Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death

[Sylvian]

It has probably been said before, but Wilmott's objections are always so whiny. like a little kid not getting her way. Juan gets annoyed with her objections because they are not stated clearly. In other words she doesn't seem very seasoned like JM is. It is funny to watch.

The ownage that happened with the doctor is just awesome.

What amused me was that she complained about JM doing speaking objections but she did exactly the same thing yesterday.

[ImBatman!]

You can buy a doctorate in biopsychology? Where?

I am going to say this again, dr. Samuels has impeccable credentials. Not only does he have a doctorate, he has post doc fellowships. He has diplomats status in two or three sub specialty areas. Yeah, he has been sloppy. Yeah, he is sided with the defense. The problem here is JA and her level of deception. She has a way of seducing good people into helping her. As I said about thirty pages ago, he is in over his head. Murder and deception isn't his forte.

I don't know if I posted the same sentiments here or in a PM but I agree with you Metis.

[AnnieBelle]

You can buy a doctorate in biopsychology? Where?

I am going to say this again, dr. Samuels has impeccable credentials. Not only does he have a doctorate, he has post doc fellowships. He has diplomats status in two or three sub specialty areas. Yeah, he has been sloppy. Yeah, he is sided with the defense. The problem here is JA and her level of deception. She has a way of seducing good people into helping her. As I said about thirty pages ago, he is in over his head. Murder and deception isn't his forte.

The only thing I would question about him is that he took on this case, knowing what was involved. He said it only took him a couple of interviews to determine she was not telling the truth. And, he certainly knew, by the time he stepped on the witness stand, that his original report was based on nothing but lies. So, I think he owns making some bad bad choices concerning his reports and how professionally they were done. He seems to be qualified, but whether or not he lived up to the expectations of his qualifications is lost on me. It almost comes off like he did sloppy work, for the sake of just making a buck?

[M Joy]

What amused me was that she complained about JM doing speaking objections but she did exactly the same thing yesterday.

Exactly. And then Martinez began objecting to her speaking objections as well.

[biggie]

That's right, I've got a better view when the camera is on her, what's your point?

LOL. Are you serious? The point is...IT"S A CAMERA...IT"S RECORDING. Get it. If there was even the slightest bit of 'shady actions', someone would have brought attention to it. What you have is ZIP, ZERO. You see what you want to see.

[AnnieBelle]

Stalking brought up by Mimi Hall 1:54 and then at about 2:30 on cross and 2:34 on re-direct - talking about tire slashing, following on dates, doggy door, reading emails



Also on the day that Lisa Andrews testified, a juror question was "did you ever refer to Jodi Arias as a stalker?" Her answer was "Yes"

Yes, I noticed he got those few questions in, with Lisa. He just didn't expand upon it, afterwards. Maybe he will keep that for his closing arguments, when he ties it all together in a bundle and hands it to the jury. I hope so!

[faq_q]

New to this site, enjoy reading all your thoughts. Thought it was worth mentioning that I visited JAII site one time, got so disgusted that I posted something that they must have taken offense to since they appeared to have blocked my ip address after that point. I can no longer see that website at home but I can at work. My thought about the trial so far is that Juan Martinez has managed to Impeach most every witness of the defense at this point. I can't wait for Alyce LaViolette to take the stand.

[ImBatman!]

New to this site, enjoy reading all your thoughts. Thought it was worth mentioning that I visited JAII site one time, got so disgusted that I posted something that they must have taken offense to since they appeared to have blocked my ip address after that point. I can no longer see that website at home but I can at work. My thought about the trial so far is that Juan Martinez has managed to Impeach most every witness of the defense at this point. I can't wait for Alyce LaViolette to take the stand.

Welcome!! You are in a far better place now my love!

[ImBatman!]

New to this site, enjoy reading all your thoughts. Thought it was worth mentioning that I visited JAII site one time, got so disgusted that I posted something that they must have taken offense to since they appeared to have blocked my ip address after that point. I can no longer see that website at home but I can at work. My thought about the trial so far is that Juan Martinez has managed to Impeach most every witness of the defense at this point. I can't wait for Alyce LaViolette to take the stand.

