Jodi Arias--Trial for the murder of Travis Alexander #17

I wonder if this defense trick is now going to add more days to the trial. The judge seemed to have had it, and been firm when she said that closing statements would happen at the end of this week. IF the trial does not end this week, the jury will be ripsh--
Also, every day of delay runs the risk of more jurors being dismissed...
I can't believe this. I wish we knew more...

Freckles wrote:

Weeziethm wrote:I feel a migraine coming on.....

This was put on the Court Docket today:

Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
4/27/2013 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/29/2013
NOTE: NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY RE: SURREBUTTAL WITNESS

If you give a mouse a cookie...

It does seem like they want to have this shrinky dink discuss more than the bpd vs ptsd---If it's the whole heat of passion, I would hope the judge would say a firm NO and shut them down now. That is self serving, and NOT a rebuttal of what Juan presented.

I noticed that in the police interrogation tapes, Flores tells Jodi that rental cars now have GPS in them, not that the renter can use, but so the police can access the info on a given rental vehicle if needed.
Is this true? If so, that would conclusively put Jodi right in Az and at Travis' house even without the gas can, etc. testimony.
I never heard anything about it so must assume it's not true, but why did Flores say that to her during questioning?
(It's in David Lohr's tapes of the interrogation---tape #3)

18thcenturylady wrote:I noticed that in the police interrogation tapes, Flores tells Jodi that rental cars now have GPS in them, not that the renter can use, but so the police can access the info on a given rental vehicle if needed.
Is this true? If so, that would conclusively put Jodi right in Az and at Travis' house even without the gas can, etc. testimony.
I never heard anything about it so must assume it's not true, but why did Flores say that to her during questioning?
(It's in David Lohr's tapes of the interrogation---tape #3)

Makes sense in case a car goes missing.

18 she's admitted going there so the GPS would be null and void... It's all about if she planned to go there all along when she never mentioned it to anyone and said when confronted it was a last minute decision...

Bmore wrote:18 she's admitted going there so the GPS would be null and void... It's all about if she planned to go there all along when she never mentioned it to anyone and said when confronted it was a last minute decision...

It would be nice to know her track, though, you may be able to figure out where she ditched the gun and stuff.

The jury has already been given the schedule for the balance of this week. They have been told they will stay Wed as late as is needed to wrap this up so closing may be given Thursday and Friday. IF the defense is granted the extra witnesses and more time, it is going to really tick off this jury.


It is time for the dteam to give it up.
They did the best they could with the materials they had to work with: A defendant who stated she did in fact murder the naked, sopping wet victim, Travis. She stabbed him in the neck, the head, the back, the stomach and the heart; she cut his throat; she put a bullet thru his head using a gun she had stolen from a staged B&E of her grandparents' home; she premeditated the murder and used 3 gas cans to try to hide her premeditation; and she blamed everything on the victim, wooden spoons, "strangers"....

she's probably got it shoved in a tree by where she planned on having her Red Riding Hood fantasy...

auman58 wrote:

18thcenturylady wrote:I noticed that in the police interrogation tapes, Flores tells Jodi that rental cars now have GPS in them, not that the renter can use, but so the police can access the info on a given rental vehicle if needed.
Is this true? If so, that would conclusively put Jodi right in Az and at Travis' house even without the gas can, etc. testimony.
I never heard anything about it so must assume it's not true, but why did Flores say that to her during questioning?
(It's in David Lohr's tapes of the interrogation---tape #3)

Makes sense in case a car goes missing.

I did some light research on the GPS in rental cars. IF the renter wants GPS, they have to pay extra for it to be activated. Adds dollars to the daily/weekly rental. Check the Budget web site.

18thcenturylady wrote:I noticed that in the police interrogation tapes, Flores tells Jodi that rental cars now have GPS in them, not that the renter can use, but so the police can access the info on a given rental vehicle if needed.
Is this true? If so, that would conclusively put Jodi right in Az and at Travis' house even without the gas can, etc. testimony.
I never heard anything about it so must assume it's not true, but why did Flores say that to her during questioning?
(It's in David Lohr's tapes of the interrogation---tape #3)

JA responded by telling the Budget rental agent she did not want to pay for that option.

