Jodi Arias--Trial for the murder of Travis Alexander #16

Alessandra_Deux wrote:Jodi Arias trial nearing its conclusion, judge says

The guilt-and-innocence phase of the trial could go to the jury next week

Michael Kiefer, The Arizona Republic | 10:32 p.m. EDT April 24, 2013

PHOENIX -- The end is near.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens told the Jodi Arias jury that the guilt-and-innocence phase of the four-month-long murder trial will end a week from Friday, and the jury will begin deliberating then.

This week, The Arizona Republic learned that the trial has even led to death threats against at least one defense attorney and one key witness for the defense.

As for testimony, it has been a week of clean-up for prosecutor Juan Martinez.

On Thursday, the medical examiner will return, likely to testify about details of Alexander's death that were not noted during his original testimony at the beginning of the trial. Then the courtroom will go dark until Wednesday, when a psychologist for the defense will counter testimony from a prosecution witness about whether Arias suffers from borderline personality disorder.

Then, on May 2 and 3, the prosecution and defense will make their closing arguments. If the court can stick to that schedule, the jury will get the case May 3.

(VIDEO: Chris Williams reporting live from Arizona)

Read more:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/arias-trial-nearing-its-conclusion/2111403/

I would guess Juan is doing his homework on the 'new' defense doc, and I only hope he can discredit the guy in the most embarrassingly thorough way possible.
I also have to say I think it was very poor planning for the jury to get the case on Friday, evidently later in the day too. Since not sequestered, I assume they might just go into a room for introductions and howdy do's and then home for the weekend, only to start deliberating the following Monday!
What's with THAT?!
IMO after all of this, and after the defense nickling and diming the taxpayers to death with their case, the state should fork over for a conference room and meals for the jury to at least deliberate for the weekend, if they would like to.

renatae wrote:

18thcenturylady wrote:...And another thing....
I am SICK of this judge and her "too prejudicial" rulings on everything the prosecution wants to present. Every damn day it's some conference or innumerable sidebars instigated by Jodi and her defense team.
As for Juan's rebuttal witnesses, DUH! Rebuttal means you REBUT THE DEFENSE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, AND THAT BY IT'S VERY NATURE IS GOING TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT!
This is a murder trial and the prosecution has to present the FACTS IN EVIDENCE, AND UH, HELLO, THOSE FACTS ARE A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE LIES THE DEFENSE TEAM AND THEIR WITNESSES SPUN!
Oh boo hoo, the defense team doesn't like that their client is a liar and a murderer and that evidence to show that is coming out. What the h---do they think a trial is!
I am sick of Wilmot's childish temper fits. I am sick of that perv Nurmi, and I am sick of lying, manipulative Jodi and what they have collectively done in the name of "justice". They made a joke of this whole thing, and have trashed a dead man's reputation and devastated his grief stricken family all over again.
It's akin to a rape victim being made out to be a slut in court so the 'perp' can 'get off'.

Amen to all the above! Tired of the kid gloves on defendants, nothing admissible, "prejudicial," blah, blah, yet they can spin every fantastic lie they can think of with impunity. I think this "prejudicial" crap is just that - crap! If it's true, it should be fair game. If the defendant did it, then the defendant has to face up to it.

It's one thing to put on a defense; to me, it's quite something else to be allowed to smear a victim with crud you know is not true in the hopes of getting the guilty party off.

Crud - I object to this manipulation of our system!

Attorney Wendy Murphy explained it best. We are SUPPOSED to be the greatest country in the world, and yet our legal process is based on an ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, where most other countries' is based on an INQUIRY SYSTEM.
The adversarial system is all about winning or losing while the inquiry system is about a SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH.
SHAME ON US.

All I keep saying about our justice system is, in the unlikely event that I find myself sitting in the defendant's seat, I would hope I'm awarded the same considerations.

Mylife101 wrote:I just watched today's court video's.

Detective Esteban Flores is just the bomb!!! So direct, honest, no nonsense, yes or no, cool under pressure. I absolutely love this guy!

Juror questions definitely favored the State. Jurors just looking for confirmation of what they already believe they know, IMO.

Lets just hope this 'new' defense doc is as squirrelly as their other witnesses, and doesn't confuse or bamboozle the jury----ok, ok, I know this is my 'Casey Anthony jury fear syndrome' talking...

The issue with CA trial was you can't convict someone on lying. They could not tie mommy dearest to the crime scene. They had no cause of death. Daddy dearest tried to kill himself, his mistress testified to an accident. There was reasonable doubt. Always gotta throw your emotions away.. Can't convict someone on your emotions. This is why CA walked. Do we honestly know her dad did not play a part? We don't know, probably never will and this is why she's a free woman

18thcenturylady wrote:

renatae wrote:@keikikiki

Color me even more confused than you, because I have thought all along that it was proven that she dyed her hair right before or during the trip! It seems to me the HLN TH's have been stating this all along as fact--------OR




maybe it's my fog.

