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

[Freethinker]

I know the answer the answer is yes... In Arizona there can be a mistrial in the penalty phase if a unanimous verdict is not reached (either DP or LWOP) Believe it or not a new jury would be seated to re-hear the penalty phase ONLY...not a complete new trial:

source: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/02...ias-sentencing

"The jury then deliberates for a third time to determine whether Arias should be sentenced to life or death. Their decision must be unanimous. In the case of a deadlock, a mistrial would be granted and a new jury would be chosen for this phase only."

I read that piece over and over. I don't understand how a new jury could be picked for penalty period only. The only information the first jury had was what they got privied to in the courtroom. A new jury would have had all that information plus a plethora of information as we have seen on t.v.. It just doesn't sound right. Wouldn't a second jury be more biased?

[Sylvian]

Makes me wonder how many cases she has testified for that caused innocent men to lose their kids or be punished by jail time?
She may be a great DV expert for women and all that, but I really do believe JM proved that Alyce can not be objective with men.
You can't always go into a case thinking it's always the man's fault when you want to call yourself an expert and testify in court.. That's not fair. If you are going to do that-that leaves you open to be discredited like JM did to her yesterday.
You can't tell half truths/lies and expect it not to come back and bite you on the butt.

I still don't get the bashing of her book, tho. Don't get me wrong- I care! but not enough to take the time to write a nasty review on a book I haven't read.

Anyway, Alyce will write a future book on her interaction with Jodi and all those stupid diary post and her big box of papers.

I don't intend to slate her book at all but I can understand what people are trying to do, i guess it's the only way to show her how pissed they are at her for what she is doing.

[Sayub]

Found the Purple Plum manipulation I was talking about the other day. JM says "manager" not waitress and names the guy.

1:29:50 Purple Plum Manager Gary [?Brainkman?]

What's beyond frustrating with Alyce's testimony -- Every day Juan questioned her he wants to know where she got her information from -- did she ask Jodi? No, she used collateral sources in her evaluation -- but . . . each & every time a collateral source gives her any aberrant behavior she dismisses it & ends up asking Jodi directly.





(During Juan's questioning) So sick of her expression every time they're up at a sidebar -- looks over at the jury, lowers her head, eyes rolling back in head -- like a dog that just got scolded for going on the floor. It's disgusting. Alyce that is (not the dog).




Alyce:
- Yes, she lied then, but she doesn't lie now
- Yes, her parents told me she was a liar & manipulator, but I don?t believe them
- Yes, she lied, & acted out but she was a teenager
- Yes, she manipulated men, but that was before the homicide
- Yes, she tried anal sex , but only once because it hurt
- Yes, I know a gun was stolen from her grandparent's but she told me she had nothing to do w/it
- Yes, I know Travis' ex-girlfriends testified that they never felt threatened or abused but I don't believe them
- Travis had a rough childhood - he's a perpetrator




Ms. LaViolette's Educational Background (on the 20th page of her CV!):

1967 Associate Degree ? Physical Education
1969 Bachelor?s Degree ? Psychology
1980 Master?s Degree- Community Clinical Psychology
1982 California Community College, lifetime teaching credential
1992 Marriage, Family, Child Counseling, State License

BA in Psych + Education Svcs Program qualify for Counselor / Masters qualifies for Occupational Therapist





Interesting article from Bennett Pologe, Ph.D. - Credentials - Types of Psychotherapists

The term "psychotherapist" is unlicensed; anyone -- and I mean anyone -- can call himself a psychotherapist. The same applies to the term "therapist". "Psychologist", on the other hand, requires some kind of licensure. The practitioner cannot call himself by this title unless he has met certain state and national requirements.

http://www.aboutpsychotherapy.com/Tcredentials.php





Juantage of Andriano Part 1 ? Juan starts at 0:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qge--X3i9xo



sorry if any of this has been posted already I'm only about 20 pgs behind

[dizzyp]

This is why I say Travis was an easy mark for Jodi. He was attracted to her shell...sort of like a peacock with its bright feathers...notice me...notice me. She was finished with Darryl, she was looking for fresh meat. On the hunt for someone to take care of her. She had no concern whatsoever for Darryl. Think about it, she helped to bankrupt a man who had a child.

