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

[lisam2013]

...

[Brillig]

i think because the law has not kept up w/ technology and this is the first time this has ever happened to this severe degree, the law doesn't not know what to do. defense atty's are arguing if this is allowed to continue, then they will never get an expert to testify for their clients in any hi profile case again, and then no one will ever get a fair trial. it will be interesting how much effect it will have on this trial because if they use it for an appeal, it would have to go all the way to the supreme court because it is brand new territory, but i bet after this trial there is going to be an attempt to change laws to try to censor what can be written on the internet - and i have no idea what would happen

If these defense attorneys are making these comments on an HLN show, then take any comments they make with a giant shaker of salt ('cuz a grain of salt won't do). Those attorneys are paid to give opposing and often outlandish statements to increase the drama and thus the 'entertainment value' of HLN shows.

you know that is interesting idea, i wonder if ppl in family court who have had infavorable outcomes because of alyce will try to appeal now because she has proven she has such a biased towards men? cuz this testimony can be used now to impeach alyce on every case she will and has ever testified to in court, so besides ruining her career, she might have put any case she has ever been invloved in, in jepordy

I find that highly unlikely for several reasons. First, ALV has only ever testified in 18 cases in the 34 years she has been practicing, and at least some of them were long ago. The one referred to yesterday occurred 29 years ago, and on top of that, she did not really even testify there, she merely wrote a report. For all we know, some of her other cases might also consist of merely writing a report.

Also, I can guarantee that in none of those 18 cases did the court base its ruling only on the testimony or report of ALV, there were many other factors involved. Which gives even less reason for a court to reopen a case or modify a custody decision. Plus, many of the cases she was involved in are so old that the children have grown up by now, and the issue is moot.

In addition, it has not been "proven" in any legal sense that she has a bias towards men. Did her testimony in the Arias case appear biased? Yes, it sure did. But that is not the same thing as bias being proven to the point where a family law decision could be overturned. It is not as if ALV actually flat out said in court "men are always wrong and women are always right". Did many of us read that into her words? Yes we did, but to be fair, she never actually said it.

So in an absolute worst case scenario, there is a small chance that a very small number of cases might have had ALV involved in a family law custody decision recently enough that it could even be an issue, and IF they are aware of this case, there is a small chance they might be willing to spend a lot of money to gamble on the tiny chance that any judge would buy the argument that anything ALV said in their case was biased and totally worthless. Judges don't like to reverse their own decisions. Judges don't like to overturn other judges decisions either. When you add all those factors up, I just find it unlikely that a custody decision would ever be reversed because ALV testified in the case.

Bottom line: while it is not impossible that this issue could be brought up in a couple cases, it would not be a big deal or a significant impact on the legal system or family law proceedings in general.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Other than what Arias has told you, what evidence have you seen that Alexander was physically abusive?

"I actually didn't see other evidences of physical violence by Travis," LaViolette said.

I rest my case against Alyce LaViolette.

[gecko am]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but does anyone know when this picture was taken?



Source:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...22%3A22152732}

Is it even her?

Remember this:
"I am very comfortable behind the camera, and not at all used to being in front of it." Jodi on 48hours interview

[bryanwasdrunk]

Hi Freethinker. It's not new news that the Defense put forward the motion to take the DP off the table because of Flores' testimony, but it is new news (at least to me) that they have appealed to the Supreme Court after being turned down in Criminal Court. Thanks for this! The DT are doing anything that they can possibly do to slow down or halt this trial! I'm not sure how they think this is going to be of benefit to Arias? The State's evidence against her isn't going to change.

Old news. Supreme court turned it down without even looking.

[Brillig]

While I agree that it's of paramount importance that the defense be allowed to mount a defense, I disagree with Alyce's decision to answer every juror question with some tidbit about Travis' life, his abusiveness, or his abusive family.

This woman's obstinacy is doing the defense no favors. Practical, level-headed people, experts or not, acknowledge both sides of an argument, if even to a small degree. Her inability to apply even a small amount of the same criteria to Jodi's upbringing reeks of an overt inability to remain unbiased. Further, it is inherently obvious she is being coached, which further weakens her credibility.

In addition, her snarky attitude towards the prosecutor, combined with her desperate need to control the courtroom, makes her all the more just an unlikeable person.

I think she has done a lot of damage to the defense's case.

Very well said. You summed that up perfectly.

A few things to take away from Alyce and her biased testimony:

Stabby didn't write about abuse in her journals or to other people but it still means she abused

TA didn't write fearing her in journals means it didn't happen and speaking of fearing Stabby to other people also means it didn't happen.

Alyce kept dropping supposed IM's about Spiderman underwear into her testimony. If there were in fact such IM's why didn't defense introduce them during Stabby's testimony?