I do think Juan could have done a much better job of clarifying the haircolor testimony yesterday. As I see it, she most definitely did color her hair on the all-important day in question, which was AFTER RENTING THE CAR. The Walmart trip was AFTER the new color job, so I am guessing she did not in fact purchase haircolor along with the gas can. IF haircolor had been on the receipt, I think Juan would have been all over that with Walmart lady the other day, and brought it to our attention then or before.

once again why did he present the walmart receipt right after the pictures to verify the time?
people keep saying her hair was brown BEFORE the trip to walmart and they are sorta correct..her hair was not blonde in the June 2nd pic he showed..it was a light golden brown..the next pic dated June 3rd was clearly a darker shade and THEN he slapped the walmart receipt down and had witness verify time n date and that was it..he said no further questions and sat down..I need to rewatch this today is all I know

Yes, JA lied, a bunch. It's a different lie. She is tied to crime scene, there is a reasonable explanation for how he died.
Tie in why she would drive that far and not kill him right away and you completed the puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, manslaughter is a possibility because her story is basically offering the idea, based on the delay of the killing, that it was a sudden fight. Emotions aside, is that theory plausible? Or has Juan been able to disprove a sudden argument leading to murder? This is where I'm stuck. The DT has been tailoring their strategy around the verbiage in the possible instructions, allowing some doubt, IMO

Freckles wrote:@25:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn481Ss4t7Y

Question for someone working in mental health:

Is JA aware of the hurt, pain, disappointment to her grandmother, her father, her siblings?

Is her mental condition one that becomes more prevalent in "acting out" as she ages? Perhaps, she becomes more emboldened to use less self-control or has less interest in meeting the "normal" expectations of teachers, friends, family, employers, and she fails to respect the boundaries of others even for her own self-gain?

I am thinking of JA but also others who have recently committed atrocities against their communities with blatant disregard of laws and individuals within the communities.

Would her mental condition be classified as a behavior disorder?

You know, I finally saw gramma in court yesterday. I also noticed the blue ribbons SHE and Jodi's other supporters are all wearing---ribbons they did not start out with and only began sporting fairly recently, I think. These look VERY MUCH like the ribbons Travis family has been wearing since the beginning. I am sorry, but I don't feel sorry for Jodi's family. Like Casey Anthony's gramma, who tried for years to 'wise up' her daughter Cindy, I think Jodi's gramma knew dang well something 'wasn't right with that girl'. I think the ribbons they started wearing make it look like they are copying the Alexanders, and almost throwing their support for the murderess in their faces. I find it very disrespectful. Probably NONE of her family have ever even tried to apologize to members of Travis' family for what Jodi did, but IMO they should not be wearing those ribbons. The timing smacks of 'nyah nyah nyah', and is at best in very poor taste.

Even Gramma had one on. I don't flippin care if someone is your 'blood' or not. How can the Anthony's live every day defending a daughter who killed the grandchild who was the light of their life?
How can gramma sit there with that ribbon on knowing that chica took THEIR gun and used it in a heinous murder?

I am sorry, and I am sure I seem harsh to some of you, and you'll disagree with me, but I have NO sympathy for Jodi's weird family. They have shown no common sense and no class, even going so far as to be writing things down for a future 'book deal' and trying to make $$$$ selling this beast's artwork, forged documents, etc., to the media!
Their behavior in court is at odds with the seriousness of their situation and one wonders if they ALL don't have BPD! The mom and aunt pop their gum, smile inappropriately, and whisper behind their hands like middle school girls.

sassy5d wrote:Yes, JA lied, a bunch. It's a different lie. She is tied to crime scene, there is a reasonable explanation for how he died.
Tie in why she would drive that far and not kill him right away and you completed the puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, manslaughter is a possibility because her story is basically offering the idea, based on the delay of the killing, that it was a sudden fight. Emotions aside, is that theory plausible? Or has Juan been able to disprove a sudden argument leading to murder? This is where I'm stuck. The DT has been tailoring their strategy around the verbiage in the possible instructions, allowing some doubt, IMO

In my mind there is no doubt as to premeditation in this crime but I feel that adding this new possibility to the verdict list of choices the jury will have is WRONG. It really bothers me that the defense could get away with this and I fear it might confuse some of the jury. I am most upset about that development.

sassy5d wrote:All I keep saying about our justice system is, in the unlikely event that I find myself sitting in the defendant's seat, I would hope I'm awarded the same considerations.

...And if your son or daughter were the victim as Travis was, I bet you'd feel differently...

