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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AngelWings444 said:
Jumping off your post...

JA wasn't a Mormon, she just pretended to be one. Anything to get anyone, she desires. I have more of a problem with a murderer, preying on someone, converting to their religion to gain their trust, then SLAUGHTERING them, than someone who has sex out of their religion. Perspective.

How many of us are guilty of not complying to their religion? Heck, I was raised Catholic, my parents went to all girls/boys Catholic schools, I won't go into to details, but this isn't about religion!

This is a vicious, brutal, pre-meditated murder! Even if you don't believe it was pre-meditated, JA admits to slaughtering Travis.

It.has.nothing.to.do.with.being.Mormon!!
Click to expand...


Here, here! Totally agree 100% and I think any Mormon on the jury would Definately see the SAME thing. We are not buying her phony Mormon b.s. anyway. If anything it would predjudice them against her. She is a sick killer. Their sex life and their religious failings (his) and fraud(hers) have nothing to do with the two minutes she spent hacking the life out of him. The facts are indisputable.
 
Mrs G Norris said:
I thought Bundy's IQ was only in the 120 range (which is really not very high, about the same as a schoolteacher) and it's a bit of a myth that people with ASPD have a higher IQ, they're across the same range as everybody else, actually, John Douglas says they test lower, probably due to their 'issues' .. which is why they get caught.
Click to expand...

Wha???? They test all schoolteachers and keep a record of their collective IQs? Who knew? :what:
I had no idea that schoolteachers were on the "not very high" scale of IQs. Wow, you learn something every day. I'm so disappointed that all those wonderful, intelligent teachers I know aren't really geniuses. Not a one of them. Shucks. My husband, too. Nope, not a genius among them. Just barely above average. Good thing none of them ever wanted to be a lawyer or doctor or rocket scientist. (Just wanted to teach people how to be lawyers, doctors, and rocket scientists. With their barely adequate IQs.)
 
Krisy said:
I was never into "sleeping around, friends with benefits, one night stands". Not MY thing.

I'm around Travis's age. But I have friends that did. They were sometimes just looking for fun, other times Mr Right was Mr Wrong soon into a relationship. It happens. It's not shocking to me at all. Many have gone on to be happily married.

I guess what IRKS me is them going on and on about it being abusive.
Maybe not "moral" in everyone's eyes, but far from abusive.

This wasn't JA's first rodeo. She could have easily kept her panties on too!!!
Click to expand...



Lol...ya...she could have easily kept her panties AND her Spiderman UNDERWEAR on! ...but she couldn't! She enjoyed being a "booty call"!

They weren't a couple... and I believe it was Jodi who pursued the "no strings attached" relationship and participated willingly...

By no means was Travis abusing her... he was simply participating in the "no strings attached" relationship that Jodi was offering...
 
paperwing said:
The jurors didn't/won't see that part of the video, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Why not paperwing? I mean this witness alone talked about violence toward animals etc. didn't she? As signs of an abuser? Why wouldn't it be rebuttal evidence? Or at least in closings?
 
paperwing said:
And a lot of folks would consider what Travis was doing doggish, but not cheating - certainly not on JA.

Weren't the women he was interested in deeply LDS - thus the cheating didn't involve sex... not to mention it wasn't cheating because he was single.

Travis didn't want to date JA because she wasn't LDS, so she fixed that. Superficially. So it seems like he was rather particular about that... Had he ever dated a non-LDS woman that we know of?

He wasn't cheating - he wasn't in a relationship. JA refused to go away.
Click to expand...

Your right. Also they date alot of people so they have the opportunity to meet and marry the right person.
 
Sulamith said:
Nope, JA was a Mormon, baptized by TA. After listening to a Mormon Elder that taught her the discussions..I think she was serious about becoming a Mormon. I became a Catholic at one point in my life. Attended RCIA. Becoming a Catholic required much more study/time that it does to become a Mormon IMO. If you listen to Mimi Hall's testimony (JM had her tell about the sins of Mormonism) and TA's friends that were on NG or Dr. Drew..they harped on how he was a virgin, stumbled and his "natural man" prevailed..That is why religion plays a part in this trial. TA could not be a normal man, JA had to be his dirty little secret. He had to pretend he was a virgin. Elder Jensen: (already posted this, but the thread moves so fast). This is the Mormon elder that taught JA. http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2013/03/special-episode-elder-jensenjodi-arias/
Click to expand...

