Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death (Part II)

[wasthinking]

I'm referencing Heather Conner's testimony (I think on January 3?)...I'd have to go back & find the video, because I don't know which one it was.

The recaps from HLN:

"Martinez is now asking Conner about how the camera's memory card was found in the washing machine separate from the camera."


http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/03/live-blog-lead-investigator-expected-testify-jodi-arias-trial

ETA: Just saw the other posts regarding this. Heather Conner was the crime scene technician, so I believe she would have been the one to have found it/retrieved it. Not Det. Flores or the camera guy. I have no idea how they handled evidence and sent it to DF or the camera guy.

Sorry everyone I should have taken more time to be clear. my point is, mouth full of shit camera guy and Heather don't match.

Det M says he rec'd camera 'just like this'. So in Flores report and on the stand memory stick was IN the camera.
Heather doesn't specify 'bottom' of washer, but she clearly says IN the washer, and more importantly....
took a pic of it and marked it as its own evidence piece! Pic at HLN and marked w placard 37

on testimony of Heather, the pieces are sealed each in sep evidence bags and JM has Heather ID them.
So how the hell did he rec and have a full camera to wave around with the memory stick IN the camera, while flirting with the court reporter?!

[blighted star]

He also did not fly into a rage when she blew out the engine in his Mercedes she was buying from him. Which was worth far more than the camera.

This isn't meant to come across with a sceptical pro- Jodi tone & I'm only clarifying that so no-one's time is wasted in this faster than light thread. I have nowhere near the depth of understanding many of you have on this case. It was never a big story in the Australian TV media, & even if it had been, my viewing choices at the time were horrifyingly limited to the Wiggles & Balamory. My sole exposure to the case prior to mds was a late-night screening of the 48hrs episode, & that was so long ago I've forgotten most of it. I've never seen the background information, like stories from friends & family, all those txts etc. So I pose this purely as the question it is & not as an attempt to imply the statements have no merit. So..what evidence do we have that he didn't react badly in the immediate aftermath of these incidents, & if there is evidence he took the prior incidents well, will the jury have access to it?

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Chris Hughes is tweeting:

@cshughes Curious what was the final straw for you with #jodiarias?

DejavuGypsy The psychotic look on her face when we caught her eaves dropping outside our bedroom door in middle of night... TWICE!

‏@SchreeRusevlyan 4h

@cshughes was this when you were talking to Travis about her?

‏@cshughes 3h

@SchreeRusevlyan Yes

@cshughes @SchreeRusevlyan How did Travis react when you found Jodi eavesdropping outside the bedroom door?
Expand

Chris Hughes Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 44m

@bellaTweeter @SchreeRusevlyan He was rattled but would not see/feel what we saw/felt

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

@cshughes are the e-mails that defense brought out real? Did you write them? If so they didn't help Travis at all! #Justice4Travis
Expand

Chris Hughes Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 10h

@SueCotie They are real and out of context. The context would destroy defense

[ImBatman!]

@cshughes are the e-mails that defense brought out real? Did you write them? If so they didn't help Travis at all! #Justice4Travis
Expand

Chris Hughes Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 10h

@SueCotie They are real and out of context. The context would destroy defense

Wow...

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Wow...

I should be clear that he's discussing the email exchange between the Hughes' and TA, not the pedo letters. The pedo letters are forgeries.

He goes on to say that he/Sky retracted everything the defense had read aloud in court by the end of the email exchange

[wasthinking]

Chris Hughes is tweeting:

@cshughes Curious what was the final straw for you with #jodiarias?

DejavuGypsy The psychotic look on her face when we caught her eaves dropping outside our bedroom door in middle of night... TWICE!

‏@SchreeRusevlyan 4h

@cshughes was this when you were talking to Travis about her?

‏@cshughes 3h

@SchreeRusevlyan Yes

@cshughes @SchreeRusevlyan How did Travis react when you found Jodi eavesdropping outside the bedroom door?
Expand

Chris Hughes Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 44m

@bellaTweeter @SchreeRusevlyan He was rattled but would not see/feel what we saw/felt

Cool Sneakers, thanks!
I still don't like the Hughes.
Who the hell were they to jump to believing Stabby complaining to them and call Travis out on anything? Travis was suppose to be their long time friend, not Stabby's mediator.
And who the hell jumps to believing your friend was a pedo without thinking first just because some scum bag lawyer contacts you.
And, WTF were they sticking their nose in talking to the Def at all!

Does anyone know what the ruling on this motion was?

