Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death

[GlassHat]

For the record, I don't think Glasshat is trolling. It's not so much what she says, but how she says it that get me up sitting up straight sometimes. It's just her way. I do strongly believe it's all in the telling, how you say something that can offend people sometimes. Not you GH, generic you, as in all of us. I hope that makes sense.

I know what you mean and you're totally right.

I'm abrasive sometimes. I have as much passion about what I believe in as everyone else.

[beli]

I know what you mean and you're totally right.

I'm abrasive sometimes. I have as much passion about what I believe in as everyone else.

SHUT UP, TROLL!

[Crazy Lady]

I know! I don't think we've agreed on any case yet. Lol

[GlassHat]

SHUT UP, TROLL!

[GlassHat]

I know! I don't think we've agreed on any case yet. Lol

No, we haven't lol.

But, neither of us take it personally. I can disagree with you on every point, and you can with me, but at the end of the day we realize it's only our opinions. That's the great thing. Though I'm pretty sure I've made you want to bite nails before. Haha. Sorry.

[Crazy Lady]

Oh hell yeah! I've reached an age where I don't take much personally anymore.

[aaronsmommy]

Is it Monday yet?

[MadameX]

Is it Monday yet?

I hope that if she's gonna testify, she does it on Monday. Tuesday through Friday is gonna be work hell...

I'm gonna rely in you folks to keep me up to speed.

[zeebee]

For the record, I don't think Glasshat is trolling. It's not so much what she says, but how she says it that get me up sitting up straight sometimes. It's just her way. I do strongly believe it's all in the telling, how you say something that can offend people sometimes. Not you GH, generic you, as in all of us. I hope that makes sense.

It's called tact. She's a little lean on it sometimes.

[Harlette]

well i have to stop reading this lat at nite - first i dreamed my mormon husband was yelling at me for my whoredom an last nite i dreamt my sister wives wouldn't let my drive my own car - the bitches wouldn't even let me sit in the front seat!

[Justice11]

well i have to stop reading this lat at nite - first i dreamed my mormon husband was yelling at me for my whoredom an last nite i dreamt my sister wives wouldn't let my drive my own car - the bitches wouldn't even let me sit in the front seat!

[beli]

well i have to stop reading this lat at nite - first i dreamed my mormon husband was yelling at me for my whoredom an last nite i dreamt my sister wives wouldn't let my drive my own car - the bitches wouldn't even let me sit in the front seat!

[DenverClipper]

No, we haven't lol.

But, neither of us take it personally. I can disagree with you on every point, and you can with me, but at the end of the day we realize it's only our opinions. That's the great thing. Though I'm pretty sure I've made you want to bite nails before. Haha. Sorry.

I respect all opinions here. Having said that - I think some of us could be more sensitive when referring to the deceased as being such a "shitty" person. Especially when the accuser has never met the murder victim. Just saying...

[gutsywoman]

I'm not okay with a whole "sisterwives" scenario. I could totally get down with some "Brotherhusband" action, though.

[DenverClipper]

Trolling. Because one has a differing opinion... broken record.
Victim friendly? This isn't some show you're watching on ABCfamily.

You know precisely what is meant when folks here accuse you of trolling. I've watched you doing it here for days. When you get posters riled up you retreat bacteria to your standard "that's not what I meant" routine.

ABCfamily? I actually much prefer the food network.

[DenverClipper]

Oops. Bacteria was supposed to read back to. No offense intended. I hate spell check

[Harlette]

I'm not okay with a whole "sisterwives" scenario. I could totally get down with some "Brotherhusband" action, though.

yep - and i wouldn't let them drive my dam car - just fix it

[animosity]

i have a couple of points to make, first - about the gun, and second, about the defense.

the gun is circumstantial, in that she was never charged with stealing it, it hasn't been found... i think they can probably bring it up because it matches and it's completely obvious that he was shot with it, and apparently she agrees that she shot him.

my question is - when, in a case where a defendant is claiming self defense, and admits to killing someone, is she asked to disclose issues such as these? where is the gun you used? where is the knife? what order did it happen?

how are we to believe, now, after soooooo many lies, that she did in fact kill him, without a formal confession and accurate details? just playing the devil's advocate here.

as far as the defense goes - travis is indeed on trial, although he is the victim, the defense has to prove he was an abuser, which means bringing up any and all unsavory actions from his past. you can't prove self defense with out proving the guy was an ass hole. that's the basis of the claim. i honestly don't think any of what the defense is doing is disgusting, immoral or unreasonable. it's not going to work, because travis wasn't the creep they are trying to portray, but it comes with the territory of using this defense.

[Ron_NYC]

OH MY GOD. I clicked to go to where I left off, and it was page 592.

[DenverClipper]

i have a couple of points to make, first - about the gun, and second, about the defense.

the gun is circumstantial, in that she was never charged with stealing it, it hasn't been found... i think they can probably bring it up because it matches and it's completely obvious that he was shot with it, and apparently she agrees that she shot him.

my question is - when, in a case where a defendant is claiming self defense, and admits to killing someone, is she asked to disclose issues such as these? where is the gun you used? where is the knife? what order did it happen?

how are we to believe, now, after soooooo many lies, that she did in fact kill him, without a formal confession and accurate details? just playing the devil's advocate here.

as far as the defense goes - travis is indeed on trial, although he is the victim, the defense has to prove he was an abuser, which means bringing up any and all unsavory actions from his past. you can't prove self defense with out proving the guy was an ass hole. that's the basis of the claim. i honestly don't think any of what the defense is doing is disgusting, immoral or unreasonable. it's not going to work, because travis wasn't the creep they are trying to portray, but it comes with the territory of using this defense.