Welcome!! You are in a far better place now my love!

[AnnieBelle]

Someone with a PhD is still a doctor, just not a MEDICAL doctor.

If you're saying it's easy to get a doctorate, you're crazy. If it were, everyone would have one.

I'm not defending Samuels, just saying. Getting a PhD is not a cake walk. I mean seriously, WTF

You are spot on! One can obtain a doctorate in many different fields of study. And all take approximately 8 years (PLUS) of grueling work to earn. JM, pointing out that this doctor was not a MEDICAL doctor was important for the prosecution to show that he was not qualified to be an expert in testimony that deeply delved into the actual function of the brain. He wasn't discrediting the PhD that the witness holds.....just how it would be applied to his testimony.

[Doll-Face]

The 'stalking' of Travis is not allowed into evidence. It's too prejudicial, and there's no foundation (no proof, really) to prove that Jodi was indeed stalking Travis.

Motive is not necessary. It really isn't. In television, they need motive because it makes the case more interesting. In RL, motives are broad things.

Let's play devil's advocate and say that Travis did abuse Jodi in some way (or that she perceived him to be abusive, even if he wasn't). There is motivation on her part to kill him.

Travis called her a sociopath and threatened to let everyone know how horrible she was. There's motive.

Travis dumped her. There's motive.

Travis wanted to date other women. There's motive.

Travis was going to Cancun with someone else. There's motive.

Travis was alive and she wasn't going to be a part of his life for much longer. There's motive.

To nail it down to one thing is foolish and a waste of time. Throw a dart; one answer is as likely as the other. In reality, Travis's death is probably a combination of all these things, and more.

And I think if any of the jury have been paying attention, then it wouldn't be too hard for them to pick up the threads like I have. I think the actual problem is that society has been trained badly by television. They want everything explained in a neat little package along with physical evidence, and that's just not how it is in real life.

Like I've said, I don't know how you could look at the facts of the case and be unable to draw the proper conclusions. If people still doubt premeditation or feel that it hasn't been proven, then the only thing that will satisfy them is a confession of Arias, or a video of her going step-by-step in her plotting.

The evidence is all right there. It isn't that hard to put it together.

I agree with you as I have always understood her motive...she was obsessed with him and she wasn't ready to let him go and be with anyone else. At least that's the motive I believe. There is so much evidence against her in this case. I also believe that something happened between the 5-10-08 phone sex call and the 5-26-08 text that made her set her plan in motion. I just hope the jury can see it...and they can follow the path she took to Travis's on 6-4-08.

As for the bolded statement you wrote above...doesn't it irk you that she's been able to say totally unsubstantiated trash about Travis over and over again on the stand (pedophilia, domestic violence/abuse, deviant sexual behavior, etc.) YET the prosecution can't do the same with her because it's "prejudicial." I know how the law protects those who are accused (innocent until proven guilty), yet when a defendant admits to a heinous crime such as this one, it's frustrating that she's getting the same benefit as a woman who legitimately defended herself...or was legitimately abused.

[*crickets*]

My point was that, and forgive me for being too lazy to look up my own post #s, was that if you put together every piece of evidence, it is not so easily explained away when you put them together like a puzzle.

I could easily say that Jodi is too stupid to work a gas pump properly, but that doesn't make sense in the long-run. The only thing you could dismiss as pure coincidence was the hair color. I'll list it again:


4. She has someone drive her 90 miles in order to rent a car.
5. The first car she declines because it's 'too obvious'. She has a moderately reasonable explanation for this.
6. She drive down CA to visit people.
7. She borrows two gas cans.
8. She buys a third gas can. (She supposedly returns it, but the store has no record of such a return. Surprise!)
9. She does not tell anyone she plans to visit Travis.
10. Her cell phone magically stops working when she gets close to AZ.
11. She also magically does not have to make any stops anywhere that might have cameras to record her in AZ.
12. There are no receipts from AZ.
13. She arrives at Travis's early, early in the morning.
(14. Done last because it is the hardest to prove. Her hair color. In May it was blonde-ish. The day of the murder, it's brown. We don't know when she colored her hair.)

