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

[faq_q]

This shouldn't have any bearing on tomorrow's proceedings... right? Am I missing something?

I really hope this issue doesn't delay the rebuttal case. I would assume that the defense is not allowed to delay the state's case with stuff like this (before the rebuttal case is even done), but I might be thinking too optimistically.

I'm ready to get away from the psychology stuff and to get to some strong premeditation evidence. Another delay would just drive everyone crazy (including the jury, I'm assuming!)

I would think that if there is a hearing scheduled, it would be on the court calendar. That's the way it usually works. I'm sure there will be a hearing on it though, hopefully on Friday.

[M Joy]

Some of the guests on the talk show said the judge would have to allow the consideration of manslaughter. What is worse, the jury won't get to know there is an argument going on with the attorneys and the prosecutor. They also said that JM is trying to get the video in showing her sleeping in Travis' lap. To prove that she was not a dirty secrete.

I watched that earlier today. I believe they were discussing how they thought JM SHOULD try to get that video in, not that he actually is.

[*crickets*]

They did. He's already interviewed her. When JM was doing his cross of Stabby on the different lies she'd told to her "experts" she tried to throw this guy's name out there but JM redirected her.

The defense would have been very aware of Dr Demrte's dx of Stabby plus they had the opportunity to interview her prior to trial. The BPD dx was not a surprise to the defense team.

I guess it makes sense for the defense to call a witness to rebut DeMarte's BPD dx...they may have known about it before but the jury didn't hear anything about BPD before DeMarte testified. So as far as the jury goes BPD is new and the defense would have a right to rebut that.

And I do think some of what DeMarte said might have been biased in terms of picking and choosing what she used to support her dx and what she ignored, like the piece of the journal entry that talks about Jodi kicking in walls etc in anger and ignoring the rest of the entry that talks about being loving, kind, overcoming anger blah blah blah...I think bringing that entry in kinda backfired on the pros. b/c it allowed the defense to bring in the rest of it which showed Jodi in a much more favorable light to the jury.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

If he had murdered her, would she be scrutinized the same as TA is? I doubt it.

The bottom line is that this was premeditated. I can't for the life of me think that a jury can't sift through all the bullshit and not find her guilty of premeditated murder.

If TA had murdered her it would all be over by now, he'd be on death row filing appeal after appeal. I find it distressing that people are always trying to find/make excuses for women that kill.

She has no conscience. None, and she's proven that over and over again

[PopRocks]

If TA had murdered her it would all be over by now, he'd be on death row filing appeal after appeal. I find it distressing that people are always trying to find/make excuses for women that kill.

She has no conscience. None, and she's proven that over and over again

i had to login just to agree

if the circumstances and evidence was exactly the same, just with the roles reversed in terms of who carried out the murder, travis would have been convicted by now

I dont think anyone would have cared if travis had a "fog" or all the other psychological testimony that has been allowed in this case, this trial definitely would have been over by now already if travis drove 1000 miles to jodis house, had sex with her, took pictures of her in the shower, stabbed her 27 times, slit her throat, and then shot her, and not to mention trying to cover everything up with lies

[M Joy]

I guess it makes sense for the defense to call a witness to rebut DeMarte's BPD dx...they may have known about it before but the jury didn't hear anything about BPD before DeMarte testified. So as far as the jury goes BPD is new and the defense would have a right to rebut that.

And I do think some of what DeMarte said might have been biased in terms of picking and choosing what she used to support her dx and what she ignored, like the piece of the journal entry that talks about Jodi kicking in walls etc in anger and ignoring the rest of the entry that talks about being loving, kind, overcoming anger blah blah blah...I think bringing that entry in kinda backfired on the pros. b/c it allowed the defense to bring in the rest of it which showed Jodi in a much more favorable light to the jury.

The defense already put up a shrink and gave her a diagnosis of PTSD. That was their position. PTSD because of abuse/trauma. I don't see how they should have a "right" to put up yet another shrink to rebut what the state's position is, which is BPD. Both sides have laid out their positions. Why should the defense be able to say, "Oh! We have someone else that believes Jodi's lies! Here he is!"