We have watched a lot of trial, watched youtube, and we have shared, discussed, and tried to dissect every nuance of this trial. Long road we came down! Where did we leave our lives?

This is a fantastic youtube poster who has an extensive library.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTawniDilly?feature=g-high-u

justanopinion wrote:.... and drum roll ... there is still tomorrow for them to get ideas over the margaritaville drinks and whatever else they need to get them through the day defending Hodi!! I actually give them credit... I couldn't sit there day after day listening to and trying to sell her BS... kudos to them!!

I'm with you on this point for sure! I also can't imagine what it must feel like to be assigned to and forced to represent JA. He!!, they can't even quit representing JA if they quit their public defender's office job (hence, Nurmi's many pleas to quit). I would need a few margaritas myself to wash that BS down!

18thcenturylady wrote:I noticed that in the police interrogation tapes, Flores tells Jodi that rental cars now have GPS in them, not that the renter can use, but so the police can access the info on a given rental vehicle if needed.
Is this true? If so, that would conclusively put Jodi right in Az and at Travis' house even without the gas can, etc. testimony.
I never heard anything about it so must assume it's not true, but why did Flores say that to her during questioning?
(It's in David Lohr's tapes of the interrogation---tape #3)

I'm not sure of all the car rental co's, but we have offices for Hertz, & Enterprise in our bldgs. In the newer cars 2011 on for both Co's there is the internal GPS system. Enterprise & Hertz can access the system & see where the car has been. Examples why they have it:
People have lied & said they only went 200 miles even though the systems says they went close to 400 miles. A person says something was wrong with the mileage, or the gas or something. They can bring up the internal GPS system by code & it tells exactly where the car has been. It also helped one time when a man went missing in a rental car & seemed to vanish. The police had Enterprise search the internal GPS system. Turns out the poor man had skidded off the road (Winter) & down an embankment & out of sight. The system found him because it had stayed intact. Sadly the poor man did not make it (died on impact). His family at least had closer & his body to bury. Police said it may have been years before they found him if not for the GPS. Where he wrecked, there was no evidence of an accident near him.

My opinion is that the judge has been anything but firm with the defense at all. I think she is so worried about appeals she has let the defense team run roughshod over the whole trial. I have never seen so many sidebars or meetings in chambers, but then again, I'm just an armchair lawyer and use common sense with a mixture of my pitiful knowledge of the law to form my opinions. I think she should have reined them in months ago.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jury-police-complaint-tire-slashing/story?id=19064576#.UX7NqJXDmzc

this is a good article...

Just think, all our wondering will soon be over. I can't wait!

Wonder what domestic violence project you can accomplish from behind bars?? And I'm still waiting for her 'freak out'

Who had ' a nervous breakdown' previously? Isn't that what stabby said she had? That was an interesting confession.. Imagine having 'a nervous breakdown' and seeking no help.

I hear this song on the radio and I can't help but think of her.
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Renegade-lyrics-Styx/9FB2136DFEB2CB924825693A00181B99

Tried to copy this but I am all thumbs today.
Sorry!

This deals with Geffner:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-trial-update-defense-files-motion-expert-19020950?tab=9482930§ion=1206852&playlist=19025438

HLN/Beth Karas must be on TV right now because I see the following on both FB and WS...

Beth Karas said that the motion the DT filed this morning was to allow the psychologist to also include testimony rebutting Dr Horn. They claim the psychologist should be able to testify to this since he is a neuropsychologist.

Apparently the issue is about the bullet passing through the brain and testifying that TA would be able to get up and move/run afterwards thereby rebutting what Dr Horn said.

FB posters are saying that JM filed a motion to block this. I have not seen official verification but am passing this along with a disclaimer!

Weeziethm wrote:HLN/Beth Karas must be on TV right now because I see the following on both FB and WS...

Beth Karas said that the motion the DT filed this morning was to allow the psychologist to also include testimony rebutting Dr Horn. They claim the psychologist should be able to testify to this since he is a neuropsychologist.

