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

[wasthinking]

DeMarte diagnosed the killer with Borderline Personality Disorder. That was the first time it was brought up in court. The defense team knew she was going to do that from pre-trial hearings. That is why they had Dr. Geffner in the ready for the surrebuttal. That is all his testimony should be about.

Why can't you wait for his testimony before you begin discrediting the man? Then you go on and argue with another poster, accusing him of idolizing him.

We're very fortunate to have Metis and other professionals join us on this board and share their knowledge. I get very upset when I see posts like yours, insulting them, because I'd much rather hear what they have to say from their knowledge and experience, than what you have to say off the top of your head or copied from Google.

Metis is not obsessed with anyone, he is just giving his professional opinion of another professional in his field.

You might want to read the first post on this thread and utilitze a scroll function for posts you prefer to read and those you don't

Hum, that didn't last long ... "I've vowed to keep all thoughts of JA out of my mind over this week without trial."

[Wishmich]

The longer she was on the stand, the more I despised her. She did not do herself any favors testifying. They really did not have any other choice then to put her on the stand. I'm sure she would never have NOT testified. She was loving being the STAR.

Not only was she the star, she really looked like she thought she could win an Oscar for her performance. Phony crying, evidenced by the hair curtain so nobody could see; embellishing on details because she thought the cops would never check on small details (such as the Christmas stuff in the attic) to make it more convincing. Her juvenile comments, e.g., Ryan is full of crap. I dyed my hair in March.; I just shot him and he's going to be pissed. Who the fuck thinks their victim is going to be pissed???? You know damn well she thought she was being "real" and not contrived. Her bitchiness toward Martinez when answering a question, e.g., I dunno (shrugs shoulder, smirks, looks at jury). It was quite the performance, but it wasn't as brilliant as she thought it was. She spent five years coming up with a story, but the devil is in the details. She's convinced people to do her bidding for so long, I think she got a little over confident in thinking her carefully planned story was going to fly. I sooooo look forward to the look on her face when that jury DOES convict her. I bet she won't be smiling and saying cheese.

[deanna1247]

I'm so darn upset! I've watched this trial since the beginning and now Friday, of all days, I have an appt. I can't get out of! Ugh!! I'm sure it will be shown again on HLN, but I want to hear it first. Lol Thanks for listening all!!! Travis lived about 3 blocks from me when I lived in AZ at the time this all happened.

[wasthinking]

SEE!! I told you she was using magazine pictures! Knew it! I knew she wasn't trying to draw Tanisha!
What do I win?!?!
Nice work Estefaniia!



Why yes, Bellaboo. Yes it sure is!!
The photographer has to authorize the sale of this picture. And gets a percentage!

You did indeed call it!

I think she watched too many movies in her life. The whole story is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that (going by her story) a guy with a bullet in his head is going to be worried about going after her. I think normal people would be concerned with the hole in their head and getting help or in the least, helping their own self.

That ^!

Yes! That too! Although the 49 seconds between the seated torso and leg shot in the shower, and the shot of the ceiling above the shower makes me think otherwise. It is, of course, possible to get up from said seated position, leave the shower, and go to sink, and be attacked there, in 49 seconds. Then a further 13 seconds before he is profusely bleeding, purportedly being dragged (Jodi foot pic).

I wonder if the bruising / abrasions by his ankles could be from falling on the ridge of the shower stall. Like being stabbed when you are trying to get out / up and you fall down, out of the shower but ankles or leg hit that splash barrier.

[ShellJett]

Not only was she the star, she really looked like she thought she could win an Oscar for her performance. Phony crying, evidenced by the hair curtain so nobody could see; embellishing on details because she thought the cops would never check on small details (such as the Christmas stuff in the attic) to make it more convincing. Her juvenile comments, e.g., Ryan is full of crap. I dyed my hair in March.; I just shot him and he's going to be pissed. Who the fuck thinks their victim is going to be pissed???? You know damn well she thought she was being "real" and not contrived. Her bitchiness toward Martinez when answering a question, e.g., I dunno (shrugs shoulder, smirks, looks at jury). It was quite the performance, but it wasn't as brilliant as she thought it was. She spent five years coming up with a story, but the devil is in the details. She's convinced people to do her bidding for so long, I think she got a little over confident in thinking her carefully planned story was going to fly. I sooooo look forward to the look on her face when that jury DOES convict her. I bet she won't be smiling and saying cheese.

