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

[Jillee]

I think we can all agree that regardless of her specific diagnosis, regardless of which expert you support, that something is deeply wrong with Jodi's mental health. She is not well.

What impact will that have on the trial? Will the jury feel some sympathy for a young female killer who suffers from a disorder? Can they help her, send her to prison where she can get medicine and treatment and maybe some day live a productive life? Or should they kill her?

The defense has benefited from all the mental health discussion. The jury has spent so much time getting to know Jodi in detail. She is a real person to them, and she is sick. Is she a monster the same way we look at a serial killer? Or is she an emotionally immature, lovesick outcast who needs help from our society? If she had counseling and medication in 2007 would there have even been a murder?

Uh, monster? yes.
Butcherer? yes.
Liar? yes.
I just hope this jury brings Justice for Travis. Because he's the one who's dead. Does that mean anything? Does his pain and suffering mean anything? Does his family's pain and suffering mean anything? Or was all that 'meaning' buried with the dead guy? A dead guy who just doesn't matter anymore? And all that matters now is Jodi's life and can she have a productive life. I think the victim is who we should be concerned with.
What about the productive life Travis could have lived? What about his dreams? His goals? His right to even BREATHE? She took that right from him. But he's dead. So we really shouldn't be considering his feelings, right? This really makes me sad. So very, very sad.

[loonywop]

[QUOTE=Jillee;3406969]

No wombats? I want a wombat!!!!!!!!!!

what no bears and tigers?

[Harlette]

A question for the legal people - would an appeals court uphold a murder conviction where the medical examiner contradicted his report on the stand, claimed it was a typo, and also changed his testimony between a pre-trial hearing and the trial?

would have a better chance for inept council that the never noticed it or got some one to read the report for them and find it b4 the last day of court

eta: a witness can be discredited or found to be in error by council, and that wouldn't cause an appeal, but the DT totally missing it might

[TMY1]

[QUOTE=blighted star;3406955]

This is kinda fun. I like the anarchy

You do? Well then. This is very off topic, but feel free to visit. There are 3 kids, less than 3yrs apart in age, 3 tall cats, 1 munchkin, 3 guinea pigs, 1 psychotic rabbit, 2 orange rats, 6 manx mice, a short-necked Macquarie River Turtle, a huge grumpy Oscar, a Weasel Skink, a Water Dragon & a Keferstein Tree Frog. I think that's everyone. Oh there's also our daily visitor, Josephine, a 7ft muscle-bound very male kangaroo (my daughter thought he was girl cos he had purdy eyelashes as a joey). & how could I forget the Brushtail Possum in the roof. Anyway, if anarchy's your thing, we've got enough to share!

You've got a zoo! Awesome!

[wasthinking]

A question for the legal people - would an appeals court uphold a murder conviction where the medical examiner contradicted his report on the stand, claimed it was a typo, and also changed his testimony between a pre-trial hearing and the trial?

Not legal but a guess... First, he didn't testify in pretrial so no, not testiying in pretrial won't effect any appeal.
Two errors in testimony, probably not because Def had every opportunity on cross and was able to get the 'errors' before the jury so its up tot he jury to believe or disregard ANY testimony from anyone including the ME.

[wasthinking]

would have a better chance for inept council that the never noticed it or got some one to read the report for them and find it b4 the last day of court

eta: a witness can be discredited or found to be in error by council, and that wouldn't cause an appeal, but the DT totally missing it might

Wouldn't work under ineffective counsel. It was her counsel that brought out the errors.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

A question for the legal people - would an appeals court uphold a murder conviction where the medical examiner contradicted his report on the stand, claimed it was a typo, and also changed his testimony between a pre-trial hearing and the trial?

First of all Dr. Horn did not change his testimony between a pre trial hearing and the trial. Floes changed his own theory of the sequence of the wounds because he did not understand Dr Horn's report or what he thought he heard.

The defense never called Dr Horn during any pre trial hearings, not even the ones to determine if there were aggravating factors. They did have an opportunity to do a deposition with Dr Horn but again they chose not to consult with an ME either before or after.

JMO, an appeals court would uphold the conviction because the defense had ample time/funds to consult their own ME but chose not to do so for strategic reasons. They did though, spend some money doing DNA testing based on Stabby's ninja lie. The defendant doesn't get to benefit from her own lies, if the defense attorneys chose to believe her despite all evidence showing she was a liar or because she directed them not too then she doesn't get to benefit from it.

[poppym]

Never any slam dunks. Juries are just people made up of all kinds, including idiots. They always scare me.

There's work to be done in that room, at least with one, if tiger/bear ends up in there!

I wish Martinez would have asked if it would make a difference if the person actually attacked and killed the bear/lion, as oppossed to being the one attacked? Big difference.

