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

[blighted star]

Hi meowzerz, your screen name just reminded me I hadn't done our nightly cat curfew. Thankyou!! & I REALLY get having no-one to discuss this trial with in real life. It doesn't make the news here at all.

[carnee]

Hi all! New girl here. Just wanted to say hello from NY and that I am so glad to have found this thread as no one in my life has ANY interest in this case (!) I've been lurking for weeks and im really enjoying everyone's thoughts and comments about the trial. :)

Welcome fellow NY girl!! I think the majority of us on the board have no one in our lives we can discuss this with. I don't know anyone who even heard of it. This is a great board with so many nice folks!

[Freethinker]

Hi all! New girl here. Just wanted to say hello from NY and that I am so glad to have found this thread as no one in my life has ANY interest in this case (!) I've been lurking for weeks and im really enjoying everyone's thoughts and comments about the trial. :)

I think many of us have no one to share with. When I speak of it, all I can tell them is this has been a trial like no other with the type of killer she is, the lies, the lawyers etc.
I watch the trial specifically for the drama it has produced. After this one, the others will be blah.

I may check in on the Trayvon Martin one starting in June to see this site's views, but we already get news here if Zimmerman even looks sideways wrong. George is using the "stand your ground" defense regarding use of his gun. Trayvon's parents say he killed their son because he's black. All the pictures we see are of him at a young age, not the tattooed and piercings of him at 17. It's going to be a close call on the verdict.
Yes, I know, I'm off topic, but until "our" Jodi coverage starts later today, things are quiet here.

[alyoop]

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...urr&SizeDisp=7
O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
November 3, 2009 Session.

The trial court found the testimony of Drs. Bernet, Walker and LaBarbera to be persuasive, but it did not find Dr. Geffner's testimony credible

Despite the trial court's announced sanction, it gave Dr. Geffner a great deal of latitude in his testimony at trial, even in the face of continued objections by Father's attorney. During almost a full day of testimony, the witness was able to fully express his criticisms of the purported defects in the evaluations performed by the other psychiatrists and psychologists in this case, and his opinions of the relative fitness of the parties for parental responsibilities, even though he never met Father.


The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome.

read these, thank you for all the work to put these up. Do you know if Geffner actually spoke with stabby? any insights as to why HE didn't get called also, or instead of that hack he works with? I would be interested to know, since obviously the defense has spared no expense and clearly isn't worried about juror fatigue....

[alyoop]

But she hasn't allowed it yet, it's only a motion filed by the defense. Besides which, I think the judge is trying to be careful which to us looks like she's letting them do whatever they want, as I've said here before, I think she is trying to prevent mistrial.

you know what freaks me out completely? that the victim seems to have no rights at all! In worrying about mistrial this and mistrial that, the defendant seems to have all the cards. I don't understand why the cart comes before the horse, the state gets one shot, yet the accused gets appeal after appeal... IF there is no conviction, then there will be NO mistrial motion... this makes no sense to me a'tall. they should give the jury everything, and let them make a decision, not weed "prejudicial" stuff out for either side. If they trust the jury with less than all of it, they should trust jurors with all of it. just sayin, I am seriously confused and losing faith in all of the "law". I realize common sense and the law do not go together, but jeez, this is wacky. and kind of scary

[Ian 1]

I briefly watched part of the YouTube video of this Dr. Robert Geffner's presentation to a workshop in Long Beach, entitled "Working with DV Victims and Offenders - Robert Geffner" -10/12/06. While expounding on the element of sexual abuse within the abusive relationship, Dr. Geffner emphasizes that victims hardly ever voluntarily disclose this component. The counsellor, Geffner says, must intensely question victims to elicit this information and even then, they only give it up very reluctantly. Then, in a little flash of hubris, the Dr. goes on to state, (and I'm paraphrasing), "I always referred to that phenomenon as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I 'invented' that phrase to describe victims' reluctance to bring up the sexual violence as part of the abuse and I used it until George Bush stole it from me." He is obviously referring to Pres. George H. W. Bush.