I don't believe the defense can answer any of the questions you pose without JA taking the stand. How else can they introduce any of the "answers"?

Then again - they know what Juan will do to her if she does. The jury is on to her lies so the risk outweighs the benefit IMO.

[Ron_NYC]

I can't even believe you're stretching like this. Not his dick? Come on, deb. I get it that you want to defend the victim. Even I want to defend the victim, but the fact that Travis was a shitty person is evident, imo. Did he deserve to die? Hell no, and I've said that a million times, but to put him on a pedestal of being the upstanding Mormon that he would have everyone to believe is just bullshit. If he were here to defend himself there would be nothing to defend. If you play with fire you get burnt. Apparently he knew what he was playing with because he mentioned his fear of her, yet he kept dicking her down. Not only that, it doesn't appear that he was every faithful to anyone. He was shit and he got murdered for being shit.

He did? This happened??

[Harlette]

i have a couple of points to make, first - about the gun, and second, about the defense.

the gun is circumstantial, in that she was never charged with stealing it, it hasn't been found... i think they can probably bring it up because it matches and it's completely obvious that he was shot with it, and apparently she agrees that she shot him.

my question is - when, in a case where a defendant is claiming self defense, and admits to killing someone, is she asked to disclose issues such as these? where is the gun you used? where is the knife? what order did it happen?

how are we to believe, now, after soooooo many lies, that she did in fact kill him, without a formal confession and accurate details? just playing the devil's advocate here.

as far as the defense goes - travis is indeed on trial, although he is the victim, the defense has to prove he was an abuser, which means bringing up any and all unsavory actions from his past. you can't prove self defense with out proving the guy was an ass hole. that's the basis of the claim. i honestly don't think any of what the defense is doing is disgusting, immoral or unreasonable. it's not going to work, because travis wasn't the creep they are trying to portray, but it comes with the territory of using this defense.

no - the only one who can answer any of the questions is jodi - if she takes the stand

[Morbid_much]

i have a couple of points to make, first - about the gun, and second, about the defense.

the gun is circumstantial, in that she was never charged with stealing it, it hasn't been found... i think they can probably bring it up because it matches and it's completely obvious that he was shot with it, and apparently she agrees that she shot him.

my question is - when, in a case where a defendant is claiming self defense, and admits to killing someone, is she asked to disclose issues such as these? where is the gun you used? where is the knife? what order did it happen?

how are we to believe, now, after soooooo many lies, that she did in fact kill him, without a formal confession and accurate details? just playing the devil's advocate here.

as far as the defense goes - travis is indeed on trial, although he is the victim, the defense has to prove he was an abuser, which means bringing up any and all unsavory actions from his past. you can't prove self defense with out proving the guy was an ass hole. that's the basis of the claim. i honestly don't think any of what the defense is doing is disgusting, immoral or unreasonable. it's not going to work, because travis wasn't the creep they are trying to portray, but it comes with the territory of using this defense.

This. When I said flashing the pics is ridiculous I never ment to say that they shouldn't show them or that it is wrong. I get that they have a job to do and that they have to come up with something. If I was convinced Jodi was innocent I would hope that they made a good case for her. Just because I think she is a guilty batshit crazy bitch doesn't mean I think she should be thrown in jail without a fair trial. What I meant to say was that the evidence they have shown so far, that should prove he was an abusive asshole and she had no other choice then to murder him like she did, is ridiculous.

[animosity]

Thank you for that. :)
Not sure why aaronsmommy thought I was psycho, but whatev.

I don't believe the defense can answer any of the questions you pose without JA taking the stand. How else can they introduce any of the "answers"?

Then again - they know what Juan will do to her if she does. The jury is on to her lies so the risk outweighs the benefit IMO.

no - the only one who can answer any of the questions is jodi - if she takes the stand

it just seems strange.

when she decided, out of the blue, to claim self defense instead of ninja, i feel like there should have had to been a formal step in which she writes out a confession or a sequence of events. i don't understand having the interrogation tapes with her lying, but not having anything similar with her telling the 'truth'.

[animosity]

This. When I said flashing the pics is ridiculous I never ment to say that they shouldn't show them or that it is wrong. I get that they have a job to do and that they have to come up with something. If I was convinced Jodi was innocent I would hope that they made a good case for her. Just because I think she is a guilty batshit crazy bitch doesn't mean I think she should be thrown in jail without a fair trial. What I meant to say was that the evidence they have shown so far, that should prove he was an abusive asshole and she had no other choice then to murder him like she did, is ridiculous.

i hate to be the wait and see guy, but perhaps they have a plan and when all is said and done, you lay it out and all signs point to yes? this is the reason jurors are asked to refrain from analyzing the evidence and forming a decision until the closing arguments are made.

btw: the defense is laughable. the broad can't stop laughing, leading and staring off into space... what is she? 1st year debate? i thought she's supposed to be a dp expert! she's as hard to watch as the big guy and his pointless questions.

i martinez!!!