Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Jodi Arias Trial

842 posts in this topic

Wow. Not guilty? Really? What part of the premeditated evidence did they not understand? I think it's time for professional juries.

I`d have to admit her account of what happen can be believiable,its going to be a tough one for the jury to decide.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Anthony jury didn't have a single question for any witness? No way! It appears it must be that it's at the judge's discretion of whether or not questions are allowed.

Hi regi - I did a little footwork and found out that in the end, it's absolutely true, you;re right, there were no questions from the jury in the Anthony trial. Here's why according to an excerpt from the National Law Journal (online resource) .

"Now, Florida judges are required to allow jurors to ask questions as part of new, controversial rules that took effect Jan. 1. The change was a long time coming.The rules were first passed by the Florida Legislature in 1999 as a byproduct of a truce between Republicans bent on tort reform and Democrats. A 22-person Jury Innovations Committee was assigned to review every aspect of the state’s jury system and come up with recommendations for change. But the new rules laid dormant until approved by the Florida Supreme Court last October. (2012) ~ "

From the NY Post: (given recent interest in jurors allowed to present questions in this trial, which has so much attention)

"In fact, the infamous Casey Anthony trial may have resulted in a different verdict had that judge, Belvin Perry Jr., decided to allow juror questions. However, Judge Perry Jr. apparently did not give that instruction, so the jurors were not aware they could ask questions. Two jurors later said that they wished the outcome had been different, but that prosecutors left key questions unanswered. Written by PETER DeFILIPPIS – NY Post - Posted: 10:16 PM, March 16, 2013

Mystery solved. One down, how many to go... can we count that high? :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the jury can ask questions. What do the rest of you think?" Why would it be a bad idea?

It's a mixed bag, pro & con. In any case, there's obviously a need for jurors to remain neutral and not get overly involved, or even feel as if their role extends to that of someone tied to the justice system, the courts, as if employed by it.

Here you go, read about on any one of these sites: (a hot topic online lately)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the gun jammed or was there only one bullet in the gun or what? What really happen?

Hi docyabut2 - have you noticed how many of the pundits on tv are resisting the idea that the gun shot came last? I listened carefully to the ME's testimony, twice, and he was firm on that detail. However, he also was firm that the brain had liquified by the time the autopsy was performed and far less information was gained, as in proof, as a result of this fact. He stated that the damage in the brain, along the bullets trajectory was not sufficient enough to suggest he took that wound early on before he did so much bleeding. Not enough blood & hemorrhaging where the bullet stopped either. He was firm it would have been visible on his cheek where bullet stopped under the skin.

And here I've been working hard on accepting that it came last, as a final insurance that he was indeed dead. This takes me on a path of her sneaking into bathroom, camera and knife in hand. Oh this case is dizzying.

Edited by Leftcoastgal
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi docyabut2 - have you noticed how many of the pundits on tv are resisting the idea that the gun shot came last? I listened carefully to the ME's testimony, twice, and he was firm on that detail. However, he also was firm that the brain had liquified by the time the autopsy was performed and far less information was gained, as in proof, as a result of this fact. He stated that the damage in the brain, along the bullets trajectory was not sufficient enough to suggest he took that wound early on before he did so much bleeding. Not enough blood & hemorrhaging where the bullet stopped either. He was firm it would have been visible on his cheek where bullet stopped under the skin.

And here I've been working hard on accepting that it came last, as a final insurance that he was indeed dead. This takes me on a path of her sneaking into bathroom, camera and knife in hand. Oh this case is dizzying.

However Dr Terry said if soon after the gun shot to head his heart or neck was cut, there might not be a whole lof of blood flowing up to the head to allow more bleeding to those soft tissues.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bullet came last, as I surmised from the beginning. So the forensic evidence now confers with my theory?

She's still not proven guilty yet? I'm shocked.

What jurors and armchair generals need to understand is that self-defense and a murder involving 27 stab wounds are not entirely mutually exclusive. Self-defense and murderous rage are not mutually exclusive. It's analogous to someone having the nerve to punch me, so I beat the snot out of them for their "mistake". That's self defense, it doesn't matter how bad I beat them down. I will continue the close combat until I'm positive I have my opponent subdued and his attack has been put to an end. In theory, this could even mean killing him. What is the Guilt Squad going to say? That he had too many bruises, so it couldn't have been self defense. :whistle:

If I'm to believe this little girl, who would have trouble carrying a backpack of college textbooks from the looks of her, killed that man single-handedly without even cutting herself in the process, she would have had to be in a rage with the adrenaline on full. What could have provoked such intensity after she was obviously already in his apartment for hours calmly lying around naked and taking pictures? Travis Alexander physically attacking her. If she was already angry with him and she found herself being physically assaulted as well, the simulated rapes that got Travis's twig out, or whatever other physical dominance he exerted over her, suddenly weren't so welcome anymore. And he paid a terrible price for his "mistake". The prosecution might get murder, but it wouldn't get it in the first degree with me on the jury, nor would it get the death penalty thus it might not get a guilty verdict period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi docyabut2 - have you noticed how many of the pundits on tv are resisting the idea that the gun shot came last? I listened carefully to the ME's testimony, twice, and he was firm on that detail. However, he also was firm that the brain had liquified by the time the autopsy was performed and far less information was gained, as in proof, as a result of this fact. He stated that the damage in the brain, along the bullets trajectory was not sufficient enough to suggest he took that wound early on before he did so much bleeding. Not enough blood & hemorrhaging where the bullet stopped either. He was firm it would have been visible on his cheek where bullet stopped under the skin.

And here I've been working hard on accepting that it came last, as a final insurance that he was indeed dead. This takes me on a path of her sneaking into bathroom, camera and knife in hand. Oh this case is dizzying.

Yes, the fact is, the ME couldn't say conclusively when the gunshot occurred.

It's been my personal observation (where I've seen a laceration to the neck when there are also other knife wounds) that that neck wound is the last inflicted. I think it's very clear that it came after the other knife wounds.

I think it should not be overlooked that when a perp is armed with a weapon, they're already at an advantage over their victim. Add to that the element of surprise, and then they have a huge advantage; a child can fire a gun, and I've seen cases where 'little wives' have killed their 'big' husbands with ONE knife wound to the chest!

Arias has fit her story to what she knows of the evidence. Nothing's new under the sun.

Basically, I look at it this way: whatever Arias says, then what's opposite of that must be the truth. :lol:

I've never believed the rope story. It's of no consequence to me, but it's my impression that that story could have been to explain the presence of the knife upstairs.

I know there was rope collected from the scene- small pieces- I've seen one photo of one piece on the stairs which is rough and twine-like in appearance- but I question if the rope cutting incident- if it ever occurred at all, didn't occur at some time previous.

I think it's of curiosity that although there are very explicit photos of their activity, there are none which featured rope.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However Dr Terry said if soon after the gun shot to head his heart or neck was cut, there might not be a whole lof of blood flowing up to the head to allow more bleeding to those soft tissues.

Hi there... you're right, that was among the points ME made about the wound, tracing it's path through the brain, that blood loss prior to the GSW affected the blood flow, including the lack of hemorrhaging to the face where the bullet stopped. He began discussing brain wound by stating the brain had begun to liquify as part of what would be considered normal decomposition. He took slices of brain for testing but they were extremely poor in quality. Where his professional experience was needed to answer a question because physical evidence was poor in quality, he was very clear about it. The ME report doesn't touch upon things like what sequence the wounds were delivered to a victim. Just facts on the remains.

(PS - I'm not sure who Dr. Terry is, did I miss a witness somewhere?)

Edited by Leftcoastgal
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is more reactive then instrumental when it comes to violence.

There can be both, and I think that's what the evidence shows; first instrumental, then reactive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed there are two, equally adamant camps on the question of which came first, the gun shot or the stabbing? I'm not sure why the answer is so important. Either way, the notion of self-defense dries up PDQ if someone says she had to protect herself by both shooting an alleged attacker in the head as well as stabbing him almost 30 times IN THE BACK and slit his throat to boot. If she shot him in the head first, I don't see why he posed a threat to her anymore, so the savage stabbing and throat-slitting would hardly be necessary. If she stabbed him first, how is it self-defense if he's stabbed multiple times in the back?? If the guy's back is to her, how is he a threat? Why not just run the other way? Why slit his throat? Why shoot him in the head after hacking him up so good?

Regardless of which order things occurred in, this exceeds self-defense in even the most liberal sense of the word. Am I wrong?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of which order things occurred in, this exceeds self-defense in even the most liberal sense of the word. Am I wrong?

No I don't think you're wrong.

Though for argument's sake... :P I'd say him being stabbed in the back is the biggest indicator of it not being self defense, regardless of the order. As I think someone else said, if you are in a frenzy as you genuinely fear for your own life, stabbing someone who was coming AT you, actually posing a threat, many times fits into self defense a lot easier than stabbing someone in the back. Also throat slitting... I'd say stabbing someone that much and shooting them (don't know the order of events I just mean generally) is gonna be enough to incapacitate them... Slitting his throat was just cold.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Did the gun jammed or was there only one bullet in the gun or what? What really happen?

I think it jammed. I seem to recollect that these small caliber guns do tend to jam. I don't know the manufacturer, we could find out more if we knew that, but yes, I'm thinking it either jammed or somehow got loose from her hand...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it jammed. I seem to recollect that these small caliber guns do tend to jam. I don't know the manufacturer, we could find out more if we knew that, but yes, I'm thinking it either jammed or somehow got loose from her hand...

Interest in this case is totally confusing.They say the stab to the heart or the neck cut would have made Travis instantly die ,so we know that had to have come last because he made it down the hall.The gun shot, there are people that can go on for hours walking around with a shot in the head. So I figuring when she dropped the gun on the floor, the floor was wet the gun may have slid away and while he was still comming at her she picked up the knife.,stabbing him , as he was trying to get away all the way down the hall. I think the only way this case can really be ever proven for being a self defence case or not, is if the gun could ever be found or any real proof Travis had a gun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to this...either one believes Arias' version 3.0- or not.

Let me elavorate.

It doesn't matter if Alexander was shot first or last or anywhere in between. None of that matters because she's claiming it happened ONE WAY, and either one believes it happened THAT way, or not.

Edited by regi
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really started following the trial about 2 weeks ago. It really has all the elements of an interesting case. As we all know all that needs to be planted in reasonable doubt and I think the defense is doing a pretty good job. I find her whole story to be a biy crazy and she is an odd woman, but being odd doesn't make someone guilty of 1st degree murder does it? My feeling is that the prosecution is screwing up in the sense that all he has done in cross examination is to attack her instead of sticking to the case. Lets be honest anytime there are cameras in a court room lawyers like to put on a bit of a show, and i think its hurting him. Almost every objection for being argumentative has been sustained. You think he would get the message by now. He has created sympathy for her. My guess, she will be aquitted!, even though I think she is guilty.

jeremy

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's accepted that Jodi has PTSD, shouldn't it also be accepted that the version of events she is giving now, including her admission of having killed Travis by herself, is just as likely to be untrue as true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to this...either one believes Arias' version 3.0- or not.

Let me elavorate.

It doesn't matter if Alexander was shot first or last or anywhere in between. None of that matters because she's claiming it happened ONE WAY, and either one believes it happened THAT way, or not.

The trial doesn't come down to that. That is just relying on the degree of honestly of claims of a proven liar to be true in order to abscond her of murder. Proving someone is a liar to prove they're a murderer! Say what? If she was suddenly telling the truth, and by the evidence we were somehow able to determine that she was telling the truth in version 4.0, or 5.0, or 6.0, you'd suddenly allow yourself the 2nd option of judging her not guilty? No, that's not the litmus test that would make up your decision. She's guilty either way in your book. The lack of honesty is only to be used as a cudgel to convict her of murder and kill her.

What it really comes down to is whether or not we doubt Martinez. and I hope the jury is going to do their jobs appropriately to the way the rule of law is supposed to work in this country.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, what happened is either what the defense's evidence shows happened, or what happened is the way the prosecution's evidence shows happened. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say the stab to the heart or the neck cut would have made Travis instantly die ,so we know that had to have come last because he made it down the hall.

I think the only way this case can really be ever proven for being a self defence case or not, is if the gun could ever be found or any real proof Travis had a gun.

The gun isn’t coming to court docyabut2, I know how much we'd all like to see it & settle her 3rd story as a lie.

