Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Jodi Arias Trial


  • Please log in to reply
836 replies to this topic

#31    regi

regi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostYamato, on 15 February 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Remember though that the defense is under no obligation to present any evidence at all.  All they have to do is create a reasonable doubt in the evidence the prosecution provides.

Well, they're trying to save her from the death penalty, and to do that, they know they have a lot to answer to, so they have to put up some kind of a defense. (Of course, they knew that the self defense plea was the only defense even remotely possible.)

Your intention seems to be to rally for the defense, and I don't understand why.
You've implied that you want to hear why Arias lied, as though there could be some compelling or complicated reason other than the simple and obvious one.
You've said that because Arias lied doesn't prove that she committed the murder. Well, that's true by itself, but she had no choice but to eventually admit that she committed the murder because the evidence was too overwhelming to try and deny it.*

After at least five days on the stand, the jury has yet to hear anything even relevant to the crime. So far, they've allowed a proven lair to drag a victim through the mud with truly despicable allegations- none of which are substantiated, but the kicker is that those allegations don't even make sense to begin with!

*Just an FYI because I've seen it in discussion, a confession isn't taken on face value, alone. There has to be supporting evidence.
In this case, the evidence came before the admission, so it doesn't matter whether or not she admitted to the crime.

Edited by regi, 15 February 2013 - 01:05 PM.


#32    regi

regi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:01 PM

View Postsupervike, on 14 February 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I think if she wasn't a pretty little hottie, and just some random middle aged woman, we wouldn't know a word about this whole story.

While the case is interesting, what makes this case any more or less 'media worthy' than the other murders that have happened in the past couple of years?

That's interesting to contemplate. While researching cases, I sometimes come across other crimes that I'd never heard of- or would ever come to hear of- and I remember one where the nature of the crime was so bizarre that for that reason alone, I would have expected it to make national news, but to my knowledge, it never did.

Re: the attention to this case, I think the primary reason is that it's a vicious murder... shocking in it's gore, committed by a female perp. Appearance alone could be a factor, but I think a larger factor is the psychology of the perp.
Of course, it's likely a combination of both.
Personally, I don't see a pretty face; all I will ever see is what she did, and what she's doing now.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.


#33    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,361 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

View Postregi, on 15 February 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Well, they're trying to save her from the death penalty, and to do that, they know they have a lot to answer to, so they have to put up some kind of a defense. (Of course, they knew that the self defense plea was the only defense even remotely possible.)

Your intention seems to be to rally for the defense, and I don't understand why.
You've implied that you want to hear why Arias lied, as though there could be some compelling or complicated reason other than the simple and obvious one.
If everyone was self-assured of her innocence already; I'd sound as if I'm "rallying" for the prosecution.  I'm rallying for the rule of law; and the presumption of innocence.  Innocent until proven guilty.  As I said in the beginning, she's guilty, but guilty of what.  That what must be proven.  Period.  And we're nowhere close.

Questioning why she lied was your point, not mine.   So to answer "Shouldn't the question be...?" it seems that your own answer to your own question is no, apparently not.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#34    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,143 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

It appears Jodi may have been just Travis`s sex toy. She could have walked away many times, but she did care for him.If I not mistaken she said she did leave to go far away, when she found out he was dating someone else, but he kept emailing her to still be his sex toy.She could have just stop taking his mail and ended it, but she chose to go back and murder him.All I can say to you guys watch out who you are using out there.

Her testimoy may save her from the death pentaly,


#35    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,361 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

He thought she looked "hot" like a 12-year old in her pigtails.  There's evidence to substantiate disturbing sexual deviance in this guy that the defense is painting.   Creepy, though not illegal and certainly not worth being killed over.   If the prosecution is going to drag her through the mud in ways that have nothing to do with the case (they will) then all's fair in love and war.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#36    regi

regi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 February 2013 - 03:59 PM

View PostYamato, on 16 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

If everyone was self-assured of her innocence already; I'd sound as if I'm "rallying" for the prosecution.  I'm rallying for the rule of law; and the presumption of innocence.  Innocent until proven guilty.  As I said in the beginning, she's guilty, but guilty of what.  That what must be proven.  Period.  And we're nowhere close.

Questioning why she lied was your point, not mine.   So to answer "Shouldn't the question be...?" it seems that your own answer to your own question is no, apparently not.

Re: that question, the reason I posed it is because I thought it was something that you should have already formed a conclusion about...'why did she lie?'

Arias' lies showed a consciousness of guilt; the reason she lied is because she didn't want to admit that she committed murder. Those are already established case facts.

Re: innocent until proven guilty, those are jury instructions, and I don't have to abide by them.
Also, I know of no reason to think Arias isn't receiving- or won't receive- a fair trial.


#37    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,361 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:56 AM

View Postregi, on 16 February 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Re: that question, the reason I posed it is because I thought it was something that you should have already formed a conclusion about...'why did she lie?'

Arias' lies showed a consciousness of guilt; the reason she lied is because she didn't want to admit that she committed murder. Those are already established case facts.

Re: innocent until proven guilty, those are jury instructions, and I don't have to abide by them.
Also, I know of no reason to think Arias isn't receiving- or won't receive- a fair trial.
I don't have to abide by anything, but I do abide by the spirit of the law.  I see no reason why this isn't a fair trial, period.  The fact is, it's far from over.  The prosecution hasn't even had an at bat yet.   Arias' "consciousness of guilt" isn't an established fact, it's your opinion.  You're jumping the gun --> major understatement.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#38    Vincennes

Vincennes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:02 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 13 February 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

You would think this meek little girl could`nt have over powered him, but she does admit it.