18. I agree. This is a cap murder trial and it appears the defendant, with obvious encouragement and assist from DT, and her immediate family are coming across as fixated on the future wealth of this infamous murder.
I can't even imagine what babble she could be so furiously writing during testimony. What can her mother offer? What it feels like to listen to professionals talk about your daughters sexual appetite?

Also, are we to assume that Mormon's are the only religion that has rules about no sex before your wedding and that some how this is the only religion where the faith practitioners don't actually break that rule?

OT but kind of related...
Mormon bishop with sword runs off attacker

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/free/20130423utah-bishop-sword-runs-off-attacker.html

ok I just rewatched the hair change pic and walmart receipt clip so no longer as confused as I was yesterday. Damn Juan went soo fast tho and they did not show all the evidence he referenced which to my count was 6 exhibits but only saw 3 pics and the receipt...
anyhoo the time for the walmart receipt was 3:22 and the darkest shade of brown pic taken inside a white car was timed at 2:28 so she had to of colored her hair BEFORE walmart..which until right now made no sense to me as to why he even brought up walmart then alongside these pics but my fog is clearing and I do believe it STILL shows premed because walmarts have video cameras so perhaps she colored her hair before buying the incriminating gas can!
anyhow I am thru with that mess now..carry on with the next confusing topic folks...lol

18. I sat in on a trial where a 'high' ranking member of our town's 'society', with lots of $$$ and an award winning defense att. Was being tried because she got crocked at a bar, turned down a side street when she was notified of a DUI check point and plowed down my best friends cousin. A young girl. She called on star to ask if they knew where she was. She hid for 3 days. Throughout the trial, she would only admit she hit a deer. I saw the photos of that little girl, on the cornor's slab, with the sheer look of terror frozen on her face. Even then, knowing what the truth was, I still said, I would hope if I was ever in her seat, that I would want the same consideration. She was found guilty, given a slap sentence.

18th:
I am sure JA and company complained about Travis' family wearing the memoriam blue ribbons. Nurmi probably complained of prejudicial to jury. The judge probably explained the family was allowed this basic freedom of speech by our constitution.... and the dteam plus family could wear ribbons, too. So the whipped out the blue-violet ribbons in a kind of triumph thinking it would sully Travis' name. But the family is strong and they are carrying on.

The ribbons look dumb on JA's mother and her aunt.
From a distance, they look like the victim's family's ribbons. Would the jury possibly think JA's family supports the victim's family's interests?

I find the psychology of WHY JA's family feels the need to "one up" the Alexander family and friends. Totally immature and goofy, IMO.

Edited:
Travis' family are wearing the ribbons in memory and support of their murdered brother.

JA's family is wearing the ribbon to be spiteful, envious, jealous of what ever attention they think the other ribbon wearers might get.

18thcenturylady wrote:

sassy5d wrote:Yes, JA lied, a bunch. It's a different lie. She is tied to crime scene, there is a reasonable explanation for how he died.
Tie in why she would drive that far and not kill him right away and you completed the puzzle. As far as I'm concerned, manslaughter is a possibility because her story is basically offering the idea, based on the delay of the killing, that it was a sudden fight. Emotions aside, is that theory plausible? Or has Juan been able to disprove a sudden argument leading to murder? This is where I'm stuck. The DT has been tailoring their strategy around the verbiage in the possible instructions, allowing some doubt, IMO

In my mind there is no doubt as to premeditation in this crime but I feel that adding this new possibility to the verdict list of choices the jury will have is WRONG. It really bothers me that the defense could get away with this and I fear it might confuse some of the jury. I am most upset about that development.

It wont confuse them because they will know nothing about how it came about..when judge reads them their instructions it will just be added in there as another choice for em to consider but seriously the evidence does not support it nor did the defense ever mention a damn thing regarding this during their direct..I am sure they will during the surebuttal but dont believe thats gonna go over to well for em at all.

Freckles wrote:18th:
I am sure JA and company complained about Travis' family wearing the memoriam blue ribbons. Nurmi probably complained of prejudicial to jury. The judge probably explained the family was allowed this basic freedom of speech by our constitution.... and the dteam plus family could wear ribbons, too. So the whipped out the blue-violet ribbons in a kind of triumph thinking it would sully Travis' name. But the family is strong and they are carrying on.

The ribbons look dumb on JA's mother and her aunt.
From a distance, they look like the victim's family's ribbons. Would the jury possibly think JA's family supports the victim's family's interests?

I find the psychology of WHY JA's family feels the need to "one up" the Alexander family and friends. Totally immature and goofy, IMO.

Freckles, the FIRST day I saw those ribbons on the Arias clan, I thought they WERE for Travis! If I did, maybe the jury will too! I would love for that little stunt to totally backfire on Jodi & Co.!