FB posters are saying that JM filed a motion to block this. I have not seen official verification but am passing this along with a disclaimer!

I doubt this will be allowed. Dr. Horn had already testified in the Prosecution's case that the gun shot was first. The defense had the opportunity to put on a ME to say otherwise. A neuropsychologist is not an ME. I don't know that in order to rebut one's testimony the opposing party must have identical credentials, but in my opinion, this ship has sailed.

I will note, however, that the defense was offered the theory of the prosecution's case prior to trial that Jodi shot Travis first. I don't know if in Arizona the prosecution must divulge their "theory" vs. just discovery. There have been many hearings in this case over the years and the "gun shot first" was already offered. I do see the defense's side of this - we show up for trial with our own version of events based upon the prosecution's theory only to find out they don't believe the gun shot came first.

Anyhow, its kinda too bad their client is a lying liar who lies.

Interesting to see if the judge allows this.

I do believe in the one major hearing as to whether this crime was heinous/cruel ( in order to validate wanting the death penalty ) the prosecution's claim was that Travis WAS shot first - and then stabbed all up while unable to defend himself.

Which is not their theory anymore. Was it still heinous/cruel? Yes. But will this be an appellate issue???

Weeziethm wrote:HLN/Beth Karas must be on TV right now because I see the following on both FB and WS...

Beth Karas said that the motion the DT filed this morning was to allow the psychologist to also include testimony rebutting Dr Horn. They claim the psychologist should be able to testify to this since he is a neuropsychologist.

Apparently the issue is about the bullet passing through the brain and testifying that TA would be able to get up and move/run afterwards thereby rebutting what Dr Horn said.

FB posters are saying that JM filed a motion to block this. I have not seen official verification but am passing this along with a disclaimer!

Thanks Weezie...You have to have some pity on Juan. Every single off day is another motion filed. He has to be prepared to file one of his own to contest it. This trial is a nightmare. I would love to know when this is all done and over what his thoughts about the defense really are. I know we will never know, but he has to be very frustrated with all the games.
Also, in case there is someone that hasn't read it yet, read the http://eggtreenews.wordpress.com/ its from Tanisha.

Wanted to just also note - I happen to believe she shot Travis first.

He was able to "fight/flight" but that's about it. Hence, her being able to kill him.

If she had attacked with knife first, unless her first shot went into the vena cava, I think Travis would have been able to over power Jodi.

Mari 68 wrote:Wanted to just also note - I happen to believe she shot Travis first.

He was able to "fight/flight" but that's about it. Hence, her being able to kill him.

If she had attacked with knife first, unless her first shot went into the vena cava, I think Travis would have been able to over power Jodi.

I think the shot was last (not that it matters at this point) because the ME said that with the track that the bullet took in his brain he wouldn't be able to make deliberate movements. I think the shot was to a dead man just putting an exclamation point to the whole event. That man suffered and bled out. It doesn't make sense to me that a naked, wet guy suddenly went off on her. Just my opinion. I guess we may never really know how it went down, but suffice it to say, she butchered Travis.

Honestly, I think if he was shot in that area first, he wouldn't have been able to say 'Kill you bitch' he wouldn't have then been able to lunge. Not fatal, at first.. And yes people can survive traumatic brain injuries but being hit in the right frontal lobe is interesting.

olivier57 wrote:Hi, not wanting to support any theory, as I have none (and if I would like to have a skill it would be jokes ) your exchanges led me to search about Exif and I found this software that edit those data. http://www.colorpilot.com/exiffarm_edit.html

Of course that's 'hypothetically speaking'

Good day to all

Nobody said you can't modify exif data. In fact, you can do it without software. However, there are algorithms used to verify every single bit of exif data in every single photo. There are even hidden layers not open to editing (or viewing for that matter). Using this program, or altering it oneself would leave telltale signs showing it had been altered. There is nothing available to the public that would allow this to be circumvented, and for good reason. Jodi's case is a good example why. Sorry to burst your bubble... hypothetically speaking.

I really don't know when I think TA was shot... but I do know that he had defence wounds on his hands...where he attempted to stop Jodi from stabbing him... I do know that he must have felt fear and pain.