I believe JSS tabled it. Standard for any Judge to set it aside until we reach the appropriate stage. meaning, its premature and she'll cover it when of IF killer is convicted.

Here is the case Juan put in for his argument .. State vs Cota
Didn't look up Nurmi's jibbering yet, he is usually wrong or digging out 1950s crap so I don't rush.



?82 Nor did the prosecutor improperly comment on Cota?s
right to remain silent. The prosecutor?s statements to which
Cota objects were fair rebuttal to Cota?s allocution. Most of
the statements at issue simply noted that Cota never expressed
remorse for committing the crime during the allocution. A
defendant may claim remorse in allocution, but if he does so the
State may rebut that statement. State v. Armstrong, 218 Ariz.
451, 463 ?? 54-59, 189 P.3d 378, 390 (2008).
?83 The prosecutor also said that if Cota ?were truly
sorry and remorseful, wouldn?t he have told the police how sorry
he was? On that 107 minutes of video, what do you see? Angry,
combative man. He is not admitting.? This argument can fairly
be read, however, as contrasting Cota?s denials of
responsibility in the interrogation with his subsequent claim of
remorse. Such comments are permissible. Id.

[blighted star]

[QUOTE=coconut;33967 - Snip, snip, snipped for space -hit the ignore button on me and it will be a much smoother ride for you, cupcake.[/QUOTE]


I expect this soon became frustratingly obvious to at least 50% of those involved in this particular discussion, but rightly or wrongly it's kind of amused me.The ignore button would work fairly well in most cases, but it won't block the ignored persons posts if they're quoted by someone else. When was the last time Coconut posted something that wasn't quoted? Short of blocking every member who quotes him (possibly every regular poster) I'm afraid that if the bumps in the road are caused by rogue coconuts, there's no chance of making your mds ride smoother.


ETA - my immediate & enduring thought on this post : mmmmmmmmmmmm cupcakes.

[Angiebla]

I should be clear that he's discussing the email exchange between the Hughes' and TA, not the pedo letters. The pedo letters are forgeries.

He goes on to say that he/Sky retracted everything the defense had read aloud in court by the end of the email exchange

The idiots at the JAII site believe those letters were legit. They don't get why they didn't come into evidence. I hope the Hughes emails are read in court in full, so the jury is able to see the truth behind them. I thought that was stupid that the defense brought them in the first place.

[Angiebla]

I should be clear that he's discussing the email exchange between the Hughes' and TA, not the pedo letters. The pedo letters are forgeries.

He goes on to say that he/Sky retracted everything the defense had read aloud in court by the end of the email exchange

The idiots at the JAII site believe those letters were legit. They don't get why they didn't come into evidence. I hope the Hughes emails are read in court in full, so the jury is able to see the truth behind them. I thought that was stupid that the defense brought them in the first place.

[loonywop]

...

[gigiann]

@sneakers
Whoah wait. Am I reading this right? CHughes tweeted the letters.would blow the Defense???

[wasthinking]

@sneakers
Whoah wait. Am I reading this right? CHughes tweeted the letters.would blow the Defense???

for clarity

1. Letters = FORGED, not allowed in court because they are forged.
2. Email = What Hughes is talking about, the one the def presented with Sky bitching at Travis even saying she wouldn't let her sister date him.
Because as TAs 'friends' /sarc .. they believed Jodi whining to them how awful TA is, and then jthey take it upon themselves to jump on Travis which as we see, ended up coming in for the def to use against Travis.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

for clarity

1. Letters = FORGED, not allowed in court because they are forged.
2. Email = What Hughes is talking about, the one the def presented with Sky bitching at Travis even saying she wouldn't let her sister date him.
Because as TAs 'friends' /sarc .. they believed Jodi whining to them how awful TA is, and then jthey take it upon themselves to jump on Travis which as we see, ended up coming in for the def to use against Travis.

Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 19 Apr

@kayalyn81 Bottom line. JA lied to us. Travis was still in love with Deanna Reid. We were saying it was not cool. That's all. DT twisting.

@cshughes 19 Apr

JA lied to us. We confronted TA. JA lied to TA. We kicked JA out of the house. DT desperate. It's that simple.

@cshughes How does it feel for you & your wife's statements to be used to defend #JodiArias?

@cshughes 19 Apr

@PattyKrtz We hate it but its expected from this DT. The good guys always win in the end. It's all good.

[sheesh]

she couyld have paid cash for the gas and tossed the reciept and no one would have ever known she was there .She didn't need to document her money

Gas stations have cameras these days.

