Jodi Arias Trial Part 3, STILL in redirect of Jodi, Mar 5

[Thumper_Man]

DW and I were having some fun tonight trying to re-enact JA's version of events. Playing CSI. Our conclusion according to her version, she wouldn't have had no time to climb the shelf, grab the gun, pull it out of the box, pull it out of the holster, run into the bathroom, point it at TA and shoot. If he was chasing her as she claims he was, he would've caught her at the point she was getting the gun down.

Now we tried a few other scenarios, we widened the distance and she would've had time but; she would've had to take the box with the gun, into the bathroom with her.

For her events to work the way she stated, she would've had to taken out the gun, put it on a shelf where she could've grabbed it running by and have time to shoot.

Of course we all know her versions is bs, but just wanted to share our findings.

 

[Thumper_Man]

This whole gas an thing bothers me because I can't stand to drive with a gas can in my SUV or even in the trunk because the smell eventually makes it into the car. Just I get gas for he lawn mower kills me! I can't imagine driving for a long distance like that. Does anyone really ever do that?

I think I figured out why JA's brain is so foggy thanks to your statement. She was sniffing gas all the way to TA's. She must of been high as a kite by the time she got there. I just hope the defense doesn't figure it out. They might try to use it.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiyTqi9Wc2s&fb_source=message

Ok, I found JA's testimony when she said "if I'm convicted..." She was actually answering the question "why should anybody believe you now" being asked to her by Nurmi - (I thought she was responding to a JM question, but my bad ... I must have been a little scrambled when I originally posted about it ) ...The question and her subsequent answer start at 26.00 ...

Ah, thank you! I did kind of sort of hear that testimony earlier today, but through a fog.

DW and I were having some fun tonight trying to re-enact JA's version of events. Playing CSI. Our conclusion according to her version, she wouldn't have had no time to climb the shelf, grab the gun, pull it out of the box, pull it out of the holster, run into the bathroom, point it at TA and shoot. If he was chasing her as she claims he was, he would've caught her at the point she was getting the gun down.

Now we tried a few other scenarios, we widened the distance and she would've had time but; she would've had to take the box with the gun, into the bathroom with her.

For her events to work the way she stated, she would've had to taken out the gun, put it on a shelf where she could've grabbed it running by and have time to shoot.

Of course we all know her versions is bs, but just wanted to share our findings.

Please tell me you weren't naked and your wife wasn't wearing a school girl outfit.

 

[2DisPrincesses]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiyTqi9Wc2s&fb_source=message

Ok, I found JA's testimony when she said "if I'm convicted..." She was actually answering the question "why should anybody believe you now" being asked to her by Nurmi - (I thought she was responding to a JM question, but my bad ... I must have been a little scrambled when I originally posted about it ) ...The question and her subsequent answer start at 26.00 ...

Nice how she "slips" and says she lied to protect Travis's "ego, I mean reputation"...she is something else

 

[Thumper_Man]

Ah, thank you! I did kind of sort of hear that testimony earlier today, but through a fog. Please tell me you weren't naked and your wife wasn't wearing a school girl outfit.

Well yeah. If we're going to do it, we're going to do it right. Wait, that quite didn't come out the way I wanted it to.

 

[horseshowmom]

DW and I were having some fun tonight trying to re-enact JA's version of events. Playing CSI. Our conclusion according to her version, she wouldn't have had no time to climb the shelf, grab the gun, pull it out of the box, pull it out of the holster, run into the bathroom, point it at TA and shoot. If he was chasing her as she claims he was, he would've caught her at the point she was getting the gun down.

Now we tried a few other scenarios, we widened the distance and she would've had time but; she would've had to take the box with the gun, into the bathroom with her.

For her events to work the way she stated, she would've had to taken out the gun, put it on a shelf where she could've grabbed it running by and have time to shoot.

Of course we all know her versions is bs, but just wanted to share our findings.

I'm impressed!

I think I figured out why JA's brain is so foggy thanks to your statement. She was sniffing gas all the way to TA's. She must of been high as a kite by the time she got there. I just hope the defense doesn't figure it out. They might try to use it.

You're probably right (on both counts)!

Ah, thank you! I did kind of sort of hear that testimony earlier today, but through a fog. Please tell me you weren't naked and your wife wasn't wearing a school girl outfit.