I also know that he was significantly larger than she is and that had he wanted to harm her .. she would have been the one on the slab!!

I do think that it was premeditated murder and that I will be very distraught if this jury does not find M1.. MOO

According to HLN @ lunchtime today, the shrink is going to be asked questions trying to discredit Dr. DeMarte and Dr. Horn the ME!!!

tesstruhart wrote:

Mari 68 wrote:Wanted to just also note - I happen to believe she shot Travis first.

He was able to "fight/flight" but that's about it. Hence, her being able to kill him.

If she had attacked with knife first, unless her first shot went into the vena cava, I think Travis would have been able to over power Jodi.

I think the shot was last (not that it matters at this point) because the ME said that with the track that the bullet took in his brain he wouldn't be able to make deliberate movements. I think the shot was to a dead man just putting an exclamation point to the whole event. That man suffered and bled out. It doesn't make sense to me that a naked, wet guy suddenly went off on her. Just my opinion. I guess we may never really know how it went down, but suffice it to say, she butchered Travis.

And really, the whole reason this is even being debated by the Prosecution and Defense is because the Prosecution used this theory, Travis being shot first, to highlight their reasons to find this crime and heinous and cruel.

Really, either way is effing heinous and cruel. In reality, being shot first is MORE heinous (assuming he was at least able to ambulate and hold his hands up in defense).

I really just hope it won't necessarily matter to the jurors. Shot first or last - we know FOR SURE Travis was not unconscious during the knife fight. That alone is heinous and cruel.

Beth Karas just on JVM. Said there is a hearing in chambers tomorrow 10:30 a.m. AZ time. To her knowledge, she said JM has not filed a motion to block. But there is a hearing tomorrow.

Filing Date: 4/27/2013
Description: NOT - Notice - Party (001)
Docket Date: 4/29/2013

NOTE: NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY RE: SURREBUTTAL WITNESS

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-031021

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TRIAL MINUTE ENTRY
DAY 61

04/25/13

~Snipped~

10:32 a.m. Unsealed portion of in chambers hearing begins.

Counsel present argument to the Court on Defendant's Rule 20 Motion.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Rule 20 Motion.

IT IS ORDERED setting Status Conference on 04/30/13 at 10:30 a.m.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042013/m5740861.pdf


Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. In an aggravation hearing, after the evidence on either side is closed, on a motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance was not proven if there is no substantial evidence to warrant the allegation. The court's decision on a defendant's motion shall not be reserved, but shall be made with all possible speed.

Read more:

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/20_1.htm

Alessandra_Deux wrote:SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TRIAL MINUTE ENTRY
DAY 61

04/25/13

~Snipped~

10:32 a.m. Unsealed portion of in chambers hearing begins.

Counsel present argument to the Court on Defendant's Rule 20 Motion.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Rule 20 Motion.

IT IS ORDERED setting Status Conference on 04/30/13 at 10:30 a.m.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042013/m5740861.pdf


Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. In an aggravation hearing, after the evidence on either side is closed, on a motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance was not proven if there is no substantial evidence to warrant the allegation. The court's decision on a defendant's motion shall not be reserved, but shall be made with all possible speed.

Read more:

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/20_1.htm

Expected and good news! Prime the needle.

hello clarice wrote:According to HLN @ lunchtime today, the shrink is going to be asked questions trying to discredit Dr. DeMarte and Dr. Horn the ME!!!

That sounds rather ambitious, I would say! Nurmi think he can reel in a barracuda and then go big game hunting for a bush master?

Nurmi has NO wins on the table.
It's Juan's game so he best be merciful to JA and get the crap and go home.
Nurmi couldn't get a single chunk out of any of Juan's witnesses.
All of Nurmi's witnesses became Juan's.
IMO, Juan has this locked down first time around!

Thank you, Alessandra. While I hesitate to try that site for all the frustration it gives me, I did find some interesting info so thank you for the share!


" 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force. "

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/13_405.htm

" 13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person."