It struck me that the DADT policy was enacted during the first year, (1993) of the Administration of Pres. W. Clinton. (That President with the unfortunate surname that is the same as the given name of the recipient of Arias's first admitted bjob that she administered at the age of 15, according to the information elicited from her by Prosecutor Martinez during her seemingly endless cross-examination. Sorry! I digress. But then again, digression does not appear to be out of place in the current proceedings!) Furthermore, Wikipedia tells me that the phrase in question was coined by a military sociologist named Charles Moskos. Dr. Geffner's name does not appear in the record. His proud memory of George H.W. Bush 'stealing' the phrase from him is either flawed or fabricated--a rather pathetic attempt to place himself among illustrious company without having earned the spot.

That does not bode well for his credibility should he ever get onto the witness stand to face Prosecutor Martinez' scrutiny of his credentials. Nobody likes braggarts, especially those who seek to impress and mislead using trivial details. It certainly doesn't make them believable. I don't suspect that serious minded members of a first degree murder Jury are that much different from the rest of us.

In another part of the video that follows shortly thereafter, (about the 26.50 mark), Dr. Geffner displays a chart listing some of the characteristics of the worst batterers. At the bottom of what is visible there is one batterer's characteristic listed that caught my eye. It states, (as a very dangerous attitude/characteristic) Violence Viewed as Appropriate Response to Provocation. Now then, isn't it this unfortunate trait---manifested in the horrific acts of violence Arias perpetrated upon Travis Alexander in his shower--exactly that one that the Arias's defence lawyers are advancing in support of their argument for a Jury instruction on Manslaughter? A mitigating factor excusing Arias's assault on Travis! A justified 'heat of passion appropriately violent response' to an alleged provocation on the part of Travis on the afternoon of June 4, 2008, at approximately 5:30 p.m?

Can it work both ways? Can Arias embody a significant characteristic of a batterer yet, at the same time, be excused for her violent response to Travis's supposed provocation? (with a touch of self-defense against Travis's physical attack upon her also thrown into the mix!)

It is beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the Arias group, in their narrative, view her 'Violent Response to Travis's Provocation" as acceptable, justified and excusable behavior. Dr. Geffner teaches that persons who 'View' that 'Response' as acceptable are among the worst abusers. According to that logic, it seems that Jodi Arias is in the company of many of her own kind.

If Dr. Geffner comes on board he's going to have to present an opinion that contradicts what he teaches.

If he gets on the stand, Dr. Geffner is going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Looks to me that the trial will definitely not be over before I get to Phoenix. Some creative person should write a new verse for that Glen Campbell classic. ("By the Time I Get to Phoenix" for you youngsters.)

(Sorry! No guitar Smilies!)

[Ian 1]

you know what freaks me out completely? that the victim seems to have no rights at all! In worrying about mistrial this and mistrial that, the defendant seems to have all the cards. I don't understand why the cart comes before the horse, the state gets one shot, yet the accused gets appeal after appeal... IF there is no conviction, then there will be NO mistrial motion... this makes no sense to me a'tall. they should give the jury everything, and let them make a decision, not weed "prejudicial" stuff out for either side. If they trust the jury with less than all of it, they should trust jurors with all of it. just sayin, I am seriously confused and losing faith in all of the "law". I realize common sense and the law do not go together, but jeez, this is wacky. and kind of scary

You may be wishing for a change in the Constitution and then the Law, that allows the People to appeal a Jury Verdict in a Criminal Case. It does happen in other parts of the English Speaking World, but will take a lot of Legal theorizing on the part of the greatest minds considering the complications presented by highly technical evidence before that will ever happen in America. They still haven't come to full agreement on the issue of Juror's questions. Victim's rights are a fairly recent concept, but they obviously haven't advanced to a stage where many would wish them to be.

[Ian 1]

Hi all! New girl here. Just wanted to say hello from NY and that I am so glad to have found this thread as no one in my life has ANY interest in this case (!) I've been lurking for weeks and im really enjoying everyone's thoughts and comments about the trial. :)

Welcome. You are in the very good company of thoughtful, serious and seriously funny folks. There's some brilliant stuff in the back pages and undoubtedly more to come.



We NY

[ShellJett]

The autopsy photos are going to be difficult for the jury to ignore when they finally get to deliberations. This is where I place my faith in M1 conviction. The slit throat makes it hard to argue self defense, heat of passion, or anything other than M1. At the time she slit his throat she intended to kill him. Her post-murder behavior seals the deal. I can't see any jurors willing to let her walk the streets ever again with the evidence the State has. Maybe the State's position hasn't been presented recently or in the best way, but I have confidence the jury will get this one right. I hope I don't eat my words.

[ImBatman!]

The autopsy photos are going to be difficult for the jury to ignore when they finally get to deliberations. This is where I place my faith in M1 conviction. The slit throat makes it hard to argue self defense, heat of passion, or anything other than M1. At the time she slit his throat she intended to kill him. Her post-murder behavior seals the deal. I can't see any jurors willing to let her walk the streets ever again with the evidence the State has. Maybe the State's position hasn't been presented recently or in the best way, but I have confidence the jury will get this one right. I hope I don't eat my words.

Good Morning all!
Shell this is how I see things as well. I continually come back to the overkill no matter what has been presented. The BPD dx was more my professional curiosity. I did have a nano-second worth of sympathy for Jodi and then reminded myself what she did without looking at the autopsy photos. I think even if Jodi has one juror that the others will be able to persuade that one dissent with the photos. JMO.

[DenverClipper]

You may be wishing for a change in the Constitution and then the Law, that allows the People to appeal a Jury Verdict in a Criminal Case. It does happen in other parts of the English Speaking World, but will take a lot of Legal theorizing on the part of the greatest minds considering the complications presented by highly technical evidence before that will ever happen in America. They still haven't come to full agreement on the issue of Juror's questions. Victim's rights are a fairly recent concept, but they obviously haven't advanced to a stage where many would wish them to be.

Hi Ian.

I can't imagine trial by public opinion - that would never result in justice. Sorta reminds me of the old lynch mob form of immediate justice.

Yay! Trial resumes today!

[TeamRenew]

Here is the email that Jodi wrote Travis on Feb 14, 2007. The same date Jodi also claimes that Travis sent the spidey stuff.

One things for sure after reading Jodi's diary, texts, and emails-----she is definitely a girl I would have wanted nothing to do with. I would have dismissed her pretty much as soon as I met her.

Even the crap she typed makes my skin fucking crawl. Freaking WEIRDO.

I feel sorry for Travis that he had to endure these longass messages from Arias constantly. Bitch loves to hear herself talk, read herself what she wrote without realizing that she's a motherfucking idiot.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

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.

I think lice or crabs are spreading in the courtroom. Just watch, anybody associated with Jodi itches. I think that's why Nurmi sits so far away.

OJ's trial lasted 9 months!

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

June, I keep saying this thing is going to drag out until June. I was going to say that Stabby is more likely carrier of crabs than a tick borne disease.

Big daddy yum yum

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

She should have to pay double for every time she stomps her foot and triple for every time Stabby objects before she gets a chance. There should also be a penalty for Nurmi every time he picks his nose, burps or adjusts his junk in court.

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.

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

And this is why I love you.

Great find. From what's posted below it sounds like he will fit right in with Samuels and Alyce. This why we all love Coconut As someone said he puts the "nut" in Coco

Great find Jillee!

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

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...urr&SizeDisp=7
O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
November 3, 2009 Session.

The trial court found the testimony of Drs. Bernet, Walker and LaBarbera to be persuasive, but it did not find Dr. Geffner's testimony credible

Despite the trial court's announced sanction, it gave Dr. Geffner a great deal of latitude in his testimony at trial, even in the face of continued objections by Father's attorney. During almost a full day of testimony, the witness was able to fully express his criticisms of the purported defects in the evaluations performed by the other psychiatrists and psychologists in this case, and his opinions of the relative fitness of the parties for parental responsibilities, even though he never met Father.


The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome.

I briefly watched part of the YouTube video of this Dr. Robert Geffner's presentation to a workshop in Long Beach, entitled "Working with DV Victims and Offenders - Robert Geffner" -10/12/06. While expounding on the element of sexual abuse within the abusive relationship, Dr. Geffner emphasizes that victims hardly ever voluntarily disclose this component. The counsellor, Geffner says, must intensely question victims to elicit this information and even then, they only give it up very reluctantly. Then, in a little flash of hubris, the Dr. goes on to state, (and I'm paraphrasing), "I always referred to that phenomenon as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I 'invented' that phrase to describe victims' reluctance to bring up the sexual violence as part of the abuse and I used it until George Bush stole it from me." He is obviously referring to Pres. George W. Bush.

It struck me that the DADT policy was enacted during the first year, (1993) of the Administration of Pres. W. Clinton. (That President with the unfortunate surname that is the same as the given name of the recipient of Arias's first admitted bjob that she administered at the age of 15, according to the information elicited from her by Prosecutor Martinez during her seemingly endless cross-examination. Sorry! I digress. But then again, digression does not appear to be out of place in the current proceedings!) Furthermore, Wikipedia tells me that the phrase in question was coined by a military sociologist named Charles Moskos. Dr. Geffner's name does not appear in the record. His proud memory of George W. Bush 'stealing' the phrase from him is either flawed or fabricated. That does not bode well for his credibility should he ever get onto the witness stand to face Prosecutor Martinez' scrutiny of his credentials. Nobody likes braggarts, especially those who seek to impress and mislead using trivial details. It certainly doesn't make them believable. I don't suspect that serious minded members of a first degree murder Jury are that much different from the rest of us.

If he gets on the stand, Dr. Geffner is going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Looks to me that the trial will definitely not be over before I get to Phoenix. Some creative person should write a new verse for that Glen Campbell classic. ("By the Time I Get to Phoenix" for you youngsters.)

(Sorry! No guitar Smilies!)

Great link on State v Steelman, WT! Very interesting; "Dr. White's testimony was merely cumulative of the evidence already presented by the defense. The addition of another doctor in surrebuttal who "votes" for the defense is not a sufficiently material addition to the case to reach constitutional proportions"
So, wouldn't Dr. Geffner's testimony just be reiterating the previous defense experts to bolster their claims of PTSD? If so, Dr. Geffner would not be bringing anything new to the table except a "vote" for the defense? Right?

One would think so but who knows with Judge Stephens, she has ruled against the defense on quite a few things of late so she may feel the need to give them a "win" on something

read these, thank you for all the work to put these up. Do you know if Geffner actually spoke with stabby? any insights as to why HE didn't get called also, or instead of that hack he works with? I would be interested to know, since obviously the defense has spared no expense and clearly isn't worried about juror fatigue....

Yes, he has interviewed/met with Stabby. This came out during her cross examination by JM when he was asking her about the various lies she had told the defense experts. She referred to him as "that psychologist from CA."

its already proven he took her underground.When the hughes said no more to their little tryst in their house he took his show on the road.He was deflecting his friends opinions a long time....

She had pictures of them together plastered all over her myspace/facebook accounts,not to mention the trips they were taking together to PPL conferences and other locations, that's hardly underground.

[smurfy]

Good morning everyone! I was just wondering if someone could help me out. I realize this might be a really stupid question... but...

If JA is found guilty and sentenced to death, when she appeals does she have to stick to the same self defense claim? Or can she come back and use the spur of the moment/rage defense?

[wasthinking]

welcome all newbies

This weeks schedule from court calendar


T, W, TH., start 9:30 or when they get to us

Don't worry be happy :) Wendi tried to appeal for not getting a lesser included and the Supreme Court told her tough.

?36 We held in State v. Celaya that ?where the sole
defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either
conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade
would be impermissible.? 135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856
(1983); see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ? 29, 126 P.3d
148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an ?all-ornothing?
defense, the record usually will not support the giving
of a lesser-included offense instruction); State v. Jones, 109
Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that
lesser-included offense instructions were not required where
evidence at trial and defendant?s self-defense theory presented
an ?either-or? situation requiring either first degree murder
conviction or acquittal). We conclude that the evidence in this
case did not support either a second degree murder or
manslaughter instruction and that the trial court therefore did
- 16 -
not commit fundamental error in failing to give either
instruction.

[M Joy]

Good morning everyone! I was just wondering if someone could help me out. I realize this might be a really stupid question... but...

If JA is found guilty and sentenced to death, when she appeals does she have to stick to the same self defense claim? Or can she come back and use the spur of the moment/rage defense?

I think if she is granted an appeal and case was re-tried, she may be able to change her defense, but I'm not 100% certain.

[faq_q]

Hi all! New girl here. Just wanted to say hello from NY and that I am so glad to have found this thread as no one in my life has ANY interest in this case (!) I've been lurking for weeks and im really enjoying everyone's thoughts and comments about the trial. :)

Welcome to the show meowzerz It gets interesting in here so stay tuned!

I think many of us have no one to share with. When I speak of it, all I can tell them is this has been a trial like no other with the type of killer she is, the lies, the lawyers etc.
I watch the trial specifically for the drama it has produced. After this one, the others will be blah.

I may check in on the Trayvon Martin one starting in June to see this site's views, but we already get news here if Zimmerman even looks sideways wrong. George is using the "stand your ground" defense regarding use of his gun. Trayvon's parents say he killed their son because he's black. All the pictures we see are of him at a young age, not the tattooed and piercings of him at 17. It's going to be a close call on the verdict.
Yes, I know, I'm off topic, but until "our" Jodi coverage starts later today, things are quiet here.

My wife is funny with regard to this trial. I will start to talk about it one day and she will tell me she doesn't want to hear about it. The next day, I can't resist so I tell her something else and she already knows what went on?? I think she's secretly following the damn trial but letting me think she isn't! Damn woman! Drives me crazy....

I briefly watched part of the YouTube video of this Dr. Robert Geffner's presentation to a workshop in Long Beach, entitled "Working with DV Victims and Offenders - Robert Geffner" -10/12/06. While expounding on the element of sexual abuse within the abusive relationship, Dr. Geffner emphasizes that victims hardly ever voluntarily disclose this component. The counsellor, Geffner says, must intensely question victims to elicit this information and even then, they only give it up very reluctantly. Then, in a little flash of hubris, the Dr. goes on to state, (and I'm paraphrasing), "I always referred to that phenomenon as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I 'invented' that phrase to describe victims' reluctance to bring up the sexual violence as part of the abuse and I used it until George Bush stole it from me." He is obviously referring to Pres. George H. W. Bush.

It struck me that the DADT policy was enacted during the first year, (1993) of the Administration of Pres. W. Clinton. (That President with the unfortunate surname that is the same as the given name of the recipient of Arias's first admitted bjob that she administered at the age of 15, according to the information elicited from her by Prosecutor Martinez during her seemingly endless cross-examination. Sorry! I digress. But then again, digression does not appear to be out of place in the current proceedings!) Furthermore, Wikipedia tells me that the phrase in question was coined by a military sociologist named Charles Moskos. Dr. Geffner's name does not appear in the record. His proud memory of George W. Bush 'stealing' the phrase from him is either flawed or fabricated. That does not bode well for his credibility should he ever get onto the witness stand to face Prosecutor Martinez' scrutiny of his credentials. Nobody likes braggarts, especially those who seek to impress and mislead using trivial details. It certainly doesn't make them believable. I don't suspect that serious minded members of a first degree murder Jury are that much different from the rest of us.

