****Jodi Arias - Oh My Goodness!!!****

[yorkietalkjilly]

LOL. Nancy, I loved that picture! I wonder how many memes about Juan and Jodi Arias are out there on the net?

[Wylie's Mom]

Given what he had, I thought Nurmi did a very decent job....remember, his hands were pretty tied and he had very few options. He actually did bring up some decent points in terms of poking holes in the state's case and creating some talking points for the jury. He doesn't have a lot of personality or 'oompf', which was needed -- but I think he did a helluva job given his circumstances and given he didn't even want to be on this case. Poor guy, how *awful* it's gotta be to freakin' defend someone you can't stand and, more importantly, probably don't believe one bit. Can you imagine???

I think the verdict will be 2nd degree or a hung jury. But, eh, who knows??? Gawd I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Given what he had, I thought Nurmi did a very decent job....remember, his hands were pretty tied and he had very few options. He actually did bring up some decent points in terms of poking holes in the state's case and creating some talking points for the jury. He doesn't have a lot of personality or 'oompf', which was needed -- but I think he did a helluva job given his circumstances and given he didn't even want to be on this case. Poor guy, how *awful* it's gotta be to freakin' defend someone you can't stand and, more importantly, probably don't believe one bit. Can you imagine???

I think the verdict will be 2nd degree or a hung jury. But, eh, who knows??? Gawd I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room!

Why do you think this?

[jp4m2]

I gotta agree Ann with your prediction. I just don't have much faith in our jury system anymore since Casey Anthony got away with killing her child. These are the reasons why I doubt a just decisions: people seem to have lost their ability to use common sense, they seem to want every single question answered and if not they won't convict, they over think, and they feel sorry for the perpetrator. Factor all that in and the chances for a just conviction really diminish.

I was on another forum and saw a discussion concerning Nurmi's closing argument pertaining to the remark about not liking Jodi, and the mistake he made saying Jodi didn't admit to taking any gas can back. The members discussing this thought Nurmi either made a big blunder or pulled a clever ploy. They were saying the remarks he made "could" be used to Jodi's advantage, if she's convicted, she could use it for grounds to ask for a new trial based on "ineffective counsel" as the remake showed he let his personal feelings get in the way of properly representing her.......I don't know if someone would sacrifice their reputation by looking incompetent, especially for someone he didn't like.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Given what he had, I thought Nurmi did a very decent job....remember, his hands were pretty tied and he had very few options. He actually did bring up some decent points in terms of poking holes in the state's case and creating some talking points for the jury. He doesn't have a lot of personality or 'oompf', which was needed -- but I think he did a helluva job given his circumstances and given he didn't even want to be on this case. Poor guy, how *awful* it's gotta be to freakin' defend someone you can't stand and, more importantly, probably don't believe one bit. Can you imagine???

I think the verdict will be 2nd degree or a hung jury. But, eh, who knows??? Gawd I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room!

Ann, girl, you got me puzzled? Huh? I know it's late and I'm functioning only at amoebic-level thinking lately but:

What holes did Numbing Nurmi poke and what points that there aren't equally damning, sound facts in such a cumulative collection as to totally refute them and in fact, infer the opposite so strongly that they become corroborative? The State's case is stronger than most any murder case of circumstantial evidence and all of that circumstantial evidence of premeditation and personal instability points to a lifetime lier who has borderline personality disorder with witnessed evidence of stalking behavior who coincidentally did a whole series of highly suspicious things within 48 hours either side of the murder that she cannot explain or even offer circumstantial proof of that sufficiently overrides contravening circumstantial evidence. And why in the world does she only remember things that tend to help her case and "forget" the rest? Of just say, "I can't explain that"!

All that we have as her reason for her snapping and killing in "self defense" is that a proven lifetime lier says the man attacked her and domestically abused her, though she kept coming back, even when he told her not to, knowing she had the power to lure him back in with her sexuality and adoration, though he was tired of it all and wanted out. But despite still being drawn in by her sexually when she's standing on his doorstep, I think while she was snapping pictures of him, preparing to kill him and have those photos to "enjoy" afterward, she was probably one last time sensually and flirtatiously verbally trying to him to marry her and/or take her to Cancun. Then when he said "no, that's it, Jodi, you are not going and furthermore, I'm not marrying you - we're done", she laid his camera aside, ran out of the bathroom pretending to bawl, got her knife and gun and back she came, murder in her heart. She would have the last word. Are there things we can't answer? Yes, in every unwitnessed murder there are always things we can't know and wonder why the killer forget to do this or didn't do that. But that's how even the smartest killer can get caught - having human moments and forgetting things.