Also, without JM pointing out the pics yest (I'm sure he will at closing) do you think the men on the jury would understand? I can dye my hair from blond to red and my husband doesn't even notice ha

Problem is with Wilmot's opening statements.
Heat of the moment/passion *such as walking in on your lover in your bed with another* IS possibly manslaughter;

Self defense is NOT manslaughter.

JA had plenty of opportunity to get away IF Travis had been abusive. (By now, I wish he had !!)

Won't rehash all the case but feel comfortable with the premed Martinez has introduced. All over the place. No reasonable doubt here.

sassy5d wrote:Also, without JM pointing out the pics yest (I'm sure he will at closing) do you think the men on the jury would understand? I can dye my hair from blond to red and my husband doesn't even notice ha

Yeah, I think they will get it!

Maybe hubby is afraid to show he notices for fear, if he says he likes it, you will tell him it is terrible and burst into tears! Or, if he said he liked it the other way, you will get angry and tell him you didn't and wanted a change to surprise him?
He might be walking lightly...
Hehehe men ARE predictable even when we aren't!!!

sassy5d wrote:Also, without JM pointing out the pics yest (I'm sure he will at closing) do you think the men on the jury would understand? I can dye my hair from blond to red and my husband doesn't even notice ha

well considering how he presented it all so damn fast without much explanation I would think the jury may of gotten just as confused as some of us as to wth he mentioned walmart yesterday...they will have it all with em during deliberations tho so I am sure they will figure it out.

18thcenturylady wrote:

renatae wrote:

LOL! Maybe 18th or I - we are both foaming at the mouth here today! jk jk jk jk!!!!

(Apologies in advance to 18th!)

Lol! You got that right, Renate! I have had waaayyy too much of that perv! I agree with whoever said he'll soon return to his practice of defending other pervs, talk about sex to his hearts content, and hopefully we'll never have to hear about him again, lol!

And it can't come a moment too soon!

On HLN last night they said that JA went to a "salon" to get her nails done and there was a span of 3 hours so maybe it wasn't a 'nails only salon' but full service and got nails and hair before going to walmart... could of gotten the brazillian too....

carlakay wrote:

18thcenturylady wrote:

In my mind there is no doubt as to premeditation in this crime but I feel that adding this new possibility to the verdict list of choices the jury will have is WRONG. It really bothers me that the defense could get away with this and I fear it might confuse some of the jury. I am most upset about that development.

It wont confuse them because they will know nothing about how it came about..when judge reads them their instructions it will just be added in there as another choice for em to consider but seriously the evidence does not support it nor did the defense ever mention a damn thing regarding this during their direct..I am sure they will during the surebuttal but dont believe thats gonna go over to well for em at all.

Good point Carla. I bet though that the defense is going to be talking about that like crazy at the end of this trial. Don't you think the jury will be like, WTH?????

Random thoughts:

1. I watched today on YouTube on my phone. On my S4, which has great resolution, it looked almost like Nurmi was wearing a T-shirt with a tie. Perhaps some type of clip on collar. Getting lazy Heavy D.

2. His cross of Flores was ridiculous. Here's what I took from Nurmi's line of questioning today:

Heavy D: "Ehhhhhh.... Errrrrrrr... Unnnngghh.... yer honor, would you mind having one of the victim, er, uh, perpetrator's family members roll me toward the mic so I can say "'jection" please?"

Sammy: Sustained

Screech: May we approach?

Heavy D: Detective, I want to focus on the areas that, well... let's say aren't relevant at all to the case in regards to the closet.

Florez: ok

Heavy D: Did you measure the width of the toilet bowl, determine it's holding capacity in regards to fecal matter, measure the number of seconds it took you to do the alphabet backwards, eat a Cheesecake Danish, the divide capacity, by seconds, multiplied by the cheesecake co-factor and then come to court and get paid $300 dollars an hour for reclining when not saying "eeeeeeaaaaannnd" or burping openly during questioning, feeling like you could just whip your balls out while you ask questions a rapist would typically ask?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: Well, Deeetective Rockford, would it surprise you if I told you that's exactly what I did today?

Florez: No

Heavy D: Have you ever been to a restaurant called "Hardy's"?

Florez: Yes.

Heavy D: Do you think it would be a good idea if they served KFC gravy at Hardy's in their soda fountains?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: No more questions, your honor.

Bmore wrote:On HLN last night they said that JA went to a "salon" to get her nails done and there was a span of 3 hours so maybe it wasn't a 'nails only salon' but full service and got nails and hair before going to walmart... could of gotten the brazillian too....

There's another thing I would like cleared up. WHICH day did Jodi go to a salon? Could she have had her hair dyed there? I assume nothing was ever found for one---receipts, etc.? IF she went, you'd think with all the publicity someone from the salon may have come forward long ago to say 'she was here'.

gsweater wrote:Random thoughts:

1. I watched today on YouTube on my phone. On my S4, which has great resolution, it looked almost like Nurmi was wearing a T-shirt with a tie. Perhaps some type of clip on collar. Getting lazy Heavy D.