I am certain she believes she did a great job on the stand. I don't think anything but a guilty verdict and death sentence will be suitable for me. She will go on believing in her great performance, and she will continue to blame everybody else for her failures. That's just Stabby. I am so looking forward to watching her reaction when the BOOM comes down. I want to see even a small glimpse of fear on that face I have come to loathe.

[wasthinking]

[QUOTE=bete noire;3403116[/QUOTE]

Did I make this fact up in my head - which i admit, is entirely possible - or did I read somewhere that due to the darkened coloring of the blood on that carpet that it was believed that it was arterial blood, something along those lines? Maybe the amount? I seem to be in my own fog here =/

bete, I have never heard anything like that. I don't think it is possible to 'type' blood that way. IIRC blood expert (sorry forget her name) said you can't tell source of blood that way. JM said the lighter blood on the carpet area was because she walked there in socks. The darker would be because it is a pool of blood not spread around or as diluted with water.

[Metis212]

bete, I have never heard anything like that. I don't think it is possible to 'type' blood that way. IIRC blood expert (sorry forget her name) said you can't tell source of blood that way. JM said the lighter blood on the carpet area was because she walked there in socks. The darker would be because it is a pool of blood not spread around or as diluted with water.

Actually, you can tell the difference between arterial blood and venous blood. Arterial blood is thick, very dark red, almost black. Venous blood is a bright red. Arterial blood pulsates out of the body with each heart beat so the pattern is different. Venous blood drips. This you can google

[faq_q]

Being a supporter of JA says at least one of the following three things about you:

1. You have an iq below room temperature
2. You hate men
3. You like to get paid and have no integrity

JAII proves it -- there is not one single exception.

Bryan, I don't believe they are supporters of Jodi, I think that they are unbiased in their opinions of the defense next witness. If the Dr lays an egg out there, I'm sure they would agree, but he hasn't even testified yet and everyone is already roasting the pig over it. Save judgement until he has at least testified. Not jumping on the bandwagon about a future witness does not make you support a certain side.

JM goes first
Defense second
Juan again
The defense does not get up again.
They stick to evidence they presented and tie it together.

Here is what we have to look forward to after the surrebuttal

Prosecution closing argument. The prosecution makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the prosecution sees it and explaining why the jury should render a guilty verdict.

Defense closing argument. The defense makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the defense sees it and explaining why the jury should render a not guilty verdict -- or at least a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.

Prosecution rebuttal. The prosecution has the last word, if it chooses to do so, and again argues that the jury has credible evidence that supports a finding of guilty.

Jury instructions. The judge instructs the jury about what law to apply to the case and how to carry out its duties. (Some judges "preinstruct" juries, reciting instructions before closing argument or even at the outset of trial.)

Jury deliberations. The jury deliberates and tries to reach a verdict. When defendants are charged with serious felonies, all jurors must agree on a verdict (the jury must be unanimous). Some states allow for non-unanimous verdicts (for example, if 10 out of 12 jurors agree on a verdict) in less serious misdemeanor cases. If less than the requisite number of jurors agrees on a verdict, a jury is "hung" and a case may be retried.

Post-trial motions. If the jury produces a guilty verdict, the defense often makes post-trial motions requesting the judge to override the jury and either grant a new trial or acquit the defendant.

Denial of post-trial motions. Almost always, the judge denies the defense post-trial motions.

Sentencing. Assuming a conviction (a verdict of "guilty"), the judge either sentences the defendant on the spot or sets sentencing for another day.

[wasthinking]

The longer she was on the stand, the more I despised her. She did not do herself any favors testifying. They really did not have any other choice then to put her on the stand. I'm sure she would never have NOT testified. She was loving being the STAR.

