Home > Crime > Jodi Arias Murder Trial – Day Thirty-One

Jodi Arias Murder Trial – Day Thirty-One

03/13/2013

I was blown away by Juan Martinez Thursday afternoon!  When Nurmi said he was done and left the final hour to Juan, you could see the whole courtroom become electrified!  Boy, what a job Juan did!  Last ‘I don’t remember’ or ‘recall to the best of my recollection’, Arias and defense team were all looking like deer caught in the headlights!  Yippee!

Screen shot 2013-03-13 at 1.51.35 PMCourt begins at 10:30 so much for starting early!!!

And, the ever-annoying Nurmi is up at the bench…grrrrrrr!   Nurmi filed a motion to compel yesterday requesting documents related to Wal-Mart and Tesoro.

Been looking, but don’t see.  Does Nurmi have an off button?

Judge leaves the bench at 10:46!

Jurors finally brought in at 10:52.

You described the shooting to the jury, do you remember that?  Yes.

You fumbled the camera and took a shot of his rear?  I don’t remember what order the photos were taken in.

This was an inadvertent photo?  Yes.

5 minutes shy of 11am and we have sidebar!

At some point the camera hit the ground?  Yes.

Mr. Alexander was upset?  Yes.

He wasn’t coming after you? He picked me up and body slammed me.

He put you on the ground and maybe you bumped your head and lost your breath?  Yes.

You told the jury Mr. Alexander possibly picked up the camera?  Yes, I believe it could be possible.

If he’s looking at the camera and you ran down the hall then he isn’t close to you?  Not real close.

Did you hear him drop the camera at the end of the hallway?  No.

You went to the closet and got the gun?  Yes.

You went back to the bathroom?  Yes.

And that’s when you shot him in the face?  That’s when the gun went off.

Ma’am the gun was in your hands?  Yes.

You told us in a stressful situation, you say you freeze up?  Yes.

But you remember what he said?  Yes.

Then the fog came in? I was afraid for my life and then I don’t remember.

OMG!  Jodi just admitted the picture of Travis all bloodied and on the floor happened BEFORE the shot?

You told us the knife used to cut the rope; you don’t remember where the knife was?  Yes.

Does the fog increase your memory?  I don’t know.

When the fog rolls in it doesn’t increase your memory?  I don’t know.

You don’t remember where the knife was?  Today no, maybe on June 4th I did.

If you don’t know where the knife was, it could have been in the closet?  I don’t know.

Did you have the knife in your hand when you shot him?  No.

Then you had to go get the knife?  I don’t know.  Travis could have picked it up first.

When he lunged at you, he never had a knife?  I don’t know.

If you had to find the knife it would take time?  I don’t know where the knife was.

In 62 seconds you get body slammed, get away, go to the closet and get the gun, go back to the bathroom, shoot Mr. Alexander and you got away and Mr. Alexander was at the end of the hall with his throat slit?  I’m not saying that.

Well for someone to get cut like…

Objection…

Sidebar…

Can you say mincemeat????

You indicated the shooting happened and he went down?

You were able to get away and thats when he threatened you?  Yes.

At no time did you indicate that he had the knife?  No.

The scenario you told us is impossible if you didn’t have the knife in your hand?  No.

At the time, he stayed down and you got up?  I don’t remember.

Did you have the knife?  That’s when the memory fogs, I don’t recall having the knife.

So he was down which means you had to come back to him?

Objection, argumentative…

Sidebar…

Now we have equipment difficulties.

Jury sent out to lunch.

Have to say Jodi started out looking pretty cocky and defiant, not so much now, lol!  She really dug a hole with the knife.  Jury has to wonder where the knife was that allowed her to do so much damage in such a short time!

This is maddening!  Court resumes at 1:24 and they are up at the bench again, OFGS!

Damn!  Court sound system screwed up again.  Does the court not hire professionals???? What the heck did they do over the long lunch hour????

Could be wrong, but looks like Judge and lawyers are reviewing question during this break?

Back at 1:39.

At some point you remember you had the knife in your hand?  I don’t remember?

You told the jury you remember dropping it?  Yes.

So the knife was in your hand?  Yes.

The knife was after the shooting?  Yes.

After dropping the knife you took it with you?  Took it where?

I don’t know, I’m asking you?  I don’t remember.

She remembers her luggage, the rope, and the gun.

You were wearing shoes that day?  Yes.

In this photo, you’re in socks?  Yes, I don’t know where the shoes were.

You took your socks off?  I don’t remember.

You heard the knife clank on the floor?  Yes.

You don’t remember anything after?  I remember I screamed.

This fog lasted hours, right?  Yes.

You didn’t start to come out of this fog till you were in the desert, right?  Right.

You told the jury you pulled off in the desert somewhere near the Nevada boarder?

Objection…sidebar

Nurmi is doing wall-to-wall objections with few being sustained.

How long did it take to drive to Hoover damn from where you cleaned up?  The sun was in my eyes and when I got to the damn it was dark, so I don’t know.

When you left the house and drove to the side of the road, didn’t you gas up?  If it needed gas I would have put gas in it.

So in this fog you were able to look at the gas gage?  I presume.

You filled the car from the gas cans?  I don’t know.

You got rid of the gun?  Yes.

You don’t know about your clothes?  Yes.

You took the rope?  Yes.

The knife you believe was dropped in the bathroom?  Correct.

In this fog of your, you manipulated it?

Objection.

You deleted photos didn’t you?  I don’t remember.

Did you indicate you moved the knife?  I don’t believe I said that.

Well you spoke with individuals who are assisting on your case?  Yes.

And you indicated….

Objection…sidebar

You told the jury you went to Utah to meet Ryan Burns?  Yes.

Where did you fill up with gas?  I don’t remember.

You indicated you used a gun?  Yes.

You indicated there was a holster?  Yes.

You indicated once it was in a box?  Yes.

At one point the gun was in the holster, at one time it wasn’t.

You bought a 9mm handgun after Mr. Alexander’s death?  Yes.

You told the jury you bought the gun for your safety?  Yes.

Do you remember you said you bought the gun because for the camping trip and there was only going to be guys?  Yes, but I never went on the trip.

You told the jury that one of the reasons you bought the gun was because of your experience with Mr. Alexander?

Objection…sidebar

You read the Book of Mormon from cover-to-cover?  Yes.

You tried to be a good Mormon?  I did my best to appear that way.

You followed the rule of chastity based on what Mr. Alexander told you?  Yes.

The Book of Mormon talks about lying, does it not?

Objection…sidebar

This is a 3-ring circus; Martinez is slicing and dicing her big time!

You attempted to live like a good Mormon?  Yes.

The book of Mormon talks about lying?  Yes.

The mandate says you’re condemned to hell for lying!!!!

Doesn’t the book govern your life?  It’s not a yes or no answer.

Cheese and crackers, 2 sidebars in under 6 minutes!

The jury asked you about to why you didn’t call 911?  Yes.

You said it related to something that happened with Bobby Juarez?  Yes.

You called 911?  Yes.

Mr. Juarez hung up the phone?  Yes.

The police called back?  I don’t know who it was that called back.

So the police never come out?  Yes.

You told the jury that’s why you didn’t call 911 when Mr. Alexander abused you?  That was part of it.

You took pictures of your finger that you hurt at Casa Ramos?  Yes.

So, you could have taken pictures of the injury to neck?  Yes.

You could have taken photos of your other injuries?  No, I was ashamed of them.

Did you tell Det. Flores that Travis didn’t have a gun?  Yes.

So you lied to him?  Yes.

That was on June tenth after you initiated the call?  Yes.

OMG!  Now she says Travis loaded the gun in early December and took it some place with him.

Did you believe the gun was loaded when you grabbed it?  I didn’t think about it.

Didn’t you tell the jury you knew the gun wasn’t loaded?  I don’t know.

Which shelf did you step on to reach the gun.  She says it could have been one of two.

Ma’am, those are resting shelves?  Yes.

They rest on 4 metal pegs?  Yes.

Did you know they are rated for 40 lbs?  I don’t know what rating means.

So if you stepped on the edge of the shelf and you were worried for your life wouldn’t you have moved some items on the shelf?  Yes.

You stepped on the edge, wouldn’t it have collapsed?  I don’t know.

So you do know if you put your weight on the shelf?  Yes.

You testified you thought the gun was unloaded?  I don’t remember thinking about whether it was loaded or not, I didn’t want to shoot him.

If you thought it was unloaded, what where you going to do, throw it at him?

Sidebar….

Jodi looks like she knows her goose is cooked!!!

The light in the closet, was it on or off?  I don’t remember.

It’s her “understanding” that you have to put the finger on the trigger in order to fire it???

Holy guacamole, admitted she put her finger on the trigger and shot him in the head and killed him!

Juan says he has nothing else!!!!

Afternoon break called.

Back at 3:22.

Jury questions…

How many times did you see Travis’ gun?  3 times.  The day she found it, another while cleaning and the 4th.

What happened to the day she saw him load it?

If you felt threatened after shooting Mr. Alexander, why did you use a knife instead of shooting him again?  I’m not sure where the gun went after that.

Nurmi up…kill me!

Were you a perfect Mormon?  Nobody is.

Then you should speak to your bishop?  Yes, for serious transgressions.

And this has to do with what juror question?

Did you go to a bishop about the sexual transgression?  Yes, but wasn’t in a position to discuss the events of June 4.

Why didn’t you take photos of the neck injuries from April?  I didn’t want to remember it and didn’t want to show anything negative about Travis.

Martinez…

You told Ms. Laviollette you and Matt were broken up before he began seeing Bianca?  No.

Jury questions done.

3:40 Court recessed till tomorrow!

Kudos to Juan for doing a great job of pummeling Jodi!!!

Guess Nurmi HAS to put up a witness tomorrow…woot!

Advertisements
  1. Laine
    03/13/2013 at 7:04 pm

    Awesome! I especially liked the part where we got a whole new story!! He was in and out like quick silver She never saw the questions coming or where they were going! Nurmi spent so long objecting at one point the judge had to ask him, aer you objecting? whats your objection and he looked confused…lol Great day for JM, Great day for Travis!

  2. Laine
    03/13/2013 at 7:06 pm

    Thanks donchais! I love reading your summary! you must have very fast fingers to catch it all!! I especially love the OMG moments…it’s nice to know I’m not the only one having them!

