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

[zeebee]

The laughing and cracking up by the court room was really only JA supporters and the mitigation specialist. The outburst seemed coached as well. If I didn't know any better I would think this tactic belongs to Wilmont as it feels like female bullying. You know how that goes, one female does the taunting and the gaggle of other females stand around. The real bully is ready to stab you in the back.

I can't agree with this. Do you know for sure that the outburst was "really only" JA supporters? People on that side of the court room are not all JA supporters, other people are seated there (someone on this site went to court a few days was seated on that side because the other was taken by TA's family and the media), and we aren't really shown the other side of the court room very often.

Also, I admit I LOL'd. I wasn't sitting in the court room but I totally LOL'd, and I probably would have in the court room too.

[smurfy]

And, while I realize that he received the worst abuse (obviously) in the end. She was testifying to domestic violence, not the murder.

[I doubt it]

I find it funny that you all sit here and bitch about how they are taking those messages out of context and how not right it is. Yet you sit here and bash ALV over HALF a statement she made. I om not a fan of hers, I think she is about as full of shit as a person could possibly be. I have zero respect for the things she is putting out there in regards to the whole thing.. but... She said Travis was not the victim OF ABUSE! She did not say he was not the victim period. She said OF ABUSE.

She said Travis was the perpetrator.

[smurfy]

She said Travis was the perpetrator.

yes, but she was speaking to the abuse that they are claiming. I have missed bits and pieces so maybe I missed something that says otherwise. but IIRC she specifically stated that she was talking about the abuse and not the murder.

[Missmandy9]

Its interesting that Alyce and Samuels use the same level of resistance and terminology to impede Martinez. This says to me it is defense tactics/strategy to disarm Martinez. The laughing and cracking up by the court room was really only JA supporters and the mitigation specialist. The outburst seemed coached as well. If I didn't know any better I would think this tactic belongs to Wilmont as it feels like female bullying. You know how that goes, one female does the taunting and the gaggle of other females stand around. The real bully is ready to stab you in the back.

That's a really good point. Why would Alyce think the whole 'memory' question from JW was humorous? And how would she know to ask a question like that? So either 1- she has been watching the trial or 2- she was coached. Both are disturbing, but I have the say the latter is much more disturbing...and believable...considering the lack of professionalism from JA's team. I'm surprised the judge hasn't spoken with them (unless she has). I feel like the DT has turned this into a game. Unbelievable...and SAD.

[faq_q]

Its interesting that Alyce and Samuels use the same level of resistance and terminology to impede Martinez. This says to me it is defense tactics/strategy to disarm Martinez. The laughing and cracking up by the court room was really only JA supporters and the mitigation specialist. The outburst seemed coached as well. If I didn't know any better I would think this tactic belongs to Wilmont as it feels like female bullying. You know how that goes, one female does the taunting and the gaggle of other females stand around. The real bully is ready to stab you in the back.

I never noticed that but you are right, it seems planned. I now ALV saying "Are you angry with me?" yesterday was planned. I would not put it past the DT to be coaching it up to get Juan frustrated. He seemed to start out calm yesterday then when ALV started smiling and being snarky, he ramped it up a bit.

he may have style but he has no class and is not polished.He needs answers to his questions for the jury to make their decision and if his demeanor only allows them to remember "how his tone" asked the question the answer isn't remembered and it defeats the purpose of the question.Passion is one thing ,Anger and being confrontational is another...

I guess we will see when the jury does deliberations whether his style works for them. I can tell you this, no one is sleeping while he is crossing the witness. IMO, if he allowed ALV, Samuals, Searcy or any of the witnesses so far, time to think about their answers and spew whatever they want to spew, I think he would be working in the defenses favor. The fact that he catches them off guard and most times they slip up, proves to me that he knows what he is doing. Plus, I don't mind adding that he has convicted a woman of 1st degree murder DP before, so I trust he can do it again.

[Missmandy9]

I understand that. I post in here too, so there are times I take offense at what other MDSers say about the people who post in the Jodi thread because it is often said in generalities, and we are not all the same. But I also understand their frustration, because this has been kind of taken over by people we don't know, some of whom don't contribute much, behave trollishly or serial post for no real reason. BUT... of course, not all of the people who post in here fall under that catagory!

I admit that I have had to put some people on ignore so that my head doesn't explode when I venture in here. And I have pet peeves about stuff that is posted in here (see my earlier post above).

But there is also a lot of great stuff in here too. It's just frustrating to have to wade through some of the extraneous stuff to get to the good stuff. That's all, really.