Interesting how you say DeMarte was biased and picking and chosing information. That sounds familiar. Maybe because thats all we got with both defense expert witnesses? I can't count how many times the defense brought something in that the prosecutor used to benefit his own case.
Yes, the defense got that whole email in, but it doesn't take away the part where she said she was kicking things, breaking things, hurting people. I don't think it helped Jodi as much as you think.

[Bellaboo]

I think it was one of those HLN reporters in the courtroom that said Nurmi has a *new* witness. I think it was Jinkasaurus that said that this afternoon. I don't think I could stand another witness. She also said that most appeals are overturned due to the jury instructions. I guess that's why Nurmi submitted 50 pages of instructions. Clever. Gotta give him credit for trying everything, including the kitchen sink.

I was thinking about Loonywop and her/his comments which inferred she was used and abused. Then the topic came up about how Travis was so selfish and crappy to have sex with her. Anyhooo...I began thinking about that. I don't understand why Travis is such a horrendous person to some people because he used her for sex. On the flip side, why isn't Jodi getting the same kind of scrutiny? She knew he wasn't going to marry her. SHe knew he didn't want to take her out in public. She claims he abused her, but she kept going back and offering sex, which was the only thing he took advantage of, but she gets a pass. I think what they got out of each other just washes each other's motives out of the equation. They were two inadequate people who filled their needs with the wrong person. If he had murdered her, would she be scrutinized the same as TA is? I doubt it.

The bottom line is that this was premeditated. I can't for the life of me think that a jury can't sift through all the bullshit and not find her guilty of premeditated murder.

I totally agree. Any using was mutual and she had the upper hand on that score as apparently t hat is all she had to offer and offer it she did. She could not handle it when he wanted to move on and she cold bloodedly planned his demise

[*crickets*]

The defense already put up a shrink and gave her a diagnosis of PTSD. That was their position. PTSD because of abuse/trauma. I don't see how they should have a "right" to put up yet another shrink to rebut what the state's position is, which is BPD. Both sides have laid out their positions. Why should the defense be able to say, "Oh! We have someone else that believes Jodi's lies! Here he is!"

Interesting how you say DeMarte was biased and picking and chosing information. That sounds familiar. Maybe because thats all we got with both defense expert witnesses? I can't count how many times the defense brought something in that the prosecutor used to benefit his own case.
Yes, the defense got that whole email in, but it doesn't take away the part where she said she was kicking things, breaking things, hurting people. I don't think it helped Jodi as much as you think.

You're right about the defense expert witnesses choosing the info that supported their dx's and ignoring what didn't. DeMarte did it too. They're expert witnesses, paid by one side or the other. That's what they do.

[PopRocks]

I guess it makes sense for the defense to call a witness to rebut DeMarte's BPD dx...they may have known about it before but the jury didn't hear anything about BPD before DeMarte testified. So as far as the jury goes BPD is new and the defense would have a right to rebut that.

And I do think some of what DeMarte said might have been biased in terms of picking and choosing what she used to support her dx and what she ignored, like the piece of the journal entry that talks about Jodi kicking in walls etc in anger and ignoring the rest of the entry that talks about being loving, kind, overcoming anger blah blah blah...I think bringing that entry in kinda backfired on the pros. b/c it allowed the defense to bring in the rest of it which showed Jodi in a much more favorable light to the jury.

IDk about that. That email demonstrated to me how manipulative jodi really is. It seems she likes playing the victim in hopes people will feel sorry for her in order to get them to do what she wants them to do, ive seen that many times in my life.

Travis seemed like a guy who was willing to forgive, so that email was probably her way to justify her crazy behavior

[coconut]

Just like people Forgot About Dre, you forgot about me. Last week was a Big Week for "The Chosen One" and his star witness, having a nice big circle jerk about empirical data. I was sure to get caught on camera napping and reclining, just like I planned it. Had some drool spots and muffin crumbs to make it legit. Run silent, run deep motherfucker. Stealth mode engage.