Deleted reply due to Religious Restrictions...
 
katiecoolady said:
Why not paperwing? I mean this witness alone talked about violence toward animals etc. didn't she? As signs of an abuser? Why wouldn't it be rebuttal evidence? Or at least in closings?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was released to the public? idk
 
Dewey2Me1MoThyme said:
she said she kicked Doggy Boy and he only moved a couple feet and stood there, then in her next sentence claimed they never saw him again. :what:
Click to expand...

Probably the truth. Sort of. She kicked him a couple feet, and nobody else ever saw him again. Probably threw him in the trash because her kick killed it.
 
I think this witness is painting a completely different picture of JA.

She set up JA as being vulnerable because she was just out of a relationship. If that is why she was so vulnerable, it is fake! She didn't leave that relationship until after she met TA. There was no period of time for her to become vulnerable to TA.

She is talking like they were "in" a relationship throughout the entire time they knew each other ... saying his infidelity proves emotional abuse. The fact is they were not in a relationship (JA herself has said numerous times) so there can't be infidelity every time he emailed, talked, or even made out with another girl (at least towards JA). Whatever the reason they want to claim TA didn't want to use the term boyfriend/girlfriend ... it was a reason proving that he wasn't willing to commit to her. I don't see the reason he wouldn't commit as being relevant. What is relevant is the undisputed fact that he was not willing to.

She is also showing JA as jealous ... but claiming it was justifiably so. They have tried very hard not to paint JA as a scorned ex-lover, and I believe this witness is just unraveling all of the defense teams efforts in proving she wasn't jealous and/or especially how much all of these things continued to hurt her emotionally. This would all be fine if they were claiming she just flipped and killed him, but does nothing for her claim that he attacked her. She has only hinted at physical violence one time (recalling JA told her he pushed her once) and the rest has been days and days of how all of his actions justified her jealousy. Isn't this entire line of questioning just backing up the motive? He was hiding his relationships with all of these women and she busted him ... points to her killing in a jealous rage much more than him attacking her.

Finally, I do not like the way she keeps testifying so matter-of-factually. Saying "he did this", or "he said this", or "he pushed her", or "he was feeling this". If she is allowed to testify at all on these questions, I definitely think she needs to find a thesaurus and find a way to state JA claims these things a little better instead of testifying in a way that makes them sound factual. Considering a good portion of what she is stating has either been proven false (with other witness testimony), or only JA's version of events ... the jury will have no choice but to disregard her entire testimony.
 
AlanCFA said:
She seems to be less into blathering for the sake of controversy and ratings than others covering the trial, but she is not perfect. I see an acquittal as nearly impossible.

It seems that some HLN viewers and even some here at WS are like Super Bowl fans who are afraid their team will blow a 28 point lead with 3 minutes left.

Honestly, from what you have seen of ALV, would you change your mind and vote to acquit based on her testimony?

Juan will get a conviction. As Adam Clayton Powell once said, "keep the faith, baby"
Click to expand...

As far as ALV's testimony..it definitely would not make me want to acquit...however I might have to develop a bladder problem so I could take more breaks. Lol. Otherwise I would be nodding off. And If I were a male juror I would be so insulted by her.
 
Sulamith said:
Nope, JA was a Mormon, baptized by TA. After listening to a Mormon Elder that taught her the discussions..I think she was serious about becoming a Mormon. I became a Catholic at one point in my life. Attended RCIA. Becoming a Catholic required much more study/time that it does to become a Mormon IMO. If you listen to Mimi Hall's testimony (JM had her tell about the sins of Mormonism) and TA's friends that were on NG or Dr. Drew..they harped on how he was a virgin, stumbled and his "natural man" prevailed..That is why religion plays a part in this trial. TA could not be a normal man, JA had to be his dirty little secret. He had to pretend he was a virgin. Elder Jensen: (already posted this, but the thread moves so fast). This is the Mormon elder that taught JA. http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2013/03/special-episode-elder-jensenjodi-arias/
Click to expand...

JA was not a Mormon. That is just my opinion. I'm not going to get into the religious debate, because it has NOTHING to do with her slaughtering Travis. I don't care if Travis was a virgin or not, it has nothing to do with this case. It has nothing to do with him being murdered. Travis is NOT on trial! Although, it seems like he is. :cry:
 
Hatfield said:
JMO
Dont hang me, but I think she was minimizing too to the police. I think there were numerous chances for her to get Jodi the help she needed, and she chose to cast her aside and keep the "problem" away. I think she was minimizing to the officer all the times she knew Jodi had serious issues and she kept ignoring them because it would disrupt her life. It was much easier to just tell Jodi to stay away.