Its not lost on many of us that Jodi never lived on her own. By the sounds of it, she spent most of her time with Travis while in Mesa. probably slept with him most nights. Why didnt the defense team bring in testimony from the woman she allegedly lived with?

Isnt it interesting that once there is no man to use up, she has found low-life women to suck off.

In terms of Travis, he was the oldest child of the union between his mother and father. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Travis's father was married three times. As the oldest brother in his sibling group, he might have had the qualities that go along with being a brother of sisters. (this is from sibling position research. This sibling position gives a man an easy time with women, they tend to understand women well because they have been surrounded by women since birth. Considering all of that, he might have felt protective.

This is why i am so disgusted by Alyce, she didn't want to know Travis.

Metis: your insights are really profound. Seeing Travis's sisters in court and hearing their interviews it is easy to see that there was a loving bond there.. and the accounts of his grandmother Norma loving him so much... this is the real "collateral" evidence that AL should have been looking at. Using her own words it's "what you do" about something that creates a pattern. Travis's overriding pattern was he turned the (very real) pain from his childhood, owned it, wrote about it, http://travisalexander.blogspot.com/ and then channeled it into a productive, and what seems to be a mostly happy adulthood. (look at his face in the scores of photos, he LOOKS HAPPY...) I've only seen one or two photos of Jodi where I would say that a genuine happiness seems to come through. In the end he made a fatal choice in trying to find the "real love of his life" that he wrote about : "This life is a beautiful life. A life that is all the more beautiful when we find someone of like mind, heart and spirit to share it with." TA

[dizzyp]

I read that piece over and over. I don't understand how a new jury could be picked for penalty period only. The only information the first jury had was what they got privied to in the courtroom. A new jury would have had all that information plus a plethora of information as we have seen on t.v.. It just doesn't sound right. Wouldn't a second jury be more biased?

I agree, it doesn't really make sense but that (apparently) IS the law in Arizona (along with juror questions) What you have to remember is that EVERYTHING comes in in the penalty phase, including the stuff that was too prejudicial for the trial.

I need to research this more because it seems like there would have to be an entire new presentation by both sides, with victim impact statements, please for mercy etc.. put the family through the emotions of standing up for their brother, again?? It does seem strange. I'm going to try and find the actual Arizona law as opposed to taking HLN's word for it.

[dizzyp]

I agree, it doesn't really make sense but that (apparently) IS the law in Arizona (along with juror questions) What you have to remember is that EVERYTHING comes in in the penalty phase, including the stuff that was too prejudicial for the trial.

I need to research this more because it seems like there would have to be an entire new presentation by both sides, with victim impact statements, please for mercy etc.. put the family through the emotions of standing up for their brother, again?? It does seem strange. I'm going to try and find the actual Arizona law as opposed to taking HLN's word for it.

FOUND IT: I suggest reading the entire statute.. it is very convoluted... there are 2 situations where a jury could be dismissed and replaced AFTER a guilty verdict if they do not come to a unanimous verdicts on issues that come after Guilt/Innocence (aggravating circumstance, and penaty phase: DP/LWOP)
Arizona Law: http://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/...section13-752/ (it IS confusing)

K. At the penalty phase, if the trier of fact is a jury and the jury is unable to reach a verdict, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury. The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found by unanimous verdict to be proved or not proved. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant.

L. If the jury that rendered a verdict of guilty is not the jury first impaneled for the aggravation phase, the jury impaneled in the aggravation phase shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt. If the jury impaneled in the aggravation phase is unable to reach a verdict on any of the alleged aggravating circumstances and the jury has not found that at least one of the alleged aggravating circumstances has been proven, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall impanel a new jury. The new jury shall not retry the issue of the defendant's guilt or the issue regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first jury found not proved by unanimous verdict. If the new jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the court shall impose a sentence of life or natural life on the defendant.