Here's what's up.
1. Let's put the brakes on this party with a counter-expert
2. Only 16 jurors left
3. Motion to sequester part II
4. At least 3 more months of testimony and motions
5. Prosecutorial misconduct part III
6. My investigative team (female ex-con code name Baby Bear) is digging up "new evidence"
7. Mistrial part IV
8. I will re-rebut anything they try to un-rebut

[*crickets*]

I am pretty sure I know him :( not to drink beer with, but I know him thru a friend.

Okay Metis, what is the scoop on this guy?

[LurkerGirl]

Not only would the trial be over and Travis convicted if the roles were reversed, many of us would never have even heard of the case.
It is pretty nuts how on this day & age people still don't believe that women can be evil & vile....sometimes worse because they're sneakier about it!

[Lady MacBeth]

my thoughts on the surrebuttal argument:

Where new matter or a "fresh issue" has been introduced by the state during rebuttal, the defendant may rebut the same on surrebuttal.

An example is when a defendant claims he was not present when the crime was committed. The State, on rebuttal, presents an informant who testifies that the defendant was, in fact,there. Defense is not allowed in that situation to get back on the stand and explain again that he was not there. Surrerebuttal in that situation would not be allowed beccause it was merely repetitive of what was already presented.

Here, JA presented evidence that she killed JA in self defense, and that she was scared for her life, based on a history of DV her with TA. She also presented evidence that she was unable to recount details of the murder based on PTSD.

In rebuttal, state presented evidence (Dr. D) that she (1) did not exhibit symptons of DV; and (2) that she did not suffer from PTSD (acording to her answers on test that the trigger was abuse by a stranger). The State then went on to present evidence that she suffered from BPD (agressive, mood swings and stalking behavior, idolizing boyfriends).

IMO, this was not "new evidence" for a number of reasons. First, throughout the State's case in chief, the State argued that JA was angry, jilted, so she planned this murder to get even with TA. The BPD diagnosis did not ADD anything of any relevance to that which was already before the jury in the State's case in chief. Dr. D merely opined that the symptoms/behavior that in JA's journals, texts was NOT DV, but BPD, which was consistent with her murdering scheme and explained some of her bizzare behavior. The State, in rebuttal, did not present anything NEW. The State simply offered a different explanation of why she behaved the way she did. Just because it was DIFFFERENT, does not mean it was NEW. The defense had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. D. The DT cannot claim that this was a "surprise attack" by the State. The DT knew the facts presented by the State in its case in chief, and had every opportunity to deal with BPD during their defense. They chose to cherry pick certain conduct/behavior and spin it as DV. They should not now get another opporunity to present evidence that she does NOT have BPD. They had their chance, they picked DV.

I dont think the judge should let it in.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Just like people Forgot About Dre, you forgot about me. Last week was a Big Week for "The Chosen One" and his star witness, having a nice big circle jerk about empirical data. I was sure to get caught on camera napping and reclining, just like I planned it. Had some drool spots and muffin crumbs to make it legit. Run silent, run deep motherfucker. Stealth mode engage.



Here's what's up.
1. Let's put the brakes on this party with a counter-expert
2. Only 16 jurors left
3. Motion to sequester part II
4. At least 3 more months of testimony and motions
5. Prosecutorial misconduct part III
6. My investigative team (female ex-con code name Baby Bear) is digging up "new evidence"
7. Mistrial part IV
8. I will re-rebut anything they try to un-rebut

Bwahaha This motherfucker couldn't run silent, run deep if his depended on it. I bet he couldn't even work up to jog without keeling over.

[ShellJett]

The defense already put up a shrink and gave her a diagnosis of PTSD. That was their position. PTSD because of abuse/trauma. I don't see how they should have a "right" to put up yet another shrink to rebut what the state's position is, which is BPD. Both sides have laid out their positions. Why should the defense be able to say, "Oh! We have someone else that believes Jodi's lies! Here he is!"

