Page 706 of 1560 FirstFirst ... 2066066566967047057067077087167568061206 ... LastLast
Results 17,626 to 17,650 of 38987

Thread: Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death (Part II)

  1. #17626
    Senior Member wasthinking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,585
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    Ever been to Greenwich? Don't say it like Jodi or you'll get slapped.
    You are being ridiculous now. The trial isn't in Greenwich. geesh
    "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin

  2. #17627
    Senior Member olgasbunghole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    672
    Rep Power
    11264800
    Quote Originally Posted by tiggrrl72077 View Post
    Even if she is still claiming to be Mormon she never went through the temple so she wouldn't have garments. Only worthy members, who have been through the temple, wear garments.
    I'm not sure if she still claims to be Mormon. I'm pretty sure she did on the 48 hours interview but I don't know anymore
    thank you, and it's good to know that she's never been worthy of even receiving garments.

  3. #17628
    a little ray of sunshine *crickets*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW VA
    Posts
    3,190
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by alyoop View Post
    Wow. Can I ask you if you had formed any opinions before the deliberations began? was there any point that it just hit you, whoa, guilty? or did the deliberations sway you one way or the other? did you vote first and then ask questions to confirm verdict, i.e were there holdouts and needed to see and talk about things inorder to reach their opinion? how important was the forensics? I have a billion questions... feel like a jerk for asking so many, but I am sooo curious how a jury deliberates once it starts
    Me too, I'd love to hear more.

  4. #17629
    Senior Member alyoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    653
    Rep Power
    9840552
    Quote Originally Posted by tiggrrl72077 View Post
    Even if she is still claiming to be Mormon she never went through the temple so she wouldn't have garments. Only worthy members, who have been through the temple, wear garments.
    I'm not sure if she still claims to be Mormon. I'm pretty sure she did on the 48 hours interview but I don't know anymore
    Was she ever really Mormon? I think it was all a mask for Travis... jmo
    I don't think she gave a fig about Mormon philosophy, principle or religion... it was all for Travis. Travis wants a nice Mormon girl, I will BE that girl

  5. #17630
    Senior Member Lady MacBeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    in your dreams
    Posts
    336
    Rep Power
    12544334
    The case Nurmi cited was: State v. Talmadge, 999 P. 2d 192 - Ariz:Supreme Court 2000

    In that case, the Defendant was charged with criminal child abuse when her child was found to have broken bones.
    Defendant hired Dr. Marvin Miller to testify as her principal (temporary brittle Bone Disease) TBBD expert. It was Dr. Miller?s opinion that the child had temporary brittle bone disease.

    For whatever reason, Dr. Miller (who was from Ohio) could not appear for trial in Arizona so defendant picked another expert on TBBD, Dr. Colin Paterson of Scotland who was arguably the world's preeminent TBBD expert.

    Because of money concerns, the defense ended up hiring Dr. Richard Roberts, who, in his career, had diagnosed only one TBBD patient and clearly lacked the experience and credentials of either Miller or Paterson.

    At the eleventh hour, defense counsel listed the amazing Dr. Paterson as a surrebuttal witness. The State moved to exclude his testimony because he was identified so late.

    Poor Dr. Roberts testified for defendant and apparently did not do a very good job.

    The State's expert, Dr. Erickson, destroyed Dr. Robert's credibility. Basically made him look like a bufoon.

    Defendant ended up convicted of criminal child abuse and sentenced to two consecutive seventeen year sentences.

    On appeal, the Arizona Supreme court found that Dr. Patterson's testimony should not have been excluded. The following is an excerpt from the court's opinion:

    Surrebuttal testimony may be offered to introduce evidence in response to new rebuttal testimony or to impeach rebuttal testimony and must be more than cumulative. See id. at 319-20, 585 P.2d at 1231-32. "Only in rare cases will it be error for the trial court to refuse to admit the testimony." Id. at 319, 585 P.2d at 1231.

    Evidence that is merely cumulative is generally held inadmissible when proferred as surrebuttal testimony. See State v. Jensen, 153 Ariz. 171, 179, 735 P.2d 781, 789 (1987) (surrebuttal testimony inadmissible as "cumulative and unnecessary to any fair and proper determination[s] of the issues"). Paterson's testimony, on the other hand, would have been more than cumulative. It was also corroborative in that it "went to the heart of appellants' defense." State v. Kennedy, 122 Ariz. 22, 27, 592 P.2d 1288, 1293 (1979).

