Jodi Arias -- Trial for the murder of Travis Alexander #3

Bmore wrote:the smirk is back.... he should just move on...

Right!

tesstruhart wrote:I wonder how the jurors are processing this. I think the judge should admonish her to answer the questions.

I would imagine that the jurors are irritated!

The way I see it she is having difficulty trying to be an assertive and a victim!

Everything with her has been rehearsed. She is used to answering in order of events.

When things go out of order, she has "memory issues".

She claims she can't recall, her brain's scrambling, she apologizes- to show how a true victim accepts responsibility for the situation, she is playing up to the jury BIG TIME.

this judge needs to wake up already..can not EVEN believe she is allowing this woman to behave the way she is

The prosecutor doesn't have control of this questioning.
A calmer demeanor would go over better with the jury IMO.

However, she's guilty!

But...jurors do get irritated with attorneys and plays a part in any decisions they make.

I think the issue is with the judge allowing the Diva to perform.

OMG, I can't stand this piece of crap another minute, and ditto her creepy atty!!!!

I can't get sound on any of the feeds, so I guess it's my computer not being compatible...

carlakay wrote:this judge needs to wake up already..can not EVEN believe she is allowing this woman to behave the way she is

I totally agree....but~

1: The claim is JA is a "victim" who has been subject to prolonged violence. The allegations of memory loss and everything else could be caused by the prolonged violence.

2: This is a DP case.

She has to tolerate and "protect" JA to some degree and allow her testimony however full of crap she is.

18thcenturylady wrote:OMG, I can't stand this piece of crap another minute, and ditto her creepy atty!!!!

I can't get sound on any of the feeds, so I guess it's my computer not being compatible...

Restart your computer and check your speaker connections~

carlakay wrote:this judge needs to wake up already..can not EVEN believe she is allowing this woman to behave the way she is

I agree, and I do NOT think Juan is out of control; Jodi is NOT answering questions and then says JUAN "scrambles her brain" because she can't think fast enough and come up with more lies!!!

try cnn.com/live

Calypso wrote:

carlakay wrote:this judge needs to wake up already..can not EVEN believe she is allowing this woman to behave the way she is

I totally agree....but~

1: The claim is JA is a "victim" who has been subject to prolonged violence. The allegations of memory loss and everything else could be caused by the prolonged violence.

2: This is a DP case.

She has to tolerate and "protect" JA to some degree and allow her testimony however full of crap she is.

Agree.

Interesting that she just said 'that's the third time you asked me that, and I answered' Memory returns

Again...I'm new to this trial...but the prosecutor can't seem to make a point...at least not one that stands out.

Puzzler wrote:Again...I'm new to this trial...but the prosecutor can't seem to make a point...at least not one that stands out.

Puzzler, this woman has made up so many lies that are layered on lies, he is just trying to peel back some layers.

I think she is incapable of just answering a question with a yes or no. She has this need to explain everything and he is flustering her with his expectations of a simple answer, she can't do it. This is getting out of hand, she just told him, you've already asked me that question 3 times. I agree the judge needs to take this diva by the horns and rein her in.

Shannon Crabtree Peterson. Excellent Recall Mizz Arias.

Why doesn't the prosecutor object to non response?

Ask the judge to direct Jodi to answer the question?

I realize Jodi is very frustrating to listen to...

Prosecutor seems to go off on her responses and let it lead his direction, rather than focusing on the question he wants answered.

Bat Woman wrote:Shannon Crabtree Peterson. Excellent Recall Mizz Arias.

Right!

I understand it's a death penalty case and it is upon this judge to see the defendant gets a fair trial but EVERYONE who takes that witness stand is sworn to answer the questions asked of them and lil chica here is purposely dancing around all of em regardless of the content..it's her only way of controlling the situation and she should be admonished for it.

tesstruhart wrote:Interesting that she just said 'that's the third time you asked me that, and I answered' Memory returns

she is so controlling... wants to lead the questions, wants to control the prosecutor and now is doing her atty's job... since he is the one that is supposed to say objection... asked and answered...

and I agree she should be admonished for it! @ Carla

Calypso wrote:HA!

I don't remember if I have a memory problem, what's the question??

tesstruhart wrote:Interesting that she just said 'that's the third time you asked me that, and I answered' Memory returns

Yes! This is the foundation (imo) that Juan is establishing. Evasiveness when she is "cornered and not in control", and "bam" right back on point when she feels she has the upper hand. I've got to believe that he will drive this point hard during closing. He is hanging in there "tit for tat" to show the jury the extent to which she manages the situation and people around her....not the victim that sits there and is dumped on.

Thank goodness for this break....she is seriously infuriating and makes my blood boil.

Jodi is so arrogant today. I hate her smugness. Juan is doing awesome. She said he is scrambling her brain again. It's scrambled because she can't think of another lie to replace the first lie .

Judge Belvin Perry wouldn't have put up with this nonsense from jodi. What is wrong with this judge?!? Why isn't she doing her job?