It was just an impression I got as I felt the Mom was trying to convince the officer that she was "shocked and surprised" that it could have gotten this bad.

Sorry, but I dont buy it. I think it was much more serious than that and she knew it for a very long time, and did nothing.

I am not saying that she had any legal responsibility to provide any help, but I am saying that I think there were many more signs and issues that happened, than she made it sound like.

But I do agree she is a victim too, to some extent. No doubt a victim too.
Click to expand...

A few weeks ago I saw a report on TV about how it's nearly impossible to get help for the truly mentally disturbed. It's VERY, VERY expensive and insurance fights the family all the way. Plus there are very few top notch facilities, but there are many places to simply "warehouse" disturbed individuals.

In the past couple of weeks we've seen the quality of some that are passing themselves off as "therapists". People like Jodi eat them up and spit them out while the family goes broke trying to get them help. :twocents:
 
ElleElle said:
No, that was Jeffrey Dahmer.

Ted Bundy was a charmer and wanted to defend himself for his charges (like Jodi).

He was a serial killer. He even had a "fanclub" of women drooling over him and female jurors flirting with him.
Click to expand...

Jodi is reasonably intelligent, her obvious mistakes in this crime notwithstanding. Ted Bundy, though, was beyond reasonably intelligent - he was very smart. He was far sicker than Jodi (he was a necrophiliac), but also a very bright and charming guy.

I do not see Jodi as charming at all, but listen to an interview with Ted Bundy and it is hard not to be impressed with him. He had a certain presence, a charisma that was palpable.
 
katiecoolady said:
Thank you!

And isn't it interesting that in the matter of a couple of days (well consecutive court days) she manages to try and tarnish the most beautiful blond in the courtroom (Katie DDJ) and then goes after the youngest (I think) most attractive (imo) female juror on the panel.

I think for Nurmi #5 was more of a threat for other reasons, maybe her copious notes and they don't want these jurors to be great historians. But for Jodi i think every attractive female is a threat so she just tosses her lack of control at over controlling all over the place. Imagine if they tossed the one juror who might have been sympathetic toward her though? That would be awesome.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I was thinking! I haven't actually seen juror #5, but I imagined she was cute as well as intelligent. Thank you for that info, bcause it strengthens our theory. Yes, ms. Arias don't like pretty, smart, young ladies because if how she looks in contrast. Ploying, fake, shallow, and crass. No wonder she never went to FHE...the church is full of gorgeous, confident, young women. I hope that the DT will do something that trips them up in the end from all their schemes. I miss Juan! I know he will sweep in and save the day!
 
dani said:
A few weeks ago I saw a report on TV about how it's nearly impossible to get help for the truly mentally disturbed. It's VERY, VERY expensive and insurance fights the family all the way. Plus there are very few top notch facilities, but there are many places to simply "warehouse" disturbed individuals.

In the past couple of weeks we've seen the quality of some that are passing themselves off as "therapists". People like Jodi eat them up and spit them out while the family goes broke trying to get them help. :twocents:
Click to expand...

HOnestly I just had a strikingly honest conversation with a client of mine this morning who has a seriously disturbed teenage son. He has restraining orders out against him from former teachers (who he assaulted and stalked). She asked my advice about an idea to remodel her home in a way that created lots of exits (to escape from him as needed) and I just said "it makes me sad to think you would create your home to protect yourself from another person living inside it with you". It's such a rock and a hard place for parents of disordered children like this. In this case I do think he needs to be institutionalized at this point (if he doesn't end up doing a prison stint for the latest stalking issue) but try telling that to his Mom......thank God my brother has never been violent to anyone, other than himself.
 
Hatfield said:
Re BBM
I understand, however, I feel that her over accomodating can also cause a mistrial. For example, if she allows the removal of jurors for illegitmate reasons, then they may run out of jurors.

Or , the defense could argue for a mistrial based on a bad deicision she made that they themselves asked her to make.
Click to expand...

The defense can't argue that the judge is being over accommodating to the defense and get a mistrial. Nor, can they can anything appealed because the judge ruled in their favor. I don't worry about the judge. If Mr. Martinez has a problem, he can object, have things stricken from the record, as he did today. I have faith in him.

I don't believe they will run out of jurors. We all need to hang in there!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 3,532 (members: 200, guests: 3,332)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,332
Total visitors
3,532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,256
Messages
17,966,350
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top