Interesting how you say DeMarte was biased and picking and chosing information. That sounds familiar. Maybe because thats all we got with both defense expert witnesses? I can't count how many times the defense brought something in that the prosecutor used to benefit his own case.
Yes, the defense got that whole email in, but it doesn't take away the part where she said she was kicking things, breaking things, hurting people. I don't think it helped Jodi as much as you think.

Yes, yes, and yes. The Defense wants a psychological do-over because their witnesses sucked. I do understand all of the nuances, but I stand by my opinion that Jodi will not let it go that she has BPD. She is going to fight tooth and nail to get another expert in to say she is just a normal, battered, emotionally abused woman with PTSD. Vinnie Politan just said what I have been thinking all along. July 4th.

[M Joy]

*snipped for space*

IMO, this was not "new evidence" for a number of reasons. First, throughout the State's case in chief, the State argued that JA was angry, jilted, so she planned this murder to get even with TA. The BPD diagnosis did not ADD anything of any relevance to that which was already before the jury in the State's case in chief. Dr. D merely opined that the symptoms/behavior that in JA's journals, texts was NOT DV, but BPD, which was consistent with her murdering scheme and explained some of her bizzare behavior. The State, in rebuttal, did not present anything NEW. The State simply offered a different explanation of why she behaved the way she did. Just because it was DIFFFERENT, does not mean it was NEW. The defense had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. D. The DT cannot claim that this was a "surprise attack" by the State. The DT knew the facts presented by the State in its case in chief, and had every opportunity to deal with BPD during their defense. They chose to cherry pick certain conduct/behavior and spin it as DV. They should not now get another opporunity to present evidence that she does NOT have BPD. They had their chance, they picked DV.

I dont think the judge should let it in.

I agree. Basically what I said, but explained a little better . I believe this is exactly where JM is going to go with his objection to the surrebuttal.

[blighted star]

t

It's amazing what can be retrieved with the right software. I was talking to a CSR at Data Doctors and he told me they once got information from a hard drive that was submerged in salt water for a couple years. They take the platters out of the hard drive and put it in a new chassis and fire it up. The only way you can make sure that nothing is able to be retrieved is to physically destroy it. Sometimes even fire won't do it.

I've always thought she wanted them. Why take them otherwise? She wasn't using the flash at first so if it was simply to trick him into an impromptu photo shoot, she didn't even need to turn it on- just aim & pretend to click. If it was all a plan to get him into a vulnerable position & kill him, then he wasn't going to be around to say "let me see how they came out"

How many times did she ASK to see photos in that interview? She was very focused on seeing what they had, & I don't think that was all about her seeing what they had against her. I'll always believe she wanted them &was deperate when she realised she left that memory card behind. I too would assume water would probably wreck the card as far as ME getting access to it, but I'd never be sure about the forensic computer techies. There are SO many CSI type shows around, it's hard to imagine someone planning a crime would CHOOSE that method, they'd have to at least a tiny niggle of doubt about it's safety for them.I just can't see it as deliberate whether it was in or out of the camera. Why use an untested method of washing machine, when a hammer will end the issue without question? If she didn't have a hammer to hand, she sure as hell had a gun butt that'd do the job just as well. I don't think she has the whopping intellect some claim, but even a young child knows smash = permanent.

[*crickets*]

my thoughts on the surrebuttal argument:

Where new matter or a "fresh issue" has been introduced by the state during rebuttal, the defendant may rebut the same on surrebuttal.

An example is when a defendant claims he was not present when the crime was committed. The State, on rebuttal, presents an informant who testifies that the defendant was, in fact,there. Defense is not allowed in that situation to get back on the stand and explain again that he was not there. Surrerebuttal in that situation would not be allowed beccause it was merely repetitive of what was already presented.

Here, JA presented evidence that she killed JA in self defense, and that she was scared for her life, based on a history of DV her with TA. She also presented evidence that she was unable to recount details of the murder based on PTSD.

