New defense plan. Since his PTSD test has been blown to smithereens, now he's downplaying the importance of the PTSD test, and giving more credence to his other test.
He's smarmy, that one.
New defense plan. Since his PTSD test has been blown to smithereens, now he's downplaying the importance of the PTSD test, and giving more credence to his other test.
He's smarmy, that one.
she turned her plates upside down to have a timestamp of when and where she was.
Originally Posted by *crickets*
ok what difference does it make if she got ptsd from the murder, and jodi said in her testimony that she fogs out every time a some one yells at her - which was b4 her ptsd, which kinda makes it a non factor
lol @ defense trying to do damage control! She can try, but Juan made more sense then she does.
Didn't that seem a little left field, asking how much he gets an hour for this case then going back to talking about the MCMI?
YES lol. He totally rambles just like Jodi, so fucking annoying.
Willmott should look into other professions, you can see that JM throws her off when he objects.
BullShit !!! Betcha, Doc Dick is going to claim JA mentioned twice about being tied up - so he can "claim" the "other" time her ankles were tied
So he can squirm out of his statement to JM when he was interviewed (recorded)
ღღ
It doesn't matter if she intended to rob him or not. Obviously she didn't and it's bs because it was her gun all along. Intent to rob is not needed here. Intent goes to motive. You can walk into a building, not ever intending to commit a crime, and yet it still happens, and you are culpable. Let's say you walk into a bar, your only intent is to get a drink; yet get into an argument, which leads to a brawl, which leads to a death. Did you intend to kill someone when you walked in? No, you just intended to have a beer. But, you still killed a person. Intent is not necessary.
He doesn't have to get Murder 1 to stick before using burglary. Burglary is part of the claim of murder 1. Jodi claims she took the gun that didn't belong to her. That is enough. What the average person believes is "proof" or required is not always (or even often) what the law requires. The legal requirement is that a death comes during the commission of another crime.
In this case, there is enough evidence of premeditation -- in the eyes of many but not everyone -- that there is no need to resort to the burglary charge. But, think of it as a failsafe. IF the other evidence presented is not enough to convince the jury (the gas cans, the battery removed from the phone, the intention of pretending she never went to Arizona, etc.) the burglary charge is there, and it is black-and-white, not based on jury interpretation. You can argue whether her actions prior to getting to Arizona means she planned, but what you can argue is that she claims she took his gun. That is stated as fact and not open to debate.
Exactly. It can happen in a matter of seconds.
It's possible she wanted to give him a chance, but the fact that she did all the things she did (gas cans, stole the gun, turned off the phone etc) means that she had the intent to murder him, if things didn't go as she wanted. She entertained the idea of murder before she ever left California and she was determined to go through with it, unless he acted how she wanted.
I know, right?! Double standard much?
"Well, it's YOUR fog..." - J. Martinez
What is being said during this sidebar:
W: "Judge he keep objectiiiing"
JM: "She is an idiot"
Judge: "Agreed, you may continue now."
Recap for the past few days - (sorry to step on toes, berm)
This dude is a toolbag, is not a legit professional, and JM knows more than Dr Dick does about these topics.
T H E E N D
"The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue." -Anonymous
Listening to this guy almost makes me want Jodi back on the stand, ALMOST.
Eaxactly. Why take the gun with her if she had no intent of doing great bodily harm
He a quack and as Uncle Si would say "That's a fact Jack!"
Wilmott needs to lay off the
Willmott is contracted to the Maricopa County Office of Public Defense Services
Their website is http://www.maricopa.gov/OPDS/
she did not enter illegally she was a welcomed guest until the stabbing or shooting.Ok lets try this one scenario out.You have a party and there are people all over your house.Your watch goes missing have you been burgularized or robbed?
Sums it up.
So fucked. I seriously cannot see how anyone doesn't see that this was premeditated.
"The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue." -Anonymous
Willmott tries to make a point and then has to think for a little bit lmfao
This guy.....even with all his credentials....is coming off as slimey. He sounds like a broken record. It will be very telling to hear the jury questions.
Is it on??? None of my feeds seems to be working!
http://www.wptv.com/generic/news/nat...ial-live-video
I feel like we are just listening to Jodis whole testimony again, but with this guy saying it. I don't understand why him repeating everything she has already said is thought to be helpful or to make it fact.
Good thing you said almost! At least we know this guy will be done today
Sums it up.
http://www.azcentral.com/live/?event...di-arias-trial
this one is working for me
I know, I can hardly wait!
Were you crying when you were stabbing him? --SuperJuan Martinez
Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking? -- ABC Interviewer to JA
There are currently 43 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 43 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