I can respect that. And thank you for clarifying. While I don't put people on ignore, I definitely weed through stuff that I can tell is a waste of time. And I will admit, I have only been here since February, so I do not know the difference between the thread now and the way it was when it started back in 2008 so I don't have much backbone to keep complaining. Saying this, I will now leave this topic and carry on. I appreciate your feedback, Zeebee!

[alaina02]

god! i can't even say anything more, really. but i'll try. all of this is right on.

i used to be a member of this thread. i used to read it and comment on it. now i don't because it hurts my brain to read all the hateful comments. i don't feel they have a place here or anywhere. i see similar comments on those other 'crazy' sites... and y'all wonder why i say the crazy came here.

because of some members of this thread, features have been taken from the rest of us and warnings have been issued. FTR: i don't give a shit about the reps, but if anyone is complaining that i say in another thread that the jodi thread ruins everything, you're not seeing the truth that is in front of you. maybe the sane posters on this thread could do a little more to self-regulate the nutters that are giving it a bad name?

and indeed, there are many, many little complainers running around this thread. they smite, they report, they over post and what's worse - they don't see how they're the problem and threaten to leave the site because the big bad senior members say mean awful things! These people are usually the most vocal nick-namers and body shamers.

it's just immature.

if you're not the one doing this, i'm not talking to you! there are quite a few here are awesome to the max!

For the record... I love the nick name stabby...when I read that nickname a month ago i decided to join this forum!! Sometimes there is immaturity, but we all need a laugh every now and then due to the nature of this trial!! Come on and let loose a little...

Back on topic: I am still wondering about STABBY loosing weight...i wonder if its done on purpose and if so is it because she is going to attempt an esacpe??? hmmm.

[queenaevadamthng]

Yesterday's little display of smartassery by Alyce when SuperJuan started cross was her futile attempt to show him she could piss higher on the tree than he could..

[animosity]

I can see where you are coming from with the posters that had originally been posting on the 1st thread since 2008. I would be pissed to. I did, however, sign up 3 days ago premium so I could get ALL the features. IMHO, the fact that people abuse the thread, post off-topic, smite at will or otherwise don't know how to use multi-quote should not affect my experience that I pay for. I just wish the few that ruin it would be dealt with individually instead of the rest having to deal with it.



Great post...agree with you but I joined for this thread mostly (though I have been lurking around some of the others) and I get annoyed that because of a few bad apples, we get dealt with on a group basis. Enough said, sorry to contribute more to this off-topic conversation, I will go back to the trial topic now

and that's the thing too... we all paid out dues as well. we are paying to be ignored. nobody gave a shit when i and several other members said, nicely at first: hey guys! can you please cut out the name calling, body shaming and gay bashing? it actually got worse when we brought it up.

i am angry that i can't actually keep up with the thread because it moves so fast and the content is so very negative. how this fair to people who have also paid and have been participating long before the trial began?

seriously, none of these issues happen in other threads. usually, they're a big love fest. they move at a reasonable pace, include great information and can be very touching at times. no one should leave without participating in other threads. the thought of that makes me sad because they're so much nicer and friendlier and squishier.

[debk589]

There are some pretty kick ass other death threads here, ya'll should really go check em out!!

[Brillig]

That's a really good point. Why would Alyce think the whole 'memory' question from JW was humorous? And how would she know to ask a question like that? So either 1- she has been watching the trial or 2- she was coached. Both are disturbing, but I have the say the latter is much more disturbing...and believable...considering the lack of professionalism from JA's team. I'm surprised the judge hasn't spoken with them (unless she has). I feel like the DT has turned this into a game. Unbelievable...and SAD.

Great point. While she might have been coached by the DT, I think she had to have been actually watching the trial on TV as well to "get" those in-jokes. In-jokes are often hard to explain to an outsider because they usually evolve during a series of events or exchanges that a group experiences together. Yet AL got both the in-jokes.

And I think there is another aspect to all this that in some ways is even more important... AL swore under oath on the stand that she did NOT watch the trial. So to me, even more important than whether she did or did not watch the trial coverage on TV before she testified is the fact that she was willing to LIE on the stand, while she was under oath. If she would lie about one thing, there really isn't much reason to think she wouldn't lie about another.

[Metis212]

I can't agree with this. Do you know for sure that the outburst was "really only" JA supporters? People on that side of the court room are not all JA supporters, other people are seated there (someone on this site went to court a few days was seated on that side because the other was taken by TA's family and the media), and we aren't really shown the other side of the court room very often.

Also, I admit I LOL'd. I wasn't sitting in the court room but I totally LOL'd, and I probably would have in the court room too.

