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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, I do not share your hope of seeing Juan today, as much as I want to see him set this woman straight. Wilmont was still on the year 2007...the end of October. I don't know if there is court tomorrow. Do you? If so, tomorrow might be the day we see him. If not it will give Juan more time to make a plan of questioning regarding ALVs' testimony.

We might not get to JM's cross today but I need to keep the hope up. I don't want to fall asleep again, lol.

There is no mention of court tomorrow on the calendar. That doesn't mean there is no court though. I suppose we'll find out today.
 
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.

Was there an interview with Bundy after his first murder?

Rage killing is rage killing and JA is guilty of rage killing, as was Bundy.
 
Yesterday was such a day, waiting to see of there would be a mistrial and/or if we would lose a juror. Then we saw the Travis family so upset and JA and def team smiling and being in such a good mood. She is so sick and so evil, she scares me.

But I feel since this trial started, she is the happiest she has ever been in her life. She is the center of attention, everything is about her, she knows the camera will be on her a lot. This is what she has written, produced, directed, and has the starring role. In her version, she will convince a jury that she only murdered an evil man who abused her so badly, she had to protect herself. She gets to torture Travis's family by trying to ruin his reputation with family, friends, and his church because that is something she does not have and cannot relate to. In her version, she will get self defense and live happily after. Sorry JA, you forgot to write in a bad prosecutor and got Juan instead. :facepalm:
 
I know some people are upset with tri-color for allegedly talking to someone and saying something she shouldn't have. Part of me is having thoughts about all the what-ifs...what influence would she have had? What info is in her notes that other jurors may have forgot, but would effect their opinions? etc. etc. This is all assuming she would have ended up being one of the 12 selected.

I think it's best to wait and see what was said before passing judgment. With the way this judge has been handling things, it could have been something innocent that can be misinterpreted, but the judge doesn't want to take any chances.

It's no secret that she is believed to be pro-prosecution. I would assume after calming down, she would investigate the case further. Part of me would love to see her in court sitting on the side of Travis' family to show support and figuratively give JA the finger.

Right you are! No way am I going to blame Juror #5 before even listening to her side of the story. I will assume she did nothing wrong. I have no respect for this Defense. I don't trust them one bit.
 
Unfortunately, I do not share your hope of seeing Juan today, as much as I want to see him set this woman straight. Wilmont was still on the year 2007...the end of October. I don't know if there is court tomorrow. Do you? If so, tomorrow might be the day we see him. If not it will give Juan more time to make a plan of questioning regarding ALVs' testimony.

think of it this way, oct-jul = 9months

the spend say 15mins on each month (YAWNNN) so that = 2hours 15mins then add another 45 mins of bla bla bla in for the heck of it we know willmott and her sidebars. so that = 3hours

court is 5hours so what could they possibly bang on about for another 2hours?

im telling myself logically this is what will happen :floorlaugh:
 
Connecting this crime with ANY religion is just so offensive IMO, not unlike playing the infamous race card in other trials.

It doesn't matter if Travis was religious or not, whether he was a flirt (oh the horror!) or not, if he was seeing 2 women at the same time or 20.

He did NOT deserve to be slaughtered as he was by an obsessive, psychopathic, liar by the name of JA.

Heaven help her next victim if she is sentenced to anything less than LWOP.
 
There's all this talk from the DT's experts about different conditions Jodi has as a result from being abused/killing in self-defense. About her affect, her actions, her memories, BWS PTSD... They explain all her incriminating actions as not being what they appear to be, but as a result of something else that *surprise, surprise* isn't Jodi's fault...but then again what is?

We all see sociopathic, narcissistic, boderline etc. etc. qualities to her, as did Travis, his friends, and even her parents, as evidenced on the newly released tapes.

To me it's similar to Googling symptoms you have which can correspond to a number of illnesses. Convincing yourself you may have a terminal disease, when you just have a bug. Just because she appears one way, doesn't mean it is a result of only one possible explanation.

I would love to see JM press, if necessary in hypotheticals, the idea that, "Yes, someone who acts a certain way could be a victim of BWS, but couldn't they alternatively be a liar?"

"Sure, someone who suffers from memory loss and PTSD may write 18 page letters to the family of the diseased, leave voice mails to someone they just slaughtered because their mind created an alternate reality, attend the memorial etc..., but couldn't an evil sociopath do this as well?" (while showing the text where TA called her such)
 
Yesterday was such a day, waiting to see of there would be a mistrial and/or if we would lose a juror. Then we saw the Travis family so upset and JA and def team smiling and being in such a good mood. She is so sick and so evil, she scares me.