    Moreover, Paterson's testimony was intended to impeach Erickson, something he was capable of doing based in part on his vast experience in defining and diagnosing TBBD. Paterson has diagnosed in excess of 800 cases. Roberts, having diagnosed only one case, was incapable of the depth of analysis that Paterson's superior experience would afford. With Roberts' limited testimony, the defendant was left at a distinct disadvantage.


    Specifically, Roberts was able to testify only that TBBD exists due to a problem in producing collagen, that he had diagnosed one case, and that he had heard of Paterson. He explained how pediatricians identify child abuse and that TBBD children have broken bones without any form of intervening trauma. He evaluated the child's medical records in this case and concluded that TBBD existed here. He also discussed some of Paterson's work.

    Viewing Roberts' testimony in the broadest sense, he was able to do no more than describe TBBD and assert that the child suffered from the condition. Specific evidence indicates Roberts was able to give only the most sparse explanations of the disease by reason of his limited experience in diagnosis.

    Dr. Erickson testified to reviewing Paterson's literature, severely critiqued Roberts by stating that no one took him seriously, criticized Paterson's work, and stated that TBBD did not exist. Had Paterson testified, he would have discussed the array of cases he has seen in light of his own experience and the diagnoses arising therefrom.

    Both Paterson and Miller had the credentials to critique and evaluate Erickson's assessment of TBBD and Erickson's harsh criticisms of Roberts. Roberts clearly lacked those credentials. Moreover, Erickson, on rebuttal, raised Roberts' credibility anew. By reason of that alone, since Miller could not be brought in, the defense should have been given the opportunity to call Paterson as a surrebuttal witness. Based on these extraordinary facts, the "rare case" of an abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to admit surrebuttal testimony is present.


    Accordingly, the trial court's ruling that excluded Paterson's testimony deprived the defendant of the only real opportunity she might have had to introduce meaningful exculpatory evidence. The exclusion culminated in her conviction and lengthy prison sentence. Had the evidence been allowed, she might have been absolved. Without it, she had little hope. The error is reversible.


    In my humble opinion this case is not like Talmadge. First, as the Supreme Court noted the facts in that case were "extraordinary" and that "Only in rare cases will it be error for the trial court to refuse to admit the testimony."

    The Talmadge Court found that Dr. Patterson's testimony would not have been cumulative Because the testimony of Dr. Patterson was more than cumulative. It was also corroborative in that it "went to the heart of appellants' defense."

    Let's apply Talmadge to this case:

    State charged JA with M1.

    Defense was = self defense. Dr. LaViolette testified that the reason why JA killed TA was because she was justifiably scared of him based on a long history of domestic violence/abuse. According to a cherry picking of some of the many texts, LaViolette testified that JA was sweet, kind, quiet, did not respond to TA's tirades, basically that she was submissive.

    The state rebutted Dr. LaViolette's testimony with Dr. DeMarte who testified that JA did not suffer Domestic violence. She, looked at OTHER texts and other evidence such as interviews with relatives which showed that JA was manipulative, aggressive, had stalking tendancies, changed to fit in with boyfriends, all signs of BPD.

    NOW, the DT's proffered surrebuttal witness is Dr. G, a well regarded domestic violence/abuse expert. So, he is presumably there to bolster the domestic violence self defense theory. I have not seen the DT?' "offer of proof" so I do not know EXACTLY what he will testify to. I would imagine he will testify that TA's texts were abusive and that JA's behaviors were normal reactions for someone who had been subjected to domestic abuse/violence.

    2 Million dollar question: should it be allowed in? I believe it is cumulative of LaViolate's testimony. JA= killed TA in self defense because she was a battered woman.

    DeMarte offered another explanation for JA's behaviors and she identified other texts, witness testimony that JA crawled into windows, stalked. And that TRAVIS was afraid of Her.

