822 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

regi, on 01 March 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I don't know why you quoted me, and made those comments.

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing.

Well there you go.  Your last sentence answers what you didn't know in your first sentence.

[Yamato]

Myles, on 01 March 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Didn't she admit to killing him?

The liar admitted a lot of things.   Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

[Eldorado]

regi, on 01 March 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing.

lol
I think that statement precludes you from ever being on a jury.  (only saying)

[Myles]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

The liar admitted a lot of things.   Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

The evidence is there and she is trying to lie to get out of what she had already admitted.  
The defense has no case.

[regi]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

I said I watched her show one time in years.   Your "fixation" dispelled.

I insinuate because Nancy Grace's audience form their opinions from Nancy Grace?   No, I flat out state that they do.  People don't think for themselves, they rely on the junk food they see on their boob tube to form their opinions for them.   The examples of this are endless.  This moral hazard has taken us to war and resulted in the death of millions.  It's the primary reason why we have the unsatisfactory dolts in Congress and the White House that we do.  It's the essence of our moral and financial bankruptcy in this country.   This is just another ghastly appendage of the same societal beast.

I didn't attempt to defame Alexander's character.  He defamed his own when he said the trash on the "sex tapes" that he did.  Any man who blathers that a 12-year old girl is "hott" needs to get his head on straight.

Yes we are in the court of law, what do you think this trial is?  A circus act for your entertainment?   Jodi Arias is innocent until proven guilty.  Your extreme bias on this matter does not change the color of right or nullify the most sacred rights of our people.

Nancy Grace viewers are led to believe that people are guilty when they turn out innocent in the end.  "Universally" means not personally.  "Highly correlated" means that there's a relationship between watching Nancy Grace and believing in the guilt of the accused, which you have been crystal clear is your own opinion whether you watch Nancy Grace or not.   This presumption of guilt is a theme of that vampire bat's show in case after case, after case.   You've rushed to judgment on this matter multiple times on this thread when you state that "...she killed Travis...".   I can dig up those instances if I must but I don't care about you and you shouldn't care about me.  Let us stick with the facts, and stick with the story.   Let us not get personal.  This isn't about me and it isn't about you.  I could care less about you or me.  Boring...

We will agree to disagree because as it stands, you have no hope of changing my mind with responses like these.  Good day, and please try to remember the importance of Presumption of innocence and Due Process in our legal system.

YOU'RE the one talking about Nancy Grace! No, Nancy Grace is NOT for MY entertainment, and I don't appreciate your suggestion she is.
You brought Nancy Grace into this discussion early on with something about her "kiss of death" re: Arias' lies. You've mentioned Nancy Grace several times since then. No one else has said a word about Nancy Grace!
You even posted a video clip from her show which serves to further spread her propaganda!
Btw, as far as I'm concerned it's my own perception, and) it's for me to decide whether or not YOUR fixation is dispelled.

What Nancy Grace has to do with the evidence in this case is beyond me, and you TELL ME "let's stick with the facts"?! Give me a break!

I don't know why in Sam's Hill you go on to say "I don't care about you, you shouldn't care about me". That's just too weird.

Edited by regi, 01 March 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[regi]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

The liar admitted a lot of things.   Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

Oh, regi encourages you that you should.

Edited by regi, 01 March 2013 - 01:17 PM.

[docyabut2]

Ok so after reviewing the case again from yesteday, the prosecuter pointed out the photo and it is of a Jodi`s pant legand and foot,  and of Travis lying down bleeding. Joni said yes that was her.They still can`t say the bleeding was from a shot wound or a stabbing.

[regi]

Eldorado, on 01 March 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

lol
I think that statement precludes you from ever being on a jury.  (only saying)

Hey, what can I say? I call it like I see it, and I can't help it. It comes naturally when I'm faced with certain facts. I could give consideration to what a defense presents, but in this case, it would only re-enforce my opinion!

Edited by regi, 01 March 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[regi]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Well there you go.  Your last sentence answers what you didn't know in your first sentence.

Yikes! That again, sounds like Arias!

