trial day 51: REBUTTAL; #158

[Sleuth5]

I wouldn't type it in your browser. You are liable to get hits on Viagra. :blushing:

(Psssst.... I was kidding, LambChop)

 

[Zepp]

him that day and she had some kind of plan as to how to accomplsih that. It invovled lies becasue everything she does involves lies. So, no, I don't really believe the "simple" story the DT wants to sell. That they spent all those hours together, had sex, took pictures-if that's the story Jodi is selling we know it's not true. But I don't know what really happened-what time she really entered the house, whether Travis was aware of it, how the pics were taken etc.

The prosecution doesn't care about finding out or refuting her version as Jodi's version works fine for them. It's creepy enough and incriminating enough from their perspective to sleep with a guy you're planning to kill. Since they are comfortbale with their premeditation evidence the story of those hours is legally irrelevant. But, no, I just don't believe it was this lengthy, happy visit with many hours of consensual activity. I'd love to know what Juan thinks really happened or if they have any clue.

The interesting thing to me about the photos is neither of them were both in the frame at the same time. Not a leg, not an arm and the photo of Travis was weird angle.

 

[Chelly]

BBM~ Hang on! :rollercoaster: we're right there with you and we will get through.

What i'd love to see if rebuttal done and we go right into closing. :rocker:

Will Det Flores testify tomorrow?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Jodi herself said it was a stupid video with people dancing around with boxes on their heads. Not sure where the idea that Jodi said it was *advertiser censored* came from. jmo

Actually, Nurmi was the one who got this ball rolling by intimating during direct exam of Jodi that the titles were adult in nature.

That's why Juan made the point that they were NOT *advertiser censored*.

 

[ClosArgs]

This is my thinking on JS. She is inexperienced, and does NOT know where the line is of what is appealable (is that a word) and what will fly. She is letting the DT hold the threat of an appeal over her head, and they are wining.
Nobody wants someone who is innocent to go to prison. But what if JS bens so far the other direction, the result is a lesser sentence for JA than should rightfully be. That's not fair to Travis and his family. Seems the entire system errs far, far, far to the side of the perp rather than the victim.
We need an overhaul.

Totally agree, but there is point to say ok, the DT is going to appeal regardless of my rulings. Why delay for a surrebuttal? Let's get this going and end it after the Juan's rebuttal. No matter what she decides, the defense is going to file an appeal! And of course we're not privy to the motion for the surrebuttal or the counter by Juan, but imo this is not a strong appeal if she denies. Maybe lawyers could weigh in?

 

[travelgal]

We have pics of JA's BUTT.
We have pics of JA's vagina.
We have pics of JA spread eagle.
But look again!
IN NONE OF THOSE PICS DO YOU SEE JA'S HANDS.
Was she using a remote?
Were the pics loaded onto his camera from another source AT THAT TIME?
Two of the pics have NO date/time stamps... and they have the best clarity!
How is that again?

We have two pics of Travis in the bedroom.
That bed does NOT look like anyone has romped on it, does it?
The pics of him are taken above the view of his head... like, maybe, in the corner?
Did he even know they were being taken?

What about JA telling det Flores: Travis would NEVER "allow" anyone to take pics of him in the shower???

I do NOT know IF Travis had sex with JA that day. I doubt it very much.
JA has ADMITTED she hacked his computer, his cell phone, his ATM, his home security code and has lied at least since June 4th 2008

Why should anyone believe her in refernce to this particular day?

I am in agreement with you SunDawn. It has been bothering me for weeks now about the sex and whatever that supposedly took place that day, Jun 4. Can the photos of her and Travis be authenticated? Do we know for sure what time she arrived at Travis' that day? She is so conniving and sneeky I don't trust anything from her lips! I think if Travis was done with her he would not have sex with her. He had her figured out. MOO

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Since his client had adamantly stated she returned that gas can and SHE would be "surprised" when Juan stated there was no record of it. Perhaps Nurmi was "surprised" also??!!

panthera, You're giving nurmi WAAAAAAAAAy too much credit. He knew - and he lied when it first came up suggesting it was - wait for it - a purchase of doughnuts!!!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

So far it doesn't look like Jodi had installed a keylogger or the like on TA's computer, which was surprising to me.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Can you tell what phone TA has in that video? You do make a good point. I wonder what type of phone TA had. If it could record audio, I would hope that the PA would be told about it.

moo

Dang it, I know I read once what kind he had, and darned if I can remember. I know whatever kind it was, I remember thinking "wow! i forgot about those!"

I want to say it was a pretty cutting-edge phone, about the time the first iphones came out......I want to say "Webphone"? Something like that?