    What can Dr. G add to this? What exactly is he going to"?refute" that was new? There was testimony that TA was scared of her and called her a stalker. That fact that Dr. DeMarte believed JA had BPD does not deprive her of her self defense. It's a side issue. Its "collateral" to the main issue. She still said she was scared for her life when she killed him BPD or no BPD.

    The problem with letting just so the Judge doesn't get reversedis it sets a bad precedent. Bad lawyering does not justify surrebuttal.

    All that said: I do believe Judge Stevens will allow it for the simple reason that she does not want to be reversed.
    Last edited by Lady MacBeth; 04-25-2013 at 04:45 PM.


    Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... Here?s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand!

    "Stop being dicks to noobs." -mydeathspace

  6. #17631
    Senior Member lorizfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    540
    Rep Power
    10580913
    Quote Originally Posted by denn View Post
    I would like to know if the judge has said to the defense that they can only have x amount of hours? Knowing Willmont, she will just give JM about 5 minutes.
    I was thinking the same thing.
    :o)

  7. #17632
    Senior Member wasthinking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,585
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by M Joy View Post
    I think until closing arguments are done, we shouldn't judge JM's tactics. Do you honestly think he's just going through the motions? He's been prosecuting this case since day 1. He's not about to just ho-hum through the end now.
    People were criticizing him a bunch during the defense case saying he wasn't talking about premeditation. Yet really he established a lot of premeditation through out the case. And he backed it up this week with proof. He discredited the abuse and pedo accusations.
    He's still setting everything up for the end, when the defense can't come back and try and act like the jury is stupid.
    Why not, Nurmi's are judged nonstop daily. No reason to have a double standard. It's not unreasonable to judge JMs equally. I kind of agree with cricket in that JM seemed tired the last couple of days. I think everyone is like a juror and may want different questions addressed. The problem is, there is no way that would ever happen. Some question will never be answered, some are stupid questions, some are too emotional and have little significance for the case and so on. But I don't think people are wrong to feel let down. It did end with a whimper. That's what reviews usually are but we've been spoiled partying to hard on JMs previous fire days. We all had our own Christmas lists made out lol. Heck I had hoped for more than brown hair and helio from Brown. Give me Intrusions, bank fraud - dammit, I didn't get them :( I feel like I got hand me downs and the wrapping was missing the bow.
    "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin

  8. #17633
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    The woman that Travis wanted to marry is on NG. She is beautiful. He wrote her the most amazing poem.

  9. #17634
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    778
    Rep Power
    4064070
    The pictures of Travis and Linda are really sad... :/

  10. #17635
    Senior Member Metis212's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    709
    Rep Power
    21474839
    Quote Originally Posted by Harlette View Post
    that makes sense what you are saying - but the one thing the defense never touched on was how could jodi have done all she did after the murder if she really had battere womens syndrome and was in a fog?? is there an explanation for that?
    I didn't think the defense's explanation for Jodi's alleged amnesia was sufficient. Samuels' explanation was wacky. Had they been better at this game, they might have said Jodi's hippocampus was atrophied due to complex trauma and/or the personality disorder and that she was further traumatized by the "necessity" of killing Travis. But they failed miserably.

    The prosecution was a step ahead of the amnesia claim and did the proper testing to show her "working memory" was intact. So intact that it was measurable on instruments commonly used with typical people. That was discussed during DeMarte's testimony. What i found fascinating was the defense experts (all 11 of them) approached Jodi with too many specialized tests which made it so easy to lie.

    To me there is no evidence that Jodi has no memory. In fact, the actions Jodi took after the murder prove her brain was functioning on full throttle.

  11. #17636
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    Quote Originally Posted by olgasbunghole View Post
    does anyone else on here get knots in their stomach from this trial? I swear that my blood pressure goes up and the knots get tighter with the thought.............. that one juror believes stabby!
    Yes. In fact, another defense guest on NC said he would be happy with the ME testimony, in that she did not use the gun first, so there goes premeditation. Here is another idea for Nurmi to latch on to.