2. His cross of Flores was ridiculous. Here's what I took from Nurmi's line of questioning today:

Heavy D: "Ehhhhhh.... Errrrrrrr... Unnnngghh.... yer honor, would you mind having one of the victim, er, uh, perpetrator's family members roll me toward the mic so I can say "'jection" please?"

Sammy: Sustained

Screech: May we approach?

Heavy D: Detective, I want to focus on the areas that, well... let's say aren't relevant at all to the case in regards to the closet.

Florez: ok

Heavy D: Did you measure the width of the toilet bowl, determine it's holding capacity in regards to fecal matter, measure the number of seconds it took you to do the alphabet backwards, eat a Cheesecake Danish, the divide capacity, by seconds, multiplied by the cheesecake co-factor and then come to court and get paid $300 dollars an hour for reclining when not saying "eeeeeeaaaaannnd" or burping openly during questioning, feeling like you could just whip your balls out while you ask questions a rapist would typically ask?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: Well, Deeetective Rockford, would it surprise you if I told you that's exactly what I did today?

Florez: No

Heavy D: Have you ever been to a restaurant called "Hardy's"?

Florez: Yes.

Heavy D: Do you think it would be a good idea if they served KFC gravy at Hardy's in their soda fountains?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: No more questions, your honor.

auman58 wrote:

Mylife101 wrote:

Yes, indeed!

They should have offered a no-questions-asked reward for the return of the gun, Yreka isn't that big.
I also believe that if anyone other than JA made the "Travis'" shirt and underwear, they would have come forward.

They could have offered a million dollars and Jodi still wouldn't have given up the location of that gun...cuz we just know that no one else has it. I'm sure they knew that...so why bother. As for the craftmanship on those spiffy panties...it would have to be a sizable reward to get someone to admit to that shabby work. LOL

Freckles wrote:OT:
Re Wilmot:

I have been very critical of the tacky appearance Wilmot has been presenting in court. Surprise, surprise! I was pleased to see her wearing a decent maroon and white blouse with a black suit today. Her lipstick nicely accented the blouse. The suit was unadorned and that drew the attention to the blouse with its sharp, clearly defined collar. Big change! Almost like the collar is speaking clearly instead of "rounding" the edges... The suit color was deeply intense black color. Something about it just didn't work. Not sure what. Suit itself was well cut and did not have those hideous buttons or fake flap pockets. Perhaps it was too rich in appearance for the blouse?

I would like to see Wilmot gravitate toward the warmer palette and perhaps try some of the earth tones with browns, tans, pinkish-ecru or beige. But she really needs to stay off the yellow/blue/green colors when they are in solid plains or fields.

I would like to see Wilmot try some open jacket pant suits. Here, she could use a longer jacket line but only if the jacket had long, clean and uncluttered edges. A soft coral with darker coral tone/wine/ or even brown or gray would be most attractive. If the jacket was longer to cover her rump it would present a much cleaner line.

Business women need to stay on top of their game. Doesn't matter how great you are if you can't present yourself fittingly.

Love the fashion commentary, Freckles. Reminds me of Monica's (?)daily fashion statement during KC's trial. Ashton's ties, anyone??

Just thought of something. Since the defense will most likely now mention 'heat of passion' in their closing, etc., I wonder if Juan will be able to address this in HIS closing, and point out that they are now focusing on that at the last minute, and how incongruous it is, evidence does not support, etc....

?... How many times did JA drive to Mesa after she moved back?? Didnt a juror ? Include how many times did you take gas cans on your road trips and she said just this time??

gsweater wrote:Random thoughts:

1. I watched today on YouTube on my phone. On my S4, which has great resolution, it looked almost like Nurmi was wearing a T-shirt with a tie. Perhaps some type of clip on collar. Getting lazy Heavy D.

2. His cross of Flores was ridiculous. Here's what I took from Nurmi's line of questioning today:

Heavy D: "Ehhhhhh.... Errrrrrrr... Unnnngghh.... yer honor, would you mind having one of the victim, er, uh, perpetrator's family members roll me toward the mic so I can say "'jection" please?"

Sammy: Sustained

Screech: May we approach?

Heavy D: Detective, I want to focus on the areas that, well... let's say aren't relevant at all to the case in regards to the closet.

Florez: ok

Heavy D: Did you measure the width of the toilet bowl, determine it's holding capacity in regards to fecal matter, measure the number of seconds it took you to do the alphabet backwards, eat a Cheesecake Danish, the divide capacity, by seconds, multiplied by the cheesecake co-factor and then come to court and get paid $300 dollars an hour for reclining when not saying "eeeeeeaaaaannnd" or burping openly during questioning, feeling like you could just whip your balls out while you ask questions a rapist would typically ask?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: Well, Deeetective Rockford, would it surprise you if I told you that's exactly what I did today?