Could Alyce have ladies underwear commonly known as "boy shorts" mixed up with little kid underwear? Alyce also stated that Stabby was the one who mentioned them, not TA.

All excellent points.

As far as the underwear, I am guessing ALV is a granny panty girl all the way. As old fashioned as she claims she is, and not up on things that "kids" (meaning anyone 30 or less) do, that ALV has no clue what "boy shorts" are, and probably would think a reference to them was a reference to little boys underwear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyshorts

Boy shorts:



VS.


Little boys underwear:

[dec3iver]

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?

They dont really pick a new Jury that only select 12 from the original+alternates that they have already.

[gecko am]

Remember this:
"I am very comfortable behind the camera, and not at all used to being in front of it." Jodi on 48hours interview

Ooops.... forgot the and the that I get with any picture of stabby

[Harlette]

They dont really pick a new Jury that only select 12 from the original+alternates that they have already.

no, if the original becomes deadlocked in the penalty phase, the prosecutor can either agree on LWOP or get a brand new jury and re try the penalty phase - the same way as if the jury was deadlocked on the verdict, they retry the case w/ a new jury

[gecko am]

no, if the original becomes deadlocked in the penalty phase, the prosecutor can either agree on LWOP or get a brand new jury and re try the penalty phase - the same way as if the jury was deadlocked on the verdict, they retry the case w/ a new jury

How long do you think the penalty phase will last?

[lisam2013]

...

[dizzyp]

If these defense attorneys are making these comments on an HLN show, then take any comments they make with a giant shaker of salt ('cuz a grain of salt won't do). Those attorneys are paid to give opposing and often outlandish statements to increase the drama and thus the 'entertainment value' of HLN shows.

100% correct... proof of what you're saying is the same defense lawyers who make the outlandish claims like AL "did a great job on the stand..went toe-to toe with Juan Martinez" and other bs... those same lawyers later in the day on a different show will say "well, they're really just trying to save her life...this isn't about guilt or innocence this is about the death penalty..." They ALL know the real story.

[dizzyp]

In addition, it has not been "proven" in any legal sense that she has a bias towards men. Did her testimony in the Arias case appear biased? Yes, it sure did. But that is not the same thing as bias being proven to the point where a family law decision could be overturned. It is not as if ALV actually flat out said in court "men are always wrong and women are always right". Did many of us read that into her words? Yes we did, but to be fair, she never actually said it.

true, maybe not in a legal sense, but she does advocate that that men being battered is a "Myth" in print.
"Women Studies Encyclopedia: “The Battered Husband Syndrome and Other Myths”

[gigiann]

A thought on Alyce. She is obviously a well studied and educated woman who is dedicated to her field. But the more I watch.on the stand, I sense she is disconnected from people emotionally in some way. She may read words but I don't think she reads people well. She does (to me) to be removed from emotion in some way. I don't profess to be anyone educated in anything other than life. So I only share this as a feeling. Anyone else getting thi?

[olgasbunghole]

[IMG][/IMG]
I just came across a photo of stabby the mantis having her lunch........................ hee hee hee.........

[gigiann]

@ jink, who posted :
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?

-------

Yessssssss I do think so! She seemed to have zoned right into those recorders as well. Stuffing those papers down her pants kinda made feel that way too.

[wasthinking]

Shoot Harlette! I almost feel bad for the lady looking at these pics. In some ways she brought this on herself but I also feel like she was deceived by the defense team. They did not give her essential information and they certainly didn't prepare her for Juan Martinez!

Have you read her CV? OMG! Poorly written, overly wordy, redundant mish mash, lacks professional vocabulary. It reminds me of a high school drop out, confused between inventing a resume they think will never be checked by copying someone else's and adding as they go. Lies, bloated, padded misrepresentations set out in bad formatting. I thought I was going to run into a date span that listed WTH stores she shopped at and fast food estabishments she visited.
After finally looking at her 20 page CV and history in it, I am convinced her presentation in this case is nothing new to her. She wasn't used in any way she didn't want to be used. This witness with the DT was a collabortive effort not a taking advantage of her or deliberately trying to mold her. What you saw it what is Alyce! Her CV from very early on reflects she has operated this way regardless of who she collaborated with.

[Tia111]

In those interrogation tapes I kept expecting an exorcist type moment! She wasjust like a caged animal in that room, mentally pacing looking for any way out of this. She looked like those movies where they start speaking like the devil!
They were beyond spooky to me. She would go from attempting to flirt with Florez to being snarky. She just has those empty eyes!!!

