jodi arias TAKES THE STAND #65 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[Lulu67]

I know some folks are comparing the CA trial to this one, but I have to say this:

CA never admitted killing Caylee. She admitting knowing she was dead, but not to killing her in any way, shape or form. I BELIEVE she killed her, although I do not think she intentionally did it (I think she was using Xanax {"zanny"} or chloroform to knock her out so Casey could go party, and she may have given her too much. Once poor Caylee was gone, she threw her away - which is the most heinous thing a person could do, let alone a MOTHER!!), but she hid the fact that she was gone.

Had I been on the jury for the CA trial, I would have BELIEVED she was involved in it, but I would not have been able to convict her of killing her - because there was no PROOF of it. Not even the duct tape - nothing showing that Casey killed her or put duct tape on her. As much as it would have pained me to not find her guilty, I would have had to. BELIEVING someone is guilty is not the same as PROVING it.

With this chick.....she has admitted killing him, lied so many times it's hard to keep track, been caught trying to tamper with a witness's testimony, and shows very few real tears, except for the day she found out the entire s*x tape would be played and not just snippets.

I do hope, and pray to God that this jury will find her guilty of 1st degree murder and she will get the needle. But they are completely different trials.

 

[GulfCoastMom]

I want to ask all you Websleuthers a question regarding the knife. Let me prefice this by saying, I have not been able to follow this trial as closely as many of you have, so this may have been discussed. The knife. I know Jodi testified that she put it in the dishwasher, but i find it very strange that Juan never asked her about the disposition of the knife. He asked her about the gun and the rope (which we agree did not really exist, but had to come into play to explain how the knife was in the bathroom/bedroom). I have seen a photo of the open dishwasher with an evidence sticker in it next to some knives. Am I just overthinking this or do you think this is something that will be brought up on rebuttal? I can't believe he would grill her on all her lies and never bring up what she did with the knife unless he was going to take her word on that testimony.

 

[leebee52]

I know some folks are comparing the CA trial to this one, but I have to say this:

CA never admitted killing Caylee. She admitting knowing she was dead, but not to killing her in any way, shape or form. I BELIEVE she killed her, although I do not think she intentionally did it (I think she was using Xanax {"zanny"} or chloroform to knock her out so Casey could go party, and she may have given her too much. Once poor Caylee was gone, she threw her away - which is the most heinous thing a person could do, let alone a MOTHER!!), but she hid the fact that she was gone.

Had I been on the jury for the CA trial, I would have BELIEVED she was involved in it, but I would not have been able to convict her of killing her - because there was no PROOF of it. Not even the duct tape - nothing showing that Casey killed her or put duct tape on her. As much as it would have pained me to not find her guilty, I would have had to. BELIEVING someone is guilty is not the same as PROVING it.

With this chick.....she has admitted killing him, lied so many times it's hard to keep track, been caught trying to tamper with a witness's testimony, and shows very few real tears, except for the day she found out the entire s*x tape would be played and not just snippets.

I do hope, and pray to God that this jury will find her guilty of 1st degree murder and she will get the needle. But they are completely different trials.

You're right but..both sickos have similar mind set.

 

[robc]

I'm already imagining the laborious, convoluted, mess of answers JA will try to reply to that poor jury with.

I wonder if any of the jurors will preface their questions with "Yes or No!"

this is going to be utterly fascinating.

maybe there should be a thread "Questions I would ask Jodi if I were a juror."

 

[shelley921]

ITA! First she offers a guy the chance to do something maybe he's only fantasized about, but once that's over -- there's nothing there. Even Darryl B, who seems to have really cared about her, didn't enjoy the sex enough to want to marry her. Even though we tend to think of men thinking too much with the "little brain," this points out that they want more than just a roll in the hay.

I think it's true that many men will enjoy sex with a promiscuous woman but not want her for a long term relationship or marriage.

I'm over 50 & I know the youth of today are different from the youth of my day. When I was young women who slept with a man too soon were doing themselves a huge disservice if what they wanted was marriage or a committed relationship.

Isn't it still true today that if all a woman wants is s-e-x then being promiscuous is a good way to get that. But it's usually not a good way to get a husband?


In my 30's I had a male friend who told me " no man hates promiscuous women, because promiscuity to us is quite fun, just not long term, because of her being likely to cheat, and because of, the likelyhood of her being quite lacking of self respect".

Also don't most men like a challenge? and to "achieve" a woman? If she's too easy and there's no EFFORT required to get her into bed, then she's not "a prize". She had no "requirements".

 

[Dmacky]

I know some folks are comparing the CA trial to this one, but I have to say this:

CA never admitted killing Caylee. She admitting knowing she was dead, but not to killing her in any way, shape or form. I BELIEVE she killed her, although I do not think she intentionally did it (I think she was using Xanax {"zanny"} or chloroform to knock her out so Casey could go party, and she may have given her too much. Once poor Caylee was gone, she threw her away - which is the most heinous thing a person could do, let alone a MOTHER!!), but she hid the fact that she was gone.

Had I been on the jury for the CA trial, I would have BELIEVED she was involved in it, but I would not have been able to convict her of killing her - because there was no PROOF of it. Not even the duct tape - nothing showing that Casey killed her or put duct tape on her. As much as it would have pained me to not find her guilty, I would have had to. BELIEVING someone is guilty is not the same as PROVING it.

With this chick.....she has admitted killing him, lied so many times it's hard to keep track, been caught trying to tamper with a witness's testimony, and shows very few real tears, except for the day she found out the entire s*x tape would be played and not just snippets.

I do hope, and pray to God that this jury will find her guilty of 1st degree murder and she will get the needle. But they are completely different trials.

Another difference is...CA never took the stand.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

In a Capital case, as both sides question potential Jurors, they are all asked if they "can" render a verdict that will sentence the Defendant to Death.

If they "cannot" then they would not select them to be on the Jury. They have to find 12 that would be able to do that IF they found the evidence called for it.

In the Florida case, I was shocked when we got a glimpse of the Jury make up and how they answered questions. I would say nearly half hedged on that, including a couple that nearly outright said no they cannot.

I have always faulted the Prosecutors office for the Jury make up in that case. I recall they had to bus in people, they had trouble picking that Jury.

Does anyone have any recollection of information getting out on how Jury selection went for this case? I can't find any?

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thank you for the reminder of this story . . . here is the link:

The Stranger Beside Me - 48 Hours - CBS News

Post link again? It's not there.

 

[shelley921]

Actually, I've heard it said the crazy ones are the best in bed. I think some shock jock started that rumor.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "best". *advertiser censored* star type sex? *advertiser censored* stars are imitators so if a woman is imitating a *advertiser censored* star in bed she is imitating the imitators.

 

[leebee52]

I think it's true that many men will enjoy sex with a promiscuous woman but not want her for a long term relationship or marriage.

I'm over 50 & I know the youth of today are different from the youth of my day. When I was young women who slept with a man too soon were doing themselves a huge disservice if what they wanted was marriage or a committed relationship.

Isn't it still true today that if all a woman wants is s-e-x then being promiscuous is a good way to get that. But it's usually not a good way to get a husband?


In my 30's I had a male friend who told me " no man hates promiscuous women, because promiscuity to us is quite fun, just not long term, because of her being likely to cheat, and because of, the likelyhood of her being quite lacking of self respect".

Also don't most men like a challenge? and to "achieve" a woman? If she's too easy and there's no EFFORT required to get her into bed, then she's not "a prize". She had no "requirements".

Ditto that...I'm more from your age range. Obviously, times have changed. Probably has to do with so much blatant openness about such things on TV and everywhere else. I was a sex abused person and in that time period, there wasn't even the phrase of sex abuse, no one discussed it openly period. Victims like myself just suffered and had to live with it.

 

[kscornfed]

The reports on HLN regarding these jury questions worry me. By now I had hoped they would have figured out she is a liar. The idea of them still wanting to hear say anything concerns me. I will wait to hear what questions they ask before full blown freak out but IDK why they aren't sick of her BS yet.

the attorneys can object to questions they don't want her to answer too. there may be some fights over those questions, depending what they are.

 

[LizardQueen74]

Caramel colored towel hanging on hook in bathroom - seen in reflection (click thumbnail):

THANK YOU!! So....now I'm back to darker towel with bleach stains. She probably knew enough "CSI" to know that bleach can interfere with luminol. If that's right...still on my first cup of coffee... **ssssip**

 

[Dmacky]

I want to ask all you Websleuthers a question regarding the knife. Let me prefice this by saying, I have not been able to follow this trial as closely as many of you have, so this may have been discussed. The knife. I know Jodi testified that she put it in the dishwasher, but i find it very strange that Juan never asked her about the disposition of the knife. He asked her about the gun and the rope (which we agree did not really exist, but had to come into play to explain how the knife was in the bathroom/bedroom). I have seen a photo of the open dishwasher with an evidence sticker in it next to some knives. Am I just overthinking this or do you think this is something that will be brought up on rebuttal? I can't believe he would grill her on all her lies and never bring up what she did with the knife unless he was going to take her word on that testimony.

That's a good point, but he did have roomates~ they could have put dishes in ? I mean it is possible that they did not. Sounds like they really were only there to shower and sleep. It was 5 days later that he was found. I keep thinking about TA's little dog. Was he fed? did he have water? Evil Bit*h put a gate up on the stairs to keep him from going up to OR even alerting to his owner. Just breaks my heart.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Thanks. The angle of the wound and him sitting in the bathtub at the beginning of the photo sequence ... seems like she shot him in the head first. The wound was not fatal and wouldn't have incapacitated him, but he would have gotten out of the shower. While standing over the sink, spitting/choking blood, it would be easy for her to stab him in the back and in the back of the head. That probably landed him on his knees while spinning around to stop her ... so they both landed on the floor. At that point it becomes a blur, not a fog. He starts crawling down the hallway to get away from her and she continues to stab him until she almost cuts off his head at the end of the hallway. There is no way that this was self defense. Then she drags him down the hallway to run the shower over his bloody body.

The prosecutor asked if she cried when she slit his throat. I think we can be confident that she did not. She should be housed with Austin Sigg. They deserve each other ... looking at each other from the other side of bars and separated from the public by plexiglass.

The ME was plainly adament that the gunshot was incapacitating immediately and would not have allowed any standing up and walking since it went through the frontal lobe. The defense kept pressing him about how people get an arrow shot in their brains and still are conscious and talking--the ME said that was a totally different situation since they are low-velocity projectiles--the bullet expands with gas in the brain. There is NO WAY for Travis to do anything after the shot.

The ME also stated that the stab to the vena cava to the heart may have nicked his lung--he would be able to stand up and go to the sink, cough out the blood while hunched over and that could account for the grouping of stab wounds to his back as Jodi stood behind him at the sink.

IMO the gunshot was last--the ME said there was very little bleeding at the site of the bullet inside the skull and that the wound could even have been post mortem.

The thing that makes me believe the stabbing & slilt throat came first and the gun last is Jodi saying the gun was first.:moo:

 

[Dmacky]

I love that phrase "her stupid over-details" this way of talking that she uses is what makes me KNOW she's constantly lying-liars embellish their stories way too much

The devil's in the details :devil:

 

[JaimeInLA]

I wonder if any of the jurors will preface their questions with "Yes or No!"

this is going to be utterly fascinating.

maybe there should be a thread "Questions I would ask Jodi if I were a juror."

My question would be:

Can I please see your finger, up close? I want to know if there is a scar on the underside of that finger. One that was not stitched properly. She bled for her hand during the murder, bad enough to leave a hand print. Had she really cut it that badly on a glass the night before, surely Travis would have taken her to get stitches.

As a juror, if I see a scar, I throw out all possibility of that finger ever being hurt by Travis, and I send her to death row for wasting my time with her lies.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I was watching the beginning of the trial again last night & I was struck with the recorded phone call between Jodi and Det. Flores where he tells her for the first time that Travis' friends immediately told him that she was
*Obsessed with Travis
*Stalked Travis
*Went to his house univited
*Was not wanted there

And Jodi had NO REACTION WHATSOEVER. If a cop told me that people thought I was a psycho stalker who was 'not invited' and 'not wanted' AND THIS WAS UNTRUE--I would be hopping mad. Wouldn't you be angry?

 

[Laceybug]

Nurmi/Wilmott will have worked this out with Martinez and Judge Stephens beforehand as the questions are selected and before they're read -- or rejected and never read -- in open court with jury present.

It kinda makes sense that if Jodi refuses to answer the jury's questions she seals her fate. I would be highly offended if I were a jury member and my question was answered with an "I dont remember" The jury questions are pretty important.

I would LOVE to know what was discussed in that closed hearing. Anyone have any ideas to share on that? Nurmi mentioned certain 'names' of people. I'm thinking MM might have been discussed in that hearing. I was hoping Juan would revisit the magazines that Jodi attempted to smuggle out of jail before the hearing about the pedophilia issue.

 

[shelley921]

Ditto that...I'm more from your age range. Obviously, times have changed. Probably has to do with so much blatant openness about such things on TV and everywhere else. I was a sex abused person and in that time period, there wasn't even the phrase of sex abuse, no one discussed it openly period. Victims like myself just suffered and had to live with it.

I feel sorry for the young women of today. I always liked a long, slow build up to sex so that when it finally happened, it was something that was "yearned for". Plus you knew the person and had connected emotionally before the physical.

I always felt that it was best to wait for emotional bonding before having sex - that way you know the man desired you for YOU and not just for "sex".

respect is the bond of the highest order. for me the "best" sex always came out of mututal respect. it takes time to feel respect for a person and trust takes time too. the healthiest relationships have respect and trust and good, clear communication IMO.

nothing is better than great sex but for me it's great only if
it's an expression of 'relatedness'. sex that sets off a torrent of emotion - not because it's sex, but because you have emotional "relatedness".

 

[leebee52]

I feel sorry for the young women of today. I always liked a long, slow build up to sex so that when it finally happened, it was something that was "yearned for". Plus you knew the person and had connected emotionally before the physical.

I always felt that it was best to wait for emotional bonding before having sex - that way you know the man desired you for YOU and not just for "sex".

respect is the bond of the highest order. for me the "best" sex always came out of mututal respect. it takes time to feel respect for a person and trust takes time too. the healthiest relationships have respect and trust and good, clear communication IMO.

nothing is better than great sex but for me it's great only if
it's an expression of 'relatedness'. sex that sets off a torrent of emotion - not because it's sex, but because you have emotional "relatedness".

Just curious, any of the younger women here learning anything from us older folks? Asking because my world consists mostly of males than females.