[Harlette]

for clarity

1. Letters = FORGED, not allowed in court because they are forged.
2. Email = What Hughes is talking about, the one the def presented with Sky bitching at Travis even saying she wouldn't let her sister date him.
Because as TAs 'friends' /sarc .. they believed Jodi whining to them how awful TA is, and then jthey take it upon themselves to jump on Travis which as we see, ended up coming in for the def to use against Travis.

Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 19 Apr

@kayalyn81 Bottom line. JA lied to us. Travis was still in love with Deanna Reid. We were saying it was not cool. That's all. DT twisting.

@cshughes 19 Apr

JA lied to us. We confronted TA. JA lied to TA. We kicked JA out of the house. DT desperate. It's that simple.

@cshughes How does it feel for you & your wife's statements to be used to defend #JodiArias?

@cshughes 19 Apr

@PattyKrtz We hate it but its expected from this DT. The good guys always win in the end. It's all good.

hughes is saying the email is totally out of context, bt it was the defense that fought and won to keep the entire email out of court, bt was able to get the out of contest bits in thru alyce because they were used as her "work product" - chris is saying the whole email would be devestating to the defense

Gas stations have cameras these days.

most record over w/ in 5 to 7 days, so was prolly already gone b4 the PT team got that far

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

most record over w/ in 5 to 7 days, so was prolly already gone b4 the PT team got that far

But she had no way of knowing that TA wouldn't be discovered for days. There is nothing other than her word that bought gas at Desert Center. I don't believe she did, that's why she had the gas cans in the first place.

[blighted star]

[QUOTE=wasthinking;3396740]I agree May 26 is an important date. That bashing he dished out, cracked her BPD shell and was the split in her that she decided to murder him. Not only could she no longer pretend to herself what laid behind the mask, he was going to out her. Good book on this about BPDs 'rage murders'
[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=03GhEpjKt4oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepag e&q&f=false[/url


This book sounds seriously interesting & if I buy it I will post a little review. This may already have been mentioned, yes I'm behind again, it's school holidays & it turns out it's hard to catch up with 3 kids to entertain - who would've guessed.So apologies if I'm repeating someone else. I had a bit of trouble scrolling the pages the publisher made available & almost missed the tiny mention the author made of female perpetrators. He said the book deals specifically with males, because female violence generally has such different orgins (or something along those lines) that a completely seperate female-specific study was warranted. If you were wanting to by a book to gain insight into THIS case, this one wouldn't be helpful for that specific purpose. If however, you wanted insight on male perpetrators it would be a great read.

[gigiann]

Ok sooo the emails from Hughes' the DT have been yapping about telling TA he is horrible to JA. Only parts are admissible because of some agreement and CH said they would blow the defense. How can that be? I know it is court and evidenciary thing. But that is such BS. Grrr. There is a fire truck outside, I better go snoop amd.find out what is going on. I am the Gladys kravitz.of the neighborhood!

[wasthinking]

hughes is saying the email is totally out of context, bt it was the defense that fought and won to keep the entire email out of court, bt was able to get the out of contest bits in thru alyce because they were used as her "work product" - chris is saying the whole email would be devestating to the defense



most record over w/ in 5 to 7 days, so was prolly already gone b4 the PT team got that far

yes, I understand what he is saying perfectly. But he just isn't as important as his wishes to be in the legal sense of it and it wouldn't reach the level past viewers to be considered 'devasting' to the case. Their case is already devasted LOL
We all know well, if Hughes had any 'devasting' value, JM would have called him. He simply didn't need him or there were too many issues JM knows that we don't that would not be worth using Hughes. Of course def takes some things out of context. We know that already, that's not big news. In or out of context, it just isn't very important.. to the case. It doesn't support any physical abuse or show any premediatation.
My opinion is on them as friends, not their legal value to the case. Call me crazy, but I don't have friends that jump to believe the absolute worst about me at the drop of a dime. I predict Hughes will come out all over a media blitz, and not take responsibility for anything. It'll all be JA's fault, she made them jump to doubt their long time friend.

CHughes is a professional speaker on Law of Attraction. He is a big shot with Legal Services. So where is the positive LOA in doubting your friend, jumping to believe some crazy bitch you just met, believe the killers lawyer without at least bothering to use your PPL to get some advice before blabbing with the killers lawyer!?

[loonywop]

...