Well said Justice! I kept thinking why can't JM ditch the analogy altogether and just say what she lied about on the test, as oppose to what she's lying about now!

DT is desperately trying to cover their ass when it comes to Samuels getting punked by Jodi. He fell for the 2 "ninjas" crap then failed to re-administer the test when he found out she lied. So, Willmott thinks it's perfectly reasonable to just say "well, there was trauma there, it doesn't matter where it came from". Except it does.

Worse than that, it looks bad because Jodi lied, to a test, to create this so-called PTSD diagnosis. Jodi had no reason to lie to a test, if she was abused and PTSD'ed by Travis. It's all one big sham, and Willmott is trying to salvage something by suggesting Jodi was still traumatized, no matter what the reason.

I think Dr. Jill pretty well dispelled that notion. If I person lies about the circumstance, why would you assume they were telling the truth about anything else, including the symptoms?

And now, thanks to Martinez, we have lions and bears, and gophers!

I agree! It's desperate desperateness! Tiger/Bear was also to reach that one Juror who posed the stupid question to DeMarte. They only need one!

It's never been a for-sure thing. Some of the jury questions from the get-go have made me believe that there's at least one idiot on the jury who believes that Jodi (despite confessing) did not do it, or that she had help. Remember the questions about the roommates?

I think it'll be a hung jury.

I hope you're wrong, but agree that this not a 'sure thing'! Most of the Jury Q's have been spot on, but there have been a few throughout that are worrying!

UGH! The Hughes's are coming off worse and worse with this revelation I don't care if Stabby orchestrated it, they threw their so called best friend under the bus.

Don't forget their immediate willingness to believe that their murdered 'best pal' was a pedo, based on shite sent to them from the defense!

Not to mention her utter lack of remorse, displayed over and over.

Did you notice the difference in her demeanor today when the autopsy pics were used? I hope the Jury did! A full 180 from the first time they were introduced in this trial! No fake crying, or peeking through the hair curtain! Just playing with ma crayons, trying to stay within the lines on my tracing paper!

[UncomfortablyNumb]

It's never been a for-sure thing. Some of the jury questions from the get-go have made me believe that there's at least one idiot on the jury who believes that Jodi (despite confessing) did not do it, or that she had help. Remember the questions about the roommates?

I think it'll be a hung jury.

I have the same feeling. And it's making me nervous.

that question was in week 1 to Flores. We don't know that that juror is even still there or will be there for deliberations. I honestly think someone would have to be as deranged as Jodi to believe her lies. Even being lied to straight in the face on the stand.

The thought of a hung jury makes me ill.

Same here.

I just don't want to set myself up to be disappointed. I'm nervous as fuck about it.

[poppym]

Wouldn't work under ineffective counsel. It was her counsel that brought out the errors.

Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?

[olgasbunghole]

Originally Posted by coconut
A question for the legal people - would an appeals court uphold a murder conviction where the medical examiner contradicted his report on the stand, claimed it was a typo, and also changed his testimony between a pre-trial hearing and the trial?

First of all Dr. Horn did not change his testimony between a pre trial hearing and the trial. Floes changed his own theory of the sequence of the wounds because he did not understand Dr Horn's report or what he thought he heard.

The defense never called Dr Horn during any pre trial hearings, not even the ones to determine if there were aggravating factors. They did have an opportunity to do a deposition with Dr Horn but again they chose not to consult with an ME either before or after.

JMO, an appeals court would uphold the conviction because the defense had ample time/funds to consult their own ME but chose not to do so for strategic reasons. They did though, spend some money doing DNA testing based on Stabby's ninja lie. The defendant doesn't get to benefit from her own lies, if the defense attorneys chose to believe her despite all evidence showing she was a liar or because she directed them not too then she doesn't get to benefit from it.

this sounds childish but I gotta say a big NANNY.. NANNY.. NANNY.. to the DT! Thanks for that info Sneakers! I can't rep anymore today but I'll get you tomorrow

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?

It was!

[olgasbunghole]

Originally Posted by Harlette
would have a better chance for inept council that the never noticed it or got some one to read the report for them and find it b4 the last day of court

eta: a witness can be discredited or found to be in error by council, and that wouldn't cause an appeal, but the DT totally missing it might

Wouldn't work under ineffective counsel. It was her counsel that brought out the errors.

Yay! that's great to know! thanks for the 411 WT

[Harlette]

omg - hln just announced - 1 more witness to go tonight

court ended 2 hours ago!

[Jadedmile]

Just one more comment regarding why i think the defense didn't call an ME to rebut Dr. Horn: they couldn't find one that could.

