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

[Ian 1]

do BOTH defense attorneys get to make a closing argument? (please say no)

Yes.

LOL i meant No. I thought that read do both defense and prosecution get to make closing argument.
No. Just one. I have a feeling it will be Willmott since she did def. opening statement, but they could decide to change it up.

Please say it isn't Wilmott and that it won't be on Friday. I'll be in an airplane flying not too far from Phoenix that day. Do you think her 'screech' will interfere with the electronic system? Should I warn the crew?

[Harlette]

True but most are not involved in murder cases where they admit killing someone...just saying.

she does have a bail amount set at 2 million, and was set b4 she came up w/ self defense (still w/ the ninja story) but i don't think the family could have put up a bond for 2 million dollars and have jodi still be able to say she was indigent and needed a public defender

[Metis212]

Like I said before, BPD was not new to the defense team but it was new to the jury. DeMarte's testimony was the first they had heard about BPD. Saying the defense should have called a witness to rebut testimony that hadn't occurred yet makes no sense.

I am guessing Geffner is going to point out the symptoms which overlap between PTSD and BPD. Jodi may have answered the TSI and MCMI differently for him. Thus far we know that einstein took those tests at least twice (Samuels & Karp) and maybe a third time with Geffner. The below might be a preview to his testimony. The defense wants to add a smidgen of doubt.



Female domestic violence offenders: their attachment security, trauma symptoms, and personality organization. Goldenson J, Geffner R, Foster SL, Clipson CR. in Violence Vict. 2007;22(5):532-45.

Abstract
Unlike male domestic violence offenders, female domestic violence offenders have traditionally been overlooked in research and theory, despite the fact that females also have high rates of domestic violence perpetration. Towards the aim of extending extant research on male and female pepetrators of domestic violence, we examined attachment style, trauma symptoms, and personality organization in 33 female offenders receiving mandated treatment for domestic violence. These offenders were compared to 32 nonoffending women receiving psychological treatment. The Experiences in Close Relationships Revised (ECR-Revised) was used to examine adult attachment, the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) was used to examine trauma symptomology, and finally, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III) was used to examine cluster B personality traits. Analyses indicated that female domestic violence offenders reported less attachment security, more trauma-related symptoms, and more personality psychopathology (Antisocial, Borderline, and Dependent Subscales) than did nonoffender clinical comparison women.

[Brillig]

And now sausages are ruined forever more.

I adore snausages!! Gonna take more than Nurms in a tight suit to ruin snausages for me.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty I don't like in the def side, but lets not pretend there was all kindness in JM every minute either.

True. However, it is much easier to dislike and rebuke someone fighting to save the life of a murdering skank than it is to fault someone who is defending an essentially nice guy who was slaughtered like an animal. That is human nature.

John Steinbeck is rolling over in his grave a few weeks ago they pronounced Yreka like Eureka-- (where I used to live )

Archimedes must be spinning in his grave.

[faq_q]

But that is my point. it IS JMs job! and he said right in court he wasn't going to deal with it.
from hate hate hate her mentality. It would have to prove first off that it is in fact her. Courts go on proof not HLN lol Prove it is her and her thoughts / statements not Donovan's and all that bs. Donovan is a piece of shit and would just lie anyway. So what is the point in even wasting the time or energy on it? It has nothing to do with Twitter. JA can tweet all she wants, she is not convicted yet. Nurmi was right there too, that is freedom of speech we all enjoy. The only issue would be if they could PROVE it was her and.. drum roll ... it was something that "directly effected the trial" meaning the jury.

One more comment on this and I'll drop it. So, at the point that Jodi took the stand in her own defense, she also became a witness. Does that not reduce her rights to outside communication if in fact it was her?

You are so eloquent. I do think that sensational cases have become entertainment. The last case I followed was the Simspon case and that was a circus resulting in an outrageous verdict. I remember the Manson case and thought the prosecutor Bugliosi was brilliant. And I would answer yes to the question of the watching eyes helping defense target jurors. I do not think Juan was overconfident but he made some strategic moves that may not have been the best ones in hindsight. You have been most helpful in providing links as well as your perspective. Thank you

I agree, WT is very knowledgeable and helpful for those of us that can't investigate as deeply. I get so much great information from all the great posters on here! I'm going to miss it after the trial is over.

[coconut]

Thanks for the visual, but yes, I'm familiar with thoracic anatomy. I actually don't see any contradiction in what I stated to what you are saying. And to address your closing argument; in fact I have assisted in the OR when a SVC has been "nicked," and yes, the patient survived.

By "cutting across" I meant transecting the vessel, near completely. To simulate what happened to Travis. We both know that a nick from a surgical instrument is quite different to what happened in this case, where the vessel was nearly cut apart with a knife that we think was capable of slashing tires or cutting up potatoes!