The ME's testimony was the chest wound would have eventually been fatal; bleeding out, but could have been survivable if he had gotten medical help. He was able to move around after chest wound, not fast, not well, but mobile. He was firm about defensive wounds to hands coming very early on, along with chest wound. Neck would allow only a few seconds of life remaining.

Gun & jurors. Do you think they will dismiss the huge coincidence of her family having their .25 gun stolen just a few days before this murder? That is a huge leap IMO. The questions coming from the jury give me no sense of them being sympathetic.

My question to you is do you feel the jury will deliberate much with the self-defense story?

Anyone know what other witnesses the defense has in the wings?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that the prosecution is screwing up in the sense that all he has done in cross examination is to attack her instead of sticking to the case. Lets be honest anytime there are cameras in a court room lawyers like to put on a bit of a show, and i think its hurting him. Almost every objection for being argumentative has been sustained. You think he would get the message by now. He has created sympathy for her. My guess, she will be aquitted!, even though I think she is guilty.

jeremy

Hi Jeremy - Aquitted seems a bit of a stretch at this juncture, though it could change. I'm listening to jury questions and don't hear any softening towards her in them. I agree on Martinez though. The bully routine is a bit much. People's reactions to him are amazing me. "An inspiration to me" read one of them. I think the same level of damage to her defense can be achieved without beating up a witness. Too dramatic. TV's gone to his head like Judge Ito in OJ trial,.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what other witnesses the defense has in the wings?

That's a good question, and it will be interesting to see.

Since they were in the courtroom during her testimony, neither of her parents will take the stand to support her allegations of abuse from them. :no:

Speaks volumes. :yes:

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on Martinez though. The bully routine is a bit much. People's reactions to him are amazing me. "An inspiration to me" read one of them. I think the same level of damage to her defense can be achieved without beating up a witness. Too dramatic. TV's gone to his head like Judge Ito in OJ trial,.

I'm behind Martinez all the way. :tsu: I like his passion, which I've read is the same in all his cases.

He prosecuted a case in which a woman murdered her husband, and she'd also entered an absurd plea of self defense. (Yeah, the body alone told a different story. That woman's on death row.)

Regardless, when an attorney on either side believes a witness is lying, or misleading, they'd better go after them and teach them a lesson. Personally, I want them go after that witness with anything and everything they've got.

Seriously, I don't know how these people who help get murders off with nothing but b.s. sleep at night.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's accepted that Jodi has PTSD, shouldn't it also be accepted that the version of events she is giving now, including her admission of having killed Travis by herself, is just as likely to be untrue as true?

Hi there - I'd think that would have to be another level or diagnosis of psychological trauma. What that suggests is a full on delusion or hallucination. While extreme PTSD may have something like that, such as back in the early '80's some Vietnam vets had flashbacks and responded violently as if back in the war zone. At the time, here in California, it was brought on by helicopters flying low in early AM hours spraying malathion to kill mosquitoes thought to be carrying something infectious. But I think that goes beyond PTSD. I'll go hunting for more information on it but you get what I'm suggesting I think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeremy - Aquitted seems a bit of a stretch at this juncture, though it could change. I'm listening to jury questions and don't hear any softening towards her in them. I agree on Martinez though. The bully routine is a bit much. People's reactions to him are amazing me. "An inspiration to me" read one of them. I think the same level of damage to her defense can be achieved without beating up a witness. Too dramatic. TV's gone to his head like Judge Ito in OJ trial,.

I agree with you. That prosecutor p***es me off the way he won't let anyone tell the whole truth. He barks "just yes or no!" When we all know that the truth is in shades of gray sometimes.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, very true spayneuter, but that is a trial atty for you. All of them do it--or try to do it. An atty wants his own witness on the stand to feel free to elaborate if it helps, but the other one will object, and if it's a witness for the opposing side, they try to cut them off fast. They will badger the witness to answer only yes or no. I don't think many people minded too much when Martinez questioned Arias in a very adversarial manner, making no effort to hide his hostility. But some people (including me to some degree) have been bothered at times at how disrespectful Martinez had been to Dr. Samuels. There's an edge of contempt to it at times. I know it's a tactic for discrediting a witness, but it offends me some the bullying, contemptuous tone he often uses. LOL Maybe it reminds me too much of how my father could be.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.