Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death (Part II)

[bermstalker]

Thanx to all who replied!! Now I've got a few more questions.. if they've taken a particular position/line of questioning, only because the client has INSISTED, am I right to assume she has no grounds for appeal if her attorney's have documented advising her that it would be incredibly detrimental to her case? Do attorneys who have been ordered to take a case have the ability to refuse to follow a clients instructions on morality/stupidity grounds? Or would that refusal itself be potential grounds for appeal?

I haven't checked what's happening at the thread's busy end & I'm hopeless at remembering what the time difference is. If you guys are in the middle of a discussion on unfolding testimony, or anything else that's sparked an ongoing conversation, just ignore my questions for slow thread times. I neither expect nor want you to have to stop a current discussion to answer questions I'm asking from 10 + pgs back. Thanx again alll!!

It's always been my understanding-if Jodi is found guilty and receives the DP, her case will automatically go to appeal. I think that is true for every DP.
I know nobody likes to think this, but the truth is, Jodi is the boss. Those attorneys work for her. I'm not sure where they can draw their line in the sand with her, but as long as it doesn't violate any ethic code, I do think they listen to her and I think she runs the show. There is no doubt in my mind, Jodi knows every fine detail of court and her case.

Sneakers already sent me link to live feeds. I wanted to give them to denn, but I can't PM him. It's full.

I'm not sure if everybody knows this, but Mike (the owner) was nice enough to make a whole sub forum dedicated to this trial. That is almost unheard of over here. If you go into the sub forum, you can see where MANY members on here made some convenient topics dealing with this case. One topic is called "LINKS" and it has a very long, detailed list of every link dealing with this case.
http://mydeathspace.com/vb/forumdisp...avis-Alexander

I am not saying that, at all. What I AM saying is that it is a very real possibility that they could come back with less than 1st degree....and there won't be a danged thing we can do about it. I am a realist, who likes to be prepared for something to happen beyond the scope of what I can control. I am hoping for murder 1 and the DP, personally. But I also know that what I want doesn't change the fact that it will be up to the 12 jurors who will ultimately decide her fate.

I *think* it's very possible for the jury to come back with something besides 1st. From a few of the jury questions, it really sounds like there is at least one that buys the self defense BS or Rage/passion killing.

Statistics show that it is very unusual for a jury to convict a young, decent looking, white woman to death. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would be surprised if it did.
Even if she is found guilty of 1st, we will have to listen to endless family and friends crying for her life and how she shouldn't be put to death b/c she is such a great girl.


Have a great weekend everyone!

[poppym]

I think the real reason Martinez re-called Dr Horne to the stand, was to show the autopsy photos again. He needed to remind the jury what this case is really about, after the unfounded side show of the defense's case.

There is NO WAY, IMO, that you could look at those photographs and conclude that this was anything else than a brutal attack with the intention of ending this man's life. What a fucking mess she left his body in! There is true hatred, rage and evilness in the wounds.

The photo's are horrifying, and very, very upsetting to look at!

[elamir]

I noted it when she said it, and thought it was ignorant of her. But then heard it twice from witnesses, so checked it on dictionary.com and it has a microphone you can listen to it three different ways. There are a lot of words with regional pronunciations, like New Orleans, New Orlins, Prescott, Preskit...you can always tell who the tourist is.

I think only Americans pronounce it Green Witch, everyone else says it the way the English do.

[jingles]

Morning all! Haven't had a chance to scroll thorough all of last night's posts so forgive me if this has already been posted, but found this on Websleuths.
Was juror #8 dismissed due to a DUI arrest, over the weekend?


Jodi Arias trial: Valley man arrested for DUI tells officer he's on jury; 5 days later he's excused

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region...#ixzz2RZTVjfCR

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region...#ixzz2RZRIAEfo

[zeebee]

I think only Americans pronounce it Green Witch, everyone else says it the way the English do.

Most Americans pronounce it "gren-itch" just like everyone else.

[carnee]

Admittedly I missed the start of this discussion & I'm going back to catch up now, but everyone has to be able to put on a defense. If people refused to appear for a defendant due to presumption of guilt, the entire system would collapse wouldn't it? & isn't batshit crazy exactly why an ethical practioner WOULD feel compelled to appear. That he's willing to do so after the other witnesses were savaged speaks to his ethics doesn't it? He can't think its a path to fame, fortune or popularity at this stage.

So true Ms blighted. I'm telling you, even IF I believed JA was suffering from PTSD and was asked to be an expert witness, after seeing the treatment by some of the public of the other two witnesses, I would not have the guts to testify. That really is scary. I'm sure this trial has given pause to many people that testify for the defense. It is pretty awful. People should not have to fear for their lives if they testify for a defendant in a murder case. I blame a lot (crack up with alot still) of it on HLN"s nightly coverage of NOTHING else but this case. It gets the crazies fired up..

[carnee]

Does anyone know how the judge knows the sur rebuttal Dr. will be done on WEDS? I was shocked he was allowed. I thought he would be on the stand a couple days considering how long the others testified. Can she allow his testimony then say ONLY if it is for one day?

[Estefaniia]

Am I the only one who doesn't mind Vinnie Politan?

Ugh I hate the fact that the judge has allowed the DT to do whatever they want since the beginning. I thought closing arguments began on wednesday?? Nurmi/willmott are gonna take a few days with the doctor, aren't they?

[DenverClipper]

Does anyone know how the judge knows the sur rebuttal Dr. will be done on WEDS? I was shocked he was allowed. I thought he would be on the stand a couple days considering how long the others testified. Can she allow his testimony then say ONLY if it is for one day?

I've thought the same thing. How can we get this new expert off the stand in ONE day? I believe I read earlier where someone mentioned that the judge has severely restricted the topics he can discuss. That doesn't mean Nurmi or JW won't try to introduce new stuff.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

10:29 a.m. LET THE RECORD REFLECT all parties are present in chambers. Also
present are the victim next of kin.
Discussion is held.
Juror # 8 is present and excused from further service.
IT IS ORDERED sealing this portion of the in chambers hearing.
10:32 a.m. Unsealed portion of in chambers hearing begins.
Counsel present argument to the Court on Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.
IT IS ORDERED setting Status Conference on 04/30/2013 at 10:30 a.m.
10:39 a.m. In chambers hearing concludes.
10:40 a.m. Court reconvenes with Defendant and respective Counsel present.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...3/m5740861.pdf

[marshmallow]

will the questions asked, to the new witness, be kept within a narrow scope? an example: can the defense only ask quesions that have to do with discounting the diagnosis given by the State's witness?

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

From 04/24/2013

3:28 p.m. LET THE RECORD REFLECT all parties are present in chambers. Also
present are the victim’s next of kin.
Officer Chris Robinson is sworn and testifies.
3:53 p.m. In chambers hearing concludes.
3:53 p.m. Ex parte hearing with Defendant and counsel for the Defendant present.
Discussion is held.
IT IS ORDERED the in chambers hearing and the ex parte hearing shall be sealed not to
be transcribed without prior of the Court.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...3/m5740039.pdf

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Based on the court minutes from 4/24/2013 and this:

"On Tuesday, the arresting officer was called into a “sealed proceeding” with the judge, the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, the police spokesperson said.

What was discussed in the secret meeting is confidential."

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region...#ixzz2RZlDGkB6

It isn't confidential anymore.

[zeebee]

Please post the funny pictures in the funny pics/meme thread and not in here. TY

[alyoop]

will the questions asked, to the new witness, be kept within a narrow scope? an example: can the defense only ask quesions that have to do with discounting the diagnosis given by the State's witness?

My understanding is yes. He can only speak to the BPD, but with Nurmi or Wilmott asking who can doubt they will try to sneak shit in.. I expect constant objections, sidebars and hopefully this will be on point, and the witness doesn't play word games and give crazy twenty minute excursions into his own family and clients other than stabby. I am heading to Costco to buy 5 or 6 bottles of scotch to get thru Wednesday....His CV alone may take ALL day

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

RULE 20. JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/arcp_index.htm

10:32 a.m. Unsealed portion of in chambers hearing begins.
Counsel present argument to the Court on Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...3/m5740861.pdf


Bwahaha The defense actually asked for a Judgment of Acquittal

[Metis212]

Hmmmm, I told the thread that I know him through a friend. Of course I called her. And I looked up his research articles. Google told me he didnt have any published research, but he does. He taught at the national Judicial college for 10 years. So what if one judge didnt find him credible? I can think of many reasons for that single opinion. Alyce is hanging on his coat tails, not the other way around.

Google only tells us what is popular...what gets the most hits. It doesn't tell what is accurate or what is truth.

Common sense dictates an open mind, no?

perhaps you aren't using google to it's fullest advantage. It does not just tell what's popular if you know how to use all it's features.
Court documents tell the truth whether you find them in a courthouse or on google.
I apologize if knowing him offends you here in any way but it is what it is, the Arias thread and he inserted himself into the case.
I think you fail to accept the 'by association' effects the jury might have. The jury clearly by their questions, are not pleased with either def expert.
To think JM isn't going to take advantage of that would be foolish, he will. Add in a judge deemed him "a hired gun" and "not credible" and he's shot down.

wasthinking, I assure you I can properly google, it aint hard. Since when does google ensure truth? google operates on marketing principles, not stringent scientific principles. Come on now. As for documents, anyone who as worked with pdf's can alter them if you have the proper software, its not hard.

As for me feeling offended, come on now. One family court judge "deeming him (Bob) a hired gun and not credible" is one family court judge giving an opinion. This isnt family court, its criminal court, the rules are not the same. Judge Judy is a family court judge! One must weight the information found. Geffner taught at the national judicial college for 10 years meaning he was responsible for teaching judges across the country. Google doesn't trump personal knowledge. Now you are saying he "inserted" himself into the case. That isnt the way it typically works.

So now, you tell me that i am failing to "accept by association effects the jury might have". On the contrary I accept that the jury will weigh the evidence and NOT come to the conclusion that since Geffner is professionally associated with Alyce that doesnt mean he is Alyce. I count on the jury to examine the facts, weigh the evidence and use their collective judgement to convict or acquit.

I guess what I mean is why would an ethical practitioner take her case; we have heard 11 others turned it down. Doesn't he have to actually believe she was a DV victim and PTSD sufferer? And if he is so good, how can he believe that?

I understand why the defense wants him, I just question anyone who would go to bat for the batshit crazy JAA.

Under her spell, meaning like ALV and RS were, or at least pretended to be. Can't wait to see if he sent her any books or magazines...

I agree, im confused

Regardless of his credentials, is he going to testify based off of jodies lies that she told him? I dont understand how this helps their cause if hes just going to regurgitate lies he was told

Admittedly I missed the start of this discussion & I'm going back to catch up now, but everyone has to be able to put on a defense. If people refused to appear for a defendant due to presumption of guilt, the entire system would collapse wouldn't it? & isn't batshit crazy exactly why an ethical practioner WOULD feel compelled to appear. That he's willing to do so after the other witnesses were savaged speaks to his ethics doesn't it? He can't think its a path to fame, fortune or popularity at this stage.

Jodi despite her lies and the amount of evidence that she murdered Travis, has the inalienable right to defend herself. Her defense and the experts testifying are trying to save her life. It aint over till its over!

If he wasn't found credible in one case, doesn't mean shit in another...IMO. I would still worry about his testimony. ALV was an amateur as Dr D taught us so this guy could be a totally different animal. I have faith in Juan! He might have dropped the ball a couple times, and he has..sorry. I have to believe that he has done his homework on this new witness and will dispatch him like he has done so many times previous. That being said, I don't like this surrebuttal witness so close to closing arguments.