In another part of the video that follows shortly thereafter, (about the 26.50 mark), Dr. Geffner displays a chart listing some of the characteristics of the worst batterers. At the bottom of what is visible there is one batterer's characteristic listed that caught my eye. It states, (as a very bad thing) Violence Viewed as Appropriate Response to Provocation. Now then, isn't it this unfortunate trait---manifested in the horrific acts of violence Arias perpetrated upon Travis Alexander in his shower--exactly that one that the Arias's defence lawyers are advancing in support of their argument for a Jury instruction on Manslaughter? A mitigating factor excusing Arias's assault on Travis! A justified 'heat of passion violent response' to an alleged provocation on the part of Travis? Can it work both ways? Can Arias embody a significant characteristic of a batterer yet, at the same time, be excused for her violent response to Travis's supposed provocation with a touch of self-defense against Travis's physical attack upon her also thrown into the mix? It is beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the Arias group views her 'Violent Response to Travis's Provocation" as acceptable behavior and if Dr. Geffner comes on board he's going to have to present an opinion that contradicts what he teaches.

If he gets on the stand, Dr. Geffner is going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Looks to me that the trial will definitely not be over before I get to Phoenix. Some creative person should write a new verse for that Glen Campbell classic. ("By the Time I Get to Phoenix" for you youngsters.)

(Sorry! No guitar Smilies!)

Yeah, wish I could make it the 3rd but I'm sure it will still be going on on the 6th when I get back. I think that Monday is my next court trip. I hope you enjoy it Ian, it is a great experience.

[ImBatman!]

Just an o/t comment. I've noticed that trial usually does not REALLY start until 10:00am. 9:30am is just a guesstimate. You all know the defense has to have their "private time" with the judge every trial morning!

[Ian 1]

Good morning everyone! I was just wondering if someone could help me out. I realize this might be a really stupid question... but...

If JA is found guilty and sentenced to death, when she appeals does she have to stick to the same self defense claim? Or can she come back and use the spur of the moment/rage defense?

I think if she is granted an appeal and case was re-tried, she may be able to change her defense, but I'm not 100% certain.

Think of it this way. Firstly, the Appeal from a conviction resulting in a Death Sentence is pretty well granted as-of-right. As for the substance, think of a great big house called "The Law" that can be entered through many marked doors.

[Ian 1]

Welcome to the show meowzerz It gets interesting in here so stay tuned!



My wife is funny with regard to this trial. I will start to talk about it one day and she will tell me she doesn't want to hear about it. The next day, I can't resist so I tell her something else and she already knows what went on?? I think she's secretly following the damn trial but letting me think she isn't! Damn woman! Drives me crazy....



Yeah, wish I could make it the 3rd but I'm sure it will still be going on on the 6th when I get back. I think that Monday is my next court trip. I hope you enjoy it Ian, it is a great experience.

If it's really exciting, I may try for a few days. No reason why I can't, once I'm down there.

We may see each other and collaborate on a good report to the folks on the thread--over a drink.

Alyce would say we're all in the 'Jodi Arias Trial Closet.'

[Rockabillychick]

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.

If their motion is granted and this Dr. gets to testify he will be discredited in this case as well. Another career that will go down in flames. Great find Jille!

But she hasn't allowed it yet, it's only a motion filed by the defense. Besides which, I think the judge is trying to be careful which to us looks like she's letting them do whatever they want, as I've said here before, I think she is trying to prevent mistrial.

As much as I hate to say it, but Jodi is entitled to her defense, and I do think that the Judge will allow it. She is trying to prevent this conviction (hopefully) from coming back on appeal.
I have said this though the defense is doing this to prolong the trial and get the jurors to start bowing out.

oh deer :(

Ha, ha, I see what you did there.

Hi all! New girl here. Just wanted to say hello from NY and that I am so glad to have found this thread as no one in my life has ANY interest in this case (!) I've been lurking for weeks and im really enjoying everyone's thoughts and comments about the trial. :)

Welcome!

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.

You have me in stitches lately Sneakers!

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.



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

I think "Einstein" thought that if they were deleted, they were gone. I don't think that the genius realized that they can be retrieved.

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.

I enjoy this thread and all of the opinions and theories that are expressed here.