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/13_404.htm


Nice indexing:
http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/ars_index2.htm

This is interesting.
http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/13_751.htm

clipped---

" D. Evidence that is admitted at the trial and that relates to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances shall be deemed admitted as evidence at a sentencing proceeding if the trier of fact considering that evidence is the same trier of fact that determined the defendant’s guilt. The prosecution and the defendant shall be permitted to rebut any information received at the aggravation or penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding and shall be given fair opportunity to present argument as to whether the information is sufficient to establish the existence of any of the circumstances included in subsections F and G of this section.

E. In determining whether to impose a sentence of death or life imprisonment, the trier of fact shall take into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that have been proven. The trier of fact shall impose a sentence of death if the trier of fact finds one or more of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection F of this section and then determines that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency."

" F. The trier of fact shall consider the following aggravating circumstances in determining whether to impose a sentence of death:

1. The defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable.

2. The defendant has been or was previously convicted of a serious offense, whether preparatory or completed. Convictions for serious offenses committed on the same occasion as the homicide, or not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial with the homicide, shall be treated as a serious offense under this paragraph.

3. In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person or persons in addition to the person murdered during the commission of the offense.

4. The defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment, or promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value.

5. The defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value.

6. The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.

7. The defendant committed the offense while:

(a) In the custody of or on authorized or unauthorized release from the state department of corrections, a law enforcement agency or a county or city jail.

(b) On probation for a felony offense.

8. The defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides, as defined in section 13-1101, that were committed during the commission of the offense.

9. The defendant was an adult at the time the offense was committed or was tried as an adult and the murdered person was under fifteen years of age, was an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development or was seventy years of age or older.

10. The murdered person was an on duty peace officer ... clipped----

11. The defendant committed the offense ... clipped as relates to gangs---

12. The defendant committed the offense to prevent a person’s cooperation with an official law enforcement investigation, to prevent a person’s testimony in a court proceeding, in retaliation for a person’s cooperation with an official law enforcement investigation or in retaliation for a person’s testimony in a court proceeding.

13. The offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification.

14. The defendant used a remote stun gun - clipped section ---


G. The trier of fact shall consider as mitigating circumstances any factors proffered by the defendant or the state that are relevant in determining whether to impose a sentence less than death, including any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense, including but not limited to the following:

1. The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

2. The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

3. The defendant was legally accountable for the conduct of another under section 13-303, but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

4. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.

5. The defendant’s age.

H. For purposes of determining whether a conviction of any dangerous crime against children is a serious offense pursuant to this section, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age.

I. For the purposes of this section, "serious offense" means any of the following offenses if committed in this state or any offense committed outside this state that if committed in this state would constitute one of the following offenses:

1. First degree murder.

2. Second degree murder.

3. Manslaughter.

4. Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or committed by the use, threatened use or exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

5. Sexual assault.

6. Any dangerous crime against children.

7. Arson of an occupied structure.

8. Robbery.

9. Burglary in the first degree.

10. Kidnapping.

11. Sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age.

12. Burglary in the second degree.

13. Terrorism. "

18thcenturylady wrote:

renatae wrote:

Ahhhhhhhhh. Good news ~ lightweight ! he'll be Juanerized.

Hi guys,
It was nice to come this AM and see this. I am sick, sick, sick. Hubby got it last week---probably from the school, and now I am sicker than I have been in at least 10 years. Horrible chest congestion, coughing that makes me see stars, fever, screaming headache, ears hurt, and head and nose congestion. I feel like jumping off a bridge, lol.

Can Juan bring up these tidbits about Dr. G when he crosses him? I know he brought up some things about ALV, etc.
The prosecution is supposed to have the last word, and surrebuttals are very rare, and NORMALLY only allowed it there's some earthshaking new thing. IMO this should never have been allowed.
I have faith in Juan though. The poor guy must be exhausted too. I think he will be able to make short work of this goofball...
Not watching trial this week. Too much to do as I am now behind due to the illness, plus any more of Jodi, Nurmi, and Wilmot would make me barf at this point.
I want to see Juan's closing statement, and hope he will be up on Friday.
Hope everyone out there is well and happy----We had no idea this whateveritis was going around!