 

[mattzane227]

I may be late answering (catching up) but it was an email Travis sent to Chris Hughes saying he had done something unpardonable to Deana. Nurmi asked her what it was (I am sure he wanted her to say he hit her or something like that). Deana said Travis was saying dating her for so long and not marrying her was unpardonable because she was now past prime age for dating (paraphrased).

After Deana destroyed a big part of their defense by saying that the horrible thing Travis did that the Hughes mentioned in the email was not being ready for marriage, it seemed to make Nurmi mad and that's when he went to the graphic inappropriate questions. He apologized earlier about having to ask if they were having sex, but then he goes to the X-rated questions over and over and over with no problems after things aren't going his way.

If I could never see him do his creepy smile again it would be nice.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Since his client had adamantly stated she returned that gas can and SHE would be "surprised" when Juan stated there was no record of it. Perhaps Nurmi was "surprised" also??!!

panthera, You're giving nurmi WAAAAAAAAAy too much credit. He knew - and he lied when it first came up suggesting it was - wait for it - a purchase of doughnuts!!! :floorlaugh:

 

[seguek9]

I don't know...didn't you say you turned that Grizzly into a pumpkin? That worried me. I just didn't tell you.

It was a *squash*!! Keep it straight:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

(Thanks Sleuth5! :hug:

 

[Sleuth5]

I hate missing testimony. If I could reschedule my lectures, I would! I always feel like I showed up late to a party. All the booze is gone and there's nothing left but pizza crusts. Everybody's buzzed and having a great time and looking at you like, "What a dope for missing such a great party!"

 

[geevee]

I think the point about her paying in cash was that if she wanted no one to know about her whereabouts or the gas cans she could have paid in cash and never left a trail. Saying that by paying with credit card she left an obvious trail and if she were guilty she would never do that. Jmo

As well as paying cash and leaving no bank trail, filling all three gas cans in SLC means she needed and used all three cans of gas to get through Arizona - that's why the third one being filled in SLC is as important as it was being filled in Pasadena, I believe.

ETA: My mistake, didn't she use the credit card in SLC, two swipes and then you have to go inside for the third?

 

[Zepp]

Wasn't that gas station in Utah and she told people that she was going to Utah?
She left a trail in Utah to prove that she was in Utah.

If that were the case all she needed to do was put gas in the car.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

What? Didn't the witness clearly state there were three gasoline purchases? It doesn't really matter if she paid cash or not...it was the GASOLINE!!!

His question was beyond stupid.

:doh:

MOO

I think he was trying to imply that she DIDN'T use cash and if she was trying to hide it she would have.

I guess he completely forgot that she bold faced lied about it while on the stand to the jury's face. Guess he forgot that she said she took that third can back to Walmart even though the Walmart lady just got off the stand to disprove her lie.

Or maybe he thought the jury forgot, if so, he learned just how far off he was a little while later when one juror asked a witness a question to clarify testimony he gave three months ago. :rockon:

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Testimony today brought the trial back to being about Justice for Travis, IMO. I liked the split screen showing Jodi's ego bubble bursting.

I got the distinct impression Jodi was enjoying every second of today. She was smirking, gloating and glaring alternately at Deanna. I think she felt very satisfied with herself today. She's a psycho & thinks that the world views her as she does--as a sexually irresistible victim. Sorry, Jodi--you are a hideously repulsive reptile and you make the world shudder.

 

[nightwatch]

This is my thinking on JS. She is inexperienced, and does NOT know where the line is of what is appealable (is that a word) and what will fly. She is letting the DT hold the threat of an appeal over her head, and they are wining.
Nobody wants someone who is innocent to go to prison. But what if JS bens so far the other direction, the result is a lesser sentence for JA than should rightfully be. That's not fair to Travis and his family. Seems the entire system errs far, far, far to the side of the perp rather than the victim.
We need an overhaul.

bbm
do judges consult with each other like docs do? is there a supervising judge? :waitasec:

 

[seguek9]

Will Det Flores testify tomorrow?

Re-testify? Nah...I doubt it...hes said all he needs to say.... (I could listen to him for hours though....oh...wait...I have. :blushing

 

[Optics]

I think the point about her paying in cash was that if she wanted no one to know about her whereabouts or the gas cans she could have paid in cash and never left a trail. Saying that by paying with credit card she left an obvious trail and if she were guilty she would never do that. Jmo

Yes, true, however, she wasn't gonna risk just using cash because she knows there are video cameras at gas stations......she couldn't risk that thus the gas cans so no one could know.