My point is, yes it's a vein, but that doesn't mean you can't bleed out from it rapidly because of its size and central role in blood return.

[AnnieBelle]

This is excellent advice for anyone, I think.

Above all, this trial has afforded the viewer a glimpe into a truly deranged person who truly believes the lies she tells to herself and others. That is why she seems so shocked and outraged when she is proven wrong and it is scary for normal people to observe.

The trial is a sensational spectacle, but I believe everyone here realizes that a good man is dead. Travis was not perfect, but he never claimed to be and I think he could not believe Jodi would really hurt him. In the trial, the DT has done just about everything it could to trash the victim and make Stabby look justified. I remind myself that this is an old tactic and it is done by most defense attorneys to remove the spotlight from the defendent. What scares me is that this strategy has worked before... OJ and CA are just a few.

I have to believe that the jury will ignore the deflection and send JA where she belongs.

I agree that there are some instances where, against all odds, the jury comes up with a verdict that makes no sense. In most cases, I have faith that they get it right. I believe they will get it right in this case, too. There may be some question of how things went down, today....but, overall, the evidence to support the prosecutor's case is overwhelming. Whether the bullet passed through the frontal lobe (which I believe it did) or whether it miraculously bypassed it and tore through the sinus cavities, it would have been one HELL of a shock to him. He would have been disoriented and incapacitated. A bullet to the head does that sort of thing. Add the lack of evidence of hemorrhage in and around the cranium and wound area, it seems to indicate he was dead or close to it when the shot occurred. The evidence does not support Jodi's story of how it happened.

[AnnieBelle]

By "cutting across" I meant transecting the vessel, near completely. To simulate what happened to Travis. We both know that a nick from a surgical instrument is quite different to what happened in this case, where the vessel was nearly cut apart with a knife that we think was capable of slashing tires or cutting up potatoes!

My point is, yes it's a vein, but that doesn't mean you can't bleed out from it rapidly because of its size and central role in blood return.

It would bleed, a lot, but still not in the way an artery would.

[Freethinker]

I agree totally, the trial is not entertainment rather the pursuit of justice. I will say the entertainment value is what we share with each other as we discuss it. I think that most of us have not forgotten that there is a victim in this case that he will never be alive again and a family grieving his absence.



Yeah, it's going to be tough. This thread has been a part of my life for a long time, well before I even joined or posted. I will miss everyone!



Great point Crickets...not the hot part...hehe....but Juan has a very good opportunity to put a big "stamp" on this jury with his final witness. I really hope be seizes the day! Carpe Diem!

I think you see what my original point was regarding this particular court case. If it had not been for such a kookie person on trial, this thread would not have been so interesting, don't you agree?

[ShellJett]

Blonde, I think you aren't considering Nurmi's argument to understand why the judge had to allow this.
You really need to read the Supreme court decision that Nurmi used for his argument. And understand how the law works. It does not matter just what they 'thought' Dr D might say, they are perfectly right in waiting to hear what she says in front of the jury. They don't have to preempt a damn thing if they don't want to. They are perfectly within common practice on this one. And there was nothing to predict she would tear apart their experts over and above her dx.

What the important law is in this instant is ... Dr D went well past just testifying about BPD! Juan had her tear down the other experts credibiltity. THAT is the very issue that Supreme Court case remanded the case Nurmi presented for argument and like it or not, he was right, JM was wrong this time.
Sorry I can't remember the case name right now and didn't save it, but it's around somewhere, starts with a "T" Tal something? I bet the shit site has it. ; )

AZ has a special requirement when prosecuting self-defense cases. We know the State has burden of proof in general, but in an AZ self-defense case the burden of DISPROVING self-defense shifts to the Prosecutor. The law there is hard to wrap the mind around, but I distinctly remember a lengthy explanation at the beginning of the trial. Dr. DeMarte was a Rebuttal witness to rebut the Defense claims of PTSD/DV because of the burden placed on the State to disprove self-defense. The diagnosis of BPD was her diagnosis after testing. She also testified that Stabby didn't have PTSD and opined that she was not a victim of DV. If anybody has better information on this topic, please add. This is not my area of expertise, and I hope I explained it properly. Any AZ lawyers here?

[wasthinking]

You are so eloquent. I do think that sensational cases have become entertainment. The last case I followed was the Simspon case and that was a circus resulting in an outrageous verdict. I remember the Manson case and thought the prosecutor Bugliosi was brilliant. And I would answer yes to the question of the watching eyes helping defense target jurors. I do not think Juan was overconfident but he made some strategic moves that may not have been the best ones in hindsight. You have been most helpful in providing links as well as your perspective. Thank you

aw blush, such kind words, I don't feel I deserve but thank you. I don't have the answers to it all, just observations over time.
I am as guilty as anyone, I've enjoyed my 'hobby' too much on this one. Im not always proud of how I did that and the times my emotions won out. But I can't beat myself up over it all, let the first PERFECT person do that for me, isn't that what smites are for? lol

like I said, I can't say how enough how grateful to have so many to share, help each other, and I could even cry when no one knew.
Just think, if every time killer brought out a new 'art' piece, we each sent a get even $ donation to the Alexanders instead of just bitching about JA. What good we could really do huh! My only regret is I'm not rich and can't send more.

