weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

Status
Not open for further replies.

leebee52

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
2
Nezumi, if you know where to find it, could you direct me to the "evidence" that she actually was on the reservation. I must have missed this extremely important fact because to me jurors would want to know what "happened" to get her to premeditate a murder. TIA

A PPL guy talked all about that trip the other day on HLN. Can't remember what his name was but he described how TA had earned the trip and he knew about the fact that JA was going and then wasn't.
 

InALandFarFarAway

Lah di freakin' dah
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
0
If Jodi had PPL insurance, she would have called the hot line. No doubt, they would have told her not to answer any questions waiving her right to an attorney. Even if she could not afford an attorney, if Jodi had asked for one, the investigator would have immediately stopped engaging with her.

Very strange to me she hadn't absorbed more sub-basic legal info by hanging out with that crowd through osmosis if nothing else. I understand Travis was just an insurance salesman, but one of the selling points is not to risk saying the wrong thing but get immediate legal direction.

Some pre-paid legal plans do not cover felony cases, others do on a limited basis.
 

FrayedKnot

Former Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
4,693
Reaction score
39
If Jodi had PPL insurance, she would have called the hot line. No doubt, they would have told her not to answer any questions waiving her right to an attorney. Even if she could not afford an attorney, if Jodi had asked for one, the investigator would have immediately stopped engaging with her.

Very strange to me she hadn't absorbed more sub-basic legal info by hanging out with that crowd through osmosis if nothing else. I understand Travis was just an insurance salesman, but one of the selling points is not to risk saying the wrong thing but get immediate legal direction.

Didn't Gus Searcy say he didn't have an attorney, too? Mr. PPL himself? :waitasec::notgood:
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,884
Reaction score
2,129
Just wanted to make a general comment about prejudicial evidence.

Evidence is not excluded just because its prejudicial. Any evidence of Jodi's guilt is prejudicial against Jodi. Evidence is only excluded if the prejudicial effect clearly outweighs the relevance and meaningfulness of the evidence.

So Jodi's psychiatric diagnosis would not be excluded because its too prejudicial. If Dr D had diagnosed Jodi with ASPD or schizophrenia or mental retardation or anything else, she would have testified about it, and it would not have been excluded because its too prejudicial. And the only reason Dr D was even allowed to testify about Jodi's diagnosis at all was because the defense made an issue of Jodi's mental health.

If the defense had not raised PTSD or BWS, Dr D would not have been able to testify.

This is what is difficult to understand. JA's score on the psychopathic deviate scale was off the charts it was so high. Assuming that isn't BPD, why wasn't that embellished upon in court?

Just posting this again in case I didn't "tag" the right people in my previous response:

IMO the biggest problem with presenting the PD scale in this case would be that the PD scale is typically elevated when the person being tested is fighting criminal charges (because it measures, inter alia, conflict with authority), with the elevation being higher for more serious charges. So if you're on trial for your life, this scale will probably be quite high even if you would not have tested high on the scale in your pre-arrest condition.

I happen to think she would have tested pretty high anyway, but there's no way to know that.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
I will say one thing, the DT doesn't have much to work with, true. What a loser of a case for them. Jodi basically convicted herself.

And I do think the DT witnesses were like shooting fish in a barrel for JM. I don't know if that means that any prosecutor could have made them look bad (because they were just embarrassing) or if JM is just really good.

I honestly don't know much about his other cases and how challenging they were to prosecute. I can only speak to this trainwreck. :facepalm:
I got confused by this expression, because I thought it meant it was a hard thing to do, DH just explained it meant an easy thing to do.:blushing:
JM just is that good. He convicted both the guy who killed his wife and claimed he was sleepwalking when he did it, and another woman in AZ who killed her husband, who wasn't dying of cancer fast enough for her (Wendy Andriano). She is on Death Row.
 

dhunter

New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
You Know I keep thinking why Nurmi is smerking while Wilnut is questioning DR. D, it dawns on me HE IS SMERKING BECAUSE HE HAD SOMEONE BREAK INTO HER HOUSE AND STOLE THE LAPTOP AND LIKE JODI HE IS RUBBING IT INTO HER THAT HE GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!!
I've wondered about the defense team's strategy, given the challenges. What would you do to defend this murderer if you were one of her team. What strategy would you initiate?
Temporary insanity? (JA was overwhelmed with jealousy and committed a crime of passion)
General insanity? (JA is batshite bonkers crazy out of her blooming mind and the voices and the ninjas in her head, hiding under her tinfoil hat, told her to do it)
Let's make a deal? (Bartering and bargaining and begging and pleading: Start high but know you'll come out low ---for example:
10 years and we'll throw in a toaster
nota chance
ok 20 and we'll pretend you won
30 and we'll throw in a ball of twine and a book of knots for the cellmate?