Maybe I missed something/someone with live streaming; I saw the first row and a couple of people behind and to the right of Donovan. The first row is reserved for family and close friends. I dont know anything for certain, I just know what I saw. I could be totally mistaken. I've only testified once as an expert witness and a few times beyond that as a witness. One comes to understand the questions that will be asked and the tactics as a witness is disposed. Guess my experience and what I saw was misguided.

[I doubt it]

Here's the link for Thursday afternoon's testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU3zl...B69EB&index=85
Juan begins the cross-examination at 29.41. He starts with the standard question of credentials that is given to most expert witnesses. La Violette goes right on the defensive, she doesn't have a PhD. Then they discuss the clinical interview. Wilmott is giggling while LaViolette refuses to give a straight answer. About minute 35 she comes out with, "Mr. Martinez, are you mad at me?" Which causes the people around Donovan Bering to burst out in laughter, including the mitigation specialist.

It seemed like a pre-planned comment and she used it way too early, during some very simple questions. She was sparring with him right from the start.

After that, Martinez does raise his voice asking her, "What difference does it make if the prosecutor is angry with you?" Then she starts telling him how to talk to her.

People who are saying he was too hard on her, really need to watch it again. That is his style. It's worked for him over 30 years. Stop complaining, be glad he's on the state's side.

[royals02]

Unbelievable amount of snarkiness and unprofessionalism from JA and the ENTIRE defense team.....those questions by JW, do you have a problem with your memory, are you fond of Jodi...those remarks by Nurmi about the prosecutors office when requesting the jury be sequestered; that outburst of laughter by the mitigation specialist, who is supposedly a "professional" and ofcourse there is the rude behavior by JA when being questioned by JM......so absolutely uncalled for

[Metis212]

Great point. While she might have been coached by the DT, I think she had to have been actually watching the trial on TV as well to "get" those in-jokes. In-jokes are often hard to explain to an outsider because they usually evolve during a series of events or exchanges that a group experiences together. Yet AL got both the in-jokes.

And I think there is another aspect to all this that in some ways is even more important... AL swore under oath on the stand that she did NOT watch the trial. So to me, even more important than whether she did or did not watch the trial coverage on TV before she testified is the fact that she was willing to LIE on the stand, while she was under oath. If she would lie about one thing, there really isn't much reason to think she wouldn't lie about another.

Each witness for the defense was present for the evidentiary hearings and most likely disposed before that. JA, Alyce, and Samuels have testified at least once before Martinez. No surprises

[M Joy]

Watching the opening statement by Juan Martinez is just making me that much more excited for rebuttal and closing statements

[AnnieBelle]

Hi Annie,

I cannot PM you because you have that feature blocked. I would post your comment on the REP thread. We have to keep this thread strictly about the JA case. I came here for the same reason as well. Some amazing insight here. Unlike any other forum re: this case. I am sure MDS's membership has grown because of this trial...which is great for them. Check out the REP thread, I think you will find your answers there





Ummm Coconut is talking about Juror # 5 and so am I. Read his previous posts to understand.

I have my PM set so that only those on my friend list can send me mail. And, you should be the last person on here, advising others where their posts "should" go. But, since you opened up this line of questioning (my inner prosecutor wannabe coming out, here...), I suggest you take 98% of the posts that you've wasted precious space with on this thread and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, because they are crap. You think that drumming your views into everyones brain, over and over, until they cry "Uncle" is the way to go. Why do you feel that you are so important in the scheme of the universe, that everyone MUST understand exactly what you mean or what your intentions are or anything else about you? You used to smite people if they "misconstrued" your words or sentiments? You just don't "get" it. You irritate the shit out of everyone, because you don't know how to speak your mind, then shut the fuck up and move ON to the next issue at hand. When I say something on here, I say it because it's my opinion. Others are free to regard or disregard it. End of topic. Not you. You will drone on and on and on. I would have sent you a smite for your comment, and explained why. But, instead, I have to say it here. You are annoying as all fuck.

[zeebee]

I now ALV saying "Are you angry with me?" yesterday was planned. I would not put it past the DT to be coaching it up to get Juan frustrated. He seemed to start out calm yesterday then when ALV started smiling and being snarky, he ramped it up a bit.

I agree, I think it was planned. Whether she planned it herself or discussed it with the defense team, I don't know, but I think it was intended to make JM look like a big meanie (not to make people laugh, I don't think she expected that). I think it backfired (IMHO). He was able to make a point - regardless of how she feels about him or if he is angry or not, the important thing is to look at the facts; his demeanor should have no bearing on her interpretation of the facts. If the jury takes that to heart, then that should also apply to their analysis of the facts of the case, so if the defense portrays him as a big meanie, then so what? The facts are the facts.