She wasn't injured herself or bruised and apparently not even a hangnail after the fight for life and there is that mountain of circumstantial evidence of all of the things that she did to prepare for and cover her crime and lie, lie, lie as usual about it all. What makes anybody think this is the one time in her life she's telling the truth when there is not one piece of circumstantial or other evidence to back her up? No nude photos of little boys on the computer and no injuries to her and no hospital visits or no one saw her with bruises or a black eye, broken bones, missing tooth or anything any time ever. And a man lies dead, all his dignity stolen and his sexual peccadilloes carefully recorded and kept to share with the world as it clucks its tongue in distaste about him while reading the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy.

And I agree with you - I think there will be people on that jury that vote against first degree murder or vote first degree with life/30 years, etc., and they'll give the same reasons people like that always give - they had questions. Some people have to have the murder on video or see something with their own two eyes before they can trust their own deductive or reasoning powers. They are too unsure of their own abilities to make substantial decisions, such as voting a verdict with a long, long sentence or the death penalty. Ah well. If she does get off with 2nd degree or manslaughter and gets out of prison fairly quickly, she'll have to live a Casey Anthony type existence and that won't be any fun.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

I gotta agree Ann with your prediction. I just don't have much faith in our jury system anymore since Casey Anthony got away with killing her child. These are the reasons why I doubt a just decisions: people seem to have lost their ability to use common sense, they seem to want every single question answered and if not they won't convict, they over think, and they feel sorry for the perpetrator. Factor all that in and the chances for a just conviction really diminish.

I was on another forum and saw a discussion concerning Nurmi's closing argument pertaining to the remark about not liking Jodi, and the mistake he made saying Jodi didn't admit to taking any gas can back. The members discussing this thought Nurmi either made a big blunder or pulled a clever ploy. They were saying the remarks he made "could" be used to Jodi's advantage, if she's convicted, she could use it for grounds to ask for a new trial based on "ineffective counsel" as the remake showed he let his personal feelings get in the way of properly representing her.......I don't know if someone would sacrifice their reputation by looking incompetent, especially for someone he didn't like.

Yeah, but you know appeals take 3 or 4 years to come up, even when they do. And who's to say the appeals court will rule for her when the case does come before it? Those judges may think Nurmi did well and didn't make a significant enough misstep to overturn or grant a new trial on just that.

[Wylie's Mom]

Jeanie -- NUMBING NURMI -- omg, PERFECTION !! Good one, girl.

Believe me, I wasn't saying Nurmi gave a stronger close or argument than Juan - not even close! Not even in the ballpark. But he did well given his toolbox. What I was saying is that he gave the jury some genuine talking points, some little nag-at-your-brain inconsistencies that will drive people nuts unless they can talk about them and find ways to lay them aside. *THAT* right there - the fact that he could wiggle in some doubt and questions -- is exactly what he needed to do. It doesn't matter that the state's case is SO strong. Nurmi and the defense just needs some nagging doubts to potentially snag the jury on. If he has that, then he may get Jodi 2nd degree or a hung jury.

Nancy - the reason I went with that verdict is partly bc of what I said in the above paragraph. But also bc I think there will be people on the jury who will obsess about the "what ifs" -- meaning, the "what ifs" that lean in Jodi's favor. Jodi's story has SO many holes...but that's not what people will get hung up on or obsessive about, they'll get hung up on the little things that make them almost believe - even for a second - that important parts of Jodi's story are true. I guarantee someone will get hung up on Travis's comment about the "12 yr old girl's orgasm" or "12 yr old girl getting corked" comments -- and if they infer something huge from that, then boom, the story inside their head will be completely altered.

I'm interested in the fact that there are 8 men and 4 women...what do you guys think of this? I cannot decide what gender would be more vulnerable to Jodi on this one....I actually think women might be more swayed by her than the men on this jury. I think the men will identify with Travis, and how something like that could happen to any good man (like themselves).

[ladyjane]

I don't believe that one snippet of a cell phone conversation will sway a person with all of the evidence that completely convicts her. There is virtually NO proof anywhere of the allegations the defense has made that Travis was a child molester. A comment like that need not be taken in the context of: "I want to have sex with a 12 year old." I believe he was talking about her vocalizations. I certainly hope the jurors have their heads firmly attached without a bunch of rocks rattling in their skulls. This woman is a cold blooded killer imho.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Jeanie -- NUMBING NURMI -- omg, PERFECTION !! Good one, girl.

Believe me, I wasn't saying Nurmi gave a stronger close or argument than Juan - not even close! Not even in the ballpark. But he did well given his toolbox. What I was saying is that he gave the jury some genuine talking points, some little nag-at-your-brain inconsistencies that will drive people nuts unless they can talk about them and find ways to lay them aside. *THAT* right there - the fact that he could wiggle in some doubt and questions -- is exactly what he needed to do. It doesn't matter that the state's case is SO strong. Nurmi and the defense just needs some nagging doubts to potentially snag the jury on. If he has that, then he may get Jodi 2nd degree or a hung jury.