So sorry you are sick! Hope that you are feeling better today. Sounds like a truly nasty bug!

I've never seen a surrebuttal, and have nothing to base this on except IMO, but it just seems to me the same rules should apply as to other aspects, the qualifications of the "expert" should be fair game. Hopefully, I'm right!!

Hi, everybody - took some time off to clear my head, LOL. Now to catch up - again.

Two things I wanted to comment on before I forget. First, I am so tired of some of these TH's seeming to agree with Nurmi's "Oh, you had a different relationship with him," nonsense comment to Deanna. They say, "Oh, you know, you have different relationships with different people and don't always act the same around everyone."

Well, yes, that's true - to an extent. When I am around quiet and shy people, I tone it down. When I'm among more boisterous people, I can be a real loudmouth, LOL. In dating relationships, I would pretty much follow the tone set by the other person, especially in the beginning.

But, for goodness' sake, I don't think in my wildest dreams I would suddenly become a raging, abusive, selfish, sex-obsessed maniac, no matter how "receptive" I might perceive the other person to be. That's just ridiculous. Otherwise, we'd all have come across people in our lives which we would turn on and become abusers.

Secondly, finally! Dr. Drew had Chris Hughes on and finally my questions about those messages he supposedly sent Jodi saying Travis was abusive, selfish and she should just move on because he was so awful, were mostly answered.

The emails followed a time in which Jodi came to their house "whining, complaining, and lying about Travis." She also said she had a vision about how they were supposed to get married. Chris said they told her to just move on because Travis was not committing to her.

Chris said he did use the word "abusive" once during the emails, but later wrote, "no, that's not the right word - he's just rough around the edges." He said he was amazed at how LaViolette took several messages wherein he was trying to convince Jodi to give up, (for Travis' sake,) and twisted them into something painting Travis as an abuser.

As far as them thinking the world of Jodi, as LaViolette would have us believe, they had long standing concerns about her. He told about a time when Jodi and Travis were staying at his house and he and his wife and Travis went up to their room, thinking Jodi was asleep in another room. He said they spent hours talking about their concerns about Jodi's behavior and Sky became concerned and whispered that Jodi was outside the door, and she was right, Jodi was standing outside listening. Then Travis told Jodi he would go down soon to tell her goodnight, but an hour or so later, Sky had a feeling Jodi was outside the door again, and whispered that to Travis and Chris. Travis jumped off the bed and yanked the door open to find Jodi standing there with an evil and frightening expression. Chris said they realized then what she was capable of and were worried for their children. In the morning, Sky told Jodi to leave and that she was no longer welcome in their home.

Very telling was that one of Dr. Drew's guests asked Chris if Travis had ever loved Jodi. He said he hated to use the "L" word, and that he would like to be able to say that Jodi was just his "night friend," but that Travis did care about Jodi.

Tomorrow, Sky is supposed to be on Dr. Drew.

Re the Hughes' emails to/from Travis:
I find it rather annoying Alyce/dteam wants to tell us what was in the mind of the Hughes' when they wrote and sent the emails to Travis! After all, Chris and Sky Hughes are BOTH alive and both are capable of telling us themselves EXACTLY what they were thinking and what their writings were reflective on. No need for twisting or speculating here, folks!

Charges simplified:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/29/after-dark-first-degree-murder-definition

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/29/after-dark-first-degree-murder-prosecution-mash

Bmore wrote:18 she's admitted going there so the GPS would be null and void... It's all about if she planned to go there all along when she never mentioned it to anyone and said when confronted it was a last minute decision...

This comment was made by Flores during the early part of the interrogation. Jodi at the time was insisting she had been NO WHERE NEAR Arizona. I would have thought that the police would have gotten the GPS from the car at that time and placed her in Arizona. I think this was even before all the gas can/ etc., info came out, so why didn't they use that along with everything else as proof she was lying. (Remember, this is BEFORE the "ninja" story---she was telling Flores she had not been in AZ, or to T's house.)

Seems like it would be common sense as well, to know the EXACT route she took and where she was. Who knows if it may have helped find likely spots for evidence disposal???