  3. MMD
    03/13/2013 at 7:12 pm

    Thank God JA is finally off the stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can’t believe that we went through hell for five, count em 5 days, and on day 6 is so short!!!!!

    Love, love, love Juan Martinez!!! He rocks!!

  4. ritanita
    03/13/2013 at 7:14 pm

    The trial is still running on HLN and it is still on mute! My head went in circles today as Jodi made mashed potatoes of her testiphony.

    As for being a “good” Mormon, I was ROTHFL! The way she expressed it came out as though she was a good Mormon and only followed the rules she wanted to follow.

    Apparently, Jodi has no recollection of what she told her own experts! I’m looking forward to Alyce the DV expert. Martinez has cited her twice during her testimony.

  5. Observer
    03/13/2013 at 7:17 pm

    The good news is Jodi Arias has left the stand and we don’t have to listen to her lying anymore. The bad news is we have to Nurmi elicit lies by defense experts. I can’t wait for the state’s rebuttal case and Martinez closing statement. It will be awesome.

    All in all I think Juan Martinez did an excellent job of getting Jodi Arias to admit she pulled the trigger and shot Travis in the head. He also got her to admit the knife was not in Travis’s hand and the last time she remembers seeing Travis he was lying on his back on the floor with a bullet in his head.

    Donchais, you wrote: OMG! Jodi just admitted the picture of Travis all bloodied and on the floor happened BEFORE the shot?

    I missed that. All I heard her say was she didn’t know if the picture showed his throat cut.

  6. Laine
    03/13/2013 at 7:21 pm

    MMD :Thank God JA is finally off the stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can’t believe that we went through hell for five, count em 5 days, and on day 6 is so short!!!!!
    Love, love, love Juan Martinez!!! He rocks!!

    Amen to that MMD although I enjoyed watching her squirm today 🙂

  7. Laine
    03/13/2013 at 7:23 pm

    ritanita :Apparently, Jodi has no recollection of what she told her own experts! I’m looking forward to Alyce the DV expert. Martinez has cited her twice during her testimony.

    It’s certainly intriguing!! Now are the defence witnesses coached also??

  8. Dramsop
    03/13/2013 at 7:24 pm

    “If you thought it was unloaded, what where you going to do, throw it at him?”
    ….. OMG Gotta love Juan Martinez!!! YES!!

  9. MMD
    03/13/2013 at 7:28 pm

    NancyB :
    Willmot looks like she is either in mortal fear or else really angry. Anyone else notice this?

    Yup!!! I can’t figure out if they’ve given up or are totally frustrated/angry with JA.

    Anybody know who has been an attorney longer, Willmott or Nurmi?

    • donchais
      03/13/2013 at 7:53 pm

      MMD Nurmi’s been there a few years, Willmott came on a little over a year ago.

  10. Lisa M
    03/13/2013 at 7:41 pm

    This has to be my favorite line of the day. In response to Martinez asking why Jodi thought Travis would stop if he knew the gun was unloaded (something I’ve been wondering myself): she says, “It was just a hope because it was my philosophy that if I had to look at the end of a barrel of a gun, I would stop.”

    Her philosophy?!!!! OMG. Miss Smarty Pants has a philosophy about what to do when a gun is pointing at you?

    Then the other one that was good is when she said (and I think this was even in response to Nurmi’s question) that after Travis died, she went to her bishop about her “sexual sin,” but didn’t mention she killed Travis. Hmmm, murder, sex? Murder, sex? I wonder which one would be more offensive to God?

    What a ridiculous lie! Of course, she didn’t go to a bishop once Travis was dead. I’m sure there’s a reason they can’t subpoena the bishop, but there’s no way in hell she was interested in anything to do with the Mormon faith once Travis was dead! Not to mention the utter ludicrousness of the “confession of a sexual sin” without a confession of the murder. I hope, like one commenter said, that Nurmi and Wilmott seemed nervous. They should be!!

  11. MMD
    03/13/2013 at 7:57 pm

    kristin :
    Its good living in Hawaii because trial coverage begins at like 7:30 am here!

    You are so lucky Kristin for so many reasons. I have to wait until 2 p.m. and today it was close to 3 pm. So much for starting earlier at 10:00 today. Makes for a long, long wait in the morning and an even longer day because then I’m so wired by the end of the testiphony I watch all the shows on HLN.

    But a major plus today – JA IS FINALLY OFF THE STAND!!!!!!

    Gettin’ closer to lied, (fake) cried and gonna be fried! ROFL

  12. MMD
    03/13/2013 at 8:14 pm

    I

    donchais :
    MMD Nurmi’s been there a few years, Willmott came on a little over a year ago.

    Thanks donchais, but what I meant was who has been practicing law (admitted to the bar) longer, not attached to the psycho case.

  13. Observer
    03/13/2013 at 8:17 pm

    I don’t listen to any of the talking heads except Beth Karas. Tonight on HLN Karas said she was very impressed with Juan Martinez and that “with 300 cases under his belt Martinez is three steps ahead of all of us.”

  14. Observer
    03/13/2013 at 8:22 pm

    Donchais, is there something wrong with Word Press? The last couple of posts the words showed up run together. I didn’t type them that way. Also, I can only type a few lines and my screenname and email float up and cover the message so I can’t see what I am typing.

    • donchais
      03/13/2013 at 8:29 pm

      Not that I’m aware of, are you on a phone? Messages from you are coming through fine.

  15. NancyB
    03/13/2013 at 8:40 pm

    JM – You tried to be a good Mormon? JA – I did my best to appear,/b> that way. Ooops!!!

    Maybe the 1st time she’s ever told the truth on the stand.

  16. Observer
    03/13/2013 at 8:41 pm

    No, I am on a computer. I see now the spaces are back.

  17. Trial watcher
    03/13/2013 at 9:02 pm

    hello folks am I coming through?? I have read the days events in court, seen HLN & waiting for their new program this eve. I must say that JA manages to hold her own. I can’t imagine
    how she does it but she does.She’s just so evil, please please give her the death penalty.
    God forbid she ever got out into the real world again.

  18. MMD
    03/13/2013 at 9:33 pm

    Trial watcher :
    She’s just so evil, please please give her the death penalty.
    God forbid she ever got out into the real world again.

    Hey, I keep telling everyone that I’m ready to fire up the chair or give the injection myself. No charge 🙂

  19. kristin
    03/13/2013 at 9:39 pm

    Hallelujer! I can’t possibly sit through another day of this. JA has got to know she totally shit her bed today. Wurmi might have to call Jose Baez to ask for help tonight lol! JM did a great job. He knows how to deal w sociopathic lying scum. I have a question though maybe someone can give me their take. Jodi was completely obsessed w Travis. Why not get pregnant and tie him and his success down? I have such a hard time believing that they did everything but the regular dang dang. If you are gonna take nudie pic, phone sex, etc, how can one have the discipline to abstain from the V? So were they doing everything or nothing?

  20. Janet
    03/13/2013 at 9:48 pm

    (quoted from) Where Is She:
    I can’t count how many cross examinations I have done over the course of my ~2 decade legal career, but this is the most UNPREPARED I have ever seen a prosecutor.
    You cannot just come up with an OUTLINE of topics to cover.
    You have to put in a LOT of HOURS and CAREFULLY CRAFT your questions in order to CONTROL the witness and back her into the corner where you want to put her.
    @WhereIsShe- I myself have posted my frustrations with JM, (before you came to this site) but couldn’t get to that post anymore, but don’t feel alone…although donchais reassured me on his record, and style, I felt better. I too said “slow down” to gather his thoughts because he was showing she was getting to him, and throwing him off track, and making it seem he was disorganized. I am no attorney, just a blogger…. I sooo want to believe Juan walks on water when he does rebuttle and closes. Just have to wait and see but hopefully he will put it all together and paint that picture to the jury, that puts this “sorry excuse” of a human on the gurney with that needle!!!! And BTW, I saw the 48 hours on “the Stranger Next to me”, but it didn’t show much of Juan…

  21. Janet
    03/13/2013 at 9:53 pm

    Observer :
    Donchais, is there something wrong with Word Press? The last couple of posts the words showed up run together. I didn’t type them that way. Also, I can only type a few lines and my screenname and email float up and cover the message so I can’t see what I am typing.

    @Observer- I had that SAME issue! I thought it was my computer, but on 2 different ones it did that. That’s one reason I haven’t posted much today. I couldn’t see what I was typing!!! Hope it’s fixed soon. I miss my peeps! 🙂

  22. Janet
    03/13/2013 at 9:56 pm

    Observer :
    I don’t listen to any of the talking heads except Beth Karas. Tonight on HLN Karas said she was very impressed with Juan Martinez and that “with 300 cases under his belt Martinez is three steps ahead of all of us.”

    @Observer- I only listen to Beth Karas too! I love her!! Glad she said what she did! Please get to the closing!! I want to see Jaun “tell it like it is!!!!!!!!!!”

  23. Chrissie A
    03/13/2013 at 10:16 pm

    Brilliant recap as usual! Thanks Donchais!
    I’ve seen a couple of Tweets from reporters that are stating that the prosecution is seeking the death penalty based on cruelty not premeditated murder – Is this correct as I thought it was premeditated only?

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 7:32 am

      Chrissie A premeditated and especially cruel!

  24. Gigi
    03/13/2013 at 10:28 pm

    I thought when Martinez was asking the ‘did you cry as you were killing him?” questions, he could have also further asked, “Didn’t Travis beg you for his life?” “What did Travis say to you when you were killing him?” “What words was Travis trying to scream as you were killing him?” “Was he calling for his roommate/neighbours?” “Did he ask you to help him, call for help?” “Was it a horrible feeling to see him mortally afraid of you?” “What did you say to him as you took the final portrait photo that made him look at you like that?” “Was that just before you suddenly knifed him?” “Did you point the gun at Travis and make him pose for the shower photos?” “Which elements of the ninja story are actually true, for example the bit where he just wouldn’t die?” “Did you hate Travis while you were killing him?”, “Did you try to muffle the sound of the gun by wrapping it?” “Weren’t you afraid a roommate or neighbour might hear the gun?” “Did you park the rental car outside Travis’s house” or “where did you park the rental car”? because if it had been outside the house, surely a roommate would’ve wondered whose it was, and yet if she’d parked it around the corner, that goes to premeditation, right?); “do you think Travis slept with you one last time because he actually thought it would please you and he was giving you what you wanted and that it would make you go away?”