I think the fact that she was or is in a state of insanity would enable her to display more "strength" than the average person.  I have a background in the psych dept. of a maximum secutity juvenile institution.  We had a 13 year old who was no more than 5' tall, 130 lbs. soaking wet.  This kid could bench press 450 lbs.with his legs.... and he kicked people often!
Now I am not advocating an insanity defence by saying this. That would have to be based on she didn't know right from wrong.... and she obviously did.
It does, however, perhaps give an explanation for her ability to overpower.

Interestingly, the "kid" I spoke of put together a plan that ended with him overpowering a guard and making an almost successful attempt to kim him.   At 15 he is now doing time in the adult system for attempted murder. Crazy as a loon but he could still construct aand execute a plan to kill.


#39    regi

regi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:12 PM

Yamato, it's established that Arias lied when she denied committing the murder, and it simply follows that the denial of the fact demonstrated a consciousness of guilt.


#40    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,361 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:04 AM

View Postregi, on 17 February 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yamato, it's established that Arias lied when she denied committing the murder, and it simply follows that the denial of the fact demonstrated a consciousness of guilt.
No, she lied because she's changed her story twice.  Separating the truth from the lies in her doing that is the job of the court.  You think you have enough information to do that before the prosecution even begins to cross-examine but you don't.  So no it's not that simple.  Maybe she told the truth when she denied committing the murder and lied elsewhere.   Because she's obviously lying granted Nancy Disgrace's "kiss of death" from changing her story, she's probably also hiding a lot of evidence that neither you nor I have that will lead to the real killer(s).  You're relying on what she's said when you stated earlier you're not listening to anything she's said.  You can't have it both ways.  She is unreliable, so it begs us to seek evidence elsewhere.  Motive, phone calls, texts, friends, family, witnesses, murder weapons, forensics, crime scene investigations, psychological evaluations, polygraphs, courtroom examinations, testimony, doubt, et al.   If she's as guilty of murder as you say she is, the prosecution will put together an airtight case for conviction that the defense won't blow full of holes of doubt.   But we're not there yet and nowhere close.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#41    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,020 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:23 PM

What is the motive for the murder?  From the procecutors perspective.


#42    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Hermit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I wont ever break again. My emotions are mine to control.

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

View PostYamato, on 18 February 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

No, she lied because she's changed her story twice.  Separating the truth from the lies in her doing that is the job of the court.  You think you have enough information to do that before the prosecution even begins to cross-examine but you don't.  So no it's not that simple.  Maybe she told the truth when she denied committing the murder and lied elsewhere.   Because she's obviously lying granted Nancy Disgrace's "kiss of death" from changing her story, she's probably also hiding a lot of evidence that neither you nor I have that will lead to the real killer(s).  You're relying on what she's said when you stated earlier you're not listening to anything she's said.  You can't have it both ways.  She is unreliable, so it begs us to seek evidence elsewhere.  Motive, phone calls, texts, friends, family, witnesses, murder weapons, forensics, crime scene investigations, psychological evaluations, polygraphs, courtroom examinations, testimony, doubt, et al.   If she's as guilty of murder as you say she is, the prosecution will put together an airtight case for conviction that the defense won't blow full of holes of doubt.   But we're not there yet and nowhere close.


yeaaaah blah blah blah. shes guilty.

Edited by Iron_Lotus, 19 February 2013 - 03:59 PM.


#43    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,361 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostIron_Lotus, on 19 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

yeaaaah blah blah blah. shes guilty.
Yeah, she's innocent until proven guilty.   Don't infringe on rights so fundamental, they're explicitly stated in many democracies, republics, constitutions and international convention shared around the world.

http://legal-diction...on of innocence

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#44    regi

regi

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:50 PM

View PostMyles, on 19 February 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

What is the motive for the murder?  From the procecutors perspective.

I don't know...I can imagine what it was but to me, it doesn't matter. I know prosecutors have said that the murder was committed in a rage- which I WOULD THINK should be blatantly obvious because the injuries to that body were NOT inflicted in self defense!
(to the contrary, the only evidence of self defense were injuries to the victim's body!)
Anyway...
What's interesting about the question of motive is that while prosecutors don't have to show motive- all they need to show is that the defendant committed the murder- jurors want to know motive. People want to know why, and for some people, until they know why, for some reason, they might not can believe the person committed the murder, so it's a good thing if prosecutors can show a motive to jurors.

Of course, in this case, there's already no doubt that the defendant committed the murder, and so what prosecutors are needing to show that it wasn't self defense.


#45    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,020 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:00 PM

View Postregi, on 21 February 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I don't know...I can imagine what it was but to me, it doesn't matter. I know prosecutors have said that the murder was committed in a rage- which I WOULD THINK should be blatantly obvious because the injuries to that body were NOT inflicted in self defense!
(to the contrary, the only evidence of self defense were injuries to the victim's body!)
Anyway...
What's interesting about the question of motive is that while prosecutors don't have to show motive- all they need to show is that the defendant committed the murder- jurors want to know motive. People want to know why, and for some people, until they know why, for some reason, they might not can believe the person committed the murder, so it's a good thing if prosecutors can show a motive to jurors.

Of course, in this case, there's already no doubt that the defendant committed the murder, and so what prosecutors are needing to show that it wasn't self defense.

I agree with you.    If no motive is given, ragew would be the logical choice.   Hard to prove rage though.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users