<p>Is anyone else following this mess? Any thoughts as to why her attorneys did not put forth an insanity defense? Clearly seems to be the case.</p>
<p>Yes. It is fascinating. I don’t know about the law in AZ, but generally it is very difficult to prove insanity. I have to think all the boyfriends she has had over the years are thinking they dodged a bullet. Literally.</p>
<p>I hadn’t even heard of her until a few weeks ago so I had to see what it was all about. I tried to watch a bit but her story is so convoluted and then the weirdness of letting the jurors ask questions just made it even more difficult to follow. </p>
<p>Is she still on the stand?</p>
<p>No she is off the stand. The defense has put on an expert witness to establish that she has “post traumatic stress disorder” (they need to justify to the jury why she conveniently forgets everything about the actual murder that does not work to her benefit). Really troubling case - I have never been a proponent of the death penalty, but this woman has me re-thinking things. She is like a black hole that sucks in everyone she comes in contact with.</p>
<p>She reminds me of Casey Anthony. I have never heard of jurors being able to ask questions.</p>
<p>From what I have seen and read about the case, I can’t imagine the defendant being acquitted for any reason.</p>
<p>Arizona is one of the very few states that allow the jury to ask questions - believe it is limited to death penalty cases. </p>
<p>razor, she has already admitted to the murder so the only question for the jury to decide is whether it was pre-meditated. If so, life in prison or death penalty is on the table. If the jury finds it was not premeditated, then with the 5 years she has already served, she could conceivably walk free in 4 or 5 years. IF that happens, I will lose all faith in our justice system.</p>
<p>Am shocked her attorney allowed the press to interview her on camera while in custody. This is a strange and tragic case.</p>
<p>We watched a show about this case a few months ago, and have been following it since then. Arias is one of those individuals who, I believe, is truly evil. I’d like to say that I can’t imagine any jury acquitting her but I stopped being that naive years ago with O.J.</p>
<p>Keeping up with this trial is my dirty little secret.
You’ll get the reference if you’ve been watching the trial.
Has absolutely ruined the commercial with the little girl and all her stuffed animal friends by using it over and over for breaks in the programming.
Girls like Jodi should instill fear into men who like to date girls who are a bit unstable.
Women know to keep a wide berth of the Jodis of the world.</p>
<p>No, many women are in relationships with males just like this woman. If the genders were changed in the case I doubt it would get a fraction of the publicity it has–just another domestic violence case.</p>
<p>alwaysmom, totally agree that she is evil incarnate - bad to the bone. I just keep thinking back to the result in the Caesy Anthony case. How can anyone in their right mind contemplate integrating this Arias woman back into society? We have seen far too many tragedies lately resulting from mental illness. Frightening thought.</p>
<p>I’m obsessed with this case. I watch Nancy Grace and Drew all night! LOL</p>
<p>I love when Nancy Grace asks a question to “Jinkasarous” otherwise known as Jean Casarez.</p>
<p>While I find Nancy Grace’s show entertaining and even informative at times, I have a hard time with the way she treats those guests who disagree with her point of view. After all, considering opposing points of view is why I tune in to these types of shows. Find her overly aggressive and argumentative to a fault.</p>
<p>^^^^ Oh, I think that’s all part of the “show”.</p>
<p>I really hate Nancy Grace for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>Anyway, I really thought they’d go for an insanity defense. I really don’t even understand what’s going on with her case anymore. It seems like they don’t even have a strategy.</p>
<p>Nancy Grace is annoying for sure! I just watch to keep up with whats going on with the case. Its so hard for me to believe that someone is such pure evil although I know it exists. For someone who has never done anything violent …then to just kill never makes sense to me. Insanity would have been better.</p>
<p>I definitely think insanity would have been the way to go. Seems like both sides are lost in the woods, and the more they focus on this woman’s story, the more the jury starts to believe it. I personally do not believe for one second that this woman acted in self defense. There is not one person that says the victim was EVER violent with anyone. She brought the gun with her - too coincidental that the same type of weapon used in the murder was “stolen” from her grandparents house where she resided. Also think she brought a knife with her - none of the knives in the dishwasher match the wounds and none are missing from the house. All this goes to premeditation which is what the prosecution SHOULD be focusing on.</p>
<p>She acted in a jealous rage when he broke up with her and booked a vacation with another woman.</p>
<p>[The</a> Seattle Times: Nation & World: Supreme Court upholds Arizona law on insanity defense](<a href=“http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003095426_scotusdefense30.html]The”>http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003095426_scotusdefense30.html)</p>
<p>For someone to use an insanity defense, they would have to prove that, because of their mental illness, they could not differentiate between right and wrong.</p>