    I also reckon other good questions might have been,”Did your father sexually abuse you as well as hit you?? And you couldn’t explain that part because you didn’t want your other family members to know, and you knew people would say you were just copying Casey Anthony anyway and no-one would ever believe you? But isn’t that probably why you have a fragile or damaged self, where your self-esteem revolves around your appearance and sexuality, and you just couldn’t handle being rejected sexually when that was all you had to offer, or the best you felt you could offer; and when you were killing Travis, wasn’t your rage actually at your dad, weren’t you killing your father symbolically? Because it was such overkill. Don’t you admit Travis never deserved that rage?” And further, “Isn’t the reason you go after Mormons simply is because you are attracted to people you can’t have and for whom sex is taboo, because it says something about your attractiveness and power over men if you can make them disobey their vows and have sex with you?

    But whatever her psychological baggage, nothing changes the fact that this cannot be forgiven as self-defense, Travis did NOT deserve it, she did a hideous and evil act, she’s a cold-hearted lying killer, and none of us believe a word she says about anything. It’s just so fascinating to watch a pathological liar in full flight like this…

  25. Lisa M
    03/13/2013 at 10:49 pm

    NancyB :
    JM – You tried to be a good Mormon? JA – I did my best to appear,/b> that way. Ooops!!!
    Maybe the 1st time she’s ever told the truth on the stand.

    I noticed that!

  26. Lisa M
    03/13/2013 at 10:50 pm

    Dramsop :
    “If you thought it was unloaded, what where you going to do, throw it at him?”
    ….. OMG Gotta love Juan Martinez!!! YES!!

    Ditto!

  27. Chrissie A
    03/13/2013 at 11:00 pm

    Here’s the answer I received regarding the prosecution seeking the death penalty based on cruelty:
    ARS 13-1105(A)(2) then goes to sections 13-751 and 13-752 = arizona statue
    http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01105.htm

  28. NancyB
    03/13/2013 at 11:13 pm

    Anna Eaton – Agree with you! Alan Jackson is so awesome.

  29. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/13/2013 at 11:18 pm

    Ok….old ladies here have a question. We watch the trial on live stream at Wild About Trial (which is great compared to HLN!) and at one point JM was asking her a question about something…..sorry…..we don’t remember what the line of questioning was at the time (do we sound like JAs???….sorry….our memory fog is for real….it’s called old age!), anyway we do remember him saying to her, “oh you don’t remember….would you like me to show you what I’m talking about?” and then started to open a brown envelope at which time Nurmi objected AGAIN and asked to approach the bench! Now did we miss something??? When we went back to the screen all of a sudden JM gets back to questioning JA about something else and we never saw what came of the envelope or it’s contents. Were they presented??? Can anyone shed some light on this? Did anyone else see this?…..or are we just some whacky ol’ broads who imagined this???

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 7:37 am

      Ci Ci’s Circle They were photos that the Judge did not allow! You didn’t miss anything.

  30. Commerce1
    03/13/2013 at 11:20 pm

    Juan is amazing! Love watching him corner her.

    It is amusing to go over to http://www.jodiariasisinnocent.com and read some of the delusional comments there. Are they watching the same trial? The best is when the webmaster tries to boast that “The tide is turning in Jodi’s favor because the site has had over 23,000 visits.” LMAO! Just because people visit that site to see the freak show doesn’t mean the tide is turning in her favor. Besides, the only “TIDE” that matters is the tide of the jury’s opinion – not the number of visitors to a website.

  31. Lisa M
    03/13/2013 at 11:23 pm

    One thing I noticed that clearly indicates lying according to body language experts: Using the incorrect tense. When JM pressed Jodi about how much time it took her to get to the closet or something like that she said she didn’t know because she is running instead of saying she was running. She answered as if the whole thing was a hypothetical meaning it never happened

  32. Lisa M
    03/13/2013 at 11:33 pm

    I really hope JM is going to revisit that magazine code-writing incident in his rebuttal. And why would Jodi suddenly mention that Travis told her the gun was loaded in December? Doesn’t she know how obvious that is? I still can’t figure out the reason for mentioning a holster either. Wouldn’t the police have the holster if there was one? I mean, for a psychopath who has held her own on the stand pretty well considering how preposterous her story is, to add those two details does nothing to help her. Is she just unable to stop herself? Maybe the new lies are a result of a scrambled brain under stress. I wonder what kind of damage control Nurmi and Wilmott are going to come up with if anything.

  33. Schaeffer
    03/14/2013 at 12:27 am

    It is a good thing I am not in that courtroom, because I think I would literally throttle Jodi Arias. She argues about everything! I could rant and rave about so many things, but I will limit myself to this observation.

    Before this trial even started, when I didn’t know any of the details, I always found it extremely odd that whenever Jodi was asked any version of “Did you kill Travis?” or “Why did you kill Travis?” she replied “I didn’t HURT Travis/I wouldn’t HURT Travis/I couldn’t HURT Travis.” Not only is she avoiding answering the question, she is making a clear distinction between hurting his feelings and physically murdering him. In her twisted thinking, she believed then and still believes now that she took the high road because she didn’t hurt his feelings; the physical slaughter is completely irrelevant.

    Now that she has described herself as “hyper-literal” about using just the right word (even though she frequently uses not only the wrong word but non-words), her repeated insistence about not “hurting” Travis is even more creepy. It is as if she is whining “Try to see it from my perspective. I loved him, I was devoted to him, I wanted to marry him, I did and would do anything to make him happy, but he just wouldn’t love me back no matter what I did. He hurt my feelings by dumping me, by moving on to other women, by letting me know I was good enough for sex but not good enough for marriage. I had to make him see my point of view. I had every right to murder him because he wasn’t being nice to me. He just wouldn’t listen!” Now obviously, Jodi’s ideas of love are what any sane person defines as obsession, possessiveness, and an inability to accept any form of rejection, but it doesn’t alter the distinction she makes between hurting his feelings and murdering him.

    In another odd choice of words, when Jodi was first talking to Detective Flores on the phone and telling him she and Travis had an ongoing physical relationship, she asked him to “keep that quiet, because HE is a Mormon.” She didn’t say WE are Mormons. I don’t think she was ever serious about being a Mormon, she just converted to trap Travis. She plays the religion card as often as she plays the suicide card, and she is never believable in either case.

    In the long run, identifying herself as “hyper-literal” will come back to haunt her. Mr. Martinez has effectively demonstrated his proficiency in using her words against her, and she will eventually talk herself right into a lethal injection, if she hasn’t already.

  34. Bethany
    03/14/2013 at 1:16 am

    Favorite question from Juan Martinez: “what were you going to do with the gun if it was unloaded throw it at him?”

  35. SCK
    03/14/2013 at 4:10 am

    I am worried about this jury. Are they another Casey Anthony jury? Praying that isn’t the case.

  36. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 4:46 am

    Juan: “What were you going to do with the gun, throw it at him?”

  37. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 8:16 am

    A little background on all the attorneys. Another reason to respect and admire JM, as if I needed any more since we all know what I REALLY WANT TO DO TO JM 🙂

  38. ritanita
    03/14/2013 at 9:01 am

    Jodi is being accused of capital murder based on 2 theories. One is premeditation, the other felony murder. Nurmi tried to get the felony murder charge dropped. The felony charge is based on her being in the home after she was no longer a welcomed guest. He lost every motion/appeal on that. As a result, the jury can find her guilty based on either theory individually. So, if 9 jurors feel the case was premeditated and 3 jurors feel it was felony murder, it is a conviction.

    The cruel and heinous charge is the aggravator that makes the case a capital murder case. You have to have at least 1 aggravator from a list. Nurmi also fought this. The original judge said the crime was cruel and heinous based on the error by Flores stating that the gunshot came first.

    At the beginning of the trial, the ME testified that his report did NOT speak to the sequence of events and Flores testified he misunderstood what the ME said. Judge Stephens ruled that the sequence of events made no difference as to the aggravating factor.

    Nurmi appealed that decision and lost. He then appealed that decision to a higher court which refused to hear the argument. He’d also wanted the trial stopped until a decision was made. This issue may still come up in the future if she is found guilty and sentenced to death.

    I’ve left out some details, I’m just working from memory.

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 9:04 am

      Great summary, thanks!

  39. donchais
    03/14/2013 at 9:09 am

    ***This is from the wonderful lady who attends court:

    Janine thinks the jury is with Juan

    (Janine Driver is a well-known body language expert who is in court today.)

    So we took our seats and court started a little late (shocker) so we chatted and chatted. I asked her to look out for certain specific jurors I was curious about (CEO, Maureen).

    Once in the am session she poked me hard on the leg, later she told me what it was about…in one second she saw SIX jurors on the back cover their mouths at once. I will refer back to my notes to tell you the moment that was about.

    She studied the jury intensely. We talked about how JM seems SO much more different in person than on TV…she thinks it’s because his stature isn’t so obvious on TV. He’s quite short…like 5’5 ish. But on TV he seems huge. She thinks that’s why he is less aggressive seeming in person.

    She thought Jodi was smaller than she expected.

    She leaned over and said “they (the jury) are with Juan”. Meaning they are on his side. Yay…I’ve said that for weeks.

    She was making all of these diagram type notes..like circles with extensions to other circiles. She did express frustration at one point that Juan wasn’t finishing trains of thought…then later on further reflection, she remembered he does this then ties up those loose ends later. She said “he just wanted to make her say the words”.

    She was astounded at how bi***y Jodi was today.

    All Computer frozen stuff is so strong. how can she be frozen and throw away a gun, put gas in a can, clean up, pack etc etc

    “you remember key things that help you”

    This is a total RECROSS–awesome.
    l jurors attentive to JA..CEO is riveted on Juan.

    “a metal thing or a bullet that came out of it”. LOL!

    “I’m not asking you to know about the physiology of the brain” SNAP!

    Hammering her on the fog..she remains unruffled.

    This knife stuff is GOOD. She didn’t know where he put it but was able to quickly grab it. Rrrrrrright.

    Judge over ruling many of Nurmi’s objections today.