Nancy - the reason I went with that verdict is partly bc of what I said in the above paragraph. But also bc I think there will be people on the jury who will obsess about the "what ifs" -- meaning, the "what ifs" that lean in Jodi's favor. Jodi's story has SO many holes...but that's not what people will get hung up on or obsessive about, they'll get hung up on the little things that make them almost believe - even for a second - that important parts of Jodi's story are true. I guarantee someone will get hung up on Travis's comment about the "12 yr old girl's orgasm" or "12 yr old girl getting corked" comments -- and if they infer something huge from that, then boom, the story inside their head will be completely altered.

I'm interested in the fact that there are 8 men and 4 women...what do you guys think of this? I cannot decide what gender would be more vulnerable to Jodi on this one....I actually think women might be more swayed by her than the men on this jury. I think the men will identify with Travis, and how something like that could happen to any good man (like themselves).

Yeah, I guess this is what I've worried about all along, that there will be one or two who for whatever reason, just need so much proof. I'm hoping since Juan laid the scene out so well, and that they could actually picture it in their heads, that they will convict her of first, anything less is really a great victory for the defense.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Ann, Nancy, that's my worry, too - those one or two people with "questions". These days it doesn't take much defense-wise to raise the questions Nurmi did but when he did trash Travis Alexander and bring up the issue about a dead man with immature sexual fantasies about a hypothetical 12 year old girl(which apparently many non-PC men do still have if you ever go on Twitter click on the wrong hashtag(!) or observe the culture at large), I lost all patience with him. Really? He's going to use that as an excuse to say it wasn't pre-meditated or Alexander was a domestic abuser?

Nurmi's saying that doesn't raise the question in a reasonable person's mind that could render TA some type of domestic abuser and excuse his pre-meditated murder. But that's in any reasonable person's mind - and as we know, juries are usually a cross-section of us and we aren't all that reasonable at times.

I'm so jaded now I'm pretty sure we'll here one or two of them say they had some questions and just didn't get a clear picture and yada yada yada so they had to vote 2nd degree or worse, manslaughter. No courage of their convictions and a long or death sentence is just too hard for them to take responsibility for. But if society doesn't nail her on this one - it will sooner or later by ostracizing her and the true nuts will make her life miserable. I don't doubt she'll re-offend if she walks very early and then justice will get her. I hope I'm wrong and this jury is different but I worry it's not. I hope Linda is right.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

Ann, Nancy, that's my worry, too - those one or two people with "questions". These days it doesn't take much defense-wise to raise the questions Nurmi did but when he did trash Travis Alexander and bring up the issue about a dead man with immature sexual fantasies about a hypothetical 12 year old girl(which apparently many non-PC men do still have if you ever go on Twitter click on the wrong hashtag(!) or observe the culture at large), I lost all patience with him. Really? He's going to use that as an excuse to say it wasn't pre-meditated or Alexander was a domestic abuser?

Nurmi's saying that doesn't raise the question in a reasonable person's mind that could render TA some type of domestic abuser and excuse his pre-meditated murder. But that's in any reasonable person's mind - and as we know, juries are usually a cross-section of us and we aren't all that reasonable at times.

I'm so jaded now I'm pretty sure we'll here one or two of them say they had some questions and just didn't get a clear picture and yada yada yada so they had to vote 2nd degree or worse, manslaughter. No courage of their convictions and a long or death sentence is just too hard for them to take responsibility for. But if society doesn't nail her on this one - it will sooner or later by ostracizing her and the true nuts will make her life miserable. I don't doubt she'll re-offend if she walks very early and then justice will get her. I hope I'm wrong and this jury is different but I worry it's not. I hope Linda is right.

This is kind of off the subject, but a lot of boys start going through puberty around the age of 12, and many girls at that age are well into puberty and look like women, not little girls. It’s not unusual for a man to have fantasies about the first things that turned him on, so a guy having fantasies about an innocent 12 year old isn't really the same as a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted before secondary sexual characteristic kick in. I think it was Jodi who played up the 12 year innocent girl part. I think that was part of her shtick with guys. She makes her voice sound so young and innocent at times. I think she woke him up to a whole new world of sex because she knew his little Morman girlfriends weren't going to do that, and this was a way of controling him. Was she planning the murder then? Why did she record it, was she planning on blackmailing him?

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

This is kind of off the subject, but a lot of boys start going through puberty around the age of 12, and many girls at that age are well into puberty and look like women, not little girls. It’s not unusual for a man to have fantasies about the first things that turned him on, so a guy having fantasies about an innocent 12 year old isn't really the same as a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted before secondary sexual characteristic kick in. I think it was Jodi who played up the 12 year innocent girl part. I think that was part of her shtick with guys. She makes her voice sound so young and innocent at times. I think she woke him up to a whole new world of sex because she knew his little Morman girlfriends weren't going to do that, and this was a way of controling him. Was she planning the murder then? Why did she record it, was she planning on blackmailing him?

You've summed it up exactly right, Nancy. Males still stuck in adolescent fantasy are not pedophiles if they show no other signs, from what I have read. And we'll never know what she did or said to him that made him say that to her about her being "sick" and "scamming" him and that she was so evil and the worst thing that ever happened to him. I think she suggested or outright said she had proof he wasn't a good Mormon or something and would send his texts or phone sex recordings to his boss, pastor, friends, if he didn't take her on the trip or give her money or whatever. She could threatened to cry rape and beat herself up after one weekend - that would have been enough to get him in trouble at work and church for a good while. Wouldn't put it past her to likely show up on his doorstep later begging for forgiveness she ever threatened that, wanted to make it up to him, dressed like a schoolgirl, hair in braids with bows, long schoolgirl socks, short skirt, wearing a Breton and carrying a big lollipop. Or wearing nothing at all under a raincoat, etc., and flashed it open there on the porch and he let her in one more time. And I still think she gave him some GHB and got him just as it was taking effect, which is one easy way she could catch him by surprise. And if she got it on the street from some drugdealer, he's not going to fess up and get himself in police trouble for dealing. haha. We could go on, couldn't we? I wouldn't put anything past that creature.

Did you hear that LMN or somebody like that is almost finished with the movie about Arias and Alexander?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

You've summed it up exactly right, Nancy. Males still stuck in adolescent fantasy are not pedophiles if they show no other signs, from what I have read. And we'll never know what she did or said to him that made him say that to her about her being "sick" and "scamming" him and that she was so evil and the worst thing that ever happened to him. I think she suggested or outright said she had proof he wasn't a good Mormon or something and would send his texts or phone sex recordings to his boss, pastor, friends, if he didn't take her on the trip or give her money or whatever. She could threatened to cry rape and beat herself up after one weekend - that would have been enough to get him in trouble at work and church for a good while. Wouldn't put it past her to likely show up on his doorstep later begging for forgiveness she ever threatened that, wanted to make it up to him, dressed like a schoolgirl, hair in braids with bows, long schoolgirl socks, short skirt, wearing a Breton and carrying a big lollipop. Or wearing nothing at all under a raincoat, etc., and flashed it open there on the porch and he let her in one more time. And I still think she gave him some GHB and got him just as it was taking effect, which is one easy way she could catch him by surprise. And if she got it on the street from some drugdealer, he's not going to fess up and get himself in police trouble for dealing. haha. We could go on, couldn't we? I wouldn't put anything past that creature.

Did you hear that LMN or somebody like that is almost finished with the movie about Arias and Alexander?

I heard Lifetime was doing a movie on "Dirty Little Secrets." Had to laugh at Nancy Grace, who was talking about Nurmi's closing argument where he kept repeating the words, "Jodi was Travis' dirty little secret." Nancy said, "What's the big secret, that Travis liked sex?"

I've been wondering why Travis said to her you've betrayed me and you are so evil, and things of that nature, I think you're right, she probably told hime that she would tell all.

[yorkietalkjilly]

I really have wondered why that wasn't brought up in trail since EVERYTHING sex wise was mentioned 40 times over, why that wasn't at least brought up. The dead man said she scammed him. Important? Maybe it did come up one day in trial and wasn't mentioned in the nightly updates, or I missed that part of them, etc. But "Scammed"? Not a word most people use readily in the relationship context. But I'll bet she did threaten him with those recordings and who knows what else.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

I really have wondered why that wasn't brought up in trail since EVERYTHING sex wise was mentioned 40 times over, why that wasn't at least brought up. The dead man said she scammed him. Important? Maybe it did come up one day in trial and wasn't mentioned in the nightly updates, or I missed that part of them, etc. But "Scammed"? Not a word most people use readily in the relationship context. But I'll bet she did threaten him with those recordings and who knows what else.

I was wondering about the scam thing too, I know Travis sold her the car and she broke it, and I wonder if she wanted to quit making payments? One of the first calls she gave Travis after he died was to ask about her check and did he cash it yet. She told Detective Flores that she owed a lot of people money, her mom and dad, her grandparents, several boyfriends, I had wondered if she tried to get out of paying Travis for the car. It never set well with me that Travis was paying her for housekeeping, I think she talked him into that, and that old guy who testified, she talked him into giving her a free phone. There's a lot we don't know about Jodi.