In rebuttal, state presented evidence (Dr. D) that she (1) did not exhibit symptons of DV; and (2) that she did not suffer from PTSD (acording to her answers on test that the trigger was abuse by a stranger). The State then went on to present evidence that she suffered from BPD (agressive, mood swings and stalking behavior, idolizing boyfriends).

IMO, this was not "new evidence" for a number of reasons. First, throughout the State's case in chief, the State argued that JA was angry, jilted, so she planned this murder to get even with TA. The BPD diagnosis did not ADD anything of any relevance to that which was already before the jury in the State's case in chief. Dr. D merely opined that the symptoms/behavior that in JA's journals, texts was NOT DV, but BPD, which was consistent with her murdering scheme and explained some of her bizzare behavior. The State, in rebuttal, did not present anything NEW. The State simply offered a different explanation of why she behaved the way she did. Just because it was DIFFFERENT, does not mean it was NEW. The defense had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. D. The DT cannot claim that this was a "surprise attack" by the State. The DT knew the facts presented by the State in its case in chief, and had every opportunity to deal with BPD during their defense. They chose to cherry pick certain conduct/behavior and spin it as DV. They should not now get another opporunity to present evidence that she does NOT have BPD. They had their chance, they picked DV.

I dont think the judge should let it in.

BPD may not have been 'new evidence' but it was a 'fresh issue'. The jury hadn't heard anything about BPD before DeMarte testified. It was new to them. And a defense atty. does not have the expertise to refute a psychologist's interpretation of testing or her dx on cross exam. I think the judge should and will let it in.

[ShellJett]

This sur-rebuttal tactic (if successful) will be one more way to put distance between what I expect to be a strong rebuttal that gets back to the actual murder and closing arguments. I also think this jury is so invested that there won't be any dropouts without a valid reason. Nurmi can dream all he wants, but he fails to see the jury digging in their heels and refusing to cause a mistrial. I hope they are all invested in a resounding guilty verdict on M1. My wish is that she wears that ugly ass puke green shirt on verdict day.

[Freaktab]

I am new to this forum, so if I repeat an already covered topic, please excuse my lack of thread savvy.
Nurmi the Hutt never even wanted to be Jodi's defence attorney, he tried to get out of it but filed the paperwork too late. He has left the Public Defender office to go into private practice and, frankly, the guy looks like death on a cracker, so it doesn't surpise me that he is attempting "the kitchen sink" defense.

I do need to say, though, that one of the things I find exceptionally sad about is that Travis felt as if he could not tell anyone that he was sexually involved with Jodi. I see all of his friends on these shows and none of them knew the extent of his relationship with Jodi. I think that Jodi threatened to expose what was going on and that is what got him so incredibly pissed off on May 26. I hate to speculate on whether or not the murder could have been avoided, but I can't help think that if he was just able to tell someone he trusted, maybe that could have helped him refuse her when she showed up at his house. He was very image concious and probably scared that he would lose his standing, both with friends and his church.

[M Joy]

t

I've always thought she wanted them. Why take them otherwise? She wasn't using the flash at first so if it was simply to trick him into an impromptu photo shoot, she didn't even need to turn it on- just aim & pretend to click. If it was all a plan to get him into a vulnerable position & kill him, then he wasn't going to be around to say "let me see how they came out"

How many times did she ASK to see photos in that interview? She was very focused on seeing what they had, & I don't think that was all about her seeing what they had against her. I'll always believe she wanted them &was deperate when she realised she left that memory card behind. I too would assume water would probably wreck the card as far as ME getting access to it, but I'd never be sure about the forensic computer techies. There are SO many CSI type shows around, it's hard to imagine someone planning a crime would CHOOSE that method, they'd have to at least a tiny niggle of doubt about it's safety for them.I just can't see it as deliberate whether it was in or out of the camera. Why use an untested method of washing machine, when a hammer will end the issue without question? If she didn't have a hammer to hand, she sure as hell had a gun butt that'd do the job just as well. I don't think she has the whopping intellect some claim, but even a young child knows smash = permanent.