Not only was she the star, she really looked like she thought she could win an Oscar for her performance. Phony crying, evidenced by the hair curtain so nobody could see; embellishing on details because she thought the cops would never check on small details (such as the Christmas stuff in the attic) to make it more convincing. Her juvenile comments, e.g., Ryan is full of crap. I dyed my hair in March.; I just shot him and he's going to be pissed. Who the fuck thinks their victim is going to be pissed???? You know damn well she thought she was being "real" and not contrived. Her bitchiness toward Martinez when answering a question, e.g., I dunno (shrugs shoulder, smirks, looks at jury). It was quite the performance, but it wasn't as brilliant as she thought it was. She spent five years coming up with a story, but the devil is in the details. She's convinced people to do her bidding for so long, I think she got a little over confident in thinking her carefully planned story was going to fly. I sooooo look forward to the look on her face when that jury DOES convict her. I bet she won't be smiling and saying cheese.

Remember when she told JM when he asked about her memory one time ... Einstein said 'not when you break it down in detail like that"
She creates her lies in pictures in her head, like movies and can't think past her own invented snapshot. Oh those little details .. rofl

[wasthinking]

Actually, you can tell the difference between arterial blood and venous blood. Arterial blood is thick, very dark red, almost black. Venous blood is a bright red. Arterial blood pulsates out of the body with each heart beat so the pattern is different. Venous blood drips. This you can google

So you are saying you can tell all spots of week old blood is one source? You should have testified for the blood spatter, that expert said she can't tell.

[Tia111]

I agree Ian, especially with the bold!

Of course we will never know exactly the sequence of events, but it has always perplexed me as to why he went over to the sink? I have imagined a scenario in which he was stabbed in the chest first, and somehow went to the sink where the mirror is, in order to look and see if it was really true, what had just happened. There may have been a pause, time for realization, before she began stabbing him further, and this would be where it really sunk in that he was in big trouble, and tried to stop what was happening, receiving the defensive wounds.

It's not logical, of course, to go to a sink, or mirror when you have been brutally stabbed in the chest, but I doubt he was able to think logically, and I could [only] imagine myself doing that if I found myself in a situation that suspended belief. Also the ME said the chest wound would be fatal without medical attention, but it would not have incapacitated him.

This is, of course, conjecture and speculation.

I think he went to the sink to look at his injury in the mirror and because it was a place where he had something to hold on to so that he could steady himself. Seeing the injuries probably put him further into a shocked/ stunned state.

[Tia111]

bete, I have never heard anything like that. I don't think it is possible to 'type' blood that way. IIRC blood expert (sorry forget her name) said you can't tell source of blood that way. JM said the lighter blood on the carpet area was because she walked there in socks. The darker would be because it is a pool of blood not spread around or as diluted with water.

When blood is drawn into a syringe, you can visibly tell a difference in arterial blood and venous blood. The arterial blood will be much brighter red, the venous blood a lot darker. You would not be able to tell the difference on a blood soaked carpet. Arterial blood is brighter red due to the oxygen in the blood.

[Tia111]

Actually, you can tell the difference between arterial blood and venous blood. Arterial blood is thick, very dark red, almost black. Venous blood is a bright red. Arterial blood pulsates out of the body with each heart beat so the pattern is different. Venous blood drips. This you can google

The pulsing part is true, you have the description of venous and arterial blood backwards. Arterial blood is much brighter
red.

[blighted star]

[QUOTE=Poppycock;

Me three. My brother took his two boys to a homecare in Orange County, CA. One day his 2 yr. old son came home with the wrong socks, but when he came home with the wrong underwear, parents began to talk and ask their children questions. Turned out the sitter's husband was a child pornographer! I would not leave my child near a person married to anyone that deals with pedophiles in any way.[/QUOTE]

Oh wow guys, you're scaring me a little bit here. I've got 3 kids & I'm a helicopter parent for sure. I'd just had my 5th surgery for endometriosis & been told I needed a hysterectomy & would never have kids, when suddenly I'm pregnant for my post-op appt. My first was 10wks prem, 2nd was almost born at 23wks, & my youngest almost at 17wks. Numbers 2 & 3, my daughters are less than a year apart. I went through several kinds of hell getting my babies here safely & I went through several kinds more to keep them safe after they arrived. I would NEVER let my kids near someone who might endanger them. NEVER.