Moosiesmama wrote:My opinion is that the judge has been anything but firm with the defense at all. I think she is so worried about appeals she has let the defense team run roughshod over the whole trial. I have never seen so many sidebars or meetings in chambers, but then again, I'm just an armchair lawyer and use common sense with a mixture of my pitiful knowledge of the law to form my opinions. I think she should have reined them in months ago.

Ding ding ding. I've been saying this same stuff for months. I really am disgusted by the judge.

tesstruhart wrote:

Weeziethm wrote:HLN/Beth Karas must be on TV right now because I see the following on both FB and WS...

Beth Karas said that the motion the DT filed this morning was to allow the psychologist to also include testimony rebutting Dr Horn. They claim the psychologist should be able to testify to this since he is a neuropsychologist.

Apparently the issue is about the bullet passing through the brain and testifying that TA would be able to get up and move/run afterwards thereby rebutting what Dr Horn said.

FB posters are saying that JM filed a motion to block this. I have not seen official verification but am passing this along with a disclaimer!

Thanks Weezie...You have to have some pity on Juan. Every single off day is another motion filed. He has to be prepared to file one of his own to contest it. This trial is a nightmare. I would love to know when this is all done and over what his thoughts about the defense really are. I know we will never know, but he has to be very frustrated with all the games.
Also, in case there is someone that hasn't read it yet, read the http://eggtreenews.wordpress.com/ its from Tanisha.

Tess, I too feel very sorry for Juan. He must be frustrated and exhausted. So much BS he has to deal with. If I were him I'd be ripshit if the judge allows a shrink to say the gunshot to Travis' brain would not render him incapacitated! I would hope the judge will see that allowing testimony of that nature would be going way too far, and is not right. Geffen's credentials do NOT make him qualified to make such an outrageous claim, and this should not be allowed in this trial!
I would hope if that happens, Juan could get Horn BACK on the stand again.

tesstruhart wrote:

Mari 68 wrote:Wanted to just also note - I happen to believe she shot Travis first.

He was able to "fight/flight" but that's about it. Hence, her being able to kill him.

If she had attacked with knife first, unless her first shot went into the vena cava, I think Travis would have been able to over power Jodi.

I think the shot was last (not that it matters at this point) because the ME said that with the track that the bullet took in his brain he wouldn't be able to make deliberate movements. I think the shot was to a dead man just putting an exclamation point to the whole event. That man suffered and bled out. It doesn't make sense to me that a naked, wet guy suddenly went off on her. Just my opinion. I guess we may never really know how it went down, but suffice it to say, she butchered Travis.

I have watched the whole trial, and I am not going to get into an argument about a dead issue, but THE SHOT WAS LAST. TRAVIS WAS NOT SHOT FIRST. There is much evidence that supports this, such as the casing on top of blood pool on bathroom floor, defensive wounds, etc., which I will not rehash again.
We can only hope the jury looks at that evidence and does not allow the defense to confuse them with all the muddying of the waters they have done.
I don't care if anyone here doesn't see the facts, but I hope the jury knows the true sequence of Travis' wounds, and how he fought for his life and suffered.
The shot to his face came when he was DEAD, back in the bathroom on the floor, having been dragged there, and was Jodi's final "F you" insult.

On a Serious Note

Posted by eggtreenews in Travis Alexander Case.

The following was posted on a Justice for Travis facebook page by his sister Tanisha, and I thought I would repost it here for anyone who hasn’t seen it:

