I recall a big argument over Samuels testifying about his conclusions based on crime scene photos. DT tried to get in his testimony/opinion about the nature of the murder as a Heat of Passion type of killing, and Judge did not allow it.I just don't see how this type of testimony will rebut Dr. DeMarte. Or, is he supposed to rebut ME testimony? Ridiculous attempt, and I hope Judge Sherry puts a stop to this before the jury gets more confused.
Thanks for the info (and how creepy, but why am I surprised). So, I did a quick computation comparing the Infiniti to the rental car, using highway mpg, and factoring in the cost of gas in 2008. If my math is correct, she would have saved between $125 and $145 on fuel by driving the better fuel economy rental. However, I would imagine it cost more than that to rent the car? So I don't see the super frugal savings?
Interesting. I had never considered that, but I would not put it past her. If she thought she was losing her grip on Travis, perhaps she thought that having the ruined BMW situation between them would be a good reason to keep in contact?
Are you forgetting Jodi's sad story? She told us why it happened: One time before when she and Travis had a fight, she started down the hall to get away from him, and he followed her and grabbed her wrist and spun her around and gave her a big hug. So based on that horrifying traumatic incident, she just knew there was no chance at all of her ever getting away...
Were you crying when you were stabbing him? --SuperJuan Martinez
Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking? -- ABC Interviewer to JA
Agreed, but the only Aggravator the jury is going to deliberate is Cruelty. IMO this is why the gunshot 1st has been shoved down the throats of the jury. It all goes back to the DP. If he was losing consiousness after the shot, it would be more difficult to prove Cruelty in the Aggravation phase. Not my opinion, I just read AZ Supreme Court opinions on Cruelty.
He's supposed to only be able to rebut Demarte's testimony but the defense filed a motion today asking to allow to him to expand his testimony and testify about the wound sequencing via "brain function".
Judge should rule on it tomorrow at the hearing/status conference in chambers. Expect the defense to pull all kinds of stunts before now and Friday. Anyone predicting a "migraine" day? It won't be Wednesday because that's Geffner's day.
From time to time incidents of suspicious death occur in which the mental state of deceased persons needs to be assessed. If some evaluation can be made of the sort of person they were, their personality and thought processes, especially as that may throw light on any involvement they themselves had in their death, then it may assist the investigation of what is sometimes referred to as ‘equivocal death’. Such an evaluation, known as a psychological autopsy, is an attempt to reconstruct a person’s psychological state prior to death.
The typical case for which a psychological autopsy may be of value is one in which there is some doubt as to whether death was accidental, self-inflicted or malicious, and whether the deceased played an active role in his or her own demise. Such matters can be especially important in life insurance claims that are void if the death were suicide. They are, of course, also of potentially great significance in murder inquiries, such as those in which there is a question as to whether the deceased contributed to his or her own death in some way. Fatal accident investigations, in which the technicalities of what actually led to the accident are difficult to resolve, are other forms of equivocal death in which psychological examination of aspects of the main actors/victims may be essential.
Virtually all attempts to use psychological procedures to throw light on a person’s thoughts and feelings prior to their death have taken place in the USA, most of them in civil and criminal litigation rather than as part of an investigation. It has been claimed, for example, that ‘the drawing of a psychological picture of a dead person whom the expert has never met’ can be a ‘tool for criminal defense attorneys’. The expert who draws such a picture can be used in court to argue, for example, that a person accused of murder was acting in self-defence, or whether a gift is in contemplation of death and therefore of relevance in considerations of taxes due on death.
Many equivocal death examinations, however, have been part of civil proceedings in which a worker’s compensation case makes it necessary to establish that certain events affected the deceased in a particular manner, or that work-related injuries contributed to the eventual suicide of an individual. Another example would be where a will is contested, so the mental state of the deceased is the major legal battle ground. In the case of Howard Hughes, for instance, a psychologist concluded that ‘psychological problems, numerous head injuries, and drug misuse had changed a vibrant millionaire into an emaciated recluse’. The possibly psychotic basis of his reclusiveness, rather than mere eccentricity, posed challenges to the probity of his estate.