  12. #17637
    Senior Member Rockabillychick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    21474839
    Quote Originally Posted by wasthinking View Post
    You are being ridiculous now. The trial isn't in Greenwich. geesh
    It's like someone axing you a question...
    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    So that's why she didn't get pregnant. I didn't know that method works!
    Oh, coconut
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellaboo View Post
    I had the privilege of being a juror on a Murder 1 case 2 yrs ago.... 2 counts of murder one, 2 counts of aggravated assault ... 2 dead young men, young defendant who fled to NC for 2 years. Young female prosecutor, middle aged defense atty who appeared uninterested and a regal looking female judge who just exuded class ... her court room was run efficiently . The jurors ranged from 21 to 60's ... trial took two weeks. One of the jurors was excused 8 days in because of a scheduling conflict. There was forensic evidence but the gun deft used was never recovered. We could take notes but the notebooks were collected by clerk at the end of the day. The witnesses for the prosecution were all in jail at time of trial but had been involved in the fight that turned into a shootout on a June day in 2006. My co-jurors took our responsibility very seriously. Our deliberations lasted about two hours and we agreed on all counts. The judge came in t o talk to us and said we did the right thing. The deft was offered 2nd degree by the State and could have been released in
    15 years but refused. She said that since he was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder, the sentence was automatic life without parole. We each had to stand and affirm our individual verdict. My heart was pounding. It was an incredible experience. I have a lot of respect for prosecutors. This woman was about 30 . She handled all of her exhibits alone and they were marked with t he name of the accomplice who had been tried two years before. The state does not have a lot of funds so I can see where they have to be selective about hiring experts. Anyway just wanted to share that. I know how I stressed I felt regarding judging someone guilty of first degree murder without the death penalty. I will say a prayer for them when the case is turned over to them.
    Thank you for the post. This is interesting. My question would be did the defendant take the stand?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnnieBelle View Post
    I also think that a lot of our emotions come from knowing that the end of the trial is near. Over the last few months, the members of this thread have shared the ups and downs of following this trial. We have picked each other up, after we got the snot beaten out of us. We have laughed together, cried together, and tucked and rolled....together. As a group, we challenged one another, and ourselves, in the process. We learned to think outside the box, at times. And we've gained respect and wisdom for it all. It's like senior year, with graduation looming. I suddenly want to sing that song.....the one at the end of "Grease" Ramma Lamma Ding Dong.
    Now the song will be stuck in my head all night! I will miss this group as well. I am undecided on whether I will actually hang around after this is all over.

  13. #17638
    Squealing like a cat M Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    5,521
    Rep Power
    21474846
    Quote Originally Posted by wasthinking View Post
    Why not, Nurmi's are judged nonstop daily. No reason to have a double standard. It's not unreasonable to judge JMs equally. I kind of agree with cricket in that JM seemed tired the last couple of days. I think everyone is like a juror and may want different questions addressed. The problem is, there is no way that would ever happen. Some question will never be answered, some are stupid questions, some are too emotional and have little significance for the case and so on. But I don't think people are wrong to feel let down. It did end with a whimper. That's what reviews usually are but we've been spoiled partying to hard on JMs previous fire days. We all had our own Christmas lists made out lol. Heck I had hoped for more than brown hair and helio from Brown. Give me Intrusions, bank fraud - dammit, I didn't get them :( I feel like I got hand me downs and the wrapping was missing the bow.
    I had a feeling you'd have a problem with my post. I'm just coming from the point of view of who each attorney represents in this perspective. JM represents Travis Alexander, his family and the State of Arizona. Nurmi and Willmott represent a lying, manipulating, self admitted killer. Yes of course I'm biased in who I'm pulling for.
    But when I think overall who has proven their case? Definitely the prosecution. There is no doubt in my mind that Jodi planned this out, got in her car, took steps to hide her tracks, drove to Travis' house, murdered him, and then proceeded to try and cover it up, lie, make up crap about the victim in order to save her own life.
    All the defense has proven to me is that she is more vicious that I originally thought when this trial started.
    Last edited by M Joy; 04-25-2013 at 04:33 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monter View Post
    When fucking, ALWAYS alert your partner of oncoming trains. Its just basic courtesy.

  14. #17639
    Senior Member Sneakers the Wonder Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    If I told you then I'd have to find a new place to hide
    Posts
    5,509
    Rep Power
    21474843
    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    Many defendants are not even in custody (out on bail) during trial. So Jodi is actually at a massive disadvantage in how much she can interact with others that could help her (friends, investigators, etc) without scrutiny.
    TA is at a massive disadvantage in how much he can interact with others that could help him (investigators, etc) because he's dead. When you brutally murder someone and then lie repeatedly about it, it should be a bit of a handicap


    Quote Originally Posted by Ian 1 View Post
    Please say it isn't Wilmott and that it won't be on Friday. I'll be in an airplane flying not too far from Phoenix that day. Do you think her 'screech' will interfere with the electronic system? Should I warn the crew?

    Warn the airlines. Willmott's voice reaches unnatural frequencies heard only by dogs and automatic garage doors

    Quote Originally Posted by *crickets* View Post
    Like several other members have said, I'm feeling a bit let down today. It seems like we're ending not with a bang but a whimper.

    To me it kinda feels like both sides are fed up and just going thru the motions...like yesterday when Nurmi had no questions for the Walmart lady, just couldn't be arsed as our UK friends would say. It was a big issue going against his case and there were things I was wondering about but he apparently just couldn't be bothered. And Martinez, rushing thru the closet shelf stuff yesterday and today not bringing up the bullet trajectory with the ME at all is puzzling, especially after he had taken such pains to have Jodi get up in front of the jury to demonstrate the linebacker pose earlier. IIRC he asked the judge for permission to do the demonstration, they sent the jury out, had her do the pose, then brought the jury back in and had her do it again. And then, nothing. Why do all that and then not do anything with it?

    It just feels a little half-hearted this week, from both sides...
    I didn't feel/think JM was half hearted at all. The defense dragging it's feet to the bitter end may have made it feel that way for some. JM's case in chief only took NINE Days. JM runs a tight ship, nothing less than is needed and nothing more than is needed to get the conviction. Less for the defense to pick at and less for her to appeal after she gets convicted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harlette View Post
    that makes sense what you are saying - but the one thing the defense never touched on was how could jodi have done all she did after the murder if she really had battered womens syndrome and was in a fog?? is there an explanation for that?
    That's what Samuels was for, Alyce couldn't really go there because she doesn't have the qualifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harlette View Post
    i'm gonna smudge my house when this trial is over
    We all should. Hopefully we'll all feel better after the verdict/sentencing


    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    So that's why she didn't get pregnant. I didn't know that method works!
    Stabby's narcissism wouldn't support another life form.

    Quote Originally Posted by dizzyp View Post
    he either underestimated her crazy or overestimated her humanity. or both.
    Sadly both it seems

    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    Random Favorite Trial Moment

    Wordnerd Jodi is asked about GMT and brutally mispronounces it as "GREEN-Witch mean time".



    I know Arizona is far from New York and England, but it should sound more like Grenich!!! For fuck's sake you're making our country look dumb!!!
    According to the JAII brain trust people who pronounce it as GREEN-witch are idiots/morons. Guess they skipped the days when she said it that way while on the stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by zeebee View Post
    Dear Diary, I'm so fucked. I don't think they're buying it. Love Jodi

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady MacBeth View Post
    In my humble opinion this case is not like Talmadge. First, as the Supreme Court noted the facts in that case were ?extraordinary? and that "Only in rare cases will it be error for the trial court to refuse to admit the testimony."

    The Talmadge Court found that Dr. Patterson?s testimony would not have been cumulative Because the testimony of Dr. Patterson was more than cumulative. It was also corroborative in that it "went to the heart of appellants' defense.

    Let?s apply Talmadge to this case:

    State charged JA with M1.

    Defense was = self defense. Dr. LaViolette testified that the reason why JA killed TA was because she was justifiably scared of him based on a long history of domestic violence/abuse. According to a cherry picking of some of the many texts, LaViolette testified that JA was sweet, kind, quiet, did not respond to TA?s tirades, basically that she was submissive.

    The state rebutted Dr. LaViolette?s testimony with Dr. DeMarte who testified that JA did not suffer Domestic violence. She, looked at OTHER texts and other evidence such as interviews with relatives which showed that JA was manipulative, aggressive, had stalking tendancies, changed to fit in with boyfriends, all signs of BPD.

    NOW, the DT?s proffered surrebuttal witness is Dr. G, a well regarded domestic violence/abuse expert. So, he is presumably there to bolster the domestic violence self defense theory. I have not seen the DT?s ?offer of proof? so I do not know EXACTLY what he will testify to. I would imagine he will testify that TA?s texts were abusive and that JA?s behaviors were normal reactions for someone who had been subjected to domestic abuse/violence.

    2 Million dollar question: should it be allowed in? I believe it is cumulative of LaViolate?s testimony. JA= killed TA in self defense because she was a battered woman.

    DeMarte another explanation for JA?s behaviors and she identified other texts, witness testimony that JA crawled into windows, stalked. And that TRAVIS was afraid of Her.

    What can Dr. G add to this? What exactly is he going to ?refute? that was new? There was testimony that TA was scared of her and called her a stalker. That fact that Dr. DeMarte believed JA had BPD does not deprive her of her self defense. It?s a side issue. Its collateral to the main issue. She still said she was scared for her life when she killed him BPD or no BPD.

    The problem with letting it in is it sets a bad precedent. Bad lawyering does not justify surrebuttal.

    All that said: I do believe Judge Stevens will allow it for the simple reason that she does not want to be reversed.
    Great information. Thank you!
    http://mydeathspace.com/vb/signaturepics/sigpic83661_1.gif

  15. #17640
    Senior Member wasthinking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,585
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by M Joy View Post
    I had a feeling you'd have a problem with my post. I'm just coming from the point of view of who each attorney represents in this perspective. JM represents Travis Alexander, his family and the State of Arizona. Nurmi and Willmott represent a lying, manipulating, self admitted killer. Yes of course I'm biased in who I'm pulling for.
    But when I think overall who has proven their case? Definitely the prosecution. There is no doubt in my mind that Jodi planned this out, got in her car, took steps to hide her tracks, drove to Travis' house, murdered him, and then proceeded to try and cover it up, lie, make up crap about the victim in order to save her own life.
    All the defense has proven to me is that she is more vicious that I originally thought when this trial started.
    you were right, I will always have a problem with double standards. Sometimes it is hard to try to be fair, but I can't stop trying. It wasn't about who I believe, or think what has been proven. It's about working to at least try to be fair and objective and not have a lynch mob approach.
    "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin

  16. #17641
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    OMG, someone has released a front face photo of Travis on the autopsy table. It is horrendous. I don't know how a human being can do this to another. It is beyond my capacity to understand.

  17. #17642
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    Quote Originally Posted by denn View Post
    OMG, someone has released a front face photo of Travis on the autopsy table. It is horrendous. I don't know how a human being can do this to another. It is beyond my capacity to understand.
    After seeing the bullet wound, there is no way in hell he ran after. It had to be impossible.

  18. #17643
    Senior Member wasthinking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,585
    Rep Power
    21474841
    Quote Originally Posted by MadameX View Post
    The pictures of Travis and Linda are really sad... :/
    Quote Originally Posted by denn View Post
    The woman that Travis wanted to marry is on NG. She is beautiful. He wrote her the most amazing poem.
    Good grief where did this one come from now? So the ring wasn't a left over from Deanna as has been said for how long now? Or Mimi? Or? whatever woman of the month was since Flores labeled him a "player". What is the time frame of this new addition?
    "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin

  19. #17644
    Senior Member Lady MacBeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    in your dreams
    Posts
    336
    Rep Power
    12544334
    Quote Originally Posted by alyoop View Post
    Was she ever really Mormon? I think it was all a mask for Travis... jmo
    I don't think she gave a fig about Mormon philosophy, principle or religion... it was all for Travis. Travis wants a nice Mormon girl, I will BE that girl
    next, she'll meet some nice Amish girl in prison and argue for her rights to grow a 2-foot long beard in the name of religion


    Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... Here?s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand!

    "Stop being dicks to noobs." -mydeathspace

  20. #17645
    Senior Member Bellaboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Philadelphia Pa.
    Posts
    1,081
    Rep Power
    21474839
    Quote Originally Posted by alyoop View Post
    Wow. Can I ask you if you had formed any opinions before the deliberations began? was there any point that it just hit you, whoa, guilty? or did the deliberations sway you one way or the other? did you vote first and then ask questions to confirm verdict, i.e were there holdouts and needed to see and talk about things inorder to reach their opinion? how important was the forensics? I have a billion questions... feel like a jerk for asking so many, but I am sooo curious how a jury deliberates once it starts
    Yes I did form an opinion before actual.deliberations. We never discussed the case until we were given t he case. A young woman offered to be the foreman or forewoman. We took an initial vote ... it was 9 -3 guilty. We all stated why we felt that way. I was able to answer the doubts of two jurors because of the notes I took during the witnesses 'testimony' ... our conversations were civil and respectful. The judge's clerk checked in with us and said we were quiet.
    She said the jury before was screaming at each other during deliberations. The.most important testimony was the witnesses for the prosecution putting that recovered gun in the defendant's hands. The deft did not take the stand.
    It was a fascinating experience.

    "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves" .. Confucius
    "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation " ...... Henry David Thoreau

  21. #17646
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    Quote Originally Posted by wasthinking View Post
    Good grief where did this one come from now? So the ring wasn't a left over from Deanna as has been said for how long now? Or Mimi? Or? whatever woman of the month was since Flores labeled him a "player". What is the time frame of this new addition?
    He had meet Linda in 2000. He went out and bought a wedding ring,which she did not know about. She decided that she did not want to be involved with prepaid legal and would not make a good wife for him. She never knew about the ring until later. He saved it all that time.

  22. #17647
    Senior Member Sneakers the Wonder Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    If I told you then I'd have to find a new place to hide
    Posts
    5,509
    Rep Power
    21474843
    Quote Originally Posted by denn View Post
    Yes. In fact, another defense guest on NC said he would be happy with the ME testimony, in that she did not use the gun first, so there goes premeditation. Here is another idea for Nurmi to latch on to.
    Denn do yourself a favor and shut the tv off, or at least HLN

    Quote Originally Posted by denn View Post
    OMG, someone has released a front face photo of Travis on the autopsy table. It is horrendous. I don't know how a human being can do this to another. It is beyond my capacity to understand.
    Most of us have already seen them. MDS was one of the first (maybe the first, to have pictures of his body.

    Quote Originally Posted by wasthinking View Post
    Good grief where did this one come from now? So the ring wasn't a left over from Deanna as has been said for how long now? Or Mimi? Or? whatever woman of the month was since Flores labeled him a "player". What is the time frame of this new addition?
    Linda Ballard Boss was with TA after Deanna Reid. This is the lady that Nurmi was trying torment Deanna with about marriage questions on Tuesday (probably on instruction from Stabby)
    http://mydeathspace.com/vb/signaturepics/sigpic83661_1.gif

  23. #17648
    Senior Member Sneakers the Wonder Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    If I told you then I'd have to find a new place to hide
    Posts
    5,509
    Rep Power
    21474843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady MacBeth View Post
    next, she'll meet some nice Amish girl in prison and argue for her rights to grow a 2-foot long beard in the name of religion
    She's got a good start on the moustache!
    http://mydeathspace.com/vb/signaturepics/sigpic83661_1.gif

  24. #17649
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,304
    Rep Power
    4937955
    New autopsy photos have surfaced and I am really shocked by the extent of damage to Travis. I now believe she is going to get the dp. The bullet wound to the head shows it had to enter the brain. Willmont's argument about the brain being decomposed it a desperate grasp at best. I have seen cadavers and brains.

    On another note, they are going to appeal. It was said that loosing a 3rd juror was appeal material. Don't ask me why.

  25. #17650
    Senior Member Lady MacBeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    in your dreams
    Posts
    336
    Rep Power
    12544334
    Quote Originally Posted by *crickets* View Post
    Hi Sneakers, to me she just looks medicated, heavily medicated. I wonder what psych meds she is on.

    The other things that occur to me watching the video are one, as noted before, Travis had A LOT of shoes! And two, Nurmi's pants are about 3 sizes too small. He's stuffed into those things like a sausage.
    yea i'd like to know whats so godamned tasty that mo fo can't stop eating


    Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... Here?s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand!

    "Stop being dicks to noobs." -mydeathspace

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •