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

[*crickets*]

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

At $225/hour you better believe he's gonna drag this out!

Oh and thanks for the giggle...you never disappoint!

[Harlette]

do avg people stalk?

all the women i know kinda stalk - thats why they say the internet was invented so women can stalk their bf's and men can get free porn

[Angiebla]

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.

Are you serious?

[Harlette]

I've read that Eleven DV experts turned her case down.

wonder how much that cost!!!

[Angiebla]

wonder how much that cost!!!

Can the state use those people do you know?

[Harlette]

Can the state use those people do you know?

i wouldn't think so because it is work product for the defense i would think there would be some kind of confidentiality?

[Bellaboo]

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 freaktab. Sad and tragic case. What ifs can you drive you crazy.

[wasthinking]

Robert trying to play comedian without Snow White

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkoiNQWaFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9jWyVKPJ70

[Bellaboo]

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.

Nicely put. A lot of differing ideas and theories. I do like the overall respectfulness and consideration by the members of opposing views. It is helpful and an outlet to have people to discuss this case with as there is such darkness here

[blighted star]

You go with RAGE?? So you are on the defense team then. So much for premeditation.

I don't know about that. I've known at least two people who could become enraged, but kind of simmer & stew on an issue for weeks. They might've stopped screaming & swearing & smashing objects & people for the moment, but if you had prior experience of their moods, you could tell the it was still there, thinly contained & if someone put a foot wrong it'd explode again in an instant - bigger & badder than before because of their stress at containing it. The stillness & control after a rage like that, in some people, would be a sign to someone who's witnessed it before, that it's not over, there's worse to come. I don't mean they're running around in an absolute murderous rage for weeks, but that there's levels of it in some people, because rage is such a commonly felt emotion for them. In some people, it's almost their baseline mood. That doesn't make hurting people ok.

[blighted star]

Wow.... Estrella jail... I thought it was more structured and strict.http://youtu.be/WjhGGJx2M_k

Oh wow it's THAT one! They're on tv over here. It mostly comes across as a slightly harder/older version of a girls-only boarding school soap opera. Wow again.

[Harlette]

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.

but it wasn't new to the DT, they knew all about it from discovery, like jm knew about the ptsd and had a rebuttal witness for it, plus dr dick brought it up BP too, but decided to go w/ the ptsd dx - so idk if the judge will allow it, they did have the ability to head it off at the pass w/ alyce or dr dick, plus i was reading it is very rare that they allow surebuttal (?) in arizona - but who knows w/ this judge - and as far as the manslaughter, crime of passion, that has been asked b4 but always denied, i think they are hoping alyce's testimony might change it, but i doubt it - thats why it has been stipulated that no expert was allowed to testify that the scene showed premed or crime of passion, which was the main reason dr dick was testifying, but jm made sure it didn't come out - he was trying to use different names (which i can't remember now) but he wasn't allowed to

[Wishmich]

Oh wow it's THAT one! They're on tv over here. It mostly comes across as a slightly harder/older version of a girls-only boarding school soap opera. Wow again.

Oh yuck. That should want to keep people from breaking the law. If prison is worse, then maybe it will be nice and nasty for Jodi if she get LWOP.

[wasthinking]

but it wasn't new to the DT, they knew all about it from discovery, like jm knew about the ptsd and had a rebuttal witness for it, plus dr dick brought it up BP too, but decided to go w/ the ptsd dx - so idk if the judge will allow it, they did have the ability to head it off at the pass w/ alyce or dr dick, plus i was reading it is very rare that they allow surebuttal (?) in arizona - but who knows w/ this judge - and as far as the manslaughter, crime of passion, that has been asked b4 but always denied, i think they are hoping alyce's testimony might change it, but i doubt it - thats why it has been stipulated that no expert was allowed to testify that the scene showed premed or crime of passion, which was the main reason dr dick was testifying, but jm made sure it didn't come out - he was trying to use different names (which i can't remember now) but he wasn't allowed to

New before the jury is the measuring stick I believe, not what discovery exchanged. There are Arizona appeals that won aka remanded back for new trial for not allowing rebuttal experts. Judge will probably go w the side of caution on this one. Whichi is IMO okay. Better another clown for a day or two than end up from an appeal redoing a whole trial.

It was never "stipulated". Judge is ruling on law. Any witness can't take on a role of jury. Experts can't determine guilt or innocence facts trying to circumvent the jury's duty, which is what Samuals was trying to slither in like a snake.

[Metis212]

You beat me to it. I was just thinking we might lose another juror this week. It's one thing to serve for 4 months if the case is productive. Right now it's just about psychology, absolutely nothing about evidence or anything on that line.

OJ's trial lasted 9 months!

I'm going to be pissed if the judge allows the defense to do a surbuttal. I have been keeping up with trial and want to see it to its end, but I'm losing my patience at a rapid pace. Those poor jurors are prolly burnt out-i feel so bad for them.

Since this is the judge's first death penalty case and because it is a death penalty case, I am guessing she will allow it. I could be wrong though.

So I'm guessing we won't have any testimony tomorrow. Fucking Nurmi!

Oh no, there will be testimony tomorrow! Bring on Walmart!

Does he really think he can rehabilitate sex offenders?

Angie, there's many professionals involved in the treatment of sexual offenders. Many. Prisons which have groups of sexual offenders do treatment rather than letting the offender sit in their cell and avoid treatment. Often, this treatment and its success or failure informs the parole board. Granted treatment isn't always successful, but sometimes it is. (please don't shoot or stab the messenger)

This clambake is over! The DT has had PLENTY of time to line up witnesses. The state gets a rebuttal. DT should be finished. I pray the judge has some sense of getting this trial over with, and not allowing any unnecessary delays. Defense has tried to throw a wrench into the system countless times. They had their witness...ALV. Let the rebuttal continue, then move on to closings.

I am with you Annie, but ...

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.

They are going to work harder on making her a victim. If Gellner testifies he will, most likely, rehabilitate Dr. Samuels and rebut Dr. DeMarte.

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.

Dr. Samuels dx her with AXIS I. PTSD and AXIS II. Personality Disorder NOS. Mental disorder diagnoses contain 5 axes. Samuels and Demarte essentially diagnosed the same disorder. Samuels didnt specify which personality disorder, but he did diagnose her with one just the same.

Okay Metis, what is the scoop on this guy?

I would say he is stellar...

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

Seems that someone of Dr. Griffens caliber will rehab both experts.

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.

Coco, snookums, big daddy yum yum: no one cares about Jodi's tick borne illnesses?

[Harlette]

New before the jury is the measuring stick I believe, not what discovery exchanged. There are Arizona appeals that won aka remanded back for new trial for not allowing rebuttal experts. Judge will probably go w the side of caution on this one. Whichi is IMO okay. Better another clown for a day or two than end up from an appeal redoing a whole trial.

It was never "stipulated". Judge is ruling on law. Any witness can't take on a role of jury. Experts can't determine guilt or innocence facts trying to circumvent the jury's duty, which is what Samuals was trying to slither in like a snake.

there is something where no one can testify to, it was ruled on in pre trial, i need to find it again, that no one can testify to the state of the murder scene showng it was not premed nor a crime of passion or anger, every time dr dick tried, the judge shut it down - i will need to find again, but you can really see it in dr dicks testimony

[wasthinking]

there is something where no one can testify to, it was ruled on in pre trial, i need to find it again, that no one can testify to the state of the murder scene showng it was not premed nor a crime of passion or anger, every time dr dick tried, the judge shut it down - i will need to find again, but you can really see it in dr dicks testimony

oh I agree with you Harlette, we are saying the same thing, only I was saying the reason why isn't because of stipulation but the Judge's ruling. That is what really makes Nurmi look even worse if that is possible. Judge rules on something and the def tries to ignore the ruling. BEEP, bench conference. Def ends up looking like idiots and then they wonder why.

[Harlette]

oh I agree with you Harlette, we are saying the same thing, only I was saying the reason why isn't because of stipulation but the Judge's ruling. That is what really makes Nurmi look even worse if that is possible. Judge rules on something and the def tries to ignore the ruling. BEEP, bench conference. Def ends up looking like idiots and then they wonder why.

the defense team needs an approach jar - instead of a swear jar, everytime paln asked to approach, she should have to put $$ in the jar, it would prolly pay for jodis defense

[Jillee]

Found this on Dr. Geffner where he testified in another case. He was discredited in this one. (Not trying to dis the doc, just trying to find how juries took to him)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Correction- Trial court.

[bryanwasdrunk]

Found this on Dr. Geffner where he testified in another case. He was discredited in this one. (Not trying to dis the doc, just trying to find how juries took to him)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Oooooooooh, that's Clark v Arizona! This case is the reason why you don't go for an insanity defense in Arizona. Clark was in a full-blown psychotic break when he killed the police officer, but that wasn't good enough to fit Arizona's criteria for legal insanity.

Edit. Oops, wrong Clark! This is in Texas. (hiding head in shame)

[loonywop]

...

[coconut]

Found this on Dr. Geffner where he testified in another case. He was discredited in this one. (Not trying to dis the doc, just trying to find how juries took to him)

Sounds like he would fit right in. Sign him up!

[Jillee]

Sounds like he would fit right in. Sign him up!

And this is why I love you.

[loonywop]

...

[wasthinking]

Found this on Dr. Geffner where he testified in another case. He was discredited in this one. (Not trying to dis the doc, just trying to find how juries took to him)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Correction- Trial court.

Great find Jillee!

check out this http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...985&SizeDisp=7