It's not at all uncommon, though, as a security. My friend did time in high school because he broke into a chick's apartment to get his leather jacket back after fucking her, and when the cops busted him, a pair of her panties fell out of the jacket. So he went to jail for stealing panties.Originally Posted by GlassHat
the defense is saying because she was charge w/ premeditated murder 1 w/ lesser charge of felony murder - that they did not meet the requirements for felony murder - because felony murder is murder committed during the commission of a crime because she was not proven to steal the gun, did not break into travis' house - that the only real crime committed was the murder so she was charged incorrectly - if the judge finds this true, then she has to dismiss all charges - and this might be some thing, because the prosecutors only real arguement was after the first stab, every other stab was a seperate crime - idk - if you read the felony murder statute - idk if it fits.... defense is saying they were being sneaky making this the lesser charge because the punishment for both charges are still murder 1
I see. It's going to be something if she dismisses this trial. I have so many legal questions I want to ask my bro, but I don't want him to know I am this wrapped up in a case I have no personal ties to.
I'm wondering why they used burglary as the crime anyway, like why not aggravated assault to back up the felony murder charge. Here's the legal definition; A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.
We know he was stabbed first and the prosecution contends that also. Aggravated assault is not only a crime, but a felony. I'm just confused because there are other factors that constitute felony murder. Also, Why did the prosecution rest today? That wasn't the plan.
That pic of the two of them NEEDS to be a MEME. It's perfect! She did look pretty defeated in court today. I think she's wearing down.
ok - so aggravated assualt is the crime martinez is arguing for the felony murder - but the defense says it is not 2 crimes, they are saying some thing to the point it has to be 2 separate crimes and the assualt and the murder are the same - idk - why would they take a slam dunk case like this and and give her a charge that can be questioned? - maybe you can tell ask your bro and tell him its for a friendI see. It's going to be something if she dismisses this trial. I have so many legal questions I want to ask my bro, but I don't want him to know I am this wrapped up in a case I have no personal ties to.
I'm wondering why they used burglary as the crime anyway, like why not aggravated assault to back up the felony murder charge. Here's the legal definition; A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.
We know he was stabbed first and the prosecution contends that also. Aggravated assault is not only a crime, but a felony. I'm just confused because there are other factors that constitute felony murder. Also, Why did the prosecution rest today? That wasn't the plan.because i am really curious if the defense has a point..
I was wondering what they were talking about after the state rested. thank you for explaining that. Makes a lot more sense now.
I can't believe Travis said this! Spoooky!
Look at what this news report shows you about Travis' blog on myspace.com. It's mind-blowing what he wrote just shortly before he died..."This type of dating is like a very long job interview...desperately trying to find out if my date has an axe murderer penned up inside of her."
"When it comes time to die, let us not discover that we have never lived." ~ Henry David Thoreau
"Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall. ~ Confucius
the defense also tried to say they didn't meet the murder of premeditation - but that won't fly - but since the begining when i read her charges and read the felony murder statute, i didnt really know how it fit - but boy i hope i am wrong
Yeah, I'm going to talk to him about it because my curiosity is killing me.ok - so aggravated assualt is the crime martinez is arguing for the felony murder - but the defense says it is not 2 crimes, they are saying some thing to the point it has to be 2 separate crimes and the assualt and the murder are the same - idk - why would they take a slam dunk case like this and and give her a charge that can be questioned? - maybe you can tell ask your bro and tell him its for a friend
Do you have any idea why the prosecution rested?
I'm hoping she just breaks down and says "okay, i did it" ......CRACK bitch. Just for shit and grins...does anyone in this thread think she's innocent?
no idea - if fact he still had a bunch of witnesses to call - i guess he felt it was right - he has a very impressive win record, so i guess he knows
guilty!
Yeah he had several witnesses left to call, that's why it's odd to me. Based on what I just saw this witness for the prosecution did more harm for them than good, imo. Not a very good way to end their case.no idea - if fact he still had a bunch of witnesses to call - i guess he felt it was right - he has a very impressive win record, so i guess he knows
And where is Kristinella
Ron, I believe you're being paged.
11428 posts in this thread. Wasn't that Travis's house number?
No.
What the heck am I going to do at work for the next week and a half
I imagine that he felt he proved his case and it was time to rest. There is always the risk of boring the crap out of the jury with a string of witnesses that don't add much more to the case.
"...Jeffrey Dahmer... actually confessed and accepted his punishment. Had real remorse for the sick things he did. It's pretty bad when Jeffrey Dahmer is a better person than you are." ~Justice11 (re: Jodi Arias)
I'm here! I was watching Nancy Grace (ugh) and she asked, "In the beginning of the trial the defense ADMITTED that Jodi did it! Why are they asking about the other roommates?" The woman was like, "Yeah, the jury isn't listening." (In regards to them asking about the alibi of the witnesses)And where is Kristinella
Seriously though. I agree the last witness was a weak one to end with.
Is it? That is creeptastic.
Yay!
Yeah, that's what has me confused, too. Jennifer Willmott clearly told the jury that "Jodi killed Travis, there's no question about that", so really, what the hell is going on in the jury's mind? I wonder also what kind of play the defense will make off of these questions from the jury. No doubt they will use it to their advantage if there's a feasible way.
NG keeps saying the same thing over and over again. why do I watch this shit?
There are currently 47 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 47 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