    He’s yelling at her now re; the knife and she is NOT shaking.

    “No no no, there is no guessing in here now”

    It’s possible travis grabbed the knife first? (wth?)

    Now he has the knife with him..ok.

    Nurmi has no idea she’d try and say T could have had the knife.

    “It would take time for you to go find that knife wouldn’t it?”

    So many Nurmi objections are getting over ruled (YES)

    Juan is on FIRE again!

    62 seconds!

    ***She was absolutely exhausted and will have more later!

  40. Rache
    03/14/2013 at 9:19 am

    What was the moment when six jurors put their hands over their mouths? I am really interested in that.

  41. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 9:19 am

    Oh this is awesome donchais!!!!!! Can’t wait for more!!!! Please thank your friend so much!!

  42. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 10:01 am

    Juan Martinez is winning the jury over because not only is he proving Jodi Arias is a lying cold blooded murderer but every time they see the fiery pint sized prosecutor and the Hulk Nurmi towering over him they think of Jack in the Beanstock and the giant and David and Goliath. They know the little guy won those battles.

    Plus Martinez Perry Mason style of questioning has brought out the real Jodi, the smug, superior, arrogant know it all pathological lying psychopath who thinks she can outsmart and out talk anyone. The more she talks, the more she makes up unbelievable lies and changes her story.

    If Martinez didn’t allow Jodi to talk and yelled, “You stole the gun from your grandparents, didn’t you?” and “You stabbed Travis in the heart didn’t you?” and “You stabbed him 29 times, slit his throat and shot him last didn’t you?” Jodi would be sitting up on the stand sobbing covering her face with her hands and hair and the jury would feel sorry for her and she would look like the abused victim.

    The more Jodi talks, the more she volunteers information Martinez can use against her like when she volunteered the story about peeking in Travis’ windows seeing him making out with another woman, crying to her father and confronting Travis the next day and when he grabbed her in the hallway, it was to comfort her, not kill her. That is evidence from her own mouth that she was a jealous ex girlfriend stalking Travis and he was not a lover not a fighter.

    The more she talks about the gun, the more she embellishes her story to make it sound even more unbelievable. On direct, all she said about the gun was she remembering seeing a gun when she cleaned Travis’s house and as she ran through the closet with Travis chasing her, grabbed it, pointed it at him and it went off. On cross, Martinez asked her if she confronted Travis about the gun and she said yes and he told her it was unloaded. When the jurors questioned her she said the gun was in a holster. Then it was in a box.

    Then when Martinez questioned her yesterday, she volunteered that she saw Travis load the gun in December and leave the house with it. When the juror asked how many times she saw the gun, she says three but doesn’t mention seeing it in December. Martinez appealed to her know it all personality by saying, “You know a gun won’t go off unless a finger is on the trigger?” and she said yes. Then he said, “You pulled the trigger and shot Travis in the head and killed him didn’t you?” and she said, “yes.”

    She told many different stories about injuring her fingers – even has a picture of her hurt finger. But none of any bruises.

    There were many Perry Mason moments and many more to come.

  43. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 10:05 am

    he was a lover not a fighter.

  44. hottopic08
    03/14/2013 at 10:20 am

    Observer :
    Donchais, you wrote: OMG! Jodi just admitted the picture of Travis all bloodied and on the floor happened BEFORE the shot?
    I missed that. All I heard her say was she didn’t know if the picture showed his throat cut.

    Observer, it was just before he began questioning her on the knife. Here is the breakdown:

    JM: You didn’t have the camera with you when you shot him, right?
    JA: I did not.
    JM: So this (referring to exhibit 162, the photo showing JA’s pant leg and sock foot with TA’s head and shoulder with blood running down his back) needed to have happened BEFORE you shot him, right?
    JA: That’s correct.

    I hope the jury caught that. I am very surprised that JM didn’t jump all over that. Surely he heard what she said and is saving that for rebuttal or closing arguments. I haven’t heard one talking head mention it, this is HUGE!

  45. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 10:38 am

    Thank you. Hottopic08. Even if the jury missed it like I did, Martinez will use it in his closing argument. He’s got enough ammunition against this dangerous beast to not only take her down, but to kill her.

  46. Rache
    03/14/2013 at 10:42 am

    Wow…just read above post. How is it that no talking heads caught that? I hope you are right, hottopic, in that JM will bring it up in closing. Also, did Jodi ever say she saw Travis load the gun and take it somewhere? I don’t remember. The reason I ask is that she told jury (in response to one of their questions) that she saw the gun three times: when she discovered it, when she was cleaning at another time, and then June 4. I know she said Travis had loaded the gun and then took it out to do something. How does she know that if she did not see it?

  47. Rache
    03/14/2013 at 10:43 am

    She also said Travis had loaded it in early December.

  48. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 10:46 am

    Hottopic, also if Martinez had jumped on it and said, “You just admitted you stabbed him first,” she would play victim and say he misstated the question, was deliberately confusing her just like Mean Old Pedophile Travis did, the fog was rolling in, she gets dscombobulated when under stress, etc. etc.

    He doesn’t want to give her any chance to take it back.

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 10:52 am

      Observer I know some folks take issue with Martinez’s line of questioning. What they forget is she has had over 4 years to practice her lies, they are down-pat and in sequence. Martinez is keeping her off balance by ‘jumping’ around…she cannot keep the story straight when he forces her to remember bits and pieces out of order. That’s where he catches her in her lies!

      I trust we are going to see one heck of a rebuttal that ties things up from Juan!

  49. 03/14/2013 at 10:59 am

    To don: TY AGAIN FOR YOUR RECAP OF THE DAY!!!! ♥

    To every1: Anyone care to make a friendly wager if court will start on time on time?? LOL

    Boy who the heck lit the fire under defense table? Poor JM couldn’t ask a question without an objection. Then when he did get to ask a question he had to deal with JA’S dances. Defense continually objected “asked & answered 3 times now judge!” when in reality that was partially correct… asked 3 times: YES answered: NOT USUALLY! Ya know JM aka The pitbull is a very animated character but I feel Flores (spelling?) & the pitbull really did show a ton of patience when dealing with her cuz i can count the fist pumps on my couch usually while shouting OH BS! & she said she ‘grits her teeth” well i pretty sure i need to make a dentist appt. Such a frustrating person. The one positive thing of being subjected to JA FOR 18 DAYS.. the longer they kept her on the stand, the more she had to retell her story & I am so amazed that right up to the last day of here testimony, she couldn’t resist embellishing or adding new information.
    Anyway..DON I will be looking forward to your comments on the other side of court.
    Have a good day all ♥

  50. Melissa
    03/14/2013 at 11:13 am

    I agree…I think JM has her number and knows exactly how to handle her. He knows what he is doing and will have it all laid out in rebuttal. He lets her ramble for more fuel to cash in on later! I have watched most of this trial…but am wondering if he let the jurors know that she only got her GED while in jail? I think they should know reading dictionarys is a hobby of hers to appear smarter…

  51. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 11:16 am

    donchais :
    Martinez is keeping her off balance by ‘jumping’ around…she cannot keep the story straight when he forces her to remember bits and pieces out of order. That’s where he catches her in her lies!

    donchais, you’re right on point! JM reminds me of a prize fighter who jabs here, there, over, under. He has his opponent constantly trying to anticipate his next jab just like JA is trying to anticipate which direction JM is going to go in next. It’s really easy to remember something in order, not so much when it is all in a jumble.

    JA has proven time and time again that even the juror’s questions completely throw her because they are not part of her “narrative” and she is constantly tripping herself up from a juror’s question five minutes before.

    She may be intelligent but she is not that smart. I agree with Jean Karas that JM is 300 steps ahead of everyone.

  52. hottopic08
    03/14/2013 at 11:18 am

    Observer :
    Hottopic, also if Martinez had jumped on it and said, “You just admitted you stabbed him first,” she would play victim and say he misstated the question, was deliberately confusing her just like Mean Old Pedophile Travis did, the fog was rolling in, she gets dscombobulated when under stress, etc. etc.
    He doesn’t want to give her any chance to take it back.

    You are probably right! I am sure he has an arsenal to unload during rebuttal and for sure closing arguments. Love this group!

  53. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 11:20 am

    Jigger :
    To every1: Anyone care to make a friendly wager if court will start on time on time??

    As donchais once said to me – sucker bet!

    Loved the rest of your post. Made me LOL 🙂

  54. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 11:22 am

    Donchais Re: Post #54: As Beth Karas pointed out Martinez has tried over 300 cases in 25 years, he “thinks outside the box” and he is “three steps ahead” of any legal analysts commenting on the case. Martinez has enough experience to know that the way to get a defendant to admit to what you what you want is to pretend like you are buying their BS story.

  55. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 11:38 am

    Observer :
    he is “three steps ahead”

    Oops, sorry about that! I knew that I should have double checked that quote. My bad!

  56. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 11:44 am

    hottopic08 :
    Love this group!

    Isn’t everyone great!! And it is all courtesy of our fearless leader donchais and her never ending advocacy for victims!

    Some of the other sites are downright scary. I ended up on one courtesy of a google alert and felt like I needed a shower after I got off! (and I was only on it a couple of secs)

  57. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 12:09 pm

    donchais :Observer I know some folks take issue with Martinez’s line of questioning. What they forget is she has had over 4 years to practice her lies, they are down-pat and in sequence. Martinez is keeping her off balance by ‘jumping’ around…she cannot keep the story straight when he forces her to remember bits and pieces out of order. That’s where he catches her in her lies!
    I trust we are going to see one heck of a rebuttal that ties things up from Juan!

    I absolutely agree donchais. He moves quickly and swiftly over different subjects often leaving the answer hanging with no supposed closure, it’s very clever way to deal with her. She is constantly wrong footed or trying to second guess him and it just leads to her making up more unecessary detail. He is superb!

  58. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 12:20 pm

    Don’t worry guys Gods got this….he will issue out the Karma….and if we are really lucky….he’ll let us watch 🙂

  59. Lisa M
    03/14/2013 at 12:24 pm

    Right before Martinez made the comment “What were you going to do throw the gun at him?” she said that Travis had at another time loaded the gun and told her it was loaded. Im surprised he didn’t pounce on that. It seemed like he wanted to get to his comment so much, he let it go. I mean, isnt that brand new testimony? Shouldn’t he have questioned her on it? I hope he’s going to come back to that in his closing argument.

  60. NancyB
    03/14/2013 at 12:43 pm

    Yes JM’s style is working well. Donchais is right that he’s found the way to trip her up since she’s had 4 yrs to get her entire version down. You know another lady murderer who used “the gun just went off” was Betty Broderick. She was unsuccessful in using a battered women’s defense at both trials. JA’s psychologist’s website states that his specialty is in sexual issues and that he can assist the defense in getting a “more favorable outcome”.

    http://svpexpertwitness.com/evaluations.asp

  61. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 12:45 pm

    Lisa M Re: Post 65. Don’t worry. Martinez knows exactly what he is doing. After Jodi testified that she saw Travis loading the gun and leaving with it in December, Martinez said, “That’s a new story. This is the first time we are hearing this.” The jury got the picture that this is another whopper made up to benefit her. From their questions, you can see the jurors can see she changes her story every time she is asked a question. A juror even asked after that how many times she saw the gun and she didn’t mention Travis loading the gun in December.

    In his closing statement, Martinez will stress that she lies, changes her story and conveniently has a memory lapses all to benefit herself. He will list every one of them.

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 12:50 pm

      Also, he couldn’t address it any further without objection because it was beyond the scope of the jury questions!

  62. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 12:55 pm

    When Jodi added the new “fact” (lie) about having allegedly witnessed Travis loading his (non-existent) gun in December, 2007… I was shocked that JM didn’t follow up with:
    “OH… so the gun MIGHT HAVE STILL BEEN LOADED when you say you grabbed it from the top shelf of Travis’ closet on June 4, 2008, is that what you’re telling us?”
    “In fact, according to YOU, it WAS loaded, right?”
    “Because, otherwise, you wouldn’t have SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD, right?”

    “Ma’am… you know that a LOADED GUN is a LETHAL WEAPON, don’t you?”
    “And you knew that on June 4, 2008, didn’t you?”
    “So, what you did on June 4, 2008– according to YOU.. to YOUR VERSION ofthe facts…. is that YOU POINTED a LOADED GUN, a LETHAL WEAPON, at Mr. Alexander, correct?”

    That alone is sufficient to prove PREMEDITATION for FIRST DEGREE MURDER under AZ law, even if anyone on the jury doesn’t get the fact that she used the .25 she stole from her grandparents’ home a whole week in advance.

    In other words, PREMEDITATION can be proved in 2 different ways:
    a) showing her INTENT to kill,
    OR
    b) showing the person had KNOWLEDGE THAT HER CONDUCT WILL CAUSE DEATH.

    I’m sure—or at least hoping–that he will address these points in his closing, but to have what we call a “clean record” (for purposes of avoiding objections during closing and also for purposes o defending a win on appeal).

  63. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 1:03 pm

    Nancy – I just read this Richard Samuels’ CV and noticed that he is a “Court Appointed Psychologist in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Hopefully this means that he and JM have had prior courtroom experience together and that JM knows how to handle him as well.

    I REALLY hate experts who can be paid to say whatever needs to be said to help the side doing the paying. It’s an insult to professionals throughout their field. Time will tell if he is one although the quote of getting a “more favourable outcome” speaks volumes!

  64. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 1:14 pm

    Also, folks… Try not to get too annoyed by Nurmi’s objections.
    It will be really difficult for Jodi to argue what we refer to as “IAC” –“Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”– on appeal if she is convicted.
    Frankly, were he to have sat there silently yesterday, she would have a great shot at such an argument on appeal.

    Nurmi is fulfilling a professional obligation that ALL lawyers have, i.e. to “zealously” represent his/her client.
    Plus… I have no doubt that the jurors are just as annoyed by his constant interruptions of the testimony for objections and side bar requests.

    His snail-paced style is, in and of itself,something that most jurors won’t appreciate, particularly where they had to endure days and days of it, all for WHAT??! FOG, SMOKE & MIRRORS! DOUBLE SPEAK, ADDITIONAL FABRICATIONS & COMPUTER FREEZE!!

    While his failure to OBJECT could form the basis of a future IAC claim, fortunately, his personal “style” cannot.

    I honestly get the sense that he has lost all patience with Jodi himself.
    She IS an INFURIATING person.
    I have no doubt that her parents were routinely PROVOKED by her, starting in childhood.
    She takes great pleasure in being PROVOCATIVE.

    She also takes great pleasure in APPEARING to KNOW IT ALL, hence the ridiculous use of vocabulary on the stand.
    LITTLE DOES SHE KNOW… this does NOT assist her “poor me”/”innocent” image in the least!
    When witnesses use words and terms that jurors don’t know, they tend to get OFFENDED (which is why a good lawyer will have his/her experts communicate in everyday language, except when necessary, and only then if the term is explained in readily understandable language).
    Jurors–like all of us just walking around, living our lives–do NOT like to be made to feel INFERIOR.
    I would also imagine that a life-long Mormon on the jury would be rightfully OFFENDED by Jodi’s PRETENSE of KNOWING ALL ABOUT MORMONISM (when it is crystal clear that she only “converted” to TRAP Travis).

    DONCHAIS–
    Sorry this took so long, but let me just express sincere gratitude to you for your killer recaps! Your paring down of the exchanges between JM and Jodi is far superior to listening to the sometimes-muddled-mess that is the reality of SOME of their exchanges.

  65. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 1:18 pm

    MMD :Nancy – I just read this Richard Samuels’ CV and noticed that he is a “Court Appointed Psychologist in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Hopefully this means that he and JM have had prior courtroom experience together and that JM knows how to handle him as well.
    I REALLY hate experts who can be paid to say whatever needs to be said to help the side doing the paying. It’s an insult to professionals throughout their field. Time will tell if he is one although the quote of getting a “more favourable outcome” speaks volumes!

    MMD-
    He is court-appointed to assist in the representation of criminal DEFENDANTS, so yes, let’s hope that JM has encountered him before.. OR that JM CONSULTS with the other assistant prosecutors in the office who HAVE encountered him before.

    From the guy’s website alone, I could have a field day. http://svpexpertwitness.com/evaluations.asp

  66. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 1:22 pm

    Last night I watched the first “HLN After Dark: The Jodi Arias Trial” show which has their own 12 person jury chosen from the live audience. The juror’s job last night was to determine if Jodi was guilty of lying about the gun. Viewers also voted.
    Vinnie Politano, Jean Cesarez, Beth Karas, Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell and Dr. Drew spoke to the jury about the evidence, Joey Jackson argued for the defense and Ryan Smith gave instructions to the jury.
    The jurors asked questions. Like with the real jury, some of the questions sounded strange, such as “Did Jodi ever fire a gun before?” and “Was the gun stolen from her grandparent’s home loaded?”
    In the end, the jury all voted guilty, believing if Travis had a gun his shooting buddy Dave Hall would know about it and ammunition would have been found in the house and there is no coincidence that she shoots her lover with the same caliber gun as the one stolen from her grandparents’ home the week before.
    Ninety seven per cent of the viewers believed she was lying about the gun. Just from the questions, I know the real jury is not going to buy her gun story.

  67. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 1:37 pm

    From local AZ reporter

    Lissette Martinez @martinezliss

    #jodiarias briefly walked in and back out of room, she’s wearing a navy blue polo shirt, she was smiling and upbeat

  68. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 1:42 pm

    WhereIsSHE :
    From the guy’s website alone, I could have a field day. <a

    You and me both. LOL Yeah, I read the entire website.

  69. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 1:48 pm

    Well this should be a long and boring day of testiphony with Wurmi dragging it out so that the jury has the weekend to think about Jodi the victim.

  70. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 1:49 pm

    We’re on Wild About Trial and from the “tweets” (we love all the new words we’re learning from this internet stuff!) from the trial observer it looks like court will be starting shortly. Like many others, we no longer listen to the Yappers on HLN. We like Beth Karas and only watch Dr. Drew. They’re more our style and not all the yelling that goes on with the other Yappers! Vinnie Politan and JVM……ay yi yi!! Stick a sock in it!! Jean Casarez….pick a side and get your facts straight!

    By the way…..one of our grandkids is bringing us a book for all these abbreviations some of you use….we’ve tried to figure them out ourselves, but they’re not making any sense to us! “Snarky” was new to us so we just figured it’s the equivalent to “Smart Ass” and we figured out LMAO…..but what is ROLMAO??? Did we get those initials right? What does that mean???

    Oh…court started….catch you all later!!

  71. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 2:11 pm

    Defense trying to “ambush” the prosecution today. While JM’s claim that this expert is not qualified to discuss the brain anatomy is a major stretch, SOME of his other points–about being effectively “ambushed”, as we say, are valid.

    Time Magazine articles?? Really???
    Eyeroll.

    Judge is not thrilled with the defense, but sadly only grants a short period of time for JM and his expert to review the new “ambush” material.

  72. kristin
    03/14/2013 at 2:12 pm

    You all made some excellent points that were missed by me. I agree that she was never serious about becoming a Mormon for salvation but rather for Travis. They way she keeps adding details the longer she speaks is proof enough that she is making it up as she goes. An honest person would tell the exact story the same way with intensity every single time. This trial is dragging along and making me weary!

  73. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 2:17 pm

    Geeeezzzz…..someone lit a fire under Wilmott’s flat ass….or she had too much caffeine before getting to court!! Well court is on hold now until 1:15. Apparently the material their Specialist was going to present is new and was not given to the State until today (sound familiar?!) Nurmi was presenting new evidence throughout JA’s time on the stand and the court was allowing it. Here we are again….with them presenting new articles that were not presented to the State prior to trial. Apparently their expert put together a presentation with current news articles and it sounds like he put it together to match JA’s current testimony. For this reason JM is objecting to the new information since his last interview with this guy was in 2011 and not of this information was present at the time. The judge has given the State time to re-interview the specialist prior to court starting again. Nice try Defense!

  74. donchais
    03/14/2013 at 2:18 pm

    Major, sleazy ambush by defense…court in recess till 4:15 eastern. I’m flabbergasted!!!

    Edited to add: An article in Time magazine does not a peer reviewed article make!!!

  75. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 2:22 pm

    Boy….that woman in the orange jacket sitting behind the defense….yikes….did that jacket come with batteries!!

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 2:29 pm

      CiCi’s Circle, lol that’s the mitigation specialist for the defense!

  76. Melissa
    03/14/2013 at 2:26 pm

    I cant believe this! Defense admitted to finishing powerpoint this morning..how can the Judge accept this in? I should have expected this last minute ambush..they are grasping at straws…JM interviewed Samuels last in July 2011..but Samuels has kept interviewing JA sinc then..of course his views would have changed! I hope the Judge rules against this! And tells them NO Time Magazine expert testimony! How ridiculous! That is where he does his research?

  77. 03/14/2013 at 2:27 pm

    donchais, thank you so much for your updates. Your blog is how I followed the trial. I tried to watch it, but JA irritated me so much, I thought I would throw my computer through the window! ritanita, thank you for all of your well thought out posts, I truly enjoy them!

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 2:31 pm

      Tezi, glad to see you my friend!

  78. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 2:28 pm

    I’m not surprised donchais. This defense case is in trouble and Wurmi is attached to the team. Nothing a team he is on pulls, surprises me.

    As for Willmott she keeps saying she is not going to “ask the question, I know better than that”. She may not ask, but the expert can insinuate and the jury will probably ask the question.Total backdoor tactics!! It appears that WIllmott and Wurmi are cut from the same cloth.

    And truly, depending on a Time Magazine article………………. did they really expect that to fly?????????

  79. donchais
    03/14/2013 at 2:33 pm

    HEADS UP: Cannot confirm, just told argument will take place at 1pm MST or 4pm EDT, supposedly on record!

  80. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 2:36 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :
    .but what is ROLMAO??? Did we get those initials right? What does that mean???

    Rolling on (or over)(floor) laughing my ass off. I still don’t know what half of them are either. 🙂

  81. Janet
    03/14/2013 at 2:38 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :We’re on Wild About Trial and from the “tweets” (we love all the new words and we figured out LMAO…..but what is ROLMAO??? Did we get those initials right? What does that mean???
    Oh…court started….catch you all later!!

    Cici’s Circle- You are too funny. You always have me ROFLMAO, which means Rolling of the floor laughing my ass off!!

  82. donchais
    03/14/2013 at 2:41 pm

    Just in from ritanita!

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/#ixzz2NXaf7WOt

    That’s the jist of this “new” defense.

    Jodi was prepped just for this and used all the buzz words. Phoney as a $3 bill!!!

  83. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 2:47 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :
    Boy….that woman in the orange jacket sitting behind the defense….yikes….did that jacket come with batteries!!

    I’m glad she didn’t wear it yesterday and clash with the greenies 🙂

  84. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 2:49 pm

    Ci Ci… “New” evidence was presented during JA’s testimony, i.e. she told a heap of stories the State was not privy to beforehand, but that is permitted. She is a FACT WITNESS, and moreover, she is the defendant and (supposedly) all of her stories were related to her general claim of “self-defense” (although much of is really stretched the boundaries of the LEGAL definition of RELEVANCE, IMO).
    Just for general clarification:
    It’s a horse of a different color when it comes to EXPERT WITNESSES/TESTIMONY/EXHIBITS. We have a PRE-TRIAL PROCESS called “DISCOVERY” wherein the parties are permitted to DISCOVER certain information BEFORE TRIAL so that they may adequately PREPARE for trial, including the filing of pre-trial motions (e.g. Motions in Limine, which are aimed at PRECLUDING certain portions of anticipated testimony and/or exhibits for LEGAL REASONS, and which the judge rules upon BEFORE TRIAL), and for purposes of adequately preparing for CROSS-EXAMINATION.
    In general, the parties are ENTITLED to KNOW the OPINIONS any and all experts will express at trial AND THE BASIS FOR SAID OPINIONS, so that the lawyers can review the materials/opinions and conduct research into said opinions, including discussing said opinions, materials, etc with their own experts.
    This takes place in criminal and civil (non-criminal) trials across the board (though there are different procedural rules of discovery relating to criminal vs. civil matters).

    Experts are NOT permitted to express an opinion regarding the ULTIMATE ISSUE OF FACT, because that invades the province of the ULTIMATE TRIER OF FACT, i.e. the JURY (in a jury trial) or the JUDGE (in a “bench” trial). (Had JA “waived” her RIGHT to a JURY TRIAL, this would be a “bench” trial, i.e. one that is conducted simply before a judge.)

    From the oral argument which just took place in court, it is clear that JM filed a pretrial Motion in Limine asking the Court to preclude this expert from expressing certain opinions (those that would invade the province of the jury, such as whether JA acted in self-defense), and that the Motion was apparently granted.

    It appears that the defense is trying to “back-door” such opinions in through the reference to “REACTIVE” crimes, even though Wilmott (or whatever her name is) claims she knows not to ask the ultimate opinion question of her expert.

    The judge is allowing JM to review the new materials with his expert right now. Not really ideal from a lawyer’s perspective.
    It takes time to carefully review new material, particularly in the scientific realm, and to carefully form proper objections to the admissibility (with relevant caselaw to back up the objections) and/or to carefully craft areas of cross-examination on those new materials and opinions.

    The fact that this is a Death Penalty case makes it far more likely that the judge will allow the defense to proceed with all of it.
    In general, if JA wasn’t facing the DP, and a jury conviction on 1st deg M would simply equal a LIFE SENTENCE, the judge would be far less accomodating.

  85. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 2:50 pm

    OMG they want to use an article that was published on January 16th of this year by a so called “expert”, From what I’ve seen so far, this looks like the endless crap emails I get from my very Republican cousin (no offense to Reps just my favourite cousin Rob).which I simply delete!

  86. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 2:50 pm

    ritanita :
    Jodi is being accused of capital murder based on 2 theories. One is premeditation, the other felony murder.

    Thanks so much for taking the time to summarize this!!!

  87. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 3:04 pm

    The article is interesting but there is a problem…..the example they give is a police officer who is being shot at….Jodi Hairyass didn’t have a gun pointed at her, quite the opposite! and she has yet to prove her life was being threatened….so just another BS opinion tailored to try to suit her really….

  88. Bethany
    03/14/2013 at 3:09 pm

    Familyoflaw: The one thing I’ve never encountered in a courtroom in nearly 30 years, is a defendant like JA. Whether we want to admit it or not, she IS intelligent. JA is beyond manipulative, she has some type of borderline personality disorder that mental health professionals will be studying and writing papers on for the next 50 years!!!!!!

    I agree with you. I think that Jodi will become a special homework assignment for many students in future for behavioral science. She is very intelligent. However, I feel like she does have moments where she doesn’t think before she speaks

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 3:14 pm

      If her lips are moving, she’s lying!

  89. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 3:22 pm

    Ya know, if she hadn’t brought a gun, which she stole from her grandparents, then she would not have been in imminent danger or the resulting fog (according to her). Here’s a novel idea, maybe JA should have just stayed in Yreka and left TA alone like he asked. I don’t remember anyone putting a gun to her head to drive 1,000 miles to Mesa.

    The judge is going to allow this because it is death penalty. But there is no explanation for any of her actions imo. Sometimes a bad seed is born and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

  90. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 3:25 pm

    Just quickly glanced at the article linked above re: Your Brains in a Shootout.
    Does the defense REALLY want to rely on THAT??
    Seems to me that it could be used to the State’s advantage fairly easily!
    Travis was the one who was blindsided and who didn’t react as he might have anticipated he would when attackedc.
    Jodi was the ATTACKER WHO WAS AT A TOTAL ADVANTAGE.

  91. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 3:26 pm

    donchais :If her lips are moving, she’s lying!

    How do you see her as intelligent? Because she can hold a conversation? Because she has learnt a few big words? Lets remember she also misinterprets some of those words! She dropped out of school and read some books, she parrots dress and behaviour as can be seen by the way she dresses and acts like her attorney (willmott not Nurmi!) I don’t find her “intelligent” her behaviour is almost childlike in its mimicry. She is in a fight for her life…..and this time she doesn’t have a gun or a knife. She’s had 4 years to prepare for this. She’s not smart or intelligent…if she was…she wouldn’t be there! and would have played the self defence card long before she lied through her teeth! Just my opinion….

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 3:27 pm

      Laine T’wernt me who said she is intelligent!

  92. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 3:27 pm

    Crap, Sorry donchaise I hit the wrong quote! that was obviously in reply to Bethnany!

  93. NancyB
    03/14/2013 at 3:32 pm

    Ritanita – Thks for the link to the Time article. It’s a joke that this PHD psychologist would think to add such a salacious article to his testiphony. It’s an interesting article but I think it’s totally inappropriate to this case.

  94. Anna Eaton
    03/14/2013 at 3:37 pm

    We all know ad nauseam what JA claims to have on Travis, as far as some sexual stuff. The rest is unbelievable and uncorroborated, so I’m not even going there. And I believe she encouraged and seduced him into those sex fantasies. She’d been practicing sexual behavior for a long time by then and how better to set her conniving talons into her prey?

    What I want to know is what Travis had on JA. In a text message he threatened to expose things to people she professed to really care about. He said he was going to tell about all the “psycho things” she had done. So, what would that mean? Not that Cancun wasn’t a motive, but after watching this trial and knowing other details outside the trial, imagine how JA would react if Travis threatened her over something she didn’t want exposed. I just think Travis’s threat could have been more of a decisive trigger than Cancun. That said, it does seem like these “psycho things” Travis wanted to expose would have been brought to light if known by the prosecution. Could it be the secrets of JA were so secret that only Travis knew about them? Just one example, what if JA had practiced witchcraft in some way that Travis knew about. I mean I don’t know, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibility. And why would Travis tell anyone when they already hated her enough? Maybe HE was trying to practice the law of attraction?

    There’s no doubt Mr. Alexander was seduced by this femme fatale and he may have enjoyed the wild stuff. NO justification for murder. If anyone was in a fog, it was Travis. The fact it took him so long to totally distrust JA is, imho, another reason to believe he would never have been the aggressor. I think at one point he told someone she wouldn’t hurt a fly. That’s willful blindness. He may have become somewhat addicted to the sex, but he was starting to hate the grief more and more. By his other texts you sense he was starting to wake up and get it, but it seems he did not know how to remove himself from her web. Since the dawn of time, women have been able to do this to men. Ick.

    One key fact I hope will be brought up at some point for the jury to hear: Travis’s friend said JA actually blew out the transmission in the BMW Travis gave her in effort to help her leave (=get the hell out of) Mesa and move back to Yreka. Folks, if you’re not going to threaten to kill someone over that, but threaten to kill them for accidentally dropping a camera a couple feet down – that landed on a bath mat and probably wasn’t damaged at all – you either have a split personality issue, or you’re a man who was murdered in cold blood. As the prosecutor would say, please tell me ma’am, which is it? You can’t have it both ways!

    And another btw…who would be more upset by someone dropping a camera: a so-called professional photographer, or a motivational speaker, businessman, & amateur photographer? Hmmmm, I don’t know. I’m feeling foggy.

    And to Family of Law who wrote, Anna- yes! It could be a 300 level class entitled “JA Fog Disoroder PSYCH 301″ (it could also be taken by computer science majors- studying JA’s “computer glitches”)
    I think JM deserves a medal for not “lungeing at JA, like a linebacker”!!!!
    Who thinks we’ll see Matt M on the stand for the State?”
    Awesome classes. I’m gonna sign up for the computer glitches course! Happens to me all the time, but for some reason I don’t murder people while I’m having my senior moments. And I sure do hope Mr. Matt comes to bat for Travis, as a man should. To me, that would be the coup de gras!

    Please forgive this ridiculously long post. I have had too much time to think about this trial as it moves on like an emaciated snail. In fact, last night I dreamt about it. Help me!

  95. jad
    03/14/2013 at 3:38 pm

    omg — it’s an ambush. I just saw the HLN TV moderators speaking of instruments, etc. They are way off base. This has nothing to do with anything of substance. The use of these words in the slide show is a ploy to admit this so-called expert’s reasoning for a diagnosis that has never been seen by the State and that is merely meant to come in to confuse the Jurors. It is my belief that the defense ran the gist of the basis for the defense presentation to be given by the expert witnesses by this room the other day.

    I sent a response to greykitty [in a personal comment], but it was probably too long for you to post. It was not felt necessary to respond to Salvandorun, because neither the defense presentation of Dissociative Identity Disorder which is known as the abbreviated DID (and more commonly called by its former identity Multiple Personality Disorder) nor the more colloquial Mixed Personality Disorder (also known as Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified) would be able to fly. The presentation would have been brand new (untimely) and not reviewed by the State. It was not believed that the defense would try to hide it in a Trojan Horse presentation — all wrapped up, with a pretty bow.

    The prosecutor has to knock this one out of the park. The defense is aiming for one single Juror who will get lost in the details and become so woozy as to be unable to convict. This is dirty pool. However, I suppose in America, where justice is judged by what one can afford (which includes lawyers like Jose Baez and that ilk that get many more [substantially wealthy] clients when witnessed as getting off the guilty parties), it is to be expected that a criminal lawyer will operate on the outer bounds of ethical sanity and reasonableness.

  96. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 3:38 pm

    Here is the other def expert’s website http://www.AlyceLaViolette.com and here is her c.v http://www.alycelaviolette.com/Alyce-LaViolette-cv.pdf

  97. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 3:40 pm

    Laine :
    The article is interesting but there is a problem…..the example they give is a police officer who is being shot at….Jodi Hairyass didn’t have a gun pointed at her, quite the opposite! and she has yet to prove her life was being threatened….so just another BS opinion tailored to try to suit her really….

    Experts or no Experts……bottom line…….. her version does not match or FIT the Forensics or common sense. They can’t explain her story and only know what SHE WANTS them to know. They’ve tried to fit their articles to match her stories and visa versa. They’ve hitched their wagons to a dead jackass!!

    That’s our Old Lady common sense of it all!

  98. 03/14/2013 at 3:40 pm

    She tries to come off as intelligent and well-spoken, but if you listen to her in conversation with Detective she just sounds like a Ditz. She probably looks up words she reads then uses them. Her frequent use of words like contemporaneous when talking about killing Travis is just off somehow.

  99. jad
    03/14/2013 at 3:44 pm

    The comment was left on day 30 (not the continued page). This is the post of which my above comment refers:

    Salvandorun 03/11/2013 at 1:27 am # 390

    Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is the only explanatory psychological mechanism by which Arias’ contrary facts, lies, prevarication, memory fog experiences and other assorted problematic behaviour she expresses in court, can be understood – other than the one explanation that seems dominant in the minds of commentators – that of a personality disordered vengeatrix.

    The DID hypothesis however is ruled out by the overwhelming evidence supporting the criteria compliance for a Mixed Personality Disorder.

  100. hottopic08
    03/14/2013 at 3:46 pm

    I’ll take discombobulated for $100 please! I noted that Jodi must have graduated from the “C” section of the dictionary, although we were subject to at least one “contemporaneously” yesterday. She has now moved on to the “D’s” with her newest word “discombobulated”. Thank goodness she is off the stand! Perhaps one of the Defense experts will touch on JA’s state of discombobulation :-0

    — Discombobulate is a fun, fancy word for “confuse.” If something has put you in a state where you don’t know up from down and you can’t spell your own name, you may be discombobulated. —

  101. Nienna
    03/14/2013 at 3:48 pm

    There are some new evidence photos added to HLN slide show. Looks like numbers 143-180. If anyone hasn’t seen and are interested…

    http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2013/01/03/jodi-arias-evidence-photos-nancy-grace-mysteries-day-4

  102. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 3:50 pm

    Professional complaint against Richard Samuels – entering into relationship with client beyond scope of professional conduct – conflict of interest, crossed boundaries:

    http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/action/20000313_35SI00106000.pdf

  103. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 3:52 pm

    Here is a quote from the Time article:

    In moments of extreme stress, the brain does not allow for contemplation; it does not process new information the way it normally does. The more advanced parts of the brain that handle decisionmaking go off-line, unable to intervene until the immediate fear has diminished.”

    IMO, this decribes what most likely happened to TRAVIS’s mind upon Jodi’s initial attack, which is why HE is the one who ended up with ALL of the injuries and ultimately lost his life to her vicious and atrociously cruel stabbing/slashing frenzy.

    How this is intended to explain Jodi’s CLEAR DECISION TO (ALLEGEDLY) TAKE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS I am at a loss.
    Remember, Jodi described some pretty specific and seemingly rational (in terms of life-saving purpose) actions: roll over/away; get to her feet; run down the hallway; PURPOSELY DECIDE NOT TO LEAVE THE BEDROOM because he had caught her in that hallway before (as IF someone would think of that, in the moment, LET ALONE BE ABLE TO RECALL THAT SPECIFIC THOUGHT amidst a total FOG years later, EYEROLL)–and instead enter the closet; go for the (make believe) GUN on a TOP SHELF that was not loaded (or that was loaded… or that she didn’t know if it was loaded…EYEROLL ENCORE)…OH.. close the closet door behind her when she first entered and before she magically tippy-toed up the flimsy shelving to get the loaded or unloaded gun (out of a box? a holster? maybe? yes? no? perhaps?)..blahblahblahhhhhhh.

    But to a greater issue: since when do PhD’s in Psychology RELY UPON OPINION PIECES in TIME MAGAZINE to form the basis of their PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS????? HUH???
    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/#ixzz2NXoF03Zz

  104. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 3:57 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :

    <STRONG Experts or no Experts……bottom line…….. her version does not match or FIT the Forensics or common sense. They can’t explain her story and only know what SHE WANTS them to know. They’ve tried to fit their articles to match her stories and visa versa. They’ve hitched their wagons to a dead jackass!!
    That’s our Old Lady common sense of it all!

    Sounds like my kinda common sense ladies! I couldn’t agree more!

  105. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 3:59 pm

    donchais :Laine T’wernt me who said she is intelligent!

    Sorry donchaise… I totally misquoted! Less haste more speed I guess!! Well….I never said I was smart either lol 🙂

  106. jad
    03/14/2013 at 4:01 pm

    This is part of the comment I tried to post on day 30, which, at the time was a response to what was thought posted by [greykitty] someone close to the defense [as it addressed the issue given the social worker]:

    greykitty at 6:43 A.M. on 03/08/13 [# 69], at 4:27 P.M. on 03/08/13 [# 112], and most especially at 2:02 A.M. on 03/09/13 [# 162]:

    You have hit all of the talking points outlined in the Jodi Arias defense. You have even provided for us the proper term to use to explain the problem she has when blacking out (which is a condition you so kindly told the group was called event specific psychogenic amnesia that you document mostly affects women), and you told us that you are still in treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, even though it has been ten years. This is to back-up your claim that you believe what Jodi Arias has said “about Travis’ abuse” “that there was a dark side to Travis that played a part in setting this very sad killing in motion”. You base this on what you have described as a man who “only slugged me in the face once”. For a guy that you say is “emotionally and verbally abusive” which you need us to know is “very powerful and damaging”, the word you have chosen to use seems out of synch. That [type of fisticuffs] sounds like something thrown in a barroom brawl, not the one and only time that an abuser raises his hand to strike a victim of domestic violence. Domestic violence does not start with a bang. It begins with light taps, a slap, a push, maybe a shove — not a SLUG that can only occur with a BALLED UP FIST. (btw — If this is Jodi I’m writing to or any of her defense team, you don’t really have to answer.)

    I’m not expecting an answer from the prostitutes that portray themselves as expert witnesses. The first two self-professed experts in their fields have already had a write-up that I am waiting to post about their sworn testimony. I just have not posted yet because I am waiting for the other two, so that it can be shown that every word matches the added words of the other expert witnesses for the defense, while not matching any of the pertinent facts of the case that are stored in the record. It is amazing how expert witnesses can be so in synch with each other and not in synch at all with the evidence. But, in this case, all of the persons must have taken some lessons from the biggest whore on the team or possibly the whore’s doppelganger. Jodi Arias would be able to teach much about the whoredom she spews because of the e-mails to innocent victims (like Lisa Daidone [nee Andrews — after all, it can’t be the person referred to as John Doe since that is only a Kevin Spacey character and the delivery in this case could show no head in the box]). It is such a pity that the State of Arizona is on the hook for the expenses of the experts in such a dog and pony show. You seem to infer in your commentary that it is all right that the criminal lawyers have put the State in that bent-over position like the State is 1950s Cuba.

    The money that the defense team has exacted from the State is ridiculous. It is an absurdity that there is a Trial to consider the fate of a person [questionable descriptor for Jodi Arias, but we have to go with that] who has confessed to murder and admitted taking her victim’s life by stabbing him in the heart and multiple areas of his body, slashing his throat and almost decapitating him while simultaneously [or is it contemporaneously] slicing and dicing the victim, and shooting him in the head. What makes this an absurdity is that there is nothing to corroborate the tall tales told by little Ms. Henny Penny. Jodi Arias has lied repeatedly in police interviews and on the witness stand under Oath about all sorts of things including material matter in the case. The only hope held by her criminal lawyers (who have helped drag out the case in anticipation of the constantly added-up $250 hourly payout (which at the rate that the criminal lawyer has continued has raised the cost to the State exponentially) would be if the expert witnesses paid by the State not to lie while presenting evidence decide it is not a lie when they re-lie what they were told by little Ms. Liar, Jodi Arias.

    Those re-lies could match what greykitty has set up as the case for the defense. It certainly would not be for the prosecution. In the first posting greykitty accused the room of having their minds made up before the Trial started. Ouch!! Put those claws back in there greykitty. You made it seem as though those leaving comments sounded so stupid that it offended your sensibility, as you believed that all of those commenting on the Trial had to be watching something else because no one agreed with you. You were sincere in the hope you expressed (because you told us so) which was your “hope the jury is with-holding judgement until the trial is over”. If they’re not, that would be grounds for a mistrial, and you can take it from me and probably most of the people watching this Trial that no one wants to see a mistrial and most people would not interfere with a Trial to force their own judgment on the triers of fact. I will agree with the comment you left, although not to what you applied it to, but “that is not justice”.

    In your second posting greykitty, you define where you are coming from, which is that you “see things differently based upon my life experiences and having been a social worker who worked with abused women”. Your question can not be answered because I don’t know what possessed you to ask if anyone in the room does not think you are “watching the trial everyday and reading and researching”. Are you that intent because you can relate to the lies told by Jodi Arias and need to be able to discuss them with specificity [as though you were on the stand or would know someone who could take the stand]? It seems that way because of the way you describe yourself, in your third posting, which is almost identical to that which Jodi Arias has said happened to her. While staying in a relationship peppered with “Emotional and verbal abuse”, the allegations of abuse given [by you, about your own abusive relationship] are “I was married to a very emotionally and verbally abusive man”, “he would suddenly go off and call me foul names and yell until my head would just start humming and I would go into a kind of trance”, “He would grab me around the throat and leave bruises on my arms where he would grab me”, “then out of fear I just went along with everything just to keep the peace”, “am still being treated for PTSD”, “I also shake, even in mild confrontations, but like Jodi I just tense up and grit my teeth and try to control it”, and the kicker “JM makes me shake and space out too and I’m not even on trial”.

    Violence is inexcusable whether it is a male violating a female with abusive conduct or a female violating a male with abusive conduct. Nonetheless, there is something worse than when you talk about a man you were with grabbing you around the throat and leaving bruises on your arms or other fits of pique, and that is fudging the story about an episode like that. You would understand that because of your position — as you stated in your second and third posts, of being a [COUNTY] “social worker” (using the descriptive phrase “county social worker” on the third post). As a “county social worker”, do you work for the State [with all the benefits of a State employee], or are you called out by the County? Is the agency you provide through a contracted status, or is that through the Court system, similar to a Guardian Ad Litem? If so, you might not be familiar with the entire spectrum of domestic violence because males are still the usual gender busted when arriving at the residence of a dueling duo or pulling up at a bar where there is a team fight raging. Usually that is so because the situation gets out of hand when the male jumps in to protect his wife or girlfriend (from arrest), even though it is the wife or girlfriend abusing the male. A domestic violence call is wacky. In your position as a “county social worker”, you must be familiar with local Law Enforcement. Just ask them about it. Moreover, for the same reason that the number of arrests would be towards the male, the numbers of reported psychiatric problems reside with the female. The report has been made that this may be due to selection bias, as males who could be diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (which is 5 – 9 times more common in females) may end up in the criminal justice system rather than hospitals. This is also true of other diagnosis.

    I just slid that fact in there for no apparent reason. That is almost like your statement that “There are studies which show that 40% of persons convicted of a violent murder cannot remember the worst part of the violence for years after it happened”. That did not seem necessary either. Anyway, you were describing yourself as “having been a social worker who worked with abused women” [in the second posting] as well as “I dealt with a lot of abused women as a county social worker” [in the third posting]. In your position, it seems that your prescient thought processes have been able to be utilized in advance to save abused women [everywhere you see them] because you made note that “usually I could tell they were abused before they ever reported it”. Next, you go on to say “We all have different personalities and different levels of coping skills”, which I gather means you are using yours to make a judgment call, when declaring “If I were in their place I would be very upset and angry but I don’t think it serves any good purpose to sit in court in full view of the jury and glare and eye-roll”, when speaking of the family members of Travis Alexander, but oddly not making any kind of comment about the family members of Jodi Arias (who have actually been seen many, many, many times whispering in their snarkiest fashion, giggling and joking in the Courtroom, although it beats me why, since it is their daughter/niece/loved one that faces the death penalty — maybe they act with such contemptuous conduct because they will be glad to finally be rid of the demon relative from HELL and the terrible shame she has brought their family). Next, without giving a thought to the demeanor of the spectators sitting behind the defense table that have appeared insolent, arrogant, and exuberant when the talk on the stand is about a bloody ambush of an unsuspecting man in his own residence by an uninvited guest you berate the Judge who has given generously to the defense, in your wishful thinking that “The judge should put a stop to it but she is obviously not going to”.

    Your fault finding is rather off base. Your very first message to those in the room was against us for making up our minds before the Trial started (which of course is not true). Then, you moved over to insulting the Jury with the thought (that could be prophetic, since you have used your powers to look into the presence surrounding all women who you can save and a man who was not worthy of saving) that the Jurors must withhold Judgment until the Trial is over. Before the close of your third and last message, you have moved on to an affront against the senior Officer of the Court, the Judge [who by the way is a woman who you should be thinking of saving, since the gender does not change with the addition of a robe — unless you have trouble with authority figures — then that would be a different diagnosis for you or about you, wouldn’t it?].

    Most people could understand that there would be a problem with someone jumping to a conclusion without knowing all of the facts. However, in this particular case, the prosecution has provided quite a bit of evidence that unquestionably points to the guilt of Jodi Arias. While she might have only been convicted of first degree murder (without the death penalty sentence) or even the lesser second degree after the close of the prosecution’s case, that is no longer a possibility. The reason for that is that Jodi Arias took the stand, and she provided her side of the truth in as many ways as she could imagine. Once she started explaining how nasty and mean Mr. Alexander was because he called her a sociopath and warned her to stay away from him or else he would tell her family how crazy she was, the Jury perked up. Then, she painted Mr. Alexander as a sexual deviant and had a tape that she had recorded to play for all the world to hear (that demonstrated her sick enjoyment of all forms of sex she had said were deviant only because Mr. Alexander had role played those forms with her), which the Jury heard.

    The Jurors are not a dumb lot. They know that a person can hang up the phone if the conversation bothers them, and the Jury would know that Mr. Alexander never consented to the taping of his private phone sex conversation. In addition, it is possible that at least one of the Jurors took notes about the manner that the phone call had been recorded. This had been explained when Jodi Arias was on the witness stand first thing in the afternoon on the seventeenth day of the Trial. Mr. Alexander had already been primed for the sex-talk, but she said she had to hang up to call him back because her mood was either bad or the corrected sad. Additionally, the Juror would understand that even though Jodi Arias said Mr. Alexander “liked to play it back”, he could not have done that because he never saw her after she received that phone from Gus Searcy, and playing the taped recording would have been unintelligible. As it was, it took quite a bit of money in order for a specialist in his field to enhance the voice so that it could be played in Court. In spite of her bad mood, Jodi Arias listened to and participated in sex-talk (which, according to Jodi Arias, herself, was between two consenting adults) on her phone that she could have hung up at any time. She was one thousand miles away in another State, living in the family home with her grandparents. She had nothing to fear. Of course, if she wanted the goods on Mr. Alexander because she had stated they had prepared to do the sex tape, she had to follow through. A person can not hold a blank tape against a person for any future blackmail scheme or any other form of extortion. The tape actually has to have something [that’s right SOMETHING] on it that is embarrassing, that will humiliate a person [like a purported straight-laced Mormon], that will hold a person out for ill repute. A character assassination can not be had if there is nothing in existence to use against the person’s character. So, Jodi Arias had to participate in the little scheme she had dreamed up. This kind of shows that Jodi Arias was playing Mr. Alexander for a fool. Whatever game was being played, it was not one wherein Mr. Alexander would take advantage of Jodi Arias.

    So, greykitty, we are back to square one, which is that you made multiple declarations that “Yes I do believe her about Travis’s abuse”, since “I do think she emotionally blacked out for a period of time” because “even though Travis was well liked and I do feel for his family, my instincts tell me that there was a dark side to Travis that played a part in setting this very sad killing in motion”. There were your prescient thought processes again (first [in your role as a social worker above] helping the lives of all women you knew were abused before they even knew it and then in the previous statement when seeing the demon in this man who you envisaged had brought about his own death). It follows that you would want the Trial Watchers to let it be, due to the facts that “I just think that the system must be allowed to work” and “I just think the verdict should be based upon a fair evaluation of the facts presented by both sides without undue influence from the sidelines on either side”. I don’t think you will find an argument there. I believe the argument is in the way that the criminal lawyer presents the defense case with expert witnesses that are nothing more than prostitutes for the cause of the defense who feign at testifying as experts in their field — while knowing they are under Oath when testifying falsely.

  107. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 4:05 pm

    Laine :
    Ci Ci’s Circle :

    <STRONG Experts or no Experts……bottom line…….. her version does not match or FIT the Forensics or common sense. They can’t explain her story and only know what SHE WANTS them to know. They’ve tried to fit their articles to match her stories and visa versa. They’ve hitched their wagons to a dead jackass!!
    That’s our Old Lady common sense of it all!

    Sounds like my kinda common sense ladies! I couldn’t agree more!

    That’s the kind of common sense that the jury should and I hope uses!!!………………………………………if we ