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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Adding photos ....these count as links! Well I'm gonna count them as links! LolImageUploadedByTapatalk1359601769.766570.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1359601785.085769.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

I;m sure the defense had such an expert. They pay for those opinions. That certainly does not prove that the letters were real. The letters were not allowed in so clearly, their authenticity was not proven.

In other news, watching the re-direct of the little gal who dated Travis? The blonde with black haired-gal? I am now feeling pretty certain that jodi is going to testify.

The defense asked a lot about Travis going downstairs or whatever and talking to jodi who sped off, after jodi came in the house. She underscored that the gal (Lisa?) had no clue what Travis said. That means, IMO, that they intend to have jodi testify to fill in the holes.
 
I;m sure the defense had such an expert. They pay for those opinions. That certainly does not prove that the letters were real. The letters were not allowed so clearly, their authenticity was not proven.

In other news, watching the re-direct of the little gal who dated Travis? The blonde with black haired-gal? I am no feeling pretty certain that jodi is going to testify.

The defense asked a lot about Travis going downstairs or whatever and talking to jodi who sped off, after jodi came in the house. She underscored that the gal (Lisa?) had no clue what Travis said. That means, IMO, that they intend to have jodi testify to fill in the holes.

I really hope you are right. However, if/when she does testify, Websleuths will probably crash! :)
 
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?

We have absolutely no idea what Nurmi was holding in his hand when he said some expert thought it was probable that it was authored by Travis. We have no information about what kind of expert it was or how they made their determination ...

So no, I don't think Nurmi was lying per se. I think what he was doing was playing to the television audience knowing that people would draw the conclusion that you have apparently drawn -- assuming that it was one of the fake letters about Travis being a pedophile or whatever.
 
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?
(Not being snarky) Can you please share a link showing that experts stated the letters were written by Travis? The last news article I read stated the opposite. tia
 
The jury wasn't there for that though and I understood the letters are not coming in. The jury will never see them. Right?

I really don't know. That's why I'm extremely interested in this part of the case. I searched the minute entries and found only that the motion to exclude them was granted because it was withdrawn. Assuming they're the same letter(s) though, then why were they allowed at the hearing at all and why is Nurmi saying an expert has said they were likely written by Travis. Like I said, I've never seen a case where the court excluded evidence where experts disagreed over its validity unless there was some other reason to exclude it (btw, I realize the jury wasn't there -- undue prejudice was just an example)
 
I;m sure the defense had such an expert. They pay for those opinions. That certainly does not prove that the letters were real. The letters were not allowed so clearly, their authenticity was not proven.

In other news, watching the re-direct of the little gal who dated Travis? The blonde with black haired-gal? I am no feeling pretty certain that jodi is going to testify.

The defense asked a lot about Travis going downstairs or whatever and talking to jodi who sped off, after jodi came in the house. She underscored that the gal (Lisa?) had no clue what Travis said. That means, IMO, that they intend to have jodi testify to fill in the holes.

I never believe a defendant will testify. In this case, I believe she must. She needs to try and manipulate and charm one juror. It's her only hope in avoiding that needle. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
(Not being snarky) Can you please share a link showing that experts stated the letters were written by Travis? The last news article I read stated the opposite. tia

Nurmi said it in court during Chris Hughes' testimony.
 
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!

I agree. I think most of the other attorneys on here do as well (Minor4th?)

I think the prosecution has done an incredible job and the defense has done zero, zip, zilch to open the door to a self-defense claim. It so reeks of desperation that I can smell it through my computer.
 
I was going to skip over this and I'm sure I will immediately regret responding but I had to respond.

We absolutely have been discussing the horrible things this murderer did to Travis, and just about every other aspect of this story and crime. Sex is one of the central issues of this story. JA and her defense have chosen to make it a central theme.

They have chosen to paint Travis a sexual deviant. They have chosen to paint him as a verbal and sexual abuser who forced JA to play weird pedophile games - make her wear "little girl braids" and boy shorts, to engage in anal sex and phone sex, to talk dirty TO her, to make this poor innocent sweet girl a passive delicate sex object.

JA decided to portray Travis as a sexual monster, she decided to portray herself as a sexual victim. IMO and I believe in the opinion of others here though I won't speak for them, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or woman engaging in whatever kind of sexual activity he or she pleases.
Personally I don't give a damn if people swing, do same sex, bondage, ... so long as it's consensual - take pictures, use toys, tape yourself, whatever.

But JA and her defense team are choosing to portray her as an innocent virginal woman, not a strong sexual woman who was in control of her body and her life (like she was). They are blatantly lying, pretty much coming close to saying that he forced himself on her anally, when we hear that she did that before. She was an aggressor. I don't think the overall tone is "*advertiser censored* shaming" but outrage that this coward of a woman uses her extreme sexuality as a weapon as part of this man's slaughter and now in his death she is using sex again to play the victim.

I have no problem with her sleeping around, if that's what she was doing. More power to those who own their sexuality and individuality. I'm outraged at what she is doing with her "sexual role", his sexual role and I think there's a similar feeling on this board.
I also take "*advertiser censored* shaming" seriously but the above is my reply to the direct issue.
Just wanted to say thank you for so perfectly and respectfully articulating the above view. IMO you have explained perfectly how many feel, view, and exactly why or where that view or opinion originated.

IMO the notion of many of us, strong, proud, intelligent, and caring women of all different ages and walks of life to be painted with a broad brush a color that in truth does not even begin to match with what many have expressed and articulated throughout this trial about both the victim and defendant being inappropriate, uncalled for, and even hateful is just not even near factual.. not even near the truth of what and why our opinions and views are and continue to be expressed.

Of course its to each our own in what we feel, think, opine, or state about this defendant and the route in which SHE, AND SHE ALONE is choosing to present as the just cause for her slaughtering a man who had an entire life left to live, who had a magnetism within himself that people literally were drawn to(both male and female), who was striving to find his path in life of being the best man he could be in all aspects, with Mormonism being important to him, and his learning how to incorporate all of these aspects into himself and the life he was striving towards making for himself.

Was Travis the perfect Godly man? No, and to my knowledge he, nor anyone else has ever claimed that he was such.. Travis was nothing more than a human being, a young man trying to figure out that perfect balance of all aspects incorporated into his life..with his religion being of great importance in finding the perfect fit for making it a personal priority in his life.

For a young man with charisma and personality to which women were drawn to and to which he enjoyed, for him to be attempted to be painted with the brush that he was an abusive monster and sexual deviant is THE ROUTE IN WHICH ARIAS HAS CHOSEN!.. and she's done a piss poor job of in any way whatsoever fleshing out this evil persona she's created of the victim..

While on the other hand again it is SHE, AND SHE ALONE whose chosen a complete opposite brush of which to paint herself as a delicate, virginal, naive victim of the evil persona AKA the real victim, Travis.. and has done a piss poor job as well in her attempt at painting this false version of herself..

These choices by JODI ARIAS have backfired on her and the truth has fortunately emerged thru any of the BS she's attempted to sell.. That truth showing and IMO proving much the opposite of what she attempted to paint in truth being she is the evil, sexual deviant who very much used sex, sex, and more sex as her main weapons against men, specifically the victim, Travis.

It is she who has brought forth the entire prevalent issue regarding SEX.. and IMO any/all opinions and views expressed toward her and her use of sex are obviously and only directed at Jodi Arias!. IMO that has been crystal clear and IMO impossible to misconstrue or be interpreted toward ANY OTHER FEMALE IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD...IMO ITS STRICTLY DUE TO JODI, AND JODI ALONE as to why there is even a sexual component involved for us to even have as a topic of discussion.