Florez: No

Heavy D: Have you ever been to a restaurant called "Hardy's"?

Florez: Yes.

Heavy D: Do you think it would be a good idea if they served KFC gravy at Hardy's in their soda fountains?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: No more questions, your honor.

Objection! Asscan answer! (Insert wherever appropriate or inappropriate, as the case may be.)

carlakay wrote:

sassy5d wrote:Also, without JM pointing out the pics yest (I'm sure he will at closing) do you think the men on the jury would understand? I can dye my hair from blond to red and my husband doesn't even notice ha

well considering how he presented it all so damn fast without much explanation I would think the jury may of gotten just as confused as some of us as to wth he mentioned walmart yesterday...they will have it all with em during deliberations tho so I am sure they will figure it out.

IMO, he will tie it all together in a nice tight package during closing arguments!!

I just finished watching Nurmi's cross of Deanna Reid for the second time, and I have to say I have gotten a lot more out of it having now seen it again. I had also missed the last bit re Travis' parents the other day.
I am shaking with rage. Nurmi was so insulting to this poor woman, and unnecessarily so. His 'sex' talk was all so irrelevant, and I am more convinced than ever that he does it for himself, and actually gets off on it.
Some of his questions and Deanna's answers helped the prosecution in my opinion. This doofus should have said "No questions" and remain seated.
I think the jury is as disgusted as I am with his performance, and by needlessly embarrassing Ms. Reid he has shown that he is crass and unprofessional, and I think that Ms. Reid has managed to reinforce in the jury's mind that JODI IS THE LIAR here, and that she, not Travis is morally bankrupt.

gsweater wrote:Random thoughts:

1. I watched today on YouTube on my phone. On my S4, which has great resolution, it looked almost like Nurmi was wearing a T-shirt with a tie. Perhaps some type of clip on collar. Getting lazy Heavy D.

2. His cross of Flores was ridiculous. Here's what I took from Nurmi's line of questioning today:

Heavy D: "Ehhhhhh.... Errrrrrrr... Unnnngghh.... yer honor, would you mind having one of the victim, er, uh, perpetrator's family members roll me toward the mic so I can say "'jection" please?"

Sammy: Sustained

Screech: May we approach?

Heavy D: Detective, I want to focus on the areas that, well... let's say aren't relevant at all to the case in regards to the closet.

Florez: ok

Heavy D: Did you measure the width of the toilet bowl, determine it's holding capacity in regards to fecal matter, measure the number of seconds it took you to do the alphabet backwards, eat a Cheesecake Danish, the divide capacity, by seconds, multiplied by the cheesecake co-factor and then come to court and get paid $300 dollars an hour for reclining when not saying "eeeeeeaaaaannnd" or burping openly during questioning, feeling like you could just whip your balls out while you ask questions a rapist would typically ask?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: Well, Deeetective Rockford, would it surprise you if I told you that's exactly what I did today?

Florez: No

Heavy D: Have you ever been to a restaurant called "Hardy's"?

Florez: Yes.

Heavy D: Do you think it would be a good idea if they served KFC gravy at Hardy's in their soda fountains?

Florez: No.

Heavy D: No more questions, your honor.

OMG!!! I am literally Laughing Out Loud!!!

I have noticed that we all seem to have a "sticking point" or something in particular that we really wanted Juan Martinez to spell it out and prove it for us, (i.e.,gun, magazines, hair, $$, arrival time,etc.) You know...complete the puzzle. Some of the questions have already been answered, some...not so much.

So, lets start an add on poll.
(Just copy and paste the whole post into a the white window below to add your item)

What is the one thing you really want/wanted JM to prove conclusively because you "just had to know"?

Mylife101 - the remote control

Tesstruhart - the money deposited in her bank (accounts!)

Weezie: Knowledge from Travis of June 4 arrival; and 2nd, if they actually had sex

justanopinion: I really wish that he had brought the colour of the car door seen in the picture behind Hodi in the Helio phone pic... it was the white door... lol kinda makes you assume it was done on the road!

justanopinion: guess I have 2... really would like to know what the argument was that she was the worst thing that ever happened to him...

Mari 68 - the remote control

Gsweater - If Palin and Heavy D. understand their careers are just as ruined as any one of the defense team's witnesses - retirement. Alyce brought it up...


Renatae - I'd have to say being able to prove the gun theft from Grandma, that Travis had no clue she was even headed for his place (just my own feeling) and I would love it if JM could produce whatever communication from Jodi that set TA off so badly a few days before the murder.

Auman58 - Tying the .25 cal ammo at gma's to the round at the crime scene. Or did I miss that?