 

[wdwmom0f3]

I think I figured out why JA's brain is so foggy thanks to your statement. She was sniffing gas all the way to TA's. She must of been high as a kite by the time she got there. I just hope the defense doesn't figure it out. They might try to use it.

I think you are on to something!

I cringe every time I hear her say something about not remembering or being in a fog. I can't remember dates that I did things last month yet she remembers dates of events from years ago. I promise you she hasn't forgotten a single thing from that day.

What really creeps me out is that she seems to be enjoying herself during this trial. She seems happy to be there to me like she is eager to tell her story. It is just absolutely discussing.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I think you are on to something!

I cringe every time I hear her say something about not remembering or being in a fog. I can't remember dates that I did things last month yet she remembers dates of events from years ago. I promise you she hasn't forgotten a single thing from that day.

What really creeps me out is that she seems to be enjoying herself during this trial. She seems happy to be there to me like she is eager to tell her story. It is just absolutely discussing.

I need to remember that line about being in a fog..

 

[crz4mm2]

Well yeah. If we're going to do it, we're going to do it right. Wait, that quite didn't come out the way I wanted it to.

Bahahahahaah Good thing I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I read this!

 

[lorimay]

JM was fantastic...

I now understand when he asks her questions about one of her stories like the gas cans and the cutting finger and he just sorta stops.

He is going to use all this in his rebuttal to prove more lies.

I am really thinking Matt is going to be there for prosecution.
Because if he is would never betray her, the defense would be calling him.
He must have recanted in January.

As far as the restaurant story, he is probably going to have someone from there to testify she never made a report and they are required by law to make a report, busy or not.

Also, Walmart he will have some kind of proof there was no return.

The gas station, I would think they may be able to pull exactly what that transaction was for.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOOOOO GOOD.

 

[crz4mm2]

JM was fantastic...

I now understand when he asks her questions about one of her stories like the gas cans and the cutting finger and he just sorta stops.

He is going to use all this in his rebuttal to prove more lies.

I am really thinking Matt is going to be there for prosecution.
Because if he is would never betray her, the defense would be calling him.
He must have recanted in January.

As far as the restaurant story, he is probably going to have someone from there to testify she never made a report and they are required by law to make a report, busy or not.

Also, Walmart he will have some kind of proof there was no return.

The gas station, I would think they may be able to pull exactly what that transaction was for.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOOOOO GOOD.

I agree he was making those points to come back to them
I can't WAIT!

 

[Angeni11]

Even if you get cash back from Walmart they still have to put it in the system that a gas can was returned for inventory control. JM said they have no record of a gas can being returned that entire week.

I guess Jodi doesn't realize how inventory works. I never worked in a store but when we worked concession stands at O's game way back we had to count everything multiple times before and after and keep track of those we even tossed.

 

[cabanafrau]

I take it from reading here that the Defendant has an entirely different demeanor when being questioned by her attorney and the Prosecutor. Has the Prosecutor been exceptionally sharp or harsh with her? Are all of the Prosecution questions asked aggressively? Has the Judge ever told the Prosecution to settle down or back off? Is the Defense constantly making an argumentative objection to the Prosecutor's questioning? Does the Judge sustain them?

Has the Defendant actually both fought back and collapsed under Prosecution questioning? I get the idea from the threads here that she has, along with some bad acting on her part and that she has turned around and perked right up for her attorney's questions. Juries get annoyed about stuff like that -- and they really get resentful when a matter drags on and on for petty reasons. Granted, the juries I've experienced have gotten angry about pointless drivel that delayed lunch 45 minutes or meant they were not going to be instructed and released to deliberate that day after all, instead having to come back the next day or the next week, causing further disruption in their own lives. Attorneys on both sides know this and usually work hard not to be the one who irritates the jury.

The jury in this case has been called for extraordinary service, and to be honest I'm pretty sure that's why they weren't sequestered. From what I've read here about the Defendant's behavior on the stand, she's brought down the conviction on her head merely with how she's conducted herself in the box, evidence notwithstanding. Knowing the Prosecution has admission of culpability and plenty of other direct and circumstantial evidence to back up their charges, Defendant's only hope was to garner juror sympathy. Sounds like she's done the opposite.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I take it from reading here that the Defendant has an entirely different demeanor when being questioned by her attorney and the Prosecutor. Has the Prosecutor been exceptionally sharp or harsh with her? Are all of the Prosecution questions asked aggressively? Has the Judge ever told the Prosecution to settle down or back off? Is the Defense constantly making an argumentative objection to the Prosecutor's questioning? Does the Judge sustain them?

