Jodi Arias Trial

[supervike]

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?

[Yamato]

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 a great point. Nancy Grace has been struggling to find someone this controversial and cute for years now. I suspect she'll run this case into the ground too, just like she did with the Casey Anthony trial.

It's like how Captain Paul Watson successfully exploits the four fundamentals of a good media story (sex, scandal, celebrity, violence) to get his mission the press coverage it does. If you can come up with more than one of those four elements, you have yourself a story the media will actually pay attention to. But have all four of those elements, and you have yourself a story that just won't go away.

[No Censorship]

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?

It might be because the genders are reversed. Look at the Lacy and Stacy Peterson homicides. BTW, isn't is strange how similar their names are? The same thing holds true for the two Florida homicides (Anthony, the Vicodin chick) that took place at the same time. It's like some kind of strange crime synchronicity. Back to your question, it seems like the cable programs obsess over the same cases for months, like they meet to decide which few crime stories they'll run into the ground for the next couple to few months. They ignore dozens of other crimes. I hope that makes sense!

[Regi]

My opinions aren't based on ANYTHING Arias has said- indeed, she's not credible, but regardless of what Arias has EVER said, my opinions are based on the evidence that's been presented at the trial.

Since the case is on-going, I've decided not to comment further.

I think I should explain why I said that. It's not because I think it's wrong to have already formed an opinion... or that I think it's wrong to state an already formed opinion...or because I'm waiting to see what the defense presents- it's none of those.

It's simply because my interest is in discussing what is there, not what isn't.

Eventually, the defense will enter it's evidence, and then there will be no room for speculation.

The defense has yet to present it's case, but my opinion's strong. Some cases are no-brainers, and to me, this is one of those cases, but even so, I believe I could have been a reasonable juror.

(I would imagine that if I were on this jury right now, I'd be wondering if/when they're gonna present any credible evidence.)

[Yamato]

I think I should explain why I said that. It's not because I think it's wrong to have already formed an opinion... or that I think it's wrong to state an already formed opinion...or because I'm waiting to see what the defense presents- it's none of those.

It's simply because my interest is in discussing what is there, not what isn't.

Eventually, the defense will enter it's evidence, and then there will be no room for speculation.

The defense has yet to present it's case, but my opinion's strong. Some cases are no-brainers, and to me, this is one of those cases, but even so, I believe I could have been a reasonable juror.

(I would imagine that if I were on this jury right now, I'd be wondering if/when they're gonna present any credible evidence.)

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.

[Regi]

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 February 15, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

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.

[Yamato]

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.

[docyabut2]

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,

[Yamato]

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.

[Regi]

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.

[Yamato]

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.

[Vincennes]

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.

[Regi]

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.

[Yamato]

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.

[Myles]

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

[Iron_Lotus]

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 February 19, 2013 by Iron_Lotus

[Yamato]

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-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence

[Regi]

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.

[Myles]

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.

[Regi]

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

The victim's body is the evidence. Those injuries can't be disputed and they don't occur in any other way but in a rage.

That's what rage looks like on a murder victim's body. That's not self defense, no way, no how.

[spayneuter]

Everybody has reasons for what they do, even if the reasons are bad or don't make sense. Travis did what a lot of people do when there are no boundaries for how they treat others. Jodi gave him no boundaries. Most of us would have walk away from Travis if he treated us the way he wound up treating Jodi. But Jodi is and was a severely damaged woman who allowed the man she fell in love with treat her with great disrespect, eroding her hold on her sanity even further. While I don't believe the self defense plea, I do think he was especially demeaning and cruel the day she exploded on him. I hope she doesn't get the death penalty.

[docyabut2]

Jodi claims she shot Travis with a gun she got from his bathroom closet , when he attacked her in the bath room, but that does`nt explain the over kill in the shower where they found his body,his throat cut back to his spleen and stabbed twenty seven times, that she doen`st remember doing. If he was still comming at her after being shot the frist time, would `nt she just have shot at him again and then theres that picture taken of him after he was killed on the camera that Jodi was using to take the photos. The report said this camera they found was in the washing machine and the investigators managed to get a few of those pictures. Nothing make any sense except this was a horriable vicious attack.

[spayneuter]

I'm not sure that Travis ever really physically abused her. I think after they had sex and he demeaned her with those horrible photos, he cruelly dumped her again. Don't know what he said but, she got dressed and barged in on him in the shower with the gun to make some kind of point. She was in a rage. That's why those photos she took in the shower shows fear in his eyes to me. Maybe he didn't say what she wanted him to say. So she shot him. Then, maybe she didn't think he was dead and got the knife or maybe she still needed to work off her rage. I don't believe she doesn't remember any of it.

[Yamato]

The victim's body is the evidence. Those injuries can't be disputed and they don't occur in any other way but in a rage.

That's what rage looks like on a murder victim's body. That's not self defense, no way, no how.

Show me where the victim's body is evidence that Jodi killed him. Show me the DNA, show me the skin under the fingernails, show me the fingerprints on the murder weapon, show me the physical evidence.

You don't believe the claim of self defense, why believe the claim of killing him that went along with it? You're picking information that makes Jodi guilty and denying information that doesn't. But you ARE taking what Jodi has to say as your evidence to convict her, contrary to your earlier claim that you're not.

I think it's at least a 50% chance that she killed him. I think there's nearly that high a chance that somebody else killed him. An unknown lover, maybe a known lover. Maybe a friend, maybe a hired assassin that she conspired with and wishes to protect. Maybe she doesn't believe that any jury will convict her, but she believes a jury would surely convict someone else along with her if it was known there was someone else involved.