There are a lot of amazing coincidences that happened to Jodi. It's either the most remarkable case of unfortunate-looking circumstances for her ever, or this killing was premeditated.

I know that you say that you agree with me...so I'm curious to know what else you would need for it to have been premeditated? What will Juan need to do to make sure the jury gets this?[/QUOTE]

[AnnieBelle]

Also, tying into what chelsey d mentioned about her first encounter w the murderer in jan 2008... Her finger was not broken in Jan 2008... I hope JM refutes this pedo 2008 stuff because he just seemed to glaze over it. There needs to be more to totally throw that idea out of the jurors' minds and show the murderer to again, Be A Liar.

I know this is going to sound AWFUL......but when I see Jodi hold up her "crooked" finger so that the jury can see, I imagine myself dancing over toward her (picture a gazelle), carrying my rubber mallet, laying her hand down on the table....and *WHACK*.....okay, all fixed now. And leap and prance away. Sort of like a magical finger fairy.

[*crickets*]

My point was that, and forgive me for being too lazy to look up my own post #s, was that if you put together every piece of evidence, it is not so easily explained away when you put them together like a puzzle.

I could easily say that Jodi is too stupid to work a gas pump properly, but that doesn't make sense in the long-run. The only thing you could dismiss as pure coincidence was the hair color. I'll list it again:


4. She has someone drive her 90 miles in order to rent a car.
5. The first car she declines because it's 'too obvious'. She has a moderately reasonable explanation for this.
6. She drive down CA to visit people.
7. She borrows two gas cans.
8. She buys a third gas can. (She supposedly returns it, but the store has no record of such a return. Surprise!)
9. She does not tell anyone she plans to visit Travis.
10. Her cell phone magically stops working when she gets close to AZ.
11. She also magically does not have to make any stops anywhere that might have cameras to record her in AZ.
12. There are no receipts from AZ.
13. She arrives at Travis's early, early in the morning.
(14. Done last because it is the hardest to prove. Her hair color. In May it was blonde-ish. The day of the murder, it's brown. We don't know when she colored her hair.)

There are a lot of amazing coincidences that happened to Jodi. It's either the most remarkable case of unfortunate-looking circumstances for her ever, or this killing was premeditated.

I know that you say that you agree with me...so I'm curious to know what else you would need for it to have been premeditated? What will Juan need to do to make sure the jury gets this?

[/QUOTE]

Sorry--that was a mistake--hit the wrong button!

[Doll-Face]

yes I know it's a moot point but there is no gun at this time.There is a difference between burgulary and theft they (the pros) will have a tough time proving burgulary if it ever gets that far.

I understand there is no gun now, but there WAS a gun because Travis ended up with a .25 caliber bullet in his brain/face. It's not hard to establish that the gun existed. We also have the testimony of Jodi saying she shot him.

Interestingly, she claims she used Travis's own gun against him...a gun he supposedly kept loaded on the top shelf of his bedroom closet. Although I don't believe her story of taking Travis's own gun (because I don't believe in the coincidence that her grandparents' owned the same stupid caliber gun and it was stolen the same week), if the jury does believe her story that she shot him with his own gun, then they also have to believe she removed that gun from his home when she cleaned up the scene after her crime. Then we ask the questions: Why on earth would she remove Travis's own weapon from the scene? Why not just clean it of her prints and leave the weapon there? Does stealing it after shooting him lead to felony murder?

What about the knife?

I don't know about you, but I don't believe Jodi's story. It's easier to believe she stole the weapon from her grandparents' house, shot Travis with it, and then removed it from the scene because it could be traced back to her grandparents. I would love to have the gun in hand, but we don't...and we don't necessarily need it for the reasons I stated above.

[AnnieBelle]

How young is "too young" to be evil?

I have a feeling that he'll be "knocked down" a peg or two, and won't be smiling very often, when he gets into the prison system. 3 life sentences...with no parole. That will become his hell on earth. In many many many ways. DP would be too good for this one.

