SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

So what was the bit with Martinez and his super intense 2-3 minutes of questioning? I missed the reason for that.

I was able to catch him firing questions at Arias (who's wall went up instantly) and Nurmi flying out of his chair to object and approach the bench. I think that's the fastest that dude has moved this whole process.

I missed that, too, Aubrie, as I actually did fall asleep whilst watching.

eta: I am looking forward to when the jurors can ask questions. I didn't know that you could do that in any state. Is Arizona the only state that allows that? Why don't they have any trial tv shows showing jurors asking questions, that would be interesting. I am trying to think of questions I would ask. I keep coming up with, why did you slit his throat nearly decapitating Travis? And, why did you drag him back into the shower?

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 6:49 PM, March 4th (Monday)]

I believe the prosecutor was allowed to question Arias because something either said by Arias or her defense attorney triggered Voir dire. I think Nurmi (her lawyer) was attempting to introduce new evidence (or something) & the prosecutor was allowed to question her regarding that evidence. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but I did see Voir dire mentioned several times today on legal message boards in regards to why the prosecutor was allowed to question her today.

....and I agree, that was THE fastest that Mr.Nurmi has moved the entire trial.

I was eating lunch when they started playing the phone sex tapes AGAIN I was watching a live stream from inside the courtroom so I heard it ALL...EGADS! I just don't see the relevance at all but apparently the Judge did because she allowed it. I thought it was terribly biased as it only had Travis' words written on the screen & only Travis' voice with bits of hers. They have played that tape in it's entirety before, but this was different. I don't get why the Judge allowed that at all.

Awww c'mon SisterMilkshake. You know the answers to those!

Jury: Why did you slit his throat nearly decapitating Travis?

Arias: I don't know. I don't remember.

Jury: And, why did you drag him back into the shower?

Arias: I don't know. I don't remember.

Jury: What did you have to drink on April 2, 1993?

Arias: I had an orange juice for breakfast, three pancakes, and two pieces of sausage. For lunch, we had ham and cheese sandwiches and sweet tea. I remember it so vividly because the tea was just a little too sweet and it really hurt my tooth. Dinner was roast beef and mashed potatoes. The potatoes were lumpy and the gravy was not homemade. We had water with dinner. It had 2 1/2 ice cubes in it and there was 3 water rings on the table from when I would pick up my glass and set it down.

Ok, I'll behave now.

That would make sense starrysky. Admission of new evidence would mean Prosecution gets a shot at it.

I'm wondering at the judge's allowance of this three ring circus. The SAME frickin' questions 450 times a day for 2-3 weeks? *yawn* Maybe she's allowing the cow enough rope to hang herself. Who knows.

Found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1skaYT46pY

Skip to about 26:00 in and it gives the beginning of what happened. The actual questioning begins at about 30:44. Martinez jumps in at 32:20.

I am sure that is exactly how it would go, Aubrie.

Judges are usually more lenient during death penalty cases. They are trying to do all they can to avoid an appeal.

Arias: I had an orange juice for breakfast, three pancakes, and two pieces of sausage. For lunch, we had ham and cheese sandwiches and sweet tea. I remember it so vividly because the tea was just a little too sweet and it really hurt my tooth. Dinner was roast beef and mashed potatoes. The potatoes were lumpy and the gravy was not homemade. We had water with dinner. It had 2 1/2 ice cubes in it and there was 3 water rings on the table from when I would pick up my glass and set it down.

This is SO accurate!! I just snorted so loud I scared the dog!! This lady (Jodi) has NO clue how to answer a question with a YES or NO! Doesn't remember hardly anything about the day she murdered Travis, but can recall what she drank at Starbucks on certain dates (years ago), can recall every sexual act with Travis...in detail..it's unreal!!

I think you're right sadtoo, Judges tend to be more lenient in death penalty cases & after listening to Jodi drone on for 2 weeks now, she probably wants to avoid an appeal for her sanity & every other Judge on the planet!

I'm SO interested in hearing the Jury's questions. I hope I don't have to listen to Nurmi for another 2 weeks before that happens.

If the jury recommends death, there will be an automatic appeal, if I understand the law correctly. I'm sure we have some criminal lawyers here on the board who could answer that if I'm mistaken.

Of course if she *does* get the death penalty, there's no guarantee it will be carried out. This country has a distinct aversion to putting women to death.

But as far as her memory problems, yeah, she only has them when the prosecutor is questioning her

Some statistics. There are about 3150 people on death row right now. Since 1976, 1264 people have been executed, with 12 being women.

Yes, there is an automatic appeal in death penalty cases. I meant the judge is being more careful in order to avoid the case or any rulings to be overturned in an appeal.

Seems like prisons have turned their death-rows into extended stays.

Although they still run them through the kill shutes pretty quick in Texas.

As Ron White says "In Texas, we have the death penalty... and we USE IT!"

SMS, as I said, this country has an aversion to putting women to death. It's not that we *won't*, it's that there's a marked reluctance. Why? Who knows? Per the statisics you quoted, it's roughly 104.3:1 men executed to women executed. So, as I said in an earlier post, she could get the death penalty but there's no guarantee it'll be carried out. I, personally, think there's enough concrete evidence to warrant the death penalty in her case. The crime was brutal almost to the extreme and there is little to no doubt that she did it, despite her "memory problems". Why she did it is almost irrelevant at this point IMO the fact remains that she brutally murdered someone then tried to cover her ass and is now acting the victim who had no choice.

Amazing the way she can recall dinners and lunches, but not how she whacked her former boyfriend.

Amazing her memory with her own lawyer, but the memory suddenly deteriorates when the prosecutor asks her a question.

Selective memory, that.

And this:

"...I couldn’t imagine writing something like that ... I did not want to record it for history's sake. You know, ‘Today I walked in on Travis beating off to pictures of kids.’ I couldn’t write something like that in my journal because that’s horrific to me."

Better, I guess, to shoot someone, stab him multiple times, aand slit his throat! Yeah, that's the ticket!

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a second.

What if she really doesn't remember the murder itself?

How many people have gone thru a very dramatic time in their lives and cannot remember things? I had a terrible accident as a teen. (Sure it's no comparison to murder but bear with me) All I can legitimately remember is seeing and hearing glass breaking around me, a rush of wind, and the thought, "Dad is going to kill me for wrecking this car if I don't die first."

In the hour after my accident my husband (who was just a friend at the time) said I called and talked to him for about 15 minutes. I have no memory of the phone call. I have his word and the record on my phone.

The only reason I "remember" other details is because of the witnesses stories and evidence brought before me. It made sense. I take that as truth. However, they aren't my memories. Does that make any sense?

Prosecution said she did it in a fit of rage. Couldn't a blinding rage possibly block her memories? How many people have said, "I was so angry, I couldn't see straight?" Where did that term come from? Doesn't it apply to some situations? This "could" be one of them.

I'm not letting her off the hook in any way. The girl killed him and I don't for a second believe that it was self-defense. I believe she was angry/jealous/whatever and snapped on him. I do think (based on the prosecution's theory of "fit of rage") that she may possibly not legitimately remember all the details of the event.

Or course then again, she is a proven liar and has such vivid memories of EVERYTHING ELSE in her life. Who knows...

SHE covered up the murder pretty well for someone who doesn't remember it, though. And she also prepared for it very, very well.

I think she remembers doing it as well. It's not like she walked in on him and snapped, killing him in a jealous rage or something. She trie covering her tracks, both before and after the murder. If she truly didn't remember, why all the stories? Why try to actively cover her trail if she didn't remember what she did? Plus the fact that she "doesn't remember" *only* when the prosecutor is questioning her. She acts the victim when defense is questioning her but does a complete turn around during the prosecution's questioning, verbally sparring and getting lippy with him.

I truly believe that her lawyer's goal is to bore us--including the jury--to death so we stop listening!

The steps she took after the fact are definitely telling. They are calculated and deliberate. I think she knows she did it, she remembers it, but maybe not to the degree that prosecution is pushing her to remember. I dunno. *shrug*

Boring court day in progress now. Snore.