Any other takes on better strategies for the dt?
 

leebee52

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
2
Just posting this again in case I didn't "tag" the right people in my previous response:

IMO the biggest problem with presenting the PD scale in this case would be that the PD scale is typically elevated when the person being tested is fighting criminal charges (because it measures, inter alia, conflict with authority), with the elevation being higher for more serious charges. So if you're on trial for your life, this scale will probably be quite high even if you would not have tested high on the scale in your pre-arrest condition.

I happen to think she would have tested pretty high anyway, but there's no way to know that.

If memory serves, I think I remember JM asking Dr. D something about that and she was trying to say what you said but JW cut her off.
 

Tuba

New Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
5,691
Reaction score
64
Everyone but Jodi and her team is miserable with the accusations made about Travis's pedophilia. As I've said before, Falsity's check list from the Domestic Violence Organisation & proponents would not have been completed without "Harm to the children". She & Travis had no children, therefore check it anyway because he was a pedophile. It was important, especially since she & Travis were not domiciled and thus not domestic, to include each and every grievance. This repeats the method used in the theft at her grandfather's. Steal something, one item, from every room in the house. (Yes, great minds think like this.)

Judging from activity and demeanor, Travis was never given mental health pamphlets on pedophilia picked up at the mall. He was never told to stay away from friends who had children. He was never lectured about his pedophila "issues" by the defendant. He never told her that sex with a woman made him feel more normal. If these happenings had occurred, there is no way their intimate relations would have continued business as usual. Falsity could not have conjured a bigger turn-off. It is obvious that Travis never reacted to any of this drama, because it did not happen.
 

Maryann123

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
1
Yes my father was a grand man. Though he practiced law for two years, he found it wasn't his cup of tea so he went in Federal Law Enforcement for a long career for 25 years. Then he started teaching Criminal Justice at University of NC - Charlotte Campus. He was a natural and his students loved him. Some of his students kept in touch with him until his death.


I'm from NC. My grandson is attending UNCC right now. (engineering) His dad is in law enforcement, and his grandfather retired from LE. My sister just retired as a LE officer. I have great respect for these people, and I get my panties in a wad when someone finds one bad apple and tries to attach a bad image to the rest. Bless your father!
 

vallie

Registered Rollerblader
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
216
Reaction score
232
Somewhat OT, but this is huge issue, similar to all the brouhaha with voter registration...meaning, the requirement to have a physical address is discriminatory against the homeless, battered women (people) who don't want to / have to reveal an address, military personnel who don't have a permanent residence, ad infinitum....

Bottom line, not sure what the exact rules for each state are, but not particularily hung on this point...

at the time JA received the license with the PO box, California allowed PO boxes on license,since then, the laws have changed, and you do require a physical address on your license in California
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
I have a problem too with the concept of "a jury of your peers". For instance, a jury of JA's peers? Come on, who would qualify as her peer other than another sicko.
Casey Anthony of course!!! Oooh, and how about Joran VanderSloot, and Scott Peterson too, they'd all be about in the same age range.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
I will say one thing, the DT doesn't have much to work with, true. What a loser of a case for them. Jodi basically convicted herself.

And I do think the DT witnesses were like shooting fish in a barrel for JM. I don't know if that means that any prosecutor could have made them look bad (because they were just embarrassing) or if JM is just really good.

I honestly don't know much about his other cases and how challenging they were to prosecute. I can only speak to this trainwreck. :facepalm:

~bbm

I was speaking generally about his other cases. The State rarely charges and tries any case it can't win. It's just not worth it for a number of reasons. And if they have one that's even kinda iffy, they'll take a plea. So if you have a case charged as murder 1 and no plea offered, that's based on the strength of the evidence and the knowledge/belief that it can't be lost outright. Any case Juan or any other prosecutor would get has a really good chance of being won or at least getting a plea. There are some high-profile shockers like the Casey Anthony case and some cases where charges are brought due to public pressure and/or for political reason, but those are anomalous, imo. Most people charged and tried for murder are convicted - especially the ones we don't hear much about. jmo
 

sammijo

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
THAT question just blew my mind. What the heck was JW thinking? She opened up a big ole :worms: without even a blink. GAH!!