I bet not a single ME was willing to say that the gun shot wouldn't have incapacitated him or that the lack of blood didn't prove the shot came last. This is very telling in my opinion. Hope the jurors realize that as well.

Ditto! :)

[gigiann]

The experts can babble and rebut each other as much as they like. They can show their charts and graphs till they turn blue in the face or until JW keels over fainting from her tight Spanks and I put more faith in my common sense and gut instincts. I watch Jodi's demeanor and listen to her speak and it reeks of lies and hiding the truth. I don't care how her test results vary from expert to expert. Psychology is not an exact science. I hope the jury is finding her story and outright lies more condusive to finding M1. She brutally killed Travis. There is no excuse for that. It was overkill. There has been no evidence of abuse in any way from TA. The DT has not proven abuse with any witness or testimony. To me, they haven't been able to rebut the Prosecution's evidence. In my experience and perception of people says she is guilty of M1.

[olgasbunghole]

Originally Posted by poppym
Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?

It was!

does it matter, as far as a case for ineffective counsel?

[wasthinking]

Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?

Which one? Liquid brain, no, Willmutt busted him on that one at the beginning of the trial. No appeal error since it was brought out to the jury. Just a risk of the jury not believing / trusting the doc.

Dera, yes a juror asked the question but, Def followed it up and made him look at his own report and admit the error. Again it was caught before the jury so not an appeal issue imo.

There is a third and I won't be surprised if we find the doc hurt this case. Today he said death in seconds (to bleed out). The scene contradicts that and you can bet Mutt and Numbo are going to scream about that unless JM makes it a highlight that it was about the seconds after the NECK wound specifically but arrogant doc couldnt be bothered to make sure and clarify that point.

All I can say is, if I was a juror, this doc doesn't impress me and I don't trust him or like him. That said, I could throw out his testimony and common sense still tells me, she killed him 3X times and a shot in the head didn't leave him playing linebacker on killers field of slaughter.

[Harlette]

Originally Posted by poppym
Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?


does it matter, as far as a case for ineffective counsel?

it could be a reason for appeal but prolly not winnable at all! - but i still can't believe they missed until geffner saw it

[gigiann]

Dr Floyd the Barber spilling and mopping up his water was hysterical. I totally started cracking up. He sopped up the mess with OCD characteristics. Hysterical!!!

[wasthinking]

omg - hln just announced - 1 more witness to go tonight

court ended 2 hours ago!

I clicked it on a little bit ago to peep in and had to laugh at Vinnie. He got all excited 'they're back!' with a girly voice like a kid, 'santa was here'.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

omg - hln just announced - 1 more witness to go tonight

court ended 2 hours ago!

And saying how the jury must be so exhausted from being kept in court this late They know the internet and Twitter exist right?

Originally Posted by poppym
Wasn't it a Juror who brought out the error?


does it matter, as far as a case for ineffective counsel?

No. For the reasons I listed earlier.

it could be a reason for appeal but prolly not winnable at all! - but i still can't believe they missed until geffner saw it

Even then they didn't catch it, a juror did.

[wasthinking]

Dr Floyd the Barber spilling and mopping up his water was hysterical. I totally started cracking up. He sopped up the mess with OCD characteristics. Hysterical!!!

sorry but focusing on that is petty to me. One of JMs witnesses did the same thing and no one tried to make it into anything.

[gigiann]

Floyd is getting a hard on listening to himself talk. He seems so proud. I haven't seen JM cross him yet. I am many hours behind as I was stuck in the office today and watching my recordings now. I love seeing all the past witnesses now allowed in the courtroom sitting together and watching.

[olgasbunghole]

Which one? Liquid brain, no, Willmutt busted him on that one at the beginning of the trial. No appeal error since it was brought out to the jury. Just a risk of the jury not believing / trusting the doc.

Dera, yes a juror asked the question but, Def followed it up and made him look at his own report and admit the error. Again it was caught before the jury so not an appeal issue imo.

There is a third and I won't be surprised if we find the doc hurt this case. Today he said death in seconds (to bleed out). The scene contradicts that and you can bet Mutt and Numbo are going to scream about that unless JM makes it a highlight that it was about the seconds after the NECK wound specifically but arrogant doc couldnt be bothered to make sure and clarify that point.


All I can say is, if I was a juror, this doc doesn't impress me and I don't trust him or like him. That said, I could throw out his testimony and common sense still tells me, she killed him 3X times and a shot in the head didn't leave him playing linebacker on killers field of slaughter.

I understood jen jen's question to the doc to be: how long would it have taken the brain to be void of blood? the doc's question before answering jenn jenn was: do you mean with all of TA's injuries? jen jen: yes. doc's answer: in a matter of seconds.
did i understand jen jen's question differently?