I. If the trier of fact at any prior phase of the trial is the same trier of fact at the subsequent phase, any evidence that was presented at any prior phase of the trial shall be deemed admitted as evidence at any subsequent phase of the trial.

[dizzyp]

above in response to this:


Quote Originally Posted by Freethinker View Post
I read that piece over and over. I don't understand how a new jury could be picked for penalty period only. The only information the first jury had was what they got privied to in the courtroom. A new jury would have had all that information plus a plethora of information as we have seen on t.v.. It just doesn't sound right. Wouldn't a second jury be more biased?

[Wishmich]

I was reading the old thread from early on. This was posted in April of 2009. I find it interesting in that I don't think at that time similar stories of Jodi were put out there. We know she peeped in Travis's windows, but back in 2009 was all the evidence out there? I'm thinking not because they didn't even release crime scene photos yet. So it would appear to me (this is for you Alyce) that there was a pattern with Jodi.

I found this comment left today on the cbsnews.com website. The one of Jodi speaking out about why she is smiling in her mug shot. I know there has to be many more stories out there about this crazy biotch. Anyway here is one which to me is pretty creepy :-o


I wouldn't say I know Jodi, but I have met her several times, in the summer of 97' I was able to whitness her "handy work" first hand.
    She had a prior relationship with a man I was visiting in Yreka, CA. While I was on my way up to see him she broke into his home and cut the telephone wires, and there were a few times during my visit that she would peep through the windows and watch us in the house.
    When she was properly introduced to me she seemed so nice that you totally forgot all the bizarre things she was doing. And what struck me was, she made no attempt to hide what she was doing...either that or she just wasn't very good at snooping.
Posted by JadeL

[/QUOTE]

[royals02]

I was reading the old thread from early on. This was posted in April of 2009. I find it interesting in that I don't think at that time similar stories of Jodi were put out there. We know she peeped in Travis's windows, but back in 2009 was all the evidence out there? I'm thinking not because they didn't even release crime scene photos yet. So it would appear to me (this is for you Alyce) that there was a pattern with Jodi.

[/QUOTE]

WOW...I can't say that that story surprises me. I would bet that there are more stories out there similar to this one regarding JA, but the people probably don't want any involvement with her again.

[Jinkasaurus]

Do you folks think that Jodi's sneaky mannerisms in the interrogation room (digging through trash, etc) and in the courtroom have any connection to the sneaky behaviors that have been reported about her, as in "tip of the iceberg" type relationship?

On one hand I find myself thinking, yes, she is revealing aspects of her deeper personality in the interrogation room and court, but on the other, I think these behaviors are just signs of nervousness.

[Jinkasaurus]

On people wanting murderers to show remorse.

One thing I have noticed after reading hundreds of true crime books, articles, watching true crime programs, for over 20 years is that almost inevitably, people seem to be astounded/angry that murderers do not show remorse - particularly when they are sitting in the courtroom.

I've thought about this a lot and what has occurred to me is that this tendency belies a lack of understanding of most people who commit murder.

Think about it - if you want to kill someone and decide that there is a very good reason that they should be dead, why would you show remorse? If you really felt that you were in the right, why would you be remorseful? You would feel like you made the right choice and you would be angry that you are in trouble for it.

Now there are cases where someone kills another person, perhaps in just a fit of rage without any forethought, or by accident, in the sense that they were angry, shoved the person and they fell down the stairs, and then died. In cases like this, the person was not necessarily intending to murder, and they likely do not hold the belief that it is OK to kill someone. I would expect to see remorse in someone like this.

But for those who plan to kill someone, most likely they have convinced themselves that there is a valid reason to do so. Anything from a man not wanting his divorced wife to take his kids from him to hating prostitutes like Gary Ridgeway.

Folks like this feel like they have a good reason to kill someone. And I personally would not expect them to show remorse. If they were truly able to feel empathy for others, then they would not commit these murders to begin with.

So in cases like this, I think we are foolish to expect signs of remorse. I think we would be wiser to assume the person does not feel remorse and is not going to show it. At most, these folks could say they are sorry for the pain they have caused the victim's family - but that does not require feeling actual remorse for what they have done (commit murder). For that they feel justified, not remorseful. Beyond feeling justified, they might actually feel good that they got rid of the person they felt they had good reasons to murder.

[Fairuza]

Hi all, does anyone know why Bobby was never called to the stand to testify?

[Morticia]

To Jodi: “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

[Tia111]

Pathetic old battle ax, I fo not understand how anyone that is an actual victim of DV could believe one word that parts her buck teeth! I am beginning to think that she probably represent women in false cases of DV that involve custody to these mothers that attend these seminars and learn exactly what to say and do to win custody at all costs. Which further explains why she never represents men, that would surely not look good if you are helping women gain custody. Maybe this is also why she felt somewhat safe taking Jodi's case, it would not keep the above mentioned type women from seeking her out, after they see her in this trial they would be assured that she would stop at nothing to help them. For the right $$ they would be right!

[Freethinker]

On people wanting murderers to show remorse.

One thing I have noticed after reading hundreds of true crime books, articles, watching true crime programs, for over 20 years is that almost inevitably, people seem to be astounded/angry that murderers do not show remorse - particularly when they are sitting in the courtroom.

I've thought about this a lot and what has occurred to me is that this tendency belies a lack of understanding of most people who commit murder.

Think about it - if you want to kill someone and decide that there is a very good reason that they should be dead, why would you show remorse? If you really felt that you were in the right, why would you be remorseful? You would feel like you made the right choice and you would be angry that you are in trouble for it.

Now there are cases where someone kills another person, perhaps in just a fit of rage without any forethought, or by accident, in the sense that they were angry, shoved the person and they fell down the stairs, and then died. In cases like this, the person was not necessarily intending to murder, and they likely do not hold the belief that it is OK to kill someone. I would expect to see remorse in someone like this.

But for those who plan to kill someone, most likely they have convinced themselves that there is a valid reason to do so. Anything from a man not wanting his divorced wife to take his kids from him to hating prostitutes like Gary Ridgeway.

Folks like this feel like they have a good reason to kill someone. And I personally would not expect them to show remorse. If they were truly able to feel empathy for others, then they would not commit these murders to begin with.

So in cases like this, I think we are foolish to expect signs of remorse. I think we would be wiser to assume the person does not feel remorse and is not going to show it. At most, these folks could say they are sorry for the pain they have caused the victim's family - but that does not require feeling actual remorse for what they have done (commit murder). For that they feel justified, not remorseful. Beyond feeling justified, they might actually feel good that they got rid of the person they felt they had good reasons to murder.

If a killer like Jodi killing Travis, she feels her goal was met. When the goal is that strong, they kind of forget consequence because they hope to be the one that got away with it. Jodi had a master plan in place, but obviously left her unplanned tracks behind her. I don't think she even thought about, nor comprehended that people didn't like her and people thought she was strange. Of course her strange behaviors did draw attention by numerous people, thus Jodi was first suspect even before any evidence came to the forefront.
Even though she got caught, she still played her games. She couldn't wiggle out of anything except play the self defense ticket.

[Tia111]

QUOTE=Brillig;3386019]They are grasping at straws. It isn't witness tampering.

They could argue that death threats & the sheer size of the onslaught against her is enough to change the manner in which she testifies, simply by causing her to be stressed and/or distracted, couldn't they? Whether you think she deserves every last word of it, none of you really believe she could possibly be completely unaffected by it do you? She's 65 isn't she? That's my mother's age, maybe my mum & her friends are overly dramatic, but they seem to have high blood pressure &


multiple other medical dramas when something mildly stressful occurs. I expect death threats & thousands of condemning or abusive emails & ph calls would be more than mildly stressful?

