...
...
Last edited by lisam2013; 04-22-2013 at 11:35 AM.
I think someone already figured out the eye reflection here on MDS. I totally agree with this photo.Originally Posted by gigiann
Catching up- only on the first hour. But i have 2 things to say.. DT is totally scoping out MDS and all i see in this picture is alfred hitchcock.
I agree, and I think they will find her guilty...but Juan Martinez is making it more difficult for them with all the random extraneous crap he throws at them, IMHO.
The extraneous crap is tedious but every time I watch him I can relate it back to another point that may have been made ages ago in Jodi's testimony and the experts. I think Was is right in the fact that this jury seems pretty dang on target!! Just my VHO
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; They listen with the intent to reply." ~ anonymous
"Keep calm and sing Soft Kitty"
"it is what it is!"
The jury isn't going to see the "enhanced" version of the eye picture. When the Judge stated the stipulation they showed the close up of his face.
I just can't believe the DT actually tired to bring that in!!! All they had to do was read here and know that it would not fly!!
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; They listen with the intent to reply." ~ anonymous
"Keep calm and sing Soft Kitty"
"it is what it is!"
I don't think asking Jodi when and who put her bags in the car was irrelevant. If Travis put them in the car -- which I believe she said he might have -- then, odds are that he knew she was in the process of leaving soon. Perhaps he even thought she was gone when he went upstairs to the shower.
At this point, Jodi is not an invited guest, even IF she was earlier in the morning. I still don't believe he knew she was coming, but even if he did, once he put her things in the car and bid her goodbye, she was not there by his invitation when she re-entered the house;IF she did.
If you (collectively not anyone specific) had an ex whom you had a bad break-up with -- and perhaps you have ongoing contentions with -- see that person out, believing they were leaving, would you be okay with their slipping back into your home? And would you believe that because a person was invited once, twice, even a dozen times, that that gives them free reign to enter your house any time, especially if you think they've left?
Considering we don't know what exactly went down with Jodi and Travis, and how that culminated in the murder, we don't know how they left things. Yes, apparently they had sex. But, we don't know if he felt coerced; if Jodi was throwing the sex tape and pics out there as blackmail to maintain some kind of ongoing relationship. Or if Jodi told Travis that it was just a "goodbye" boink before she moved on to Ryan.
We do know that something big and something bad must've happened for Jodi to pick that particular day as the point of no return, where "If I can't have Travis no one else will".
Nevertheless, IF Martinez could prove or at least make a convincing argument that Travis thought Jodi had left, then when she returned, she would be, very possibly, guilty of trespassing, B&E, etc.
Usually when you're visiting someone and you carry your bags to the door, you're on the brink of leaving. Not always I suppose, but I think we can say this, generally. And being that it was Arizona in June, and hot, I can't imagine that Jodi would put her bags, with her cameras, into her car very long before she had planned to go.
"Well, it's YOUR fog..." - J. Martinez
I disagree, :) We haven't even hit rebuttal yet and the jury questions were gold. They show they handled the pieces however they were delivered. I think what you might think was extraneous was actually beating the def's combative witnesses for the best presentation. The jury follows right along and JM has the witnesses looking terrible and unbelievable. The only thing I could see was the blonde hair left hanging but that is so far back and so minor after all that's happened it isn't important anymore.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Both JW and Nurmi look like the wind had been taken out their sails when the Judge announced the stipulation JM took away their "moment" when he stipulated. Stabby looked pissed.
I've lived in CA. all my live and crossed the desert many, many times....... it is very UNCOMMON to carry gas cans full of gas unless you are doing camping, dirt bike riding or some other gas operated off roading. It is very dangerous to drive around with full gas cans in your trunk, unless you are planning to murder someone!
thanks Sneakers! don't you luv the fake smiles the losing Def alwalys tries to pull off?like they won something.
"thank you thats all we have for the day' and Stabby returns to her dungeon. ticktock her clock is limited now.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Couldn't resist...
"Well, God is not here. We can't subpoena him"
I just notice JW looking at the jurors and taking notes big time while the stipulation was being read by the judge.
I noticed JA looked upset but that could be from what just happened prior to the jury coming in, with ALV. I wonder if/when we'll get to hear about what happened there.
Last edited by M Joy; 04-15-2013 at 06:29 PM.
Too funny! and this trial is...... just like a CSI episode............ except for the fact that CSI is fake!!!!!!!!!!!Couldn't resist...
Katie Wick in the background, really?!? Does this woman have a job?! She is EVERYWHERE and I am sooo sick of her.
Welcome! I think her job is being a juror/Dr Drew correspondent right now. Probably trying to get some sort of TV job for when the trial is over. I'm pretty sick of her too.Katie Wick in the background, really?!? Does this woman have a job?! She is EVERYWHERE and I am sooo sick of her.
Good grief! The bright blob on the bottom is the camera flash, the bright blob on top is a ceiling light. Nothing else to see here, folks!Catching up- only on the first hour. But i have 2 things to say.. DT is totally scoping out MDS and all i see in this picture is alfred hitchcock.
The way I understood this post by Lady MacBeth - she was talking about Jodi's response!
I think there were many discussing it on the internet, and IMO, this is where the DT got the idea to introduce it! Geezo!OMG!! NOT THE FRIKKIN IRIS!!!!How many eons ago did we discuss that???
I have access to that picture (if you mean the one posted on her fb today?). Anyone does (again, if that's what you're referring to)!
They're desperate! We can expect a lot more outrageous claims and motions! What I don't understand is their effort and desire for time! What will time do for Jodi? The evidence against her won't change?
Eloquent, this was not directed at you, just using your picture :)
It's not just that one, there were many...here's another one for example: remember when he was questioning her, over & over, about whether Travis had shaved the day of the murder? She had said at one point that he hadn't and his stubble was uncomfortable while they were having sex. Martinez dug up part of the police interview where she talked about taking his picture while he was shaving..."do you remember saying THAT?" she'd say "well, yes...sort of..." and he'd replay it again..."NOW do you remember?" He played that thing four times, then whipped out the closeup of Travis's face in the shower..."He looks clean-shaven THERE, DOESN'T HE?" like it was some big Aha moment, 'You LIED about whether he shaved, and I CAUGHT YOU!' We finally figured out, here, that she had been talking about the pic she had taken of him shaving that was on his Facebook page in that snippet JM kept replaying...nothing whatsoever to do with the day of the murder.
I can name many more and will if anyone cares to hear, but my point is, why does he go there? What difference did it make whether Travis shaved that day? Why throw that kind of random junk at the jury when they already have so much to sift through and try to make sense of?
i live in southern cali and never carry gas cans, even on long trips and taking rt 66 to laughlin - and idk but it used to be illegal to carry gas cans in cars
i think wilmont gets 1 more crack at alyce - like nurmi did w. jodi
its hers, it was opened:
Joined Facebook
December 25, 2007
and i recognize it
wait a minute! ER sympathy ploy get her in trouble with 'what came out' at that meeting?
Mike Kiefer was making very serious accusations of "witness tampering". I doubt that went unnoticed by the court!
Could it be she was never in ER?
Are witnesses allowed to leak HIPAA info to media in the middle of testimony?
A 'friend' claimed a threat was so serious they called police. Maybe the cops found those were faked and or she never went to ER.
Maybe it wasn't a 'friend' running to the reporter but Alyce herself.
Caught faking that other sick day?
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Here's what I see. I dunno what anyone else sees.... But I definitely see a monkey.
Someone else might've said something like this, I'm even more behind than I was before so apologies to everyone if I'm being repetitive. But I had a horrible thought about that approach Alyce made to Travis' sister. She considers herself the ultimate in dv counselling & she clearly only feels empathy for females - I mean shit, she can't accept the existence of male abuse victims even in theory! So, given her steadfast belief in Travis' "guilt" as an abuser, could she have taken it a few steps further & convinced herself that Travis' "abuse" extended to ALL females he was close to? Jodi may have even encouraged that belief, but she probably didn't need to.
Could Alyce have acted so brazenly because she thought her approach would be welcomed & even appreciated? Was she so sure that through her "witty" & "knowledgable" testimony that every female Travis supporter, including his sisters would now be seeing Jodi as the victim & Alyce as a dv counselor of exceptional skill & experience? Are Alyce's beliefs so extreme that she took it for granted that his sister/s would "realise" they too had been the victim of Travis' "abuse"? Did she think that on hearing her testify, Travis' sisters would "get it" that as women, & "victims", naturally they & Alyce are actually on the same team?
Was that whole approach based on some twisted vision of solidarity between female "victims"? Because nothing else seems to explain her doing it SO openly & in full view of the cameras that were screening her every move literally all over the world. She seemed to think it was a perfectly normal thing to do. It's been suggested she made "it's nothing personal" type comments & that certainly fits with her shrugging gesture at the end. I really hope she didn't start with a claim to understand what they'd been through, but then follow with an offer to fix the female family members up with a referral for dv counselling -"been through" relating to Travis' supposed acts of "domestic violence" toward them & not his murder at the hands of Jodi. Any approach would've been horrible for his sisters, but if she made it clear she'd assumed some kind of connection with them as dv "victims" of their brother, it would have been sickening. Hope I have it COMPLETELY wrong & I'll be very happy if time shows that this has no basis in truth.
There are currently 298 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 298 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