I trust you, you were there faq. Thanks for taking the time to check them.
I can't count it as only one case exactly. One case where a Judge made it a point to blast him. That in itself isn't done often, had to be pretty bad for a Judge to put it into a the record.
When I check cases, it wasn't one, but it wasn't impressive wins for his side if you know what I mean.
Maybe someone has a stellar forensic criminal case I missed ;)

One judge with a negative opinion isn't equal to Samuels ethics violation. All I am trying to say is lets hear what Geffner has to say.

[Wishmich]

will the questions asked, to the new witness, be kept within a narrow scope? an example: can the defense only ask quesions that have to do with discounting the diagnosis given by the State's witness?

How will he do that without interviewing Jodi? I have to wonder what this guy is even going to say that hasn't already been said for hours and days and what seems like months out of Alyce and Samuels. I don't think he can interview Jodi now because she's already learned what she needs to say. I think this whole thing is a waste of time.

[Morticia]

How will he do that without interviewing Jodi? I have to wonder what this guy is even going to say that hasn't already been said for hours and days and what seems like months out of Alyce and Samuels. I don't think he can interview Jodi now because she's already learned what she needs to say. I think this whole thing is a waste of time.

I think he did interview Jodi. She mentioned in her testimony that she had talked with a psychologist from California.

[Wishmich]

I think he did interview Jodi. She mentioned in her testimony that she had talked with a psychologist from California.

Jeezus...how many shrinks are the taxpayers forking out for this twat? No wonder they're over a million dollars.

[Metis212]

How will he do that without interviewing Jodi? I have to wonder what this guy is even going to say that hasn't already been said for hours and days and what seems like months out of Alyce and Samuels. I don't think he can interview Jodi now because she's already learned what she needs to say. I think this whole thing is a waste of time.

Geffner interviewed her a while back. She has been interviewed by a few experts.

[alyoop]

Geffner interviewed her a while back. She has been interviewed by a few experts.

why in THE world did the defense NOT call him too? is this a WTF for anyone else? seriously, they knew about what Demarte would say before this trial started, why would they call Alyce in and NOT have this one there, did they think with the "tag team" of samuels and alyce, it was a done deal?
Only thing that comes to my mind is that they want to put a clinical dude up with more "experience" (yes, I have trauma from hearing the snarky Jenny introduce every 2nd question with "in your experience Dr" (sneer that word experience) This new Dr musta been pretty bad for the defense to bring samuels and alyce instead... mind-boggling

[Metis212]

why in THE world did the defense NOT call him too? is this a WTF for anyone else? seriously, they knew about what Demarte would say before this trial started, why would they call Alyce in and NOT have this one there, did they think with the "tag team" of samuels and alyce, it was a done deal?
Only thing that comes to my mind is that they want to put a clinical dude up with more "experience" (yes, I have trauma from hearing the snarky Jenny introduce every 2nd question with "in your experience Dr" (sneer that word experience) This new Dr musta been pretty bad for the defense to bring samuels and alyce instead... mind-boggling

Or his hourly fee was above 250/300 a hour?

[ShellJett]

I think he did interview Jodi. She mentioned in her testimony that she had talked with a psychologist from California.

Exactly. I don't care how good this PhD is, he is basing his conclusions (once again) on the word of Stabby. Any testing he did will be null and void if it is based on her lies. I am hoping the scope of his testimony is very limited to rebut Dr. D, but with this DT I expect a full day of fuckery.

[Rockabillychick]

RULE 20. JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/arcp_index.htm

10:32 a.m. Unsealed portion of in chambers hearing begins.
Counsel present argument to the Court on Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Rule 20 Motion.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...3/m5740861.pdf


Bwahaha The defense actually asked for a Judgment of Acquittal

Wow, I wonder if their balls are scabby from dragging on the floor.