I think her views came across as antiquated & her manner as difficult & obstructive, but she is testifying at trial. If there's an issue with her claims &/or behaviour, the judge & jury will let her know when the verdict is handed down. If her statements & behaviour on the stand are a serious issue, her professional community, colleagues & clients will deal with that - after & separate to the trial. I do not support her arguments at all but I think this might be bigger than many realise & that it could be even more of an issue for future trials. If this continues as it has been, this trial may become the catalyst for change because the fallout is going to be longlasting. Media classes will study this trial & the huge online response it provoked.

It makes no difference what she said, how she said it & whether she deserves what is said & done in response to her testimony.The attacks on this defense witness, in this trial will make potential defense witnesses in future trials consider their willingness to testify very, very carefully & some will simply refuse. "So what, killers don't deserve help" many will say, but some defendants are innocent & this will affect the innocent as much as it does the guilty.

No matter how we feel about the rigid belief system of this particular witness, the massive"backlash" aimed squarely at her HAS to affect the willingness to testify of defense witnesses who come after her. If the defense in this trial WAS intending to call other witnesses after her, do you think they'd be willing to appear after this? Or do you think they'd rather risk being jailed for contempt? (I have no idea if that's an option for reluctant defense witnesses in the U.S, it's just an example of how far some may now be prepared to go, to avoid a similar situation).[/QUOTE]

You know what Juan would say....
"Are you finished?"

Just kidding!

[dizzyp]

so true :)

[dizzyp]

To Jodi: “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

so true :)

[Tia111]

To: Everyone Court Room 105
From: Jennifer Wallmutt
Subject: Surprise Going Away Party for Alyce

Hi everyone! Oh boy the judge almost blew it with Alice today! The almost gave away our little surprise. I'm sending you all this email as a reminder Of next Tuesday's surprise party for Alice. I know since she can't open emails This was a safe way to remind everyone. (Lil J is sitting here next to me and says hi to all of you)

POT LUCK LIST
Penis shaped cake - me (Big J)
Maricopa Bologna Sammie - Jodi Lil J
(She's sorry she can only get one...now she's got me giggling and says she'll cut it up)
Champagne Punch - Judge
Toothpicks - Nurmi
Guacamole and chips - Juan
( We had to agree to let him sign autographs outside the courthouse to get him to bring the chips)
Knife for cake - Flores
(Lil J is giggling again and I have to smack her and tell her she can't take it with her)
Wooden Spoon - Sandy
Music - Casa Ramos Mariachis
Memory Album - Dr Dick (Jodi is smirking)
Snow White Balloons - Mike
The Best of ALV Video - HLN
Cavity Searches - Donavan (Lil J is making me crack up with what she just whispered in my ear)

Special Guests
Juror #5
Jinkasarus
Katie Witt
Alyce's life partner

The Alexanders will be on hand to give her the finger as she leaves.

OMG Lil J has a great idea. She wants to know if balliff can bring
A whoopie cushion for the witness stand seat for Alyce to sit on so she can hear it fart as she sits down!! I tell ya this BFF of mine is so funny, smart and cute! She's got me laughing so hard right NOW!!!

NG will be live at the Maricopa County Courthouse to unleash the lawyers!

SEE YOU ALL TUESDAY
SHHHH
Love you,
Jenn

Nurmi has requested Nancy tobring thoseadorable twins and a couple boxes of CINNA-BUNS, also we need some Toblerones for the goody bags!

[Iluvsam]

new blog from Egg Tree, hilarious as always: Alyce’s Mad Hatter Kool Aid Party
http://eggtreenews.wordpress.com/201...ool-aid-party/

[Freethinker]

Pathetic old battle ax, I fo not understand how anyone that is an actual victim of DV could believe one word that parts her buck teeth! I am beginning to think that she probably represent women in false cases of DV that involve custody to these mothers that attend these seminars and learn exactly what to say and do to win custody at all costs. Which further explains why she never represents men, that would surely not look good if you are helping women gain custody. Maybe this is also why she felt somewhat safe taking Jodi's case, it would not keep the above mentioned type women from seeking her out, after they see her in this trial they would be assured that she would stop at nothing to help them. For the right $$ they would be right!