[faq_q]

I think you see what my original point was regarding this particular court case. If it had not been for such a kookie person on trial, this thread would not have been so interesting, don't you agree?

Yeah, I think the "characters" in the case provide plenty of entertainment fodder as do us, the posters in this thread. I followed the case from 2008 till now because like with the CA case, I am fascinated in real life court and not the made up shit you see on TV in the movies. To me, I joined to get more information and I have enjoyed and yes, have been "entertained" by what has been posted. It probably would have been a lot more drab or uninteresting in this thread if not for those factors.

[wasthinking]

One more comment on this and I'll drop it. So, at the point that Jodi took the stand in her own defense, she also became a witness. Does that not reduce her rights to outside communication if in fact it was her?



I agree, WT is very knowledgeable and helpful for those of us that can't investigate as deeply. I get so much great information from all the great posters on here! I'm going to miss it after the trial is over.

Perhaps what is confusing you is "all communications" .. but that isn't what the admonition is you see. It's trial specific. Think of when the Hughes asked, would it be okay to be with Gus and the answer was yes. That is because it was not about the trial. They could talk, work, but NOT speak about the trial in other words. Or the jurors going home, they can still talk, work, watch TV... just not about the trial. So that is how it applies to killer. She is 'free' to talk on twitter, just not about the case. She can talk on the phone, have vistors, write letters ... but not about the case. IF caught and proven she violated that, then there are repercussions... but really, the second part to these criminals is .. what does a person facing the DP have to lose, ya know? She's been in jail for years is facing years more.. so to do a contempt order adding on a month or whatever small amount after 4 yrs being locked up is a joke.

[faq_q]

Perhaps what is confusing you is "all communications" .. but that isn't what the admonition is you see. It's trial specific. Think of when the Hughes asked, would it be okay to be with Gus and the answer was yes. That is because it was not about the trial. They could talk, work, but NOT speak about the trial in other words. Or the jurors going home, they can still talk, work, watch TV... just not about the trial. So that is how it applies to killer. She is 'free' to talk on twitter, just not about the case. She can talk on the phone, have vistors, write letters ... but not about the case. IF caught and proven she violated that, then there are repercussions... but really, the second part to these criminals is .. what does a person facing the DP have to lose, ya know? She's been in jail for years is facing years more.. so to do a contempt order adding on a month or whatever small amount after 4 yrs being locked up is a joke.

Good answer, thanks. I had not thought about it that way and it makes sense.

[Metis212]

i am all excited about perjury being a felony in az. Three years if convicted.

[jingles]

By "cutting across" I meant transecting the vessel, near completely. To simulate what happened to Travis. We both know that a nick from a surgical instrument is quite different to what happened in this case, where the vessel was nearly cut apart with a knife that we think was capable of slashing tires or cutting up potatoes!

My point is, yes it's a vein, but that doesn't mean you can't bleed out from it rapidly because of its size and central role in blood return.

I understand what you're saying, Coconut, and agree! I don't recall just how the ME described the injury to the SVC, full transection, etc. But I do believe, whatever his description was, that he said that that particular injury still afforded him enough time/the capability to get down to the end of the hallway on his own volition before collapsing.

[wasthinking]

AZ has a special requirement when prosecuting self-defense cases. We know the State has burden of proof in general, but in an AZ self-defense case the burden of DISPROVING self-defense shifts to the Prosecutor. The law there is hard to wrap the mind around, but I distinctly remember a lengthy explanation at the beginning of the trial. Dr. DeMarte was a Rebuttal witness to rebut the Defense claims of PTSD/DV because of the burden placed on the State to disprove self-defense. The diagnosis of BPD was her diagnosis after testing. She also testified that Stabby didn't have PTSD and opined that she was not a victim of DV. If anybody has better information on this topic, please add. This is not my area of expertise, and I hope I explained it properly. Any AZ lawyers here?

huh? but what does that have to do with the price of milk lol IOWs the point of surrebuttal isn't about anything but, surrebuttal and not burden of proof on this one point, if that makes sense. Let me try and find that case and I'll post the link.

Confession - This is how plotting I get. I have no desire to help JA or the Def so I often don't say or link a lot of things with that always in mind.
An example, if it would be funny or fodder for a cheap joke .. I withhold something like her stupid art, because that only gives her free publicity and I refuse to feed that for her. Things like that. Or the sick site, I'd sooner die than give them attention. Some things in my way of thinking just aren't worth even a good joke. Lets say it is your loved one murdered, would you want people giving their killer's art attention? Or prefer it lays in a small corner some where to die a slow death for lack of attention?