I've always wondered about that. But if she wanted the pictures, why did she delete them?
She took time to delete them. Whether she accidentally left the camera in the washing mashine or did so on purpose, she still deleted the photos.

BPD may not have been 'new evidence' but it was a 'fresh issue'. The jury hadn't heard anything about BPD before DeMarte testified. It was new to them. And a defense atty. does not have the expertise to refute a psychologist's interpretation of testing or her dx on cross exam. I think the judge should and will let it in.

The jury heard Dr. Samuels say he considered BPD, but he decided against it and went with PTSD.

[faq_q]

t

I've always thought she wanted them. Why take them otherwise? She wasn't using the flash at first so if it was simply to trick him into an impromptu photo shoot, she didn't even need to turn it on- just aim & pretend to click. If it was all a plan to get him into a vulnerable position & kill him, then he wasn't going to be around to say "let me see how they came out"

How many times did she ASK to see photos in that interview? She was very focused on seeing what they had, & I don't think that was all about her seeing what they had against her. I'll always believe she wanted them &was deperate when she realised she left that memory card behind. I too would assume water would probably wreck the card as far as ME getting access to it, but I'd never be sure about the forensic computer techies. There are SO many CSI type shows around, it's hard to imagine someone planning a crime would CHOOSE that method, they'd have to at least a tiny niggle of doubt about it's safety for them.I just can't see it as deliberate whether it was in or out of the camera. Why use an untested method of washing machine, when a hammer will end the issue without question? If she didn't have a hammer to hand, she sure as hell had a gun butt that'd do the job just as well. I don't think she has the whopping intellect some claim, but even a young child knows smash = permanent.

Shit, for that matter, she could have brought the card with her and thrown it out in the desert or ground the fucker with the heel of her shoe. Oops, she wasn't wearing any! Sorry for the language, having a couple cocktails on my patio. It's still mid 80's tonight....aurgh! The heat is coming!!

I am new to this forum, so if I repeat an already covered topic, please excuse my lack of thread savvy.
Nurmi the Hutt never even wanted to be Jodi's defence attorney, he tried to get out of it but filed the paperwork too late. He has left the Public Defender office to go into private practice and, frankly, the guy looks like death on a cracker, so it doesn't surpise me that he is attempting "the kitchen sink" defense.

I do need to say, though, that one of the things I find exceptionally sad about is that Travis felt as if he could not tell anyone that he was sexually involved with Jodi. I see all of his friends on these shows and none of them knew the extent of his relationship with Jodi. I think that Jodi threatened to expose what was going on and that is what got him so incredibly pissed off on May 26. I hate to speculate on whether or not the murder could have been avoided, but I can't help think that if he was just able to tell someone he trusted, maybe that could have helped him refuse her when she showed up at his house. He was very image concious and probably scared that he would lose his standing, both with friends and his church.

Welcome to the show freaktab!

[AntBubsy]

I think DT is trying to call Dr. Geffner (one of ALV's book editors) more to rehab LaViolette than Stabby Einstein. Also, if DT is wanting to do sur-rebuttal solely on the fact that Dr. Demarte brought up BPD, I am sure Juan will remind them their own expert witness, Dr. Dick, caved on Juan's cross and admitted she had BPD

[ShellJett]

Sorry, but I think this is worth saying. We may not all agree all of the time, but I find this thread lively, interesting, and full of facts and links that are relevant to many of us. Whether it is an analytical interpretation or a comment on the day's testimony, I read all the posts with an open mind. There are times I can barely form a sentence and just comment on the clothes of the day, but the hard work by many posters has my utmost respect. This is a great outlet for those of us who do not have the luxury of being able to discuss the trial with friends and family who are not interested. Everything has some significance, and I appreciate all of it.

Welcome Freaktab and to anybody new I missed recently.

[coconut]

Actually, the new rumor is that Jodi tested positive for lyme disease. The surrebuttal case will show she was bitten by a tick when she was living in tents at Crater Lake and that's why she's all FUBAR today.