A possibly less obvious circumstance in which the characteristics of a person may be usefully inferred, even though that person is not available to answer personal questions, is an inquiry into the report of a missing person. Another example is when it is necessary to understand the decisions made, and actions taken, by people who are no longer able to answer for themselves. For example, in the planning of care routines for demented patients it is inevitable that some inference will be made about the mental state of the people in question. Making those inferences as systematically as possible, drawing on whatever psychological information is available, is likely to improve the decisions being taken.
Psychological Autopsies
I dont think it was just the sex. I think travis knew how messed up she was and really wanted to help her. I think she used the sex as a way to keep him around and as a way to "forgive" him when she acted out
Jodi probably reminded travis of his mom and probably didnt want to abandon her
I don't know why you keep beating this dead horse. Flores's mistake has no bearing on anything unless you believe that Jodi killed in self-defense. The order of the wounds is not important if you believe that Jodi is guilty of first degree murder.
And to be honest, I can see what Flores did.
During the course of his conversation with the ME, it probably came up that there was "no brain damage that he could see", or something, and Flores assumed that what the ME said meant that Travis would have been functional. So when questioned, Flores said, "Oh yeah, he said that Travis would have been conscious".
This is not Flores lying. It is Flores misunderstanding what the ME stated.
This is his left shoulder! She must have been half lifting/dragging him for his body to be lifted so high off the ground. This blood was from the neck wound. She must have cut his throat when he was on his back? For the blood to be so heavily covering his left side? I'm thinking more and more that the photo before this one was when she started slicing his throat. That could be why his arm is up, weakly trying to stop her?
Also, those shower photos are so close to the Psycho movie poses, IF he allowed her to take photos of him, she had to have made him get into those poses under the idea that she saw "cool shower photos" in a magazine ad. But, really, she's making him strike the same poses in the movie Psycho. (We all know how she loves those movie references) Those odd back photos REALLY stick out to me- Exactly like psycho. I highly doubt he would have known he was posing like the movie. I don't think he possibly could have done that without being terrified. In some of the photos he looks too calm.
ZB.... For me, and I speak only for myself here, it is because I need to understand how it can be prevented in the future. The "I'm fucked up" reason might be okay for a lot of folks and, frankly, it does give explanation, but we are all fucked up in some way or another and I would like to be able to identify what is was in both of them, that led to this horrific murder. I believe that it was the combination of both of them that created this perfect shit storm. Again, I need to clarify that in no way do I think Travis deserved what happened to him and I am not blaming the victim.
There are a lot of Stabby's out there, both male and female, and there is something in that personality type that latches on and can't let go. But, I also think there were tons of warning signs in this case and Travis knew something was up, I mean he was scared of her but he kept in contact with her. I think there is more to the explanation than he wanted her for sex or he was a nice guy, or even just because he was fucked up.
I work in education.... I teach kids, parents, and other educators and I think this tragedy can be used as a cautionary tale for a lot of people. When I look back at what Jodi did, the actions she took with Travis, there are tons of indicators that something bad could happen. We know how this story turned out and a good man is dead, a woman is going to prison, and both families are destroyed. I, personally, am very interested in what might be done to prevent the next tragedy.
Well, he was a motivational speaker. He naturally looked for the good in people and helped people work on themselves. He also seemed in control of his life overall (or thought that he was) and maybe he thought he had a handle on the situation? Also, he was very attracted to her. I think what we really need is a psychiatrist's view of their relationship and personality strengths and weaknesses. We do know that he was scared of her, but underestimated her evilness. So heartbreaking!
I may get some flack for this and Im gonna say this anyway....Samson and Delilha. What I see is that this relationship has become common place, sad to say. Domestic violence is becoming very prevalent. I see it every day. I understand your position as an educator and wanting to prevent the next tragedy but realistically that is not possible. People learn behavior and in a matter of a very short while....only 28 days if you look at addiction programs. Women/men who grow up with abuse feel that it is normal and become accustomed to that type of behavior. I worked with a woman today who came to us straight from the ER battered and bruised and really had no clue that being beaten wasn't normal. As much as I wish there was "cure" for abuse there isn't one. And as for the "red flags" the abused typically ignore them and think they can "fix" the abuser.
We as professionals and society as a whole have to take into consideration many cultural aspects to what is abuse and what is not.
Last edited by ImBatman!; 04-29-2013 at 10:22 PM. Reason: additional though..
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; They listen with the intent to reply." ~ anonymous
"Keep calm and sing Soft Kitty"
"it is what it is!"
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)