Question: WHY HAS THE PROSECUTION NOT CALLED DEANNA REID AS A WITNESS?
Does anyone know? I have been wondering about this for a long time and the juror question today asking if any of Travis's exes had ever complained about abuse reminded me.
The only exes that testified were Lisa Andrews and Mimi Hall and they were both very short-term relationships. Deanna was with him for 7 years. WHY would the prosecution not want her testimony about the lack of abuse in their relationship??
Anyone?
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Aww, just cuz you probably can't have it all doesn't stop some people from trying, lol!
Ya know?
Definitely not saying he was perfect, just a regular old flawed human like the rest of us =)
In any case, Jodi was JUST as guilty of trying to have her cake an eat it, too (or eat her cake an have it too... however that saying goes).
No religion (at least that I know of) wants their followers running about having all kinda of kinky premarital sex, but countless people still do it anyway. Specially the younger individuals. To me he kinda came off to me as a guy who was a little bit (or maybe a lotta bit) on the stunted side when it came to sex, ya know? A late bloomer kinda type. She was offering pretty much everything that he had probably ever dreamed of and he fell for the temptation hook, line, & sinker and got his ass addicted to the poon. I just don't think he was 100% prepared to deal with someone as manipulative and sexually advanced as the likes of her. Maybe part of him truly wanted to break things off from her, but part of the reason he kept it hidden was the fact that he was embarrassed that he couldn't handle her? Once he got all tangled up in that hot mess he was stuck in it. I doubt that's a situation he wanted to to go to his Mormon friends for advice on. I know I wouldn't wanna, if I were in his shoes. So that may equal leading a double life, but I'm sure there are way worse ones out there.
Now, some juror questions observations:
He wasn't in a long term relationship... did i hear her correctly? What do you call the 6-7yrs he dated Deanna then? A fling?
I can't believe the way Miss LaViolette is twisting and turning and refusing to acknowledge that there is even the tiniest sliver of a chance that Jodi could possibly be an abuser in any way, shape, or form! Regardless of the fact that she has even hit her own MOM (but that was when she was younger, blah blah blah)... I mean, I really CAN believe it - it's totally what I expected her to do - but Jeebus! It's so far beyond bias at this point that it isn't funny. It's like she thinks Saint Jodi walks on water and shits rainbows.
~She is seen as someone who kicked and hit her own mother, but NOT a perpetrator because they weren't in an intimate relationship?
~Anything is "POSSIBLE"; she COULD be exaggerating the abuse... but noooooo, it's difficult to believe? Really??
~NO evidence of Jodi being a perpetrator? I guess 27 stab wounds, a gunshot to the head, or a slit throat don't count =(
~Of COURSE you don't get that she was a liar from anyone... you didn't TALK to anyone!
~You did NOT see a broken finger, Lav, dammit!
~She don't see evidence of anything at all that doesn't benefit Jodi cuz you are fucking BIASED, you twat!
~She didn't look at any of Jodi's journals AFTER the 4th... not at all? Not important? No?
~So Jodi only lied about insignificant things then, oh OK... cuz THAT makes sense.
etc... etc... etc... ::pulls.out.hair::
This woman is giving me a migraine! She has data (or whatever the case may be) to corroborate EVERY.SINGLE.FUCKING.THING. that she needs to paint the perfect picture of poor abused Jodi, meanwhile there can be mountains of evidence pointing to Travis being the abused one and it doesn't matter ONE.BIT. No matter what the case may be... like abusive childhoods; they can both have 'em but only Travis' make him an abuser, not precious Jodicakes, oh no, can't be! Does she really think she is coming off as impartial? She is friggin' INSANE!
Sorry for the tl;dr post/rant... had to get it off my chest!
I have to say that I felt good about the jury's questions. By the looks on the faces at the defense table they are not feeling so good. I love it!
She did say that!
I am a speaker/trainer/facilitator at work. The generally-accepted "rule" is actually that 93% of communication is non-verbal. This concept was researched and developed by Dr Albert Mehrabian of UCLA.