[elamir]

LOL. Are you serious? The point is...IT"S A CAMERA...IT"S RECORDING. Get it. If there was even the slightest bit of 'shady actions', someone would have brought attention to it. What you have is ZIP, ZERO. You see what you want to see.

nah, I'm not serious--just wanted to see you go off

[Doll-Face]

Premeditated doesn't mean planned, just that she thought of it before she killed him. There's no time specification for premed, it can be moments. By her story, she chose to run in the closet and get the gun rather than run out of the house. Then the rest, stabbing and slitting his throat, just because she doesn't remember, doesn't mean she wasn't trying to kill him.

Oh, yes. Very true. Good point.

[Doll-Face]

Stalking brought up by Mimi Hall 1:54 and then at about 2:30 on cross and 2:34 on re-direct - talking about tire slashing, following on dates, doggy door, reading emails



Also on the day that Lisa Andrews testified, a juror question was "did you ever refer to Jodi Arias as a stalker?" Her answer was "Yes"

Thank you, MJoy. It's been so long that I had forgotten about this testimony. I sure hope it's all wrapped up in a nice pretty pink bow during closing arguments. :)

[BLue]

SO, did a Willmott's relative die????

[Booya]

Cricket:
Don't forget the murderer turned her license plate upside down and removed the front plate on the car. She asked Det Flores in the interview "can't you just look at red light cameras to see if you spot my license plate?"
Se said that because of there being a lot of red light and speeding cameras in Mesa, Az. I know cuz I got a ticket once. She turned her own damn plates in order to avoid camera detection.

[Crystalette247]

Thank you, MJoy. It's been so long that I had forgotten about this testimony. I sure hope it's all wrapped up in a nice pretty pink bow during closing arguments. :)

That is what I am waiting for as well.. the end where everything is actually said the way JM thinks it happened. I can't imagine after hearing what sounds like the truth that the jury would find her anything but guilty. so much contradiction and looking over lies and lies.

[Metis212]

I don't know if I posted the same sentiments here or in a PM but I agree with you Metis.

Thanks Batman! His background of medical malpractice, PTSD with police or soldiers, sexual violence and even psychosexual risk assessments simply is not the same as evaluating a highly deceptive murderess. I bet that once she told him the "real" murder story, he was hooked. He said she had a breakthrough. That is how she seduced him.

The only thing I would question about him is that he took on this case, knowing what was involved. He said it only took him a couple of interviews to determine she was not telling the truth. And, he certainly knew, by the time he stepped on the witness stand, that his original report was based on nothing but lies. So, I think he owns making some bad bad choices concerning his reports and how professionally they were done. He seems to be qualified, but whether or not he lived up to the expectations of his qualifications is lost on me. It almost comes off like he did sloppy work, for the sake of just making a buck?

This case required a psychologist who relied on hard data rather than hour after hour of talk. He comes across as the "absent minded professor" because he has 30 hours of notes in longhand and missing pages of testing. He is "old school". Most likely he took on this case to solidify his business relationship with Nurmi and Nurmi's foray into sexual crimes.

I've had to testify a few times in my career. It's not my thing as I prefer evaluation of seriously mentally ill and suicidal patients. Once, I was required to testify in a child death case. The babysitter caring for the child was about to be indited on murder charges. I concluded that the evidence did not support she killed the child and I was up against an internationally known and respected shaken baby expert. Every one was against the babysitter and me, it was unpleasant. One of the lawyers was similar to JM, but for different reasons. She was emotionally wed to the outcome because it would have made her career and lifted her into celebrity status. As she examined me, she was so angry she broke a pencil and the pencil pieces flew across the room. It was outrageous. I answered the yes or no questions (over and over and over) but each question required more information. I am sure I looked and sounded like a complete imbecile. But in the end the truth won out, the babysitter wasn't charged and her own children were returned to her.

What I am trying to say with this long winded story is not everyone is cut out to testify with the pressures of this kind of case. To his credit, Samuels established JA has dissociative amnesia and her memory loss and gaps are "real".