Puzzler wrote:

Bat Woman wrote:Shannon Crabtree Peterson. Excellent Recall Mizz Arias.

Right!

Brilliant oopsie by our lil' chica

Is it happy hour yet?

She evidently things her memory lapses are coming across as genuine. Epic fail on her part. I think she knows this is her last chance to star on a national stage. She is making her time and Martinez is biting on all her bait. I think he should ask the judge to order her to answer. This is mind boggling that the judge will put up with this.

Bat Woman wrote:Is it happy hour yet?

It's 5 O'Clock somewhere5

Juan needs to declare her a hostile witness (not sure bout protocol for that)..say no further questions and be done with this windbag already before he loses this jury.

She continues a sexual relationship with Travis for over a year, and in fact is involved in one AT THE TIME SHE CONVERTS TO MORMONISM, and yet we are to believe that ALL that time SHE HAD NO IDEA THAT PREMARITAL SEX WAS PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH? Are you kidding? I was waiting for Juan to go there, but he didn't.
She actually wants the jury to swallow that she believed it was against church rules for a couple married to other people to joke about sex, BUT THAT SHE IS DOING ALL KINDS OF KINKY SEXUAL THINGS WHILE NOT MARRIED TO TRAVIS, AND BELIEVED THAT WAS O.K.?
She states that she never knew it was wrong until speaking with Rachel. Wasn't that just before she left Az.??? She also stated today that she did not know the church prohibited what she did with RYAN BURNS until AFTER THAT INCIDENT! HELLO! Travis was dead by then!
Are we also to believe that while helping her to convert to Mormonism Travis never happened to mention that what they were doing was wrong, and that they SHOULD seek help from the bishop and stop???? I don't believe it.
Also, remember during the phone sex tape when Jodi says "If this is wrong, I don't want to be right"??!!

carlakay wrote:Juan needs to declare her a hostile witness (not sure bout protocol for that)..say no further questions and be done with this windbag already before he loses this jury.

BINGO! You are absolutely right! I believe this behavior is exactly that!

ok now that they have broke for lunch I wanted to ask if I am the only one who has icicles raining down? It is HORRIBLE here.

I hate to say this out loud....80 and sunny here

tesstruhart wrote:I hate to say this out loud....80 and sunny here

This post is BANNED!

Bat Woman wrote:

tesstruhart wrote:I hate to say this out loud....80 and sunny here

This post is BANNED!

LOL sorry

Taking the rest of the day away from this..
she didn't want to ruin a marriage..
uses the womans full married name... people all over the net looking up this woman who (lol I did as well and now feel horrible) is stunning...married and a mother of 3 little doll faced children.. so ruining a marriage small potatoes in my book compared to ruining the public image of a mother of 3 children...what questioning looks will these children now get from the church! I am ticked!!

18thcenturylady wrote:She continues a sexual relationship with Travis for over a year, and in fact is involved in one AT THE TIME SHE CONVERTS TO MORMONISM, and yet we are to believe that ALL that time SHE HAD NO IDEA THAT PREMARITAL SEX WAS PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH? Are you kidding? I was waiting for Juan to go there, but he didn't.
She actually wants the jury to swallow that she believed it was against church rules for a couple married to other people to joke about sex, BUT THAT SHE IS DOING ALL KINDS OF KINKY SEXUAL THINGS WHILE NOT MARRIED TO TRAVIS, AND BELIEVED THAT WAS O.K.?
She states that she never knew it was wrong until speaking with Rachel. Wasn't that just before she left Az.??? She also stated today that she did not know the church prohibited what she did with RYAN BURNS until AFTER THAT INCIDENT! HELLO! Travis was dead by then!
Are we also to believe that while helping her to convert to Mormonism Travis never happened to mention that what they were doing was wrong, and that they SHOULD seek help from the bishop and stop???? I don't believe it.
Also, remember during the phone sex tape when Jodi says "If this is wrong, I don't want to be right"??!!

Nevermind all that..Darryl..who btw was called by the defense testified that Jodi cut him off from sexual activity 4 days after attending her first event wt PPL because it was against her new found faith.Jodi has also testified on the stand saying the same damn thing..only in her much loooonger roundabout way.We also heard her voice on that tape the defense intraduced saying.."If it's wrong..I don't wantta be right." Yet today,on that stand,she says she didn't know the "rules" until about a year after she slit her lovers throat! Unflippinbelievable!

tesstruhart wrote:I hate to say this out loud....80 and sunny here

makes sense considering where ya got your location listed as..lol

Now that my blood pressure is down a little I am thinking about exactly what I am taking away from the cross so far this AM. I think that Juan has made Jodi look like not only a liar through and through, but as someone who is very sneaky, and very jealous. By bringing out so many examples of this, Jodi is indeed coming off as obsessive as well.
I do not think the way "Shannon Crabtree Peterson" rolled off her tongue with lightening speed was lost on the jury. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the interchange between Juan and Jodi, I do indeed think the prosecution is succeeding, and I think Jodi is fostering the negative perceptions of her by her sniping, continual refusal to answer questions, and her disrespect toward Mr. Martinez.