[wasthinking]

[QUOTE=blighted star;3397094]

I agree May 26 is an important date. That bashing he dished out, cracked her BPD shell and was the split in her that she decided to murder him. Not only could she no longer pretend to herself what laid behind the mask, he was going to out her. Good book on this about BPDs 'rage murders'
[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=03GhEpjKt4oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepag e&q&f=false[/url


This book sounds seriously interesting & if I buy it I will post a little review. This may already have been mentioned, yes I'm behind again, it's school holidays & it turns out it's hard to catch up with 3 kids to entertain - who would've guessed.So apologies if I'm repeating someone else. I had a bit of trouble scrolling the pages the publisher made available & almost missed the tiny mention the author made of female perpetrators. He said the book deals specifically with males, because female violence generally has such different orgins (or something along those lines) that a completely seperate female-specific study was warranted. If you were wanting to by a book to gain insight into THIS case, this one wouldn't be helpful for that specific purpose. If however, you wanted insight on male perpetrators it would be a great read.

It's interesting as background approach on the topic, a base line if you will. But I wouldn't go past the free read and dish out money for it. I meant it as one resource is all. No one source on this kind issue is going to be a quick one size fits all. And, there is always new bridges of research coming out. Often a free read too : ) Within those, you find more source leads as research continues forward.

Here is an interesting one focusing more on females. Particulary the section Psychopathy and BPD: A Double-Edged Sword for Women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323706/

[wasthinking]

Wow...

hey Bat, good to see you. new article at Radar . I like Mark Eiglarsh normally anyway but like that here he talks about the jury questions.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/20...pert-predicts/

[Wishmich]

Quote Originally Posted by blighted star View Post
I'm not entirely sure this is correct. Almost 20yrs ago, a woman was murdered 30ft from me with a handgun. A few months later, on an archaeological dig, I was standing on a hillside in the bush with 20 other students while our professor gave an impromptu lecture. Unlike many Australians, I had been raised with guns in my home. I also had a family member in law-enforcement related employment & I had a fair bit of experience with graphic crime scene photos as a result of that & of my course choices at uni.

In the immediate aftermath of the murder, I seemed to handle the scenes we witnessed a whole lot better than my co-workers - for instance, unlike many there, I didn't faint, vomit on anyone, scream or shake uncontrollably. However, in the middle of this lecture, on a rural hillside in the bush, my blood suddenly ran cold -I'd never understood that saying til that moment. Below us, further down the hill, was a farmhand aiming a rifle at something in our general direction. Rifles aren't an uncommon site on rural properties or in my family. I'd never been bothered by the sight of one before, but I was completely stricken with fear that he was about to start picking us off.

So, no, a bear's not a tiger, but it is large mammal with teeth & claws & a known history of fatal attacks on people. Of course we'd have to interview a wide sample of tiger attack survivors to know for sure, but I suspect she's wrong on this one. I totally get her argument - it's great in theory. But rifle/handgun, tiger/bear - any "exotic" animal with a reputation for fatal mauling would have the potential to set off intrusive memories. They'd see any large teeth or claws & feel it happening to their body all over again. I think even images of a great white shark with it's teeth exposed could do it for any victim of a serious mauling. In real life, the triggers just aren't that specific. A very specific trigger may cause a more intense reaction, but to insist that only specific triggers cause reaction at all, in ALL cases of PTSD is really not correct. If that jury member has a personal knowledge of PTSD they may be very aware of this & Dr D's credibility will take a hit because of it. ETA- daaaamnit. Shoulda stuck to my rule of not posting from behind, just found Anniebelle's & there's probably more..


I had a long discussion about PTSD regarding diagnosis and symptoms with the Chief of Staff of Behavioral Health at a very large hospital. It was related to my job, but I won't bore you with the details. Anyway, there is a deeper reasoning in diagnosing PTSD than just a traumatic event and the anxiety that is caused afterward. It is very specific. I gave an example which to the lay person (me) would think it's considered PTSD, but he gave very specific reasons that it would not be diagnosed as PTSD. He said people can confuse anxiety for PTSD. With that said, I think we could all give an example of our own lives thinking that it's PTSD, but in reality it is much more complicated than that. He gave specifics, but since i'm not a doctor, there's no way I'd be able to explain it the way he did.

[blighted star]

[QUOTE=wasthinking;3396858]Anyone else notice

JA sticks to Feb 2 for her and TA 'official'. If they were official, why was she telling Abe Feb 18 "although I'm not Travis' girlfriend"



Just a suggestion, but it's been confirmed she's a manipulator. Isn't it a little risky to take any denials/minimisations she makes to a man, regarding her relationship with another man, at face value? It's in her interest to keep them all sweet & thinking she's not more involved with another guy than she is with them. Is it likely this is something she's always done, even in relationships that are recognised as having been "real"?