I don't know what Alyce was thinking when she took on Jodi's case. To me, what Travis wrote was not proper, yes, but Jodi did her charm and got Alyce to believe she actually had physical abuse. Jodi actually quoted the dates these so called events happened. Who in their right mind remembers exact dates? How could this not be questioned by Alyce? There was no journal entries, not even a secret mark on her pages. I'm wondering right now how the question never came up about how she remembered these dates specifically.
We all know, and assume the jury knows, Alyce read into Travis's IM's what she chose, even though they were outstandingly biased. She never admitted benefit of the doubt about the depth of his words, never gave an inch. To sit there and determine he kept his rage up for 5-6 hours was a stupid deduction. Those messages were just that, nasty words, and it takes time to message back and forth. If that exchange had been by phone, it would have been over and done with in 20 minutes.
What Alyce did, I just don't get. Domestic violence is now a sham if the public believes that was domestic violence at it's highest level.

[dianalyn]

just from observation, I think a safe guess would be "it" is a male identifier! "ithe" is such a vile human that anyone that is offended by me/us making fun of "ithe" has got to be just as vile! *Everybody else in gender transition has my full & deepest respect. just my feelings about this creature...............

totally disagree with this statement. I don't like the slamming of people's looks and this has been discussed many times on this board. Hardly makes me "vile" I believe there is a board for making jokes or w/e but what someone looks like has nothing to do with this trial or how they impeach themselves by showing their biases. There is a good article on Huffington Post on just this type of thing that I read from the State Fb page.

[Tia111]

I don't know what Alyce was thinking when she took on Jodi's case. To me, what Travis wrote was not proper, yes, but Jodi did her charm and got Alyce to believe she actually had physical abuse. Jodi actually quoted the dates these so called events happened. Who in their right mind remembers exact dates? How could this not be questioned by Alyce? There was no journal entries, not even a secret mark on her pages. I'm wondering right now how the question never came up about how she remembered these dates specifically.
We all know, and assume the jury knows, Alyce read into Travis's IM's what she chose, even though they were outstandingly biased. She never admitted benefit of the doubt about the depth of his words, never gave an inch. To sit there and determine he kept his rage up for 5-6 hours was a stupid deduction. Those messages were just that, nasty words, and it takes time to message back and forth. If that exchange had been by phone, it would have been over and done with in 20 minutes.
What Alyce did, I just don't get. Domestic violence is now a sham if the public believes that was domestic violence at it's highest level.

I dont think that Alyce everbelieved Jodi, I think it was and continues to be about money. Ido think that Jenn & Nurmi probably convinced her that testifying in this trial would help sell her book. Oh Alyce, you look so foolish! I think she bit the hand that feeds her.

[Freethinker]

I don't know if it's true, no one has mentioned it. While looking around sites regarding juries and penalties, I stumbled on something dated April 13 in the azcentral.com paper. JA's defense lawyer is asking the supreme court to take the DP off the table. He wants the supreme court to decide
whether a detective's change in testimony impacts the punishment.
I don't know how to move things, but I copied azcentral.com/video/2183434188001, if that's any help.
Anyone heard about this or is it a mistake?

[Freethinker]

I don't know if it's true, no one has mentioned it. While looking around sites regarding juries and penalties, I stumbled on something dated April 13 in the azcentral.com paper. JA's defense lawyer is asking the supreme court to take the DP off the table. He wants the supreme court to decide
whether a detective's change in testimony impacts the punishment.
I don't know how to move things, but I copied azcentral.com/video/2183434188001, if that's any help.
Anyone heard about this or is it a mistake?

I see my letters came up in blue. Is that good? I'm technology challenged