So, anyway, with that kind of thinking .. I had that case link, then got rid of it. I didn't want to post it at the time because Nurmi hadn't made argument yet and just in case he didn't know it or see it, I was damned if I'd put it in the open (we know they have their elves out)

[hatchan]

I agree, Jodi looks drugged.

That is just her craziness you are seeing. If she were medicated, she would appear somewhat normal!!

[Metis212]

RE: "Protection Ritual" is that a Mormon thing?

Protection rituals are used in new age psychotherapeutic interventions. It was common in treatment of sexual and physical abuse...giving the person a way to imagine being able to protect oneself...to be able to imagine boundaries, etc. It can be used in hypnotic suggestion or meditations. Although I have been corrected, I can still see Travis using it. Why? Because PPL or Legal Shield was seriously into new age self-help rituals.

[*crickets*]

Like several other members have said, I'm feeling a bit let down today. It seems like we're ending not with a bang but a whimper.

To me it kinda feels like both sides are fed up and just going thru the motions...like yesterday when Nurmi had no questions for the Walmart lady, just couldn't be arsed as our UK friends would say. It was a big issue going against his case and there were things I was wondering about but he apparently just couldn't be bothered. And Martinez, rushing thru the closet shelf stuff yesterday and today not bringing up the bullet trajectory with the ME at all is puzzling, especially after he had taken such pains to have Jodi get up in front of the jury to demonstrate the linebacker pose earlier. IIRC he asked the judge for permission to do the demonstration, they sent the jury out, had her do the pose, then brought the jury back in and had her do it again. And then, nothing. Why do all that and then not do anything with it?

It just feels a little half-hearted this week, from both sides...

I must say, I expected better questions from JM for the ME. Only testimony of the rebuttal that I wasn't wowed by.

I agree totally. and by trajectory, I am not talking about the path of the bullet, but the way it left the gun as she describes it. My god, the way she says it and the path IT actually took, its a cirque de soleil body distortion. the way the bullet went IN, she would have to be behind him, or her hand woulda had to some crazy ass turn to point the gun at his forhead and have the bullet go the way it did... It is completely the dumbest thing EVER. and there is lotsa dumb here. but Juan shoulda put that forth. there is absolutely NO way its physically possible it went down the way she says.

[ShellJett]

huh? but what does that have to do with the price of milk lol IOWs the point of surrebuttal isn't about anything but, surrebuttal and not burden of proof on this one point, if that makes sense. Let me try and find that case and I'll post the link.

Confession - This is how plotting I get. I have no desire to help JA or the Def so I often don't say or link a lot of things with that always in mind.
An example, if it would be funny or fodder for a cheap joke .. I withhold something like her stupid art, because that only gives her free publicity and I refuse to feed that for her. Things like that. Or the sick site, I'd sooner die than give them attention. Some things in my way of thinking just aren't worth even a good joke. Lets say it is your loved one murdered, would you want people giving their killer's art attention? Or prefer it lays in a small corner some where to die a slow death for lack of attention?

So, anyway, with that kind of thinking .. I had that case link, then got rid of it. I didn't want to post it at the time because Nurmi hadn't made argument yet and just in case he didn't know it or see it, I was damned if I'd put it in the open (we know they have their elves out)

Thanks WT. I simply used Dr. D as an example of how/why JM has to disprove DV/SD because of the additional burden in AZ.

[wasthinking]

True but most are not involved in murder cases where they admit killing someone...just saying.

just the poor, anyone with bail money is out walking around. Innocent until .. all that constitutional stuff
Besides, self def wasn't even a thought until 2011. After Samuals and Nurmi told her what Flores told her in the beginning .. ninja story is 'far fetched'

[AnnieBelle]

i am all excited about perjury being a felony in az. Three years if convicted.

Does Jodi get 3 yrs for each time she perjured herself??

[dizzyp]

Protection rituals are used in new age psychotherapeutic interventions. It was common in treatment of sexual and physical abuse...giving the person a way to imagine being able to protect oneself...to be able to imagine boundaries, etc. It can be used in hypnotic suggestion or meditations. Although I have been corrected, I can still see Travis using it. Why? Because PPL or Legal Shield was seriously into new age self-help rituals.

I think there is something akin to "Protection Ritual" in the LDS Church as well...

I just realized when you mentioned Travis's interest in New Age "see it be it" (so to speak) philosophy that he must have named his dog after Napoleon Hill who he mentions in his blog as an inspiration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Hill

[dizzyp]

Does Jodi get 3 yrs for each time she perjured herself??

that's infinity