carlakay wrote:

18thcenturylady wrote:She continues a sexual relationship with Travis for over a year, and in fact is involved in one AT THE TIME SHE CONVERTS TO MORMONISM, and yet we are to believe that ALL that time SHE HAD NO IDEA THAT PREMARITAL SEX WAS PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH? Are you kidding? I was waiting for Juan to go there, but he didn't.
She actually wants the jury to swallow that she believed it was against church rules for a couple married to other people to joke about sex, BUT THAT SHE IS DOING ALL KINDS OF KINKY SEXUAL THINGS WHILE NOT MARRIED TO TRAVIS, AND BELIEVED THAT WAS O.K.?
She states that she never knew it was wrong until speaking with Rachel. Wasn't that just before she left Az.??? She also stated today that she did not know the church prohibited what she did with RYAN BURNS until AFTER THAT INCIDENT! HELLO! Travis was dead by then!
Are we also to believe that while helping her to convert to Mormonism Travis never happened to mention that what they were doing was wrong, and that they SHOULD seek help from the bishop and stop???? I don't believe it.
Also, remember during the phone sex tape when Jodi says "If this is wrong, I don't want to be right"??!!

Nevermind all that..Darryl..who btw was called by the defense testified that Jodi cut him off from sexual activity 4 days after attending her first event wt PPL because it was against her new found faith.Jodi has also testified on the stand saying the same damn thing..only in her much loooonger roundabout way.We also heard her voice on that tape the defense intraduced saying.."If it's wrong..I don't wantta be right." Yet today,on that stand,she says she didn't know the "rules" until about a year after she slit her lovers throat! Unflippinbelievable!

Yes! I forgot that! Gee whiz I wish Juan had brought all this up!

no sign of that 'little shaking chihuahua' today.

Somebody needs to tell Nurmi to leave the pink shirts to Vinnie P. cuz he is looking just like Mr. Bubble to me today.

carlakay wrote:Juan needs to declare her a hostile witness (not sure bout protocol for that)..say no further questions and be done with this windbag already before he loses this jury.

I'm not a lawyer, and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can do this. Normally, when an attorney has their own client on the stand and doing direct examination, they are not allowed to ask leading questions (questions that imply what the answer should be). If an attorney declares their own witness as hostile, that gives them permission to then ask leading questions.

In this case, Martinez is doing cross-examination, not direct. Because it's cross, he's already allowed to ask leading questions (kind of like she's hostile, by default, because she is not his witness).

Does that make sense?

CuriousPortlander wrote:

carlakay wrote:Juan needs to declare her a hostile witness (not sure bout protocol for that)..say no further questions and be done with this windbag already before he loses this jury.

I'm not a lawyer, and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can do this. Normally, when an attorney has their own client on the stand and doing direct examination, they are not allowed to ask leading questions (questions that imply what the answer should be). If an attorney declares their own witness as hostile, that gives them permission to then ask leading questions.

In this case, Martinez is doing cross-examination, not direct. Because it's cross, he's already allowed to ask leading questions (kind of like she's hostile, by default, because she is not his witness).

Does that make sense?

Yes...makes sense...thank you for the reminder.

lol.... mr. bubble... lmao...

CuriousPortlander wrote:

carlakay wrote:Juan needs to declare her a hostile witness (not sure bout protocol for that)..say no further questions and be done with this windbag already before he loses this jury.

I'm not a lawyer, and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can do this. Normally, when an attorney has their own client on the stand and doing direct examination, they are not allowed to ask leading questions (questions that imply what the answer should be). If an attorney declares their own witness as hostile, that gives them permission to then ask leading questions.

In this case, Martinez is doing cross-examination, not direct. Because it's cross, he's already allowed to ask leading questions (kind of like she's hostile, by default, because she is not his witness).

Does that make sense?

no but it's not your fault..my brain gets scrambled after being subjected to enormous amounts of bs being spewed from my tv speakers

I am dying to know the questions the jury will have for her... so far she's been on the stand what 11 days... Can you imagine? We'll spend a full day covering their questions... lol

carlakay wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can do this. Normally, when an attorney has their own client on the stand and doing direct examination, they are not allowed to ask leading questions (questions that imply what the answer should be). If an attorney declares their own witness as hostile, that gives them permission to then ask leading questions.

In this case, Martinez is doing cross-examination, not direct. Because it's cross, he's already allowed to ask leading questions (kind of like she's hostile, by default, because she is not his witness).

Does that make sense?

no but it's not your fault..my brain gets scrambled after being subjected to enormous amounts of bs being spewed from my tv speakers

I know; my brain is scrambled, too! I guess what I'm saying is that an attorney can only declare their own witness as hostile, because all it does is give them permission to ask leading questions, which Martinez can already do. Hope this helps.