AM.

I need to find his testimony and make sure that's what he said. After all, he had 5 years to get his testimony 'straight'.

I don't trust that dude. He just creeps me out especially seeing him on Judge Judy!! Not too much of a showmanship opportunist, eh?

Gus Searcy on Judge Judy - YouTube

You will also have to check HLN shows because I seem to remember some of his conflicting dates/stories came out in interviews.
 
Oh Georgina ITA! Weird you should post this right now as I just finished a heated exchange with my son who is studying criminology on exactly that subject. Per him the jurors are doing their civic duty and the only person of importance and consideration in that room is the defendant.
He's young and life is still very black and white in his world view. :seeya:

Actually, I kind of gotta agree with your son on this. My mother has been called for jury duty twice, both times she tried to get out by saying that her English is too poor.

The second time I called for her, and per the person I spoke with (some clerk) he said that it is considered her "civic duty" to show up. I can see where the only person to be considered is the defendant, although it doesn't sit well with me.
 
Exactly. This whole Juan the wonder prosecutor sentiment I really can't understand. They wouldn't have charged this case (or any of his other cases) unless they thought they definitely would win. They rarely, if ever, do. Here, the State has dna, other physical evidence and photographs at the scene; days of videotaped police questioning of the defendant who chose not to lawyer up and to lie her face off; the dateline interview with more of the same. Really, the only thing that Juan could do here would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And I'm not saying that to slam Juan. Even though I really don't like him, what I'm saying in this post has nothing to do with that. It would be true, imo, for any prosecutor trying this case.

I really get tired of watching Juan bouncing the arms and head around like a bobble head with the voices inflections and the yes and no nonsense. I think the Judge has the best demeanour. Non irritating very straight forward questions from the jury gets 1000% more accomplished. She is very good.
 
You know, there was a lot of speculation early on that it was that tale that she had been circulating back home that might have led to the rage after May 26. After all, she did move to Mesa after they "broke up," (but let's face it, there wasn't much to 'break up'), and that may have been partly to protect the fantasy she was still peddling to family regarding the coming nuptials. It would be entirely reasonable to imagine that she was sporting a ring of some kind when away from Travis, claiming that they were engaged.

It sounds nutty, of course, because it is. But it isn't any nuttier than women who pretend to be pregnant for nine months, and then, when their obvious deception will be paraded for all to see, desperately murder a pregnant women to steal their child. That is an inconceivably bizarre thing to do, but we know it as happened, and more often than we'd like to admit. Anyway, I think it's the same kind of "cornered animal" mentality that JA might very well have felt as she realized she was about to be thoroughly revealed and humiliated. I do not believe she could stand the thought psychologically, and given her obvious narcissism and who knows what other associative NPD's, the behavior would be entirely consistent.

For me, it was the statement of her father in the interview he gave to police that "she was planning on marrying him," or something to that effect, that really sealed the deal for me regarding this scenario. I could see then that she had been projecting an entirely false reality to others outside of the Mesa environment -- where she could easily control the dialog, since nobody knew the people in Mesa and could not verify anything she was saying one way or another. Because 'normal' people do not assume someone will lie about something like this, she was able to easily get away with the tale.

I'm not saying all people who have these disorders would resort to these extremes, of course. Only that in this case it does seem consistent with JA's behavioral patterns. She was caught -- the walls were closing in, and in her mind it made sense to simply remove the problem.

Note that after his death, she made every effort to inject herself into the center of all activities -- funerary, police investigation -- why? Because she still had that narrative of the "fiancee" running in her head, and she wanted to world to view her that way -- even though she knew she couldn't make that story work outside of a small, controlled, isolated group that did not know Travis. I say it's just part of her pathology. I hope I don't go batty trying to figure it out for myself.

:cow:

I didn't get any further than your first paragraph before I had to stop to "thank you" for that thought! It makes perfect sense that she would show the ring and claim to be engaged. Her family wouldn't know the difference!
 
i think the jury trusts Dr. D's judgement and wanted her opinion. that question, to me, seemed more like a question regarding the comparison of Dr Samuels's test giving ( and not re-testing) as opposed to Dr. D's method of test giving. I wish the follow up question would be " would you have re-administered the test if the bear was really the tiger'?

Usually one juror does set-up questions. Remember the question to LaViolette about keeping your sexual life private and is that deception?

LaViolette answered no, it wasn't deceptive to keep your sexual life secret. It's was a good thing.

Part 2 was, if it isn't, why do you think Travis was being deceptive when he kept his sexual life secret.

LOL - LOVED that.

But maybe that connects to your point: the juror does believe her, trusts her answer will be thoughtful and truthful so there was no need for a second part to the question. Hmmmmmmm.
 
If Jodi had PPL insurance, she would have called the hot line. No doubt, they would have told her not to answer any questions waiving her right to an attorney. Even if she could not afford an attorney, if Jodi had asked for one, the investigator would have immediately stopped engaging with her.

Very strange to me she hadn't absorbed more sub-basic legal info by hanging out with that crowd through osmosis if nothing else. I understand Travis was just an insurance salesman, but one of the selling points is not to risk saying the wrong thing but get immediate legal direction.
 
The undisputed fact that, in her second rental car, after she was arrested on July 15th (?) they found knives and later on.....a hidden gun that was discovered very well hidden in the engine compartment.
So she is with no doubt, a risk to society and could've very well had her next victim planned out. Mimi? Ryan? Who knows...............
do you have a reference link for this info? :) thanks.
 
