I can’t speak to the specifics of Arizona’s murder laws, but I know for a fact that she’s on trial for a Capital Murder with the DP on the table. Perhaps it has something to do with the over-the-top brutality and overkill of the crime, but that’s just a guess.
Curious, I looked it up. It looks like my guess was right:
I agree about the psychopathy. Death sentence? I wouldn’t count on an American jury to even find her guilty.
I haven’t heard anything about this before.
But the guy had a Myspace account? Really?
I’m aware that’s probably hyperbole, and I’m probably being repetitive, but there’s zero chance she’s found not guilty. I know people like to criticize the verdicts of other infamous cases, but those are generally due to scant or marginal evidence that approaches the area of reasonable doubt.
There’s nothing like that in this case. It’s not many cases where the killer was kind enough to leave behind so much evidence, including before and after photographs implicating themselves. And the evidence was so insurmountable, she had no choice to ultimately confess to killing him after having had two previous ludicrous stories. The only aspect to her defense is that it was self-defense, but there is nothing to corroborate that except for her own extremely implausible narrative. And there are mountains of evidence indicating that she not only premeditated the whole thing beforehand, but she also acted like someone covering up a murder, afterwards.
In short, no chance in hell she walks, unless someone else steps forward with a videotape of themselves committing the murder.
Well, the murder was in 2008, so it’s not that surprising.
Nope, I meant it literally.
For the same reasons you gave, I think acquittal or hung jury is extremely unlikely, but it wouldn’t amaze me.
Or one of the twelve jurors is a moron who thinks the smug psycopath has a cute smile, or feels sorry for her crying on the stand. Not likely, but possible.
I can watch TV at work provided it’s something interesting enough to keep me from being bored but not to distracting to keep me from doing my job and something that I can mainly listen to, and CourtTV (I refuse to call it TruTV when the rest of it is fake towing shows) fits the bill.
In Casey Anthony, which people like to compare it too. Yeah, they were both cute. But with Anthony there were unresolved questions about who did it and why, and if it was even a crime. Arias we know who did it because she admits to it and there is a ton of evidence, the question is just her culpability.
Having said that
-
The prosecutions cross-examination is a mess. He’s taking days getting lost in the weeds trying to call her out on every little inconsistency instead of focusing on the crime, jumping all over the place, asking questions he doesn’t know the answer to, and seems to take several hours to start getting his form together at which time it’s time for a break.
-
The felony murder theory is shaky. If you invite someone into your house, they don’t become a burgler the instant they murder you, which is basically what the prosecution is saying. The judge let it stand, but as a matter of common sense I don’t think the jury is going to go that way.
It does look like she was trying to cover her tracks ahead of time, but people do odd things like trying to save a few pennies on gas or making impromptu road trips all the time, and I haven’t really seen anything that would refute the “sexcapade turned violent theory”. Again, about 5% of the cross examination seems to be on the actual crime as opposed to something she said in a text message a year before. Maybe since she was so obsessed with dicks that luring him with a sexcapade would be the only thing she thought of, but if a guy is killed for apparently no reason the first place you look is friends and relatives or people he did business with (whether legal or not) that might have a grudge. I’m not saying it would have worked, but a staged home invasion gone bad might have been better.
For some real Internet fun, try going to jodiariasisinnocent.com.
People are discussing doing cartwheels in their living room because the jury wants to ask 100 questions and this “proves” there’s reasonable doubt. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I think they want to ask a lot of questions to determine if the death penalty should be the sentence. They’re searching for something to prove pre-meditation.
I had no idea the jury was allowed to ask questions of the defendant. I shudder to thing what they might be. I have heard some really dumb questions from a grand jury.
Here’s a live blog from the courtroom listing the questions.
My favorite is “What is your understanding of the word ‘Skank’?” 
I’ve actually turned to HLN to hear this stuff. It’s hard to tell what any of them mean. But it sounds like the jury didn’t find her very convincing.
“hottie biscotti?”
She should go to jail just for that.
Jodi has been exposed by the juror questions, IMO. The jury’s questions seem to focus on all the vague statements she’s made, and Martinez (prosecutor) grilled right back.
I have a great memory, but not about the murder, or the gun, or why I stabbed so damn much. Blahblahblah…
What gets to me is how every time she mentions Trevor’s murder, she calls it “passed away.” SERIOUSLY??? You already admitted to killing the guy. Say “murdered” or at least “died by me stabbing/shooting him,” and I might pay attention to anything else she says.
Yes, when on trial for murder, the defendant should refer to the death of the victim as “murder” as much as possible. That makes a lot of sense.
Okay, then, “murdered in self-defense”. Hey, that’s her angle!
My favorite “jury question” so far is:
“If you bought gas cans, WHY did you fill them up in Pasadena?”
DUHHHHHHH!!
~VOW
I don’t see how “self defense” can in any way be a legitimate defense for stabbing someone two dozen times, including in the back, AND slitting their throat AND shooting them in the head. He wasn’t a zombie!
“It wasn’t my fault your honor. The floor was wet and he slipped and fell into my knife. Twenty-seven times.”
Dunno about the outcome of the trial, but HLN must have a room of supercomputers groaning under the strain of whatever digital Vaseline they use to blur Nancy Grace’s bleached hamhock of a face into soft focus. It’s particularly laughworthy when they do a split-screen of her and some other poor sap, and Nancy looks like she’s floating in ethereal fog behind gauze curtains in a dream flashback but you can see every crag and pockmark on the dude’s face in glorious HD.
The prosecutor seems sort of incompetent and all over the place, but the case seems about as idiot-proof as it can be so maybe it won’t matter. I’m sure Miss Mousyframes will have no end of sympathetic penpal suitors once she’s locked up. The victim did look like kind of a douchebag, based on the photos they’ve shown, but probably didn’t deserve to be hacked up and shot and whatnot. I guess.
I’ve been following this one pretty closely. Actually kinda scary how she keeps up this nice, pleasant, cooperative image the whole time. She’s spent what a year on the stand? Seems like it. No way she gets away with it but I think the defense’s final statement will be enough to sway the jury away from the death penalty and she gets life with no parole. If they return a not guilty verdict I fully expect her to sprout wings and a tail and fly out the courthouse window.