I guess we will see when the jury does deliberations whether his style works for them. I can tell you this, no one is sleeping while he is crossing the witness. IMO, if he allowed ALV, Samuals, Searcy or any of the witnesses so far, time to think about their answers and spew whatever they want to spew, I think he would be working in the defenses favor. The fact that he catches them off guard and most times they slip up, proves to me that he knows what he is doing. Plus, I don't mind adding that he has convicted a woman of 1st degree murder DP before, so I trust he can do it again.

Agree!

I can respect that. And thank you for clarifying. While I don't put people on ignore, I definitely weed through stuff that I can tell is a waste of time. And I will admit, I have only been here since February, so I do not know the difference between the thread now and the way it was when it started back in 2008 so I don't have much backbone to keep complaining. Saying this, I will now leave this topic and carry on. I appreciate your feedback, Zeebee!

I'd rep you, but I can't!

[Brillig]

Each witness for the defense was present for the evidentiary hearings and most likely disposed before that. JA, Alyce, and Samuels have testified at least once before Martinez. No surprises

But didn't the in-jokes develop during the trial testimony itself? Mostly of JA? The in-jokes being "Do you have a problem with your memory" and the reference to JM's tone of voice as being "angry"?

I thought those both developed during the cross examination of JA. Then they were continued during the testimony of RS. So if ALV had not seen that testimony, how did she instantly "get" the in-jokes and laugh at them?

[DenverClipper]

I have my PM set so that only those on my friend list can send me mail. And, you should be the last person on here, advising others where their posts "should" go. But, since you opened up this line of questioning (my inner prosecutor wannabe coming out, here...), I suggest you take 98% of the posts that you've wasted precious space with on this thread and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, because they are crap. You think that drumming your views into everyones brain, over and over, until they cry "Uncle" is the way to go. Why do you feel that you are so important in the scheme of the universe, that everyone MUST understand exactly what you mean or what your intentions are or anything else about you? You used to smite people if they "misconstrued" your words or sentiments? You just don't "get" it. You irritate the shit out of everyone, because you don't know how to speak your mind, then shut the fuck up and move ON to the next issue at hand. When I say something on here, I say it because it's my opinion. Others are free to regard or disregard it. End of topic. Not you. You will drone on and on and on. I would have sent you a smite for your comment, and explained why. But, instead, I have to say it here. You are annoying as all fuck.

Holy shit! I find the ignore function works wonderfully.

Seriously, we're gonna get shut down again if we don't stop this stuff.

[coconut]

Unbelievable amount of snarkiness and unprofessionalism from JA and the ENTIRE defense team.....those questions by JW, do you have a problem with your memory, are you fond of Jodi...those remarks by Nurmi about the prosecutors office when requesting the jury be sequestered; that outburst of laughter by the mitigation specialist, who is supposedly a "professional" and ofcourse there is the rude behavior by JA when being questioned by JM.....so absolutely uncalled for

That might have been an effort to minimize some of the attacks on Samuels, and I think it worked a bit. It showed The Prosecutor likes to blow his wad over stuff that doesn't matter. And it did royally piss off Martinez. If I was Wilmott, I probably would have had similar goals. I just never thought Wilmott had the nads to start clownin' Martinez!

[Metis212]

But didn't the in-jokes develop during the trial testimony itself? Mostly of JA? The in-jokes being "Do you have a problem with your memory" and the reference to JM's tone of voice as being "angry"?

I thought those both developed during the cross examination of JA. Then they were continued during the testimony of RS. So if ALV had not seen that testimony, how did she instantly "get" the in-jokes and laugh at them?

Nah, Martinez asks do you have a problem with your memory in just about every trial. The defense knows this and tried to head JM at the pass. If you were the defense attorney you would make it your business to know how JM does things. Showing resistance by asking the prosecutor if he is angry is a tactic IMHO. Though I have to say, Alyce asking if JM wanted the truth was a serious zinger.

[AnnieBelle]

Holy shit! I find the ignore function works wonderfully.

Seriously, we're gonna get shut down again if we don't stop this stuff.

And if we get shut down? I think we'll all survive, somehow. ;)

[DenverClipper]

And if we get shut down? I think we'll all survive, somehow. ;)

ALV's testimony has really stressed us out. We don't have any patience. By the time defense was finished with ALV yesterday I was ready to throw my iPad at the tv.

Jodi really does ruin everything.