I have a problem too with the concept of "a jury of your peers". For instance, a jury of JA's peers? Come on, who would qualify as her peer other than another sicko.
 
Yes my father was a grand man. Though he practiced law for two years, he found it wasn't his cup of tea so he went in Federal Law Enforcement for a long career for 25 years. Then he started teaching Criminal Justice at University of NC - Charlotte Campus. He was a natural and his students loved him. Some of his students kept in touch with him until his death.

What a tremendous blessing to have a dad like that. Reminds me of a recent obit from a daughter to her dad that went viral:

Harry Stamps: http://www.bradfordokeefe.com/obituaries/Harry-Stamps/#/Obituary

Southerners especially can relate, but I think everyone would enjoy it.
 
This came up a week or so ago. Despite her claim that she was never scheduled to go on the Cancun trip and wasn't upset when TA decided to take someone else, JA was on the initial reservation and it was later changed to Mimi. I think that fact, among other things, is what the PPL representative will testify to.

Nezumi, if you know where to find it, could you direct me to the "evidence" that she actually was on the reservation. I must have missed this extremely important fact because to me jurors would want to know what "happened" to get her to premeditate a murder. TIA
 
Exactly. This whole Juan the wonder prosecutor sentiment I really can't understand. They wouldn't have charged this case (or any of his other cases) unless they thought they definitely would win. They rarely, if ever, do. Here, the State has dna, other physical evidence and photographs at the scene; days of videotaped police questioning of the defendant who chose not to lawyer up and to lie her face off; the dateline interview with more of the same. Really, the only thing that Juan could do here would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And I'm not saying that to slam Juan. Even though I really don't like him, what I'm saying in this post has nothing to do with that. It would be true, imo, for any prosecutor trying this case.

I will say one thing, the DT doesn't have much to work with, true. What a loser of a case for them. Jodi basically convicted herself.

And I do think the DT witnesses were like shooting fish in a barrel for JM. I don't know if that means that any prosecutor could have made them look bad (because they were just embarrassing) or if JM is just really good.

I honestly don't know much about his other cases and how challenging they were to prosecute. I can only speak to this trainwreck. :facepalm:
 
jumping off your post........

Ya know, it's weird. Before the trial, when the only Jodi I had "seen" was the 48 hours Jodi, I thought she seemed a little vapid and kinda peculiar. But I really felt like this was a rage killing and she was just a jealous beeotch who dropped her basket and went psycho on Travis. Nothing more.

But her demeanor in the interrogation room tapes and in the courtroom just skeeves me out. Even were she not a killer, I think being in a room with her would set off all kinds of alarms in me. Not "danger" stuff, just "ewwy icky please don't touch me" stuff. Her weird cup holding, inappropriate posture at the table, forced laughter, dead pan staring, etc. I think if I'd met her at a party, I'd spend the evening trying to avoid having to be near her. :gasp:

She is, personality wise, just unsettling to watch. And then asking about those pictures. Jeebus!

This is not just being mean or nasty. I know next to nothing about BPD/ASPD and the like. I wouldn't even venture a guess as to what her damage is. I just can attest to Jodi's own affect as being alarming to me, even if I did not know she ghoulishly murdered Travis. :(

Also, her shocking change in physical appearance freaks me out a little. I am one of the few that thought JA was an attractive girl in the photos and in the 48 hours show. But there is NO WAY just lack of cosmetics and hairdye and her acquired prison pallor could make her practically unrecognizable from that girl in the photos. I honestly wouldn't recognize her as the same person. I have read sone peeps saying that her "true inside ugliness" has made it's way to the surface, and I used to think that was just silly! Lots of ugly people have very pretty packaging.

But in JA's case, I now think those peeps were right. There is no other explanation.

All of this just MOO.


Spot on FrayedKnot. She skeeves me out too, and it's just wierd that it's the little nuances about her personality (like the cup thing) that raise the hairs on the back of my neck. I also thought she was somewhat pretty, and my DH said the same thing when I first showed him her pics from her and TA's trips. Now I find her repulsive. Every time she licks her lips I expect a reptilian tongue to snake out from between that ever present hole in the center of her lips that never seems to close. Her flat black eyes are creepy, and I almost have to look away when the camera pans in close and she seems to be looking right at me.

I agree, the only explanation is that all of the ugliness inside her has boiled up to the surface. Her facade is gone, and the true Jodi Arias is now on display for all the world to see. :eek:
 
Usually one juror does set-up questions. Remember the question to LaViolette about keeping your sexual life private and is that deception?

LaViolette answered no, it wasn't deceptive to keep your sexual life secret. It's was a good thing.

Part 2 was, if it isn't, why do you think Travis was being deceptive when he kept his sexual life secret.

LOL - LOVED that.

But maybe that connects to your point: the juror does believe her, trusts her answer will be thoughtful and truthful so there was no need for a second part to the question. Hmmmmmmm.

~ bbm

What was her answer? I think Travis' situation was much much different than is typical because, when you are single and LDS your sex life is NOT a secret. You are to have no sex life at all and if you do there are serious consequences. Imo, that would/should have been her answer in this case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
2,132
Total visitors
2,208

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,969
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top