Jodi Arias Jurors Have 'Probably 100 Questions' For Defendant

Mar 5, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Switched

Jurors in Jodi Arias' murder trial have submitted about 100 questions they want put to the accused killer on their behalf, the judge said Tuesday.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
Anon

Bridgewater, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

I hope the judge reins in Arias's answers, because she has difficulty responding succinctly to anything. Otherwise, the soliloquy will go on for an eternity, and the trial might never end.

Strangely, I found Arias more sympathetic during cross when the prosecutor got her to admit some things and she responded with emotion. She came much closer to actually looking remorseful. The redirect was tortuously long, sleep inducing, and it appeared that she went right back into her narcissistic, manipulative persona; who massaged facts, or blatantly made up new stories in order to recover from cross. I don't think it did her any favors. She didn't look frightened recalling abusive events, or the alleged deadly attack by Alexander, and she didn't look sorry for killing him.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 6, 2013
 
I like the gas cans.

She says she had them to save money on gas. However two five gallon cans cost $35. Assume she saved 50 cents a gallon(not likely) on fill-ups she would have to fill up 7 times just to pay for cans.

A more plausible explanation would be having the cans to prevent running out of gas. But even then she'd need only one as the Focus she was driving gets 30+ miles to the gallon and one five-gallon can of gas would take her more than 150 miles. A distance where she could surely find gas.

Maybe she didn't think about it the way I'm stating it, most prbably don't, but when you use something to save gas it is always necessary to compute how much savings does it take to pay for the expense of the something used to save gas.

A more reasonable explanation is the one put forth by prosecutor that she had extra gas so she would not have to buy gas near Mesa, Arizona and there would be no evidence that she drove near there and could therefore cover her killing of Travis.

After the plot went South other evidence like camera and blood showed she stopped in Mesa. She is supposed to be a photographer but did not know water would not destroy cameras memory.

Another thing, since there is nothing to indicate she usually or ever before this time travelled with a gun, why did she have a gun on this visit to Travis, and why did she go there with it? If she was expecting trouble why go there at all? She pretty much forecloses self-defense as a defense even though she is entitled to it at any time she is legitimately threatened with great bodily injury.

She could have abandoned any pre-meditation by the time a need arose for her to defend herself but she bears some liability for putting herself in a situation where self-defense is necessary.

No self-defense it is likely first degree murder, if some degree of self-defense it may be second degree murder. but she is not gonna walk as she thinks she will. She is looking at 15 to 25 years anyway it goes.
Trial Watch

Quincy, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 6, 2013
 
How did the prosecution POSSIBLY meet their burden of proof if this jury still had 100 questions -- ONE HUNDRED QUESTIONS -- after the prosecution rested their cross-exam?

There's no way in hell the State did it's job effectively if there are still that many unresolved questions!

This is insane.
Oasis

Holly Springs, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 6, 2013
 
Trial Watch wrote:
How did the prosecution POSSIBLY meet their burden of proof if this jury still had 100 questions -- ONE HUNDRED QUESTIONS -- after the prosecution rested their cross-exam?
There's no way in hell the State did it's job effectively if there are still that many unresolved questions!
This is insane.
IT IS INSANE!!!

I can't believe the jury WANTS to hear any more of her BS.

Hell, here I was feeling all sorry for them. LOL
Trial Watch

Quincy, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 6, 2013
 
Oasis wrote:
<quoted text>
IT IS INSANE!!!
I can't believe the jury WANTS to hear any more of her BS.
Hell, here I was feeling all sorry for them. LOL
You make a damn good point.
nothing new

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 7, 2013
 
She will, if convicted, walk free or recieve probation. The abuse excuse is a very effective way for some people to get away with murder
Anon

Bridgewater, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 7, 2013
 
Trial Watch wrote:
How did the prosecution POSSIBLY meet their burden of proof if this jury still had 100 questions -- ONE HUNDRED QUESTIONS -- after the prosecution rested their cross-exam?
There's no way in hell the State did it's job effectively if there are still that many unresolved questions!
This is insane.
I didn't perceive many of the questions as a search for clarification of her points, but instead I saw them as a "calling out" of inconsistencies or actions that defied reason. They had to listen to her for two weeks straight, maybe they are being passive-aggressive with this line of questioning. Or, perhaps, I'm just projecting how I would feel after being a captive audience to her ever evolving tale, who knows?
Anon

Bridgewater, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 7, 2013
 
Aside from the frustration that jurors may feel listening to her, they may be bolstering their own positions about guilt or innocence for deliberations. Although, personally, I would never be a death qualified juror, I can imagine that, with such a serious penalty at stake, they would want concrete confirmation of their suspicions. And why not? There are questions I'd like to ask her; not that I would expect a straight answer. But maybe there are elements of truth that leak out through the lies. She did concede to some things during cross.
Trial Watch

Quincy, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 8, 2013
 
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't perceive many of the questions as a search for clarification of her points, but instead I saw them as a "calling out" of inconsistencies or actions that defied reason. They had to listen to her for two weeks straight, maybe they are being passive-aggressive with this line of questioning. Or, perhaps, I'm just projecting how I would feel after being a captive audience to her ever evolving tale, who knows?
Do you think they have disregarded their instructions and their duty as jurors - not to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant - until ALL of the evidence has been presented?

It sounds like that is what you're saying you would do, and what they have done.
That isn't very impartial.

Appeals are so tedious, aren't they?
Trial Watch

Quincy, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 8, 2013
 
nothing new wrote:
She will, if convicted, walk free or recieve probation. The abuse excuse is a very effective way for some people to get away with murder
It has worked favorably for some defendants.
non

Bridgewater, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 8, 2013
 
Trial Watch wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think they have disregarded their instructions and their duty as jurors - not to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant - until ALL of the evidence has been presented?
It sounds like that is what you're saying you would do, and what they have done.
That isn't very impartial.
Appeals are so tedious, aren't they?
I think they are developing an opinion about this testimony and this witness. I suppose the expert might be able to explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions, but that will be a rough road. If you don't like that they are developing and revealing their opinions via questions, in the middle of a trial, then maybe you want the process to change in Arizona. Other states do not allow direct questions from the jury to a witness. They will get instructions that they can discount all testimony of a witness if they find them incredible. That's a risk the defendant takes in getting on the stand. Particularly one who has lied, has admitted such, and then was caught lying on the stand.
Anon

Bridgewater, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 8, 2013
 
Trial Watch wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think they have disregarded their instructions and their duty as jurors - not to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant - until ALL of the evidence has been presented?
It sounds like that is what you're saying you would do, and what they have done.
That isn't very impartial.
Appeals are so tedious, aren't they?
Realistically speaking, people are not blank slates. They listen to testimony and they are concurrently developing opinions about whether or not they find a witness credible and believable. That is human nature. One witness for either side deemed not believable to a juror might be inconsequential. Only in this case, the witness is the defendant, so it carries more weight in the final analysis. To wit, the deliberation involves all jurors, various human viewpoints, and collective testimony, not just testimony of one witness.

My opinion means absolutely nothing since I'm not a juror in this case, I would never be qualified to begin with, and I clearly stated that I was projecting my own feelings. I don't see how any of this would play into an appeal.
Cock A Doodle

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 1, 2013
 
WMCOL wrote:
I like the gas cans.
She says she had them to save money on gas. However two five gallon cans cost $35. Assume she saved 50 cents a gallon(not likely) on fill-ups she would have to fill up 7 times just to pay for cans.
A more plausible explanation would be having the cans to prevent running out of gas. But even then she'd need only one as the Focus she was driving gets 30+ miles to the gallon and one five-gallon can of gas would take her more than 150 miles. A distance where she could surely find gas.
Maybe she didn't think about it the way I'm stating it, most prbably don't, but when you use something to save gas it is always necessary to compute how much savings does it take to pay for the expense of the something used to save gas.
A more reasonable explanation is the one put forth by prosecutor that she had extra gas so she would not have to buy gas near Mesa, Arizona and there would be no evidence that she drove near there and could therefore cover her killing of Travis.
After the plot went South other evidence like camera and blood showed she stopped in Mesa. She is supposed to be a photographer but did not know water would not destroy cameras memory.
Another thing, since there is nothing to indicate she usually or ever before this time travelled with a gun, why did she have a gun on this visit to Travis, and why did she go there with it? If she was expecting trouble why go there at all? She pretty much forecloses self-defense as a defense even though she is entitled to it at any time she is legitimately threatened with great bodily injury.
She could have abandoned any pre-meditation by the time a need arose for her to defend herself but she bears some liability for putting herself in a situation where self-defense is necessary.
No self-defense it is likely first degree murder, if some degree of self-defense it may be second degree murder. but she is not gonna walk as she thinks she will. She is looking at 15 to 25 years anyway it goes.
The way she could have saved money was to STAY HOME. I saw the tickets and it cost her hundreds of dollars for car rental and even more for gas. Isn't it odd that her trip coincided with being either a day or days before he was set to leave on his Cancun trip. In one interview, she said Travis had found the girl/woman he wanted to marry. I'm not sure if it was the one going with him on the trip or someone else. I think the other "Boyfriend" was just a pawn in her game so it would look like she went to see him and not to see Travis. He was allegedly clueless that she was still seeing Travis.

It's obvious that she had something in mind. I also wonder if she thought she might either burn his place down if he and his new love interest were there together or if he wouldn't let her in or if maybe she planned to move his body and burn it up in the desert/bury him but it proved to be too much for her. Lots of questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Scottsdale Forum right now

Search the Scottsdale Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Fat people holding up the line 3 hr Bubba 7
How Phoenix Convicted A Transgender Woman For W... 3 hr Bubba 2
Sources: KTVK drops 'Good Morning Arizona' pers... (Mar '09) 9 hr GinaLover 552
Shanesha Taylor: Supporters raise $90K for tear... 11 hr Tom Virnoy 3
subuxone 13 hr boodia 4
Jodi Arias (Jan '13) 14 hr notevenreal 252
Insulin Syringes (Nov '08) 18 hr Steve 10
•••
•••
•••
•••

Scottsdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Scottsdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••