Moosiesmama - Were all the journals seized at one time or did they appear dribble babble over the years since the murder?

18thcenturylady---I want the remote control to come in and tie the gun/dvd theft together, and show only she could have done it.I also want to know the 'rest of the story' of the magazine code. IMO it was left hanging too much.

I think I picked up each of your responses and added them. If I missed yours....just let me know...or copy and paste the entire poll into the white box below and add your response.

Sassy, I've been thinking about what you said re: the 'argument' that could have resulted in this slaughter.
I believe when closings are done and over with the jury is given their instructions. In those instructions is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't leave your common sense at the door. If, and that would be a BIG if, there was a fight and she killed him, why the slaughter? Why the clean-up? Why no calling 911? If I was in this position, I would be so destroyed and shaking, I would call 911 and get help asap. After 'regaining' her memory (minus the fog 10 hours), why not give the police an approximation of where she threw the gun? Where are her clothes? Where are the car floor mats? Where did she get the money to deposit into three bank accounts. For someone that worked sporadically and wasn't a CEO of anything that sure is a lot of bank accounts. The gas cans are damning. Who does that? She was a rolling bomb. There are so many things, none of which point to heat of passion stuff. Just my opinion. of course. But thanks for making me think it thru.

tesstruhart wrote:Sassy, I've been thinking about what you said re: the 'argument' that could have resulted in this slaughter.
I believe when closings are done and over with the jury is given their instructions. In those instructions is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't leave your common sense at the door. If, and that would be a BIG if, there was a fight and she killed him, why the slaughter? Why the clean-up? Why no calling 911? If I was in this position, I would be so destroyed and shaking, I would call 911 and get help asap. After 'regaining' her memory (minus the fog 10 hours), why not give the police an approximation of where she threw the gun? Where are her clothes? Where are the car floor mats? Where did she get the money to deposit into three bank accounts. For someone that worked sporadically and wasn't a CEO of anything that sure is a lot of bank accounts. The gas cans are damning. Who does that? She was a rolling bomb. There are so many things, none of which point to heat of passion stuff. Just my opinion. of course. But thanks for making me think it thru.

You are so right, Tess, and I think the evidence of premedit. is crystal clear in this case. I know for me I worry because of what happened in the CA case. BTW, unlike some out there, I totally disagree that a door was left open for speculation that George could have been involved, or any of the other crazy ideas. I watched every minute of that trial, and if you did, there is NO WAY you could have come to the conclusion this jury did. The fault was with them and not the prosecution. This case was also NOT over-charged IMO. These idiots didn't listen or connect the dots---which by the way, were were NOT that difficult to connect!

tesstruhart wrote:Sassy, I've been thinking about what you said re: the 'argument' that could have resulted in this slaughter.
I believe when closings are done and over with the jury is given their instructions. In those instructions is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't leave your common sense at the door. If, and that would be a BIG if, there was a fight and she killed him, why the slaughter? Why the clean-up? Why no calling 911? If I was in this position, I would be so destroyed and shaking, I would call 911 and get help asap. After 'regaining' her memory (minus the fog 10 hours), why not give the police an approximation of where she threw the gun? Where are her clothes? Where are the car floor mats? Where did she get the money to deposit into three bank accounts. For someone that worked sporadically and wasn't a CEO of anything that sure is a lot of bank accounts. The gas cans are damning. Who does that? She was a rolling bomb. There are so many things, none of which point to heat of passion stuff. Just my opinion. of course. But thanks for making me think it thru.

Yes, indeed. "Who does that?" It makes me nervous when I have to go fill the BBQ grill propane tank and drive with it in the back of my car for several miles. I dang sure wouldn't put 15 gallons of gasoline in my trunk and drive hundreds of miles in the desert heat. He!!, I wouldn't do it anywhere...much less in the desert heat.

Also, JA made many trips to see Travis while she was living in Palm Desert and they were supposedly long distance bf/gf. Why the sudden need for all these gas cans when it was never a concern before?

It is my opinion that Juan Martinez has proven premeditation in many ways. I am feeling pretty confident that the jury will not be confused by all the BS or the additional verdict option. Remember the jury question to JA that asked, "You have admitted that you lied to everyone,...why should we believe you now?" Juan has provided proof to this jury that JA has lied to them on the witness stand. JA's story has been shown to be too ridiculous and impossible for any reasonable person to buy into. Based on jury questions, I truly believe we have very reasonable people sitting on this jury. I'm just not worried about the verdict. This jury is going to do the right thing, IMO.

tesstruhart wrote:Sassy, I've been thinking about what you said re: the 'argument' that could have resulted in this slaughter.
I believe when closings are done and over with the jury is given their instructions. In those instructions is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't leave your common sense at the door. If, and that would be a BIG if, there was a fight and she killed him, why the slaughter? Why the clean-up? Why no calling 911? If I was in this position, I would be so destroyed and shaking, I would call 911 and get help asap. After 'regaining' her memory (minus the fog 10 hours), why not give the police an approximation of where she threw the gun? Where are her clothes? Where are the car floor mats? Where did she get the money to deposit into three bank accounts. For someone that worked sporadically and wasn't a CEO of anything that sure is a lot of bank accounts. The gas cans are damning. Who does that? She was a rolling bomb. There are so many things, none of which point to heat of passion stuff. Just my opinion. of course. But thanks for making me think it thru.