I think I see where she may have thought she was going with this question.

You can get information from a dead person. That's what forensic pathologists do. However, in regards to determining what someone felt, thought, or meant when they wrote something after they are dead, is impossible. You always have to rely on someone else's interpretation of what they think the deceased person meant.

Rather stupidly, I think, Jenny got so excited at the prospect of a "gotcha!" moment, that she forgot just WTH she was talking about.

Just MHOO.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
at the time JA received the license with the PO box, California allowed PO boxes on license,since then, the laws have changed, and you do require a physical address on your license in California
That was another stupid flaw in her Ninja story- that the ninjas would go after her family after viewing her DL. Thing is, her CDL lists a P.O. Box in Big Sur (near Monterey). Her family lives in Yreka.
 

kscornfed

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
2,723
Reaction score
5
I've always found this bit a tad bit disturbing if not, confusing.

According to Gus Searcy, Jodi phoned him hours after murdering Travis on June 4th. He testified that she told him 'Travis is dead'. Now.....why didn't he mention it to anyone in Cancun? Wouldn't people have missed and conversed about Travis expected yet missing presence that weekend? Or is Gus just bull----ing? And if so then, why?

i think he's as nuts as JA is, myself. i rank his credibility very close to hers.
 

dani

Go Ducks!
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1
The undisputed fact that, in her second rental car, after she was arrested on July 15th (?) they found knives and later on.....a hidden gun that was discovered very well hidden in the engine compartment.
So she is with no doubt, a risk to society and could've very well had her next victim planned out. Mimi? Ryan? Who knows...............

Bravo! Standing "O" for you! :drumroll:

I admit I watch HLN After Dark. (And yes, I realize they make many mistakes on that show.) But, the "Bold Accusation" the other night was that "Jodi is a threat to society". This is the show where the only 2 MALE jurors voted "Not Guilty". (Imagine that. And we have a real jury heavily loaded with males. :doh:)

Anyway, Vinnie's "Smoking Gun" that night was the 9mm found hidden in Jodi's latest rental car and the two knives in the box of her books. I had already known this info, but I felt an "OMG moment" come over me to how VERY serious this was when put in the context of her being a threat to society.

Here's a woman who's about to flee to avoid being captured for Travis' horrendous murder, yet she's already armed herself with the tools to do it again.

A "Threat to Society"? Ya think??? :gasp:
 

uklady

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Logic much? That question makes no sense. Whether or not I could do a better job has no bearing on whether or not the defense is competent. The defense chose to put up experts who are incompetent and one was shown to be a liar. Wilmott won't deign to do the slightest research to understand the subject matter she's questioning Dr. D about...I don't call that doing the best they can.

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
I really get tired of watching Juan bouncing the arms and head around like a bobble head with the voices inflections and the yes and no nonsense. I think the Judge has the best demeanour. Non irritating very straight forward questions from the jury gets 1000% more accomplished. She is very good.

I don't even try to watch him any more and I'll leave it at that. ;) And I agree about the Judge's demeanor and most of the jury questions. A couple of them I've been surprised she read, though.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,740
Reaction score
15,291
~bbm

I was speaking generally about his other cases. The State rarely charges any case it can't win. It's just not worth it for a number of reasons. And if they have one that's even kinda iffy, they'll take a plea. So if you have a case charged as murder 1 and no plea offered, that's based on the strength of the evidence and the knowledge/belief that it can't be lost outright. Any case Juan or any other prosecutor would get has a really good chance of being won or at least getting a plea. There are some high-profile shockers like the Casey Anthony case and some cases where charges are brought due to public pressure and/or for political reason, but those are anomalous, imo. Most people charged and tried for murder are convicted - especially the ones we don't hear much about. jmo
Strongly disagree regarding the Casey Anthony case- her charges weren't brought due to public or political pressure. The evidence was there- the jury was too stupid to see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top