WITHOUT JODI ARIAS THERE WOULD BE NO SEXUAL COMPONENT TO BE DISCUSSED.<<--This point alone is the only proof necessary to clearly define the who/what/why there is even the "sexual" discussion.

And just to be clear I personally don't believe that there is anything to be "shamed" regarding sex, sexual activity, sexual preferences, etc..

THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ME IS WHEN SEX IS USED TO HARM, HURT, MANIPULATE OTHERS!..and without doubt its exactly that, that Jodi Arias has done!

All jmo.
 
The state concluded that several of the letters matched Jodi's handwriting from her journal. So the state wanted them all out for others reasons as well. The DT withdrew their request to have them admitted. So for whatever reason the DT didn't think they were important enough to fight to get them in.

And several inconclusive.
 
I never believe a defendant will testify. In this case, I believe she must. She needs to try and manipulate and charm one juror. It's her only hope in avoiding that needle. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I think that she will be quite certain in her narcissism that she will be able to win over at least one juror, if not the entire male section. She is a legend in her own mind.
 
(Not being snarky) Can you please share a link showing that experts stated the letters were written by Travis? The last news article I read stated the opposite. tia

Came right straight from her lawyers lips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nurmi said it in court during Chris Hughes' testimony.

I believe beyond the question of authorship, they were only copies, and the originals could not be obtained.

ETA: Perhaps I should have used "manufacture" rather than "obtained", as I believe from reading the court minutes, they were all "manufactured", and I also believe that is why the first attorney quit.
 
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.

That was not in open court when the jury was in the room.

The Judge has already ruled the letters arent coming in because it cant be proven they were even written by Travis.
 
a question occurs to me:
If Jodi was such a stalker, and Travis knew that she had the ability to do some nasty things (tire slashing, computer account hacking, etc.) why the HECK would he allow her to take x-rated photos? I don't understand the duct tape or the last picture of him alive, in the shower, where he looks (IMO) very dejected. I just wonder if there was coercion involved on jodi's part...
 
the letters that were thrown out of evidence:

can be seen in the court minutes

(see opening post)

they were only re-addressed in the evidentiary hearing which is a question I am taking over to the new LEGAL THREAD! (thanks verified attorneys!)
 
We have absolutely no idea what Nurmi was holding in his hand when he said some expert thought it was probable that it was authored by Travis. We have no information about what kind of expert it was or how they made their determination ...

So no, I don't think Nurmi was lying per se. I think what he was doing was playing to the television audience knowing that people would draw the conclusion that you have apparently drawn -- assuming that it was one of the fake letters about Travis being a pedophile or whatever.

Yet he said it. You and I both know he's not going to say, in court before the judge, that an expert has said that a letter was probably written by Travis and that the letter speaks to Travis's deviant sexual proclivities if he didn't have such a report and that's not what the letter could reasonably be interpreted to say. Right?
 
I really don't know. That's why I'm extremely interested in this part of the case. I searched the minute entries and found only that the motion to exclude them was granted because it was withdrawn. Assuming they're the same letter(s) though, then why were they allowed at the hearing at all and why is Nurmi saying an expert has said they were likely written by Travis. Like I said, I've never seen a case where the court excluded evidence where experts disagreed over its validity unless there was some other reason to exclude it (btw, I realize the jury wasn't there -- undue prejudice was just an example)

They weren't "allowed at the hearing" and I assure you Nurmi would not have pulled that stunt with the jury present because those letters and any mention of them has been ruled as inadmissible. Draw the logical inference about the authenticity of the letters.
 
I believe beyond the question of authorship, they were only copies, and the originals could not be obtained.

Nor verified that they were even written by TA which IMO they werent.

Why didnt she turn them over ASAP. Where are the originals?

She is one sneaky snake who will do anything to get away with cold blooded murder just like CA.

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
2,544
Total visitors
2,646

Forum statistics

Threads
590,003
Messages
17,928,882
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top