[regi]

docyabut2, on 01 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

What is the significance of the sequencing of Alexander's injuries?

There are two reasons why this is important to Arias' defense.

A defense attorney's job is to create as much doubt about the prosecution's case as possible. If the defense can show the prosecution is unsure about its theory of Alexander's death, it may erode the jury's confidence in the prosecution's case.

The sequencing also matters because this is a death penalty case. If the prosecution can get a guilty verdict and prove that Arias was cruel and caused Alexander to suffer, she may be sentenced to death. However, if the defense can show that Alexander was shot in the head first, attorneys can argue that all of Alexander's other wounds happened after he died, and so he didn't suffer -- and that could save Arias from the death penalty.
http://www.hlntv.com...ravis-alexander


As the article said ,what came frist the stabbing or the shooting in this decision on Jodi`s case? If I was a jurier I would want to know for sure. Its still not clear how Jodi killed Travis.To me that photo points to Jodi stabbing Tavis frist in the shower.

The way I look at it, the sequence doesn't matter. If she shot him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the further injuries, and if she stabbed him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the gunshot.
Bottom line, there's no reasonable explanation for ALL of those injuries, either way.

[Yamato]

regi, on 01 March 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

YOU'RE the one talking about Nancy Grace! No, Nancy Grace is NOT for MY entertainment, and I don't appreciate your suggestion she is.
You brought Nancy Grace into this discussion early on with something about her "kiss of death" re: Arias' lies. You've mentioned Nancy Grace several times since then. No one else has said a word about Nancy Grace!
You even posted a video clip from her show which serves to further spread her propaganda!
Btw, as far as I'm concerned it's my own perception, and) it's for me to decide whether or not YOUR fixation is dispelled.

What Nancy Grace has to do with the evidence in this case is beyond me, and you TELL ME "let's stick with the facts"?! Give me a break!

I don't know why in Sam's Hill you go on to say "I don't care about you, you shouldn't care about me". That's just too weird.

You're the one spreading her propaganda.  In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing."   Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial.  I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings.  That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace.  You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate.  Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

[regi]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

You're the one spreading her propaganda.  In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing."   Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial.  I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings.  That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace.  You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate.  Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

Look, I have an opinion on this case, and that's ok because I can think what I want, whenever I want, and as far as I know, I can express my opinion here.

The sole reason I joined this board was to participate in the True Crime topic, obviously in the interest of discussing such cases, sharing information, and so on. It's rare for me personally that I have an opportunity to discuss a case that's currently on trial, but my interest in any case is in discussing the facts, circumstances, and the evidence pertaining to that particular case.
Since this case is ongoing, then I think it's reasonable to discuss the evidence as it's presented at trial, and I can do that regardless of whether or not I've formed an opinion.
Unfortunately, I see that that's not always possible.

[Myles]

Yamato, on 01 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

You're the one spreading her propaganda.  In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing."   Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial.  I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings.  That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace.  You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate.  Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

I don't understand why you are in such a tizzy.  Nancy Grace is a tv show.   I don't watch it, but to each their own.
This is a pretty cut and dry case.   I'm surprised it is garnering this much attention.

[CrimsonKing]

I respect everyones views on this topic regi yes this looks very clear cut by what we are allowed to know,even gut instinct.What yamato is saying holds the same amount of weight if not even more with our current system of law (innocent until proven guilty).This woman seems snyde,arrogant,and at times emotionless.A smart prosecutor can and will make the case and prove it without a doubt.As yamato has stated until proven guilty.My opinion this prosecutor is playing with fire with a majority male jury with the tactics he is using,and for some reason as has also been pointed out the media blitz never seems to help when trying to do what could or should be done.

[docyabut2]

regi, on 01 March 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

The way I look at it, the sequence doesn't matter. If she shot him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the further injuries, and if she stabbed him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the gunshot.
Bottom line, there's no reasonable explanation for ALL of those injuries, either way.

Jodi claiming she shot Travis in self defence, don`t you think it has to be proven either way?