But forcing a woman out of a position to which she has dedicated years , for no reason other than a small number of the people her husband has LIMITED contact with, just doesn't seem right or fair. Maybe I'm wrong, but I never saw it mentioned he was a paedophilia specialist? I thought it was general sex offenses? That could mean what we call carnal knowledge cases in Australia ie a teenage couple engage in consensual sex, girls parents find out & have the boy charged. Or an 18yr old & a 16yr old -it's illegal if one parties just under the age of consent right? You don't think those kids should have a defense? Or if they do, their public defenders wife, who's never even heard of them, shouldn't be allowed to teach because her husband allowed them the opportunity to defend themselves in court?

What about people who were falsely accused? What if someone accused your brother or nephews of sexual assault a decade from now? What if no competent lawyer would take their case because after the Jodi Arias trial, defense lawyers across the country decided certain types of cases were too dangerous to accept - because people started pointing fingers at the close family of the attorneys involved? Granted, my kids go to school in Australia but there's NO WAY a teacher's husband could get access to students unless he was a teacher too! There's just no way he could wander in & out of the schools. It's simply unheard of. & I believe your schools have FAR greater security these days, than ours.

I understand where this is coming from. I understand you're upset & you're worried & you're scared about where this trial's going to leave his family when it's over. Those of you who came to mds only for this trial, came here because they wanted something good for Travis & his family. You came because you wanted to see justice done. Having a teacher forced from her job because of her husbands completely legal employment isn't justice. You must know that guys?
You must realise, that the justice system America proclaims as the world's best, would collapse without defense lawyers willing to take the poor & the hopeless. If their families are going to be penalised because they are helping the system work by taking the clients who can't afford the big names in defense, then there aren't going to be defense lawyers available for certain types of crime. That should scare you. Particularly if you have men or boys in your life that you care about.

If he NEVER goes near her school & she never discusses the terms of his employment with students (& let's face it, why the hell would she) then there is no danger. If this applies to his wife, then the partners of special victims police, counsellors, prison officers, parole officers & many, many more would also be prevented fom working with children. Defending ACCUSED sex offenders , some of whom are innocent, many of whom offend against adult women, NOT CHILDREN, does not make him or his wife, a threat to children. Really guys, don't go down this path. I know many of you are very upset, but this isn't right & it's now on a public forum & can be used as an example of what this defense was facing. This could help demonstrate how inflamed emotions became . I'm really sorry that anyone who knew Travis has had to deal with all her shiit for the last 5 yrs, but it just can't doTravis' family or yourselves any good to start thinking this way.

[faq_q]

Oh wow guys, you're scaring me a little bit here. I've got 3 kids & I'm a helicopter parent for sure. I'd just had my 5th surgery for endometriosis & been told I needed a hysterectomy & would never have kids, when suddenly I'm pregnant for my post-op appt. My first was 10wks prem, 2nd was almost born at 23wks, & my youngest almost at 17wks. Numbers 2 & 3, my daughters are less than a year apart. I went through several kinds of hell getting my babies here safely & I went through several kinds more to keep them safe after they arrived. I would NEVER let my kids near someone who might endanger them. NEVER.

But forcing a woman out of a position to which she has dedicated years , for no reason other than a small number of the people her husband has LIMITED contact with, just doesn't seem right or fair. Maybe I'm wrong, but I never saw it mentioned he was a paedophilia specialist? I thought it was general sex offenses? That could mean what we call carnal knowledge cases in Australia ie a teenage couple engage in consensual sex, girls parents find out & have the boy charged. Or an 18yr old & a 16yr old -it's illegal if one parties just under the age of consent right? You don't think those kids should have a defense? Or if they do, their public defenders wife, who's never even heard of them, shouldn't be allowed to teach because her husband allowed them the opportunity to defend themselves in court?

What about people who were falsely accused? What if someone accused your brother or nephews of sexual assault a decade from now? What if no competent lawyer would take their case because after the Jodi Arias trial, defense lawyers across the country decided certain types of cases were too dangerous to accept - because people started pointing fingers at the close family of the attorneys involved? Granted, my kids go to school in Australia but there's NO WAY a teacher's husband could get access to students unless he was a teacher too! There's just no way he could wander in & out of the schools. It's simply unheard of. & I believe your schools have FAR greater security these days, than ours.

I understand where this is coming from. I understand you're upset & you're worried & you're scared about where this trial's going to leave his family when it's over. Those of you who came to mds only for this trial, came here because they wanted something good for Travis & his family. You came because you wanted to see justice done. Having a teacher forced from her job because of her husbands completely legal employment isn't justice. You must know that guys?
You must realise, that the justice system America proclaims as the world's best, would collapse without defense lawyers willing to take the poor & the hopeless. If their families are going to be penalised because they are helping the system work by taking the clients who can't afford the big names in defense, then there aren't going to be defense lawyers available for certain types of crime. That should scare you. Particularly if you have men or boys in your life that you care about.

If he NEVER goes near her school & she never discusses the terms of his employment with students (& let's face it, why the hell would she) then there is no danger. If this applies to his wife, then the partners of special victims police, counsellors, prison officers, parole officers & many, many more would also be prevented fom working with children. Defending ACCUSED sex offenders , some of whom are innocent, many of whom offend against adult women, NOT CHILDREN, does not make him or his wife, a threat to children. Really guys, don't go down this path. I know many of you are very upset, but this isn't right & it's now on a public forum & can be used as an example of what this defense was facing. This could help demonstrate how inflamed emotions became . I'm really sorry that anyone who knew Travis has had to deal with all her shiit for the last 5 yrs, but it just can't doTravis' family or yourselves any good to start thinking this way.

I'm going to be hypocritical for saying this, but I don't even think Nurmi's wife should even be mentioned on here. She is not a part of this case or trial.

[I doubt it]

You might want to read the first post on this thread and utilitze a scroll function for posts you prefer to read and those you don't

Hum, that didn't last long ... "I've vowed to keep all thoughts of JA out of my mind over this week without trial."

I've read the first post. I know how to scroll and ignore. Unfortunately that does not always prevent me from seeing the posts where you insult people who do not agree with you. For all the trouble you go through copying and pasting whatever you come across on the internet in an effort to appear intelligent, your ignorance shows in the childish way you react to some who disagree with you.

[wasthinking]

When blood is drawn into a syringe, you can visibly tell a difference in arterial blood and venous blood. The arterial blood will be much brighter red, the venous blood a lot darker. You would not be able to tell the difference on a blood soaked carpet. Arterial blood is brighter red due to the oxygen in the blood.

Thanks Tia! and in this case, we are dealing with old dried blood brown / black w no oxygen left.

[zeebee]

Hey sweet pea. A coup 're Grace (French) is defined as a blow of mercy, a death blow to end the suffering of a wounded person or animal. It may also be the final event that causes a figurative death. I agree with you regarding the gun shot came last but it was not a blow of mercy. She wanted him really really dead and killed him three ways!

I think that the term "coup de gr?ce" is being used in this case as the common parlance, which is a decisive finishing blow.

Well, to be fair, he is? Isn't he? He didn't have to drive. He's just lucky the only thing he's getting attention for right now is being booked. Because the truth is, he COULD have had more blood on his hands than Jodi if he'd hit someone. No it wouldn't have been premeditated, but I don't think that really makes the families of children killed by drunk drivers feel much better. We can joke about the trial driving someone to drink, but the trial isn't what made him drive when he could've chosen any number of safe options. Anyone who does this deserves a shitload of negative attention. They endanger themselves & everyone else sharing the road at the time. No excuses. Ever.

I don't know what his blood alcohol content was (I have not been paying attention to the news on this), but in Arizona, you can get a DUI if you've had any amount of alcohol in your system. You could have one sip of a drink and get a DUI if the officer thinks you are impaired. Most people think you have to be above the "legal limit", which is .08%, but you don't. You can be charged with a DUI regardless of blood alcohol content. I'm not defending anyone, just pointing out that the laws in Arizona regarding DUI are fairly draconian.

Why can't you wait for his testimony before you begin discrediting the man? Then you go on and argue with another poster, accusing him of idolizing him.

We're very fortunate to have Metis and other professionals join us on this board and share their knowledge. I get very upset when I see posts like yours, insulting them, because I'd much rather hear what they have to say from their knowledge and experience, than what you have to say off the top of your head or copied from Google.

Metis is not obsessed with anyone, he is just giving his professional opinion of another professional in his field.

I agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's see what the guy has to say before attacking him.

Good Morning everyone

Never having heard a closing argument before I am curious how it will go:
1. Does defense go first?
2. Then Juan?
3. Does defense get to rebut Juan?
4. Can either party object during closing arguments?
5. Does either party get to speculate or embellish in their arguments or does it have to strictly follow the evidence?

TIA

I don't think either party can object during closing arguments.

[wasthinking]

I've read the first post. I know how to scroll and ignore. Unfortunately that does not always prevent me from seeing the posts where you insult people who do not agree with you. For all the trouble you go through copying and pasting whatever you come across on the internet in an effort to appear intelligent, your ignorance shows in the childish way you react to some who disagree with you.

Your misperception is a figment of your own mind. I "cut and paste" to share information, it means I have more time and I don't delude myself to thinking it makes me any smarter than anyone else that can learn from that information.

[faq_q]

I've read the first post. I know how to scroll and ignore. Unfortunately that does not always prevent me from seeing the posts where you insult people who do not agree with you. For all the trouble you go through copying and pasting whatever you come across on the internet in an effort to appear intelligent, your ignorance shows in the childish way you react to some who disagree with you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oh right again.

[dianalyn]

During the mitigation phase what type of information can either side bring up? Are there things that are too prejudicial? Can the defense team still disrupt proceedings on a daily basis with their motion of the day or will we get relief from at least that? Who gives impact statements, only family or do friends speak out also?

Thanks as always to those who are willing to share their time and knowledge with me, it is appreciated more than you know and in ways you can't know.

[AgathaAppleswine]

I'm going to be hypocritical for saying this, but I don't even think Nurmi's wife should even be mentioned on here. She is not a part of this case or trial.

Many of the comments about the defense team cross the line of what is proper, in my opinion.

[ShellJett]

Objections can and do happen during closing arguments. If either Attorney brings up facts not in evidence the other will object. I have seen it countless times. Unless AZ is different, I expect objections and possibly a sidebar or two with this bunch.

[Tia111]

I do not base my mistrust of Dr. Geffner on internet stories of his past. I base them on the fact that he would testify on Jodi's behalf knowing all of the testing done based on lies. If he takes the stand and shows that HIS test were done on a different story then yes I am open to that but since that would totally throw the 2 prev defense experts even further under the bus, I don't think this will be the case. I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear the advice that he is getting from AL and Dr. Samuels regarding Juan Martinez. Also i have to wonder if this guy is the do all end all, why not put him on the stand first? Just my opinion, (and yes I know what they say about opinions!) I believe Juan will finish him off just like he did the other 2. What I am really waiting for are closing arguments!

[zeebee]

Not only was she the star, she really looked like she thought she could win an Oscar for her performance. Phony crying, evidenced by the hair curtain so nobody could see; embellishing on details because she thought the cops would never check on small details (such as the Christmas stuff in the attic) to make it more convincing. Her juvenile comments, e.g., Ryan is full of crap. I dyed my hair in March.; I just shot him and he's going to be pissed. Who the fuck thinks their victim is going to be pissed???? You know damn well she thought she was being "real" and not contrived. Her bitchiness toward Martinez when answering a question, e.g., I dunno (shrugs shoulder, smirks, looks at jury). It was quite the performance, but it wasn't as brilliant as she thought it was. She spent five years coming up with a story, but the devil is in the details. She's convinced people to do her bidding for so long, I think she got a little over confident in thinking her carefully planned story was going to fly. I sooooo look forward to the look on her face when that jury DOES convict her. I bet she won't be smiling and saying cheese.

I think she has always been able to talk her way out of anything. She may have BPD, but I think she also has sociopathic traits, if she isn't a straight up psychopath.

One of the things that has always bothered me (and fascinated me!) is how easily she lies and how convincing she is. The lies may be obvious (in that they could not possibly be true) but she tells them very well and with great confidence.

I was initially attracted to this case because of the 48 Hours episode. She lied so convincingly in that episode, but it was very clear from the evidence that she was lying.

I think she has been used to doing this, probably her whole life. She thought that she could talk her way out of this one too.