But I feel since this trial started, she is the happiest she has ever been in her life. She is the center of attention, everything is about her, she knows the camera will be on her a lot. This is what she has written, produced, directed, and has the starring role. In her version, she will convince a jury that she only murdered an evil man who abused her so badly, she had to protect herself. She gets to torture Travis's family by trying to ruin his reputation with family, friends, and his church because that is something she does not have and cannot relate to. In her version, she will get self defense and live happily after. Sorry JA, you forgot to write in a bad prosecutor and got Juan instead. :facepalm:

What a great and insightful post (cause i was thinkin' the same thing)!
 
I just have to get this out - on the subject of the shirt that said "Travis Alexander's" on the front and whatever on the back...

JA did not have to wear it! She was not forced to put it on, much less have her photo taken in it!

I think it is mildly offensive, but ifrc Travis mailed the shirt and underwear to her. In other words, he was not even present to make sure she wore it.

Just like she didn't wear the French maid's uniform.
 
Right you are! No way am I going to blame Juror #5 before even listening to her side of the story. I will assume she did nothing wrong. I have no respect for this Defense. I don't trust them one bit.

Why not respect the judge then? The judge isn't going to dismiss a juror without substantial evidence that misconduct has happened.

Would you feel the same about juror #5 if it did indeed cause a mistrial? I don't think the welcome wagon would be as welcoming for that juror in that instance.
 
The tape between Jodi's father and Det. Flores was very intriguing. Her father used the word rage when describing Jodi's behavior. Who uses that word?

I mean, you call back and you are angry, upset, mad, crying etc....but rage???

This should tell us how out of control she was. I bet her parents became afraid of her in the year leading up to Travis's death. Even her father stated she had been like this the past year or so. Jodi became more crazed because she could not have her ultimate prize - Travis.
 
I have seen the movie "The Bad Seed". Are you saying you had a bad seed evil child? Why would the doctor advise you to remarry?

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. You can have normal children and an evil child. They can have many great qualities but nothing compensates for having an enjoyment of the pain/suffering of others, thinking it's funny when siblings scream in pain, and having zero empathy. It's terrifying to have a child like that in the house. Everyone walks on tiptoes.

I guess the doctor thought having a man in the house would help stabilize the home--you know, two-parent family. I mentioned it as a real irony that a Stanford-education child psychiatrist, top of his field, would give me advice I could have gotten from Ann Landers.
 

Interesting. I think there are three big take-always from that clip, (1) As you noted, her mother is heartbroken by her behavior, (2) Her mother and friends are/have been aware she has significant mental problems, (3) She seems to accept the idea of her daughter as a murderer as quite plausible (most parents would be adamant that their child is not capable of such an act.)
 
Why not respect the judge then? The judge isn't going to dismiss a juror without substantial evidence that misconduct has happened.

Would you feel the same about juror #5 if it did indeed cause a mistrial? I don't think the welcome wagon would be as welcoming for that juror in that instance.

Sure I respect the Judge. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with her. In this case I can't even say I disagree. The Judge might just be overly cautious and I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
 
I have seen the movie "The Bad Seed". Are you saying you had a bad seed evil child? Why would the doctor advise you to remarry?

Perhaps ALV needs to see this movie. :twocents:
 
I just have to get this out - on the subject of the shirt that said "Travis Alexander's" on the front and whatever on the back...

JA did not have to wear it! She was not forced to put it on, much less have her photo taken in it!

I think it is mildly offensive, but ifrc Travis mailed the shirt and underwear to her. In other words, he was not even present to make sure she wore it.

Just like she didn't wear the French maid's uniform.

I don't think Travis sent her the shirt and underwear. I think Jodi made them herself.
 
Actually, I thought that sounded funny too... But a score of 120 is by no means "not very high"... Actually, with a score of "120" teachers are in the "very superior intelligence category" which is second from the top...which probably means there are quite a few that roll right on into the next level, being "Genius"!

Average IQ score

Category
Over 140: Genius / near genius
120 – 140: Very superior intelligence
110 – 119: Superior intelligence
90 – 109: Average / normal intelligence
80 – 89: Low average
70 – 79: Borderline
Under 70: Extremely low
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

Maybe my fellow former or current teachers can chime in here because my experience may not be typical, but as both a former teacher and a member of the top category, I wouldn't say 'quite a few' teachers fall into the genius category. That wasn't my observation at all. YMMV and all that. If teachers' average score is 120, that puts them at the lower end of the 'very superior intelligence' category, so any given teacher could score 19 points higher than the claimed teachers' average and still be in that category. (And I even doubt whether the claimed 120 average is accurate.)

Anyway, I'm not sure how much value there is in IQ testing, except where students or other citizens need extra help. I'd rather have teachers, jurors, whoever, with common sense. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
2,278
Total visitors
2,451

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,032
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top