The autopsy photos are going to be difficult for the jury to ignore when they finally get to deliberations. This is where I place my faith in M1 conviction. The slit throat makes it hard to argue self defense, heat of passion, or anything other than M1. At the time she slit his throat she intended to kill him. Her post-murder behavior seals the deal. I can't see any jurors willing to let her walk the streets ever again with the evidence the State has. Maybe the State's position hasn't been presented recently or in the best way, but I have confidence the jury will get this one right. I hope I don't eat my words.

This! I think that is what is going to get her convicted of 1st degree. I don't think that anyone can look at those autopsy photos and say that there wasn't suffering or cruelty involved. I think that the State definitely has to use their next rebuttal witnesses to focus on premeditation.

Good Morning everyone!

[smurfy]

I think if she is granted an appeal and case was re-tried, she may be able to change her defense, but I'm not 100% certain.

Thank you for your reply!!

Think of it this way. Firstly, the Appeal from a conviction resulting in a Death Sentence is pretty well granted as-of-right. As for the substance, think of a great big house called "The Law" that can be entered through many marked doors.

So, she could potentially get appeal after appeal until she gets the verdict she wants?
Is there any law that says you can only have so many appeals?
Im sorry, again, these are probably questions that most people know that answers to.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Good morning everyone! I was just wondering if someone could help me out. I realize this might be a really stupid question... but...

If JA is found guilty and sentenced to death, when she appeals does she have to stick to the same self defense claim? Or can she come back and use the spur of the moment/rage defense?

I think if she is granted an appeal and case was re-tried, she may be able to change her defense, but I'm not 100% certain.

Anyone sentenced to death gets an automatic appeal. This is not to say that any appeal would be successful, it depends on the appellate issues raised. If by some miracle she was granted a new trial she could change her defense strategy but I believe that if she took the stand again anything she said in this trial could be used to impeach her if she changes her story again. This is also true of her current defense witnesses.

Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges).

The court of appeals:

hears and decides cases in three judge panels;
has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and,
reviews all decisions properly appealed to it.

http://www.azcourts.gov/AZCourts/CourtofAppeals.aspx

Welcome to the show meowzerz It gets interesting in here so stay tuned!



My wife is funny with regard to this trial. I will start to talk about it one day and she will tell me she doesn't want to hear about it. The next day, I can't resist so I tell her something else and she already knows what went on?? I think she's secretly following the damn trial but letting me think she isn't! Damn woman! Drives me crazy....



Yeah, wish I could make it the 3rd but I'm sure it will still be going on on the 6th when I get back. I think that Monday is my next court trip. I hope you enjoy it Ian, it is a great experience.

Just an o/t comment. I've noticed that trial usually does not REALLY start until 10:00am. 9:30am is just a guesstimate. You all know the defense has to have their "private time" with the judge every trial morning!

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Well I messed that up

Just an o/t comment. I've noticed that trial usually does not REALLY start until 10:00am. 9:30am is just a guesstimate. You all know the defense has to have their "private time" with the judge every trial morning!

I've never seen a criminal trial with so many ex parte conferences with a defense team. I'm starting to wonder if Stabby has been expressing her displeasure with her attorneys and defense "experts".

My wife is funny with regard to this trial. I will start to talk about it one day and she will tell me she doesn't want to hear about it. The next day, I can't resist so I tell her something else and she already knows what went on?? I think she's secretly following the damn trial but letting me think she isn't! Damn woman! Drives me crazy....

Bwahaha She's holding out on you.

[Ian 1]

Anyone sentenced to death gets an automatic appeal. This is not to say that any appeal would be successful, it depends on the appellate issues raised. If by some miracle she was granted a new trial she could change her defense strategy but I believe that if she took the stand again anything she said in this trial could be used to impeach her if she changes her story again. This is also true of her current defense witnesses.

Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges).

The court of appeals:

hears and decides cases in three judge panels;
has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and,
reviews all decisions properly appealed to it.

http://www.azcourts.gov/AZCourts/CourtofAppeals.aspx

If and/or when Jodi Arias gets convicted--and especially if she gets sentenced to death--she lives for one reason and one reason only. To pursue her Appeals. There is no limit on the number of attempts and it goes on right on up to the moment the needle is inserted into her arm.