Since he was obviously shot, why would she have to take and get rid of HIS gun? I know, Jodistein logic.

Morbitbuzz's play by play recap of yesterday's court action:

http://www.morbitbuzz.blogspot.com/2013/04/42413-day-52-one-more-nail-in-coffin.html#more

EggTreeNews Blog humorous recap from yesterday:

http://eggtreenews.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/mr-martinez-gets-alot-done-in-a-half-day/

Is there supposed to be a representative from a financial institution in the rebuttal case? I have heard that. Also, I am wondering how people seem to know who is going to testify when I was lead to believe the rebuttal witness list was NOT made public.

18thcenturylady wrote:Is there supposed to be a representative from a financial institution in the rebuttal case? I have heard that. Also, I am wondering how people seem to know who is going to testify when I was lead to believe the rebuttal witness list was NOT made public.

I have also wondered how these people supposedly "in the know" get their information. I would be quite interested in what the financial institution witness might have to say. And, dang it, where is the follow up on the remote control and the magazine codes/MM. Just gotta know. Hope Juan delivers...but maybe, he just wanted to plant the seeds of "something fishy going on here" with the jury but can't bring it all in...you know, the too prejudicial thingy. Arg!

Bmore wrote:On HLN last night they said that JA went to a "salon" to get her nails done and there was a span of 3 hours so maybe it wasn't a 'nails only salon' but full service and got nails and hair before going to walmart... could of gotten the brazillian too....

Got to thinking... When did she go to the salon? Could the items picked up at Walmart (skin lotion?) have been related to that salon trip?

The girl on HLN made it sound like the salon was first and she was potentially there for awhile since there was about 3 hours unaccounted for... I don't know much about that part of this cluster %uck...

sassy5d wrote:?... How many times did JA drive to Mesa after she moved back?? Didnt a juror ? Include how many times did you take gas cans on your road trips and she said just this time??

Excellent questions.

Freckles wrote:

Bmore wrote:On HLN last night they said that JA went to a "salon" to get her nails done and there was a span of 3 hours so maybe it wasn't a 'nails only salon' but full service and got nails and hair before going to walmart... could of gotten the brazillian too....

Got to thinking... When did she go to the salon? Could the items picked up at Walmart (skin lotion?) have been related to that salon trip?

Salon was after bringing the remote control to DB (the end of the first day of JM cross of Jodi). So, it would be late morning I'm guessing.

tesstruhart wrote:Sassy, I've been thinking about what you said re: the 'argument' that could have resulted in this slaughter.
I believe when closings are done and over with the jury is given their instructions. In those instructions is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't leave your common sense at the door. If, and that would be a BIG if, there was a fight and she killed him, why the slaughter? Why the clean-up? Why no calling 911? If I was in this position, I would be so destroyed and shaking, I would call 911 and get help asap. After 'regaining' her memory (minus the fog 10 hours), why not give the police an approximation of where she threw the gun? Where are her clothes? Where are the car floor mats? Where did she get the money to deposit into three bank accounts. For someone that worked sporadically and wasn't a CEO of anything that sure is a lot of bank accounts. The gas cans are damning. Who does that? She was a rolling bomb. There are so many things, none of which point to heat of passion stuff. Just my opinion. of course. But thanks for making me think it thru.

Yes! To all of this ^^^^^^! IMO, if this had been me, I would have called 911 from the home and been an absolute nutcake! As for the prosecution, he has done an excellent job and removed ALL doubt from my mind: JA premeditated this murder of Travis Alexander. Don't know why and don't even care. She is one nasty, evil little widget and that is that. Pull the plug on her!

The few questions I have are of no consequence:
I would like to know which ring she stole and how Travis' got downstairs;
I would like to know how she paid Travis, ie, where did she get the money?
I would like to see his bank ATM statements;
I would like to know IF she felt any feelings toward her grandmother/grandfather when she faked a b/e and stole the stuff;
I would like to know IF she sent the irises so as to keep the "door open" for spying on the investigation...

I do not NEED to know any of this, however. I need to know the date the lights are going to dim over Mesa.

Love the responses! I'm at work today. No live feed, just occ check ins here. Keep the convo's going