Message from Tanisha Sorenson
To All the Supporters of Travis and our Family,
As the time is now near to verdict time our family needs your support more than ever now. You all have been true examples of Christ, very giving , caring, kind hearted, and loving. The support of all of you has been heartfelt and has brought many smiles to our families faces during these hard times. We will be forever grateful !
I know that the most important thing we can all continue doing is getting down on our knees and praying to the Lord that we will have Justice for Travis here on this earth. I know there will be Justice in the life to come in the eternities but I feel that the Lord will also have his hand in bringing Justice here on earth. Our Heavenly father hears our prayers and he will answer them.
The jury will get this case on Monday the 6th and that’s why I have a special request from all of you to join us as we pray and fast for the Jury, For our Family, For Travis, and For the Ultimate Justice in this case.My family and I will be fasting and praying on Sunday May 5th. I know from my own personal experience that the Lord has answered my prayers after I fasted, and that’s why I know if we all do it on Sunday the 5th , he will see that we all have faith in him and that Justice is what we want and I feel he will deliver as he touches the hearts of the Jurors.
We have all been brought together thru this horrible tragedy, we have all been touched by Travis and his inspiration as he was alive, by the things he did while he was alive, and by the people he helped and served while he was alive, and because of the Death of this amazing man , we all share the love, the loss, the hope, the sorrow, the life, the faith, the gratitude, the strength, the empathy, and the unity, together. May the Lord continued to bless all of you for all the strength and love you have shown our family.
Don’t be sad for Travis for he is happy, in a wonderful place doing the Lords work, he continues to teach, learn, serve, laugh, make others laugh, sing, and rejoice in happiness. He is with our Savior Jesus Christ, he is with us in our hearts and minds , and he will be with us as we get the Verdict of Guilty of first degree Murder and have Justice for him! Our family loves you all!! Our Heavenly Father loves you, and Travis loves you!!
Justice4Travis!!!

I will be fasting on Sunday 5/5 in support of Travis and the family, and hope that others will as well. I am a firm believer in the power of prayer (regardless of one’s faith), especially in large numbers. We are all in this together.

Strength in empathy,
Egg-O

this same debate was going down during the end Dr. Drew's program last night and here is what I think

saying the shot came first is MORE heinous..if he did not drop immedietly and we know Travis didn't due to the defensive wounds on his hands,then he was already in a great deal of pain..confusion and shock when chica started using the knife. That is far more worse than what the prosecution claims happened..IMO

I dont care that she claims to not of seen blood after the shot..there would of been ALOT of blood and even if he was still coming at her it wasn't in an attempt to take her life but rather an instinctual act of self preservation after having just been shot in the head...

sooooo regardless of our varying theories bout when the shot occurred I say let the jury make up their mind..cuz I do believe anyone with any common sense would agree that a bullet ripping thru the face of a dead body is far less horrible than 29 stab wounds into a man already suffering a gunshot wound to the head

catching up... I don't see how JSS can let Dr. G talk about any ME issue... the ME said in the state's CIC that if the shot came first that TA wouldn't be able to fight back therefore no defensive wounds and how didn he get down the hall and then in the shower... During their 5 years on the stand the Dt had plently of time to bring someone one in for their CIC to rebutt this but they didn't, they rested. Having the Dt bring on Dr. G and do a rebuttbutt is indeed a second bite of the apple because they knew Dr. D's diagnosis for over a year, they could have brought someone in to rebutt but they didn't. But to have Dr. G discuss the brain injury to me is getting a chance to eat the entire apple...

Has anyone taken the time to pick apart the defense theory? That's something the jury would do, right?
Like harping over and over TA was a 'fake' Mormon.. Because he was having sex?
Where were all the people on the stand for Jodi? Did she have a single friend besides Searcy?

I'm sorry but i think either JA did a little slap and tickle with Searcy or promised him some yuck yuck... He creeps me out just like Dr. S...

the messages in the mags... I don't recall the jury asking questions about them when JM showed the actual messages then when AL was on the stand and he asked about the mags again were there any questions about them? I remember something like were the messages for you but don't remember who asked it... I think it was to show JA's character, look at this foul-mouthed little sneak breaking the jail rules, and coaching testimony...

Maybe the dt testifying Tom, in their attempt, since he knows brain stuff. He may be able to testify how a brain can still fx ect ect, as in examples of people getting screw drivers in the head and walking around. BUT.. This would have been a matter of THEIR case, and IMO, late. This isn't their first 'rodeo'. I won't be surprised if she lets it in, nothing surprises me any more

What if the mags were for Darryl? IMO, he 'f%^#{€' up her case with the gas cans. He did say wonderful things about her (just like the lovely post card she sent that was on dr.d last night)