[Doll-Face]

Being in the house was considered burglary.

English criminal law: the crime of either entering a building as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft, rape, grievous bodily harm, or damage, or, having entered as a trespasser, of committing one or more of these offences

It's a bit of a stretch, I agree, but it makes sense what he is doing. The gun exists (the bullet in Travis's skull proves that), it is just gone. Whether she stole it after she murdered him, or whether she brought it with her, she is screwed. Even if you were to grant her lunatic story about Travis having a Sooper Secrud Gun any credence, the rest of her story about the attack makes no sense. She came to the house with the intent to do some sort of harm to Travis.



I don't understand what the floormats have to do with premeditation. Or the stains in the car. Those go towards showing her attempts to cover up the crime.

My point was that, and forgive me for being too lazy to look up my own post #s, was that if you put together every piece of evidence, it is not so easily explained away when you put them together like a puzzle.

I could easily say that Jodi is too stupid to work a gas pump properly, but that doesn't make sense in the long-run. The only thing you could dismiss as pure coincidence was the hair color. I'll list it again:

1. The text message Travis sent. This was probably the final nail in his coffin.
2. Two days later, her grandparents' gun is stolen. Oddly, it is the same caliber used in the murder.
3. Jodi plans to go out of town. This may or may not have already been in the books, but it does offer her the perfect chance to go to AZ.
4. She has someone drive her 90 miles in order to rent a car.
5. The first car she declines because it's 'too obvious'. She has a moderately reasonable explanation for this.
6. She drive down CA to visit people.
7. She borrows two gas cans.
8. She buys a third gas can. (She supposedly returns it, but the store has no record of such a return. Surprise!)
9. She does not tell anyone she plans to visit Travis.
10. Her cell phone magically stops working when she gets close to AZ.
11. She also magically does not have to make any stops anywhere that might have cameras to record her in AZ.
12. There are no receipts from AZ.
13. She arrives at Travis's early, early in the morning.
(14. Done last because it is the hardest to prove. Her hair color. In May it was blonde-ish. The day of the murder, it's brown. We don't know when she colored her hair.)

There are a lot of amazing coincidences that happened to Jodi. It's either the most remarkable case of unfortunate-looking circumstances for her ever, or this killing was premeditated.

I know that you say that you agree with me...so I'm curious to know what else you would need for it to have been premeditated? What will Juan need to do to make sure the jury gets this?

Great post! I bolded your statements above about the gun because I said something very similar today in response to loonywop. Unfortunately, I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. Gave you herps just now. :)

[Wishmich]

My point was that, and forgive me for being too lazy to look up my own post #s, was that if you put together every piece of evidence, it is not so easily explained away when you put them together like a puzzle.

I could easily say that Jodi is too stupid to work a gas pump properly, but that doesn't make sense in the long-run. The only thing you could dismiss as pure coincidence was the hair color. I'll list it again:


4. She has someone drive her 90 miles in order to rent a car.
5. The first car she declines because it's 'too obvious'. She has a moderately reasonable explanation for this.
6. She drive down CA to visit people.
7. She borrows two gas cans.
8. She buys a third gas can. (She supposedly returns it, but the store has no record of such a return. Surprise!)
9. She does not tell anyone she plans to visit Travis.
10. Her cell phone magically stops working when she gets close to AZ.
11. She also magically does not have to make any stops anywhere that might have cameras to record her in AZ.
12. There are no receipts from AZ.
13. She arrives at Travis's early, early in the morning.
(14. Done last because it is the hardest to prove. Her hair color. In May it was blonde-ish. The day of the murder, it's brown. We don't know when she colored her hair.)

There are a lot of amazing coincidences that happened to Jodi. It's either the most remarkable case of unfortunate-looking circumstances for her ever, or this killing was premeditated.

I know that you say that you agree with me...so I'm curious to know what else you would need for it to have been premeditated? What will Juan need to do to make sure the jury gets this?

[/QUOTE]

Her grampa's gun is mysteriously stolen and Travis coincidentally happens to be killed by the same caliber of weapon.