[olgasbunghole]

Have you read her CV? OMG! Poorly written, overly wordy, redundant mish mash, lacks professional vocabulary. It reminds me of a high school drop out, confused between inventing a resume they think will never be checked by copying someone else's and adding as they go. Lies, bloated, padded misrepresentations set out in bad formatting. I thought I was going to run into a date span that listed WTH stores she shopped at and fast food estabishments she visited.
After finally looking at her 20 page CV and history in it, I am convinced her presentation in this case is nothing new to her. She wasn't used in any way she didn't want to be used. This witness with the DT was a collabortive effort not a taking advantage of her or deliberately trying to mold her. What you saw it what is Alyce! Her CV from very early on reflects she has operated this way regardless of who she collaborated with.

100% AGREED! I do believe her EGO is larger than her BRAIN!!!!!

[dizzyp]

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?

They dont really pick a new Jury that only select 12 from the original+alternates that they have already.

wrong.... I posted the AZ statutes on this earlier. In the case of a hung jury in the mitigation or penalty phases the current jury is dismissed and a new jury is seated to decide the mitigation elements or the penalty ONLY... it is NOT not just a re-shuffle of existing jurors.

[Ian 1]

Later!

[Harlette]

Well it's from her myspace page

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f0IrQZuDGO0J:www.myspace.com/jodiarias/photos/22152732+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a#{%22ImageId%22%3A22152732}

She deleted/made it private, so that's the cached link above

Her caption under it says "Braids (but I'm not a blondie anymore, nope!)" so I'm assuming it's her, LOL...I know it was posted on myspace 4 years ago. From the sound of it AFTER she killed Travis, since she said not a "blondie" anymore. I was just wondering when the actual picture was taken.

As for the "I am very comfortable behind the camera, and not at all used to being in front of it." I didn't watch the 48 hour episode, but maybe she meant video camera? She had many self portraits posted on her myspace. But she's also a proven liar, so I don't know ;-)

here ya go - http://www.myspace.com/jodiarias/photos - its not set to private, but it appears that myspace is having some connectivity problems today

[dec3iver]

Could Alyce have ladies underwear commonly known as "boy shorts" mixed up with little kid underwear? Alyce also stated that Stabby was the one who mentioned them, not TA.

Hey hey hey!!! Good point, I never thought about that!

[wasthinking]

They dont really pick a new Jury that only select 12 from the original+alternates that they have already.

Yes they do impanel a whole new jury. The deadlocked jury is dismissed.

Anyone that looks at HLN for anything other than maybe a document they can look at with their own eyes, is asking to be lied to for a few mins of bad entertainment.

I find that highly unlikely for several reasons. First, ALV has only ever testified in 18 cases in the 34 years she has been practicing, and at least some of them were long ago. The one referred to yesterday occurred 29 years ago, and on top of that, she did not really even testify there, she merely wrote a report. For all we know, some of her other cases might also consist of merely writing a report.

Also, I can guarantee that in none of those 18 cases did the court base its ruling only on the testimony or report of ALV, there were many other factors involved. Which gives even less reason for a court to reopen a case or modify a custody decision. Plus, many of the cases she was involved in are so old that the children have grown up by now, and the issue is moot.

In addition, it has not been "proven" in any legal sense that she has a bias towards men. Did her testimony in the Arias case appear biased? Yes, it sure did. But that is not the same thing as bias being proven to the point where a family law decision could be overturned. It is not as if ALV actually flat out said in court "men are always wrong and women are always right". Did many of us read that into her words? Yes we did, but to be fair, she never actually said it.

So in an absolute worst case scenario, there is a small chance that a very small number of cases might have had ALV involved in a family law custody decision recently enough that it could even be an issue, and IF they are aware of this case, there is a small chance they might be willing to spend a lot of money to gamble on the tiny chance that any judge would buy the argument that anything ALV said in their case was biased and totally worthless. Judges don't like to reverse their own decisions. Judges don't like to overturn other judges decisions either. When you add all those factors up, I just find it unlikely that a custody decision would ever be reversed because ALV testified in the case.

Bottom line: while it is not impossible that this issue could be brought up in a couple cases, it would not be a big deal or a significant impact on the legal system or family law proceedings in general.

But, we know it isn't 18. JM proved one was a lie! So now how many others are? All bets are off on anything settling down when any so called "expert" starts looking like they need to be investigated. If Some rotten apples scream to be outted and it happens all the time. Be it LE, courts, boards or the media, this is one screaming now. From presidents on down, no one is exempt from a fall into disgrace.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...enberg26m.html

[PopRocks]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but does anyone know when this picture was taken?



Source:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...22%3A22152732}

if i recall, she did some modeling for some company at one point, and i think that is one of the pics from the shoot..