To be more specific, Mehrabian has said that the receiver of a message decides if he/she likes the sender of a message based on 3 elements:
VERBAL ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATION (7%)
* The actual meaning of the words used by the sender (account for 7% of the influence of the receiver of the message)
NON-VERBAL ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATION (93%)
* The tone of voice of the sender (accounts for 38%)
* The body language of the sender (accounts for 55%)
You can think about it this way -- if you open your eyes, smile, and speak in a sweet and sing-songy baby talk voice, you can read a DVR instruction manual to your infant and they will still be captivated. The words don't matter; it's the tone of voice and body language that convey most of your message.
Likewise, if someone asks me how I am and I say "I'm fine," but I say it sternly with my arms are crossed in front of me and I'm wrinkling my brow; the verbal element of my message doesn't match the non-verbal elements. Most receivers of a message will notice this [exceptions for those on the autism/aspie spectrum who may notice in varying degrees or not at all, dependent upon a myriad of factors].
This is also why it's so easy to get into misunderstandings when you are only evaluating written communication (like text messages, IMs, or even on an internet forum like MDS). The person on the other end of the message can't see if you're serious or joking, or if you're adding some other emotional nuance to what you're communicating.
A nap is only nice when it's a luxury, not a necessity.
Agatha:
I think that switch decision you speak of has to do with disregarding feelings and concentrating on the evidence. Remember, the jury must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . This decision decided correctly is ...and should be void of feeling.
Last edited by Peace Corpse; 04-11-2013 at 08:04 PM.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
The first thing Jodi admitted on the stand was that she killed him. The photos show she was in a massive rage at the time she killed him. Do they show premeditation? The prosecution has to rely on other evidence for that. The photos show overkill. Could the jury chalk that up to heat of passion, manslaughter, battered woman snapping, and convict for second degree murder? We will have to wait to find out.
The way Alyce's story is intended to fit together for the jury... Jodi is abused. When Travis physically threatens her, she snaps and kills him with the pent up rage from her years of (wait, 5 months of long distance) abuse. Travis's attack was the trigger, and Domestic Abuse is the rationalization for her overkill response. The juror questions show that at least a few minds are open to this possibility. Nurmi's closing argument will tie it all together.
The defense never even tried for an acquittal. They said it was self-defense but have spent very little time establishing that her life was in danger. The defendant feels she did something wrong, when she should feel justified killing if her life was really in danger. They are squarely aiming at 2nd degree murder or mistrial. If they can bury the evidence of premeditation under a puddle of lube, or induce the jury to taint itself, mission accomplished.
It is possible for two different people to look at a situation and have completely different perspectives and interpretations. That doesn't make anyone immoral. Her opinion may be unpopular, but Alyce seems to believe pretty strongly that Jodi was emotionally abused and this affected her behavior.
Surely someone on her defense team said to Jodi (or wanted to say), "Look Einstein, you're coming close to being the most hated woman in the world, if you're not already there. No need to publicly show what a smart ass you really are while we're trying to portray you as a meek librarian-type every day in court."
i guess i will never quite understand, idk what i would do if i took another persons lifemy friend was on a very dark curvy foggy road one night and he accidentall hit and killed an policeman who was walking into the street to drop a flare because of a stalled car (didn't walk w/ the flare already lit) the police department competly cleared him, and said it was 100% not his fault, but he has never been the same again - and she is laffing and drawng pics in court
![]()
...
Last edited by lisam2013; 04-22-2013 at 03:23 PM.
More like a spa month.
Exactly. Which just makes her look even more dishonest. She said it, she should stick by it.
I think you are right.
Exactly THIS. Very well said.
Welcome, MidwestHoosier.
Talk about a kick ass first post!
Can't be temporarily insane if you planned it in advance. That is the opposite of temporary insanity. All the premeditation evidence screams "not temporarily insane".
Temporary insanity would work for the guy who came upon someone raping his 6 year old daughter and killed the guy. No way it could work in Jodi's fact pattern.
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 295 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 295 guests)