Has the Defendant actually both fought back and collapsed under Prosecution questioning? I get the idea from the threads here that she has, along with some bad acting on her part and that she has turned around and perked right up for her attorney's questions. Juries get annoyed about stuff like that -- and they really get resentful when a matter drags on and on for petty reasons. Granted, the juries I've experienced have gotten angry about pointless drivel that delayed lunch 45 minutes or meant they were not going to be instructed and released to deliberate that day after all, instead having to come back the next day or the next week, causing further disruption in their own lives. Attorneys on both sides know this and usually work hard not to be the one who irritates the jury.

The jury in this case has been called for extraordinary service, and to be honest I'm pretty sure that's why they weren't sequestered. From what I've read here about the Defendant's behavior on the stand, she's brought down the conviction on her head merely with how she's conducted herself in the box, evidence notwithstanding. Knowing the Prosecution has admission of culpability and plenty of other direct and circumstantial evidence to back up their charges, Defendant's only hope was to garner juror sympathy. Sounds like she's done the opposite.

The jury has been asking her questions. And she keeps changing her story. They know she is lying. She stands up to the prosecution and almost makes it a challenge. She should be going the opposite way since her defense is that she is a battered woman. The prosecution catches her in all of her lies. So I would say, I think she is cocky enough to go against what even her attorney's tell her to do.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Even if you get cash back from Walmart they still have to put it in the system that a gas can was returned for inventory control. JM said they have no record of a gas can being returned that entire week.

I guess Jodi doesn't realize how inventory works. I never worked in a store but when we worked concession stands at O's game way back we had to count everything multiple times before and after and keep track of those we even tossed.

Everything is inventoried. Weather it is sent back or written off. Regardless there would have been a receipt given to her even for cash.

 

[Pinnie]

Has it ever been established who the magazine notes were for?

 

[lorimay]

Has it ever been established who the magazine notes were for?

I believe it was Matt Mccarthy

 

[pigletgirl]

I take it from reading here that the Defendant has an entirely different demeanor when being questioned by her attorney and the Prosecutor. Has the Prosecutor been exceptionally sharp or harsh with her? Are all of the Prosecution questions asked aggressively? Has the Judge ever told the Prosecution to settle down or back off? Is the Defense constantly making an argumentative objection to the Prosecutor's questioning? Does the Judge sustain them?

Has the Defendant actually both fought back and collapsed under Prosecution questioning? I get the idea from the threads here that she has, along with some bad acting on her part and that she has turned around and perked right up for her attorney's questions. Juries get annoyed about stuff like that -- and they really get resentful when a matter drags on and on for petty reasons. Granted, the juries I've experienced have gotten angry about pointless drivel that delayed lunch 45 minutes or meant they were not going to be instructed and released to deliberate that day after all, instead having to come back the next day or the next week, causing further disruption in their own lives. Attorneys on both sides know this and usually work hard not to be the one who irritates the jury.

The jury in this case has been called for extraordinary service, and to be honest I'm pretty sure that's why they weren't sequestered. From what I've read here about the Defendant's behavior on the stand, she's brought down the conviction on her head merely with how she's conducted herself in the box, evidence notwithstanding. Knowing the Prosecution has admission of culpability and plenty of other direct and circumstantial evidence to back up their charges, Defendant's only hope was to garner juror sympathy. Sounds like she's done the opposite.

She is a liar and the jury knows it.

 

[Jessica14]

She is a liar and the jury knows it.

I was watching Nancy Grace last night and one of the commentators disagreed with the others who said the jury is trying to see where she is inconsistent. She believed, and I have to agree, that they know its all a fabrication and in essence, they are just trying to make her squirm a bit more and get her to bury herself further.
Jessica

 

[wdwmom0f3]

I have a question. She was asked about negatives in the church. In her answer she said that being gay was a negative in the eyes of the church. She then said that Travis wanted to have a threesome, and she isn't gay and wasn't comfortable with it. Did I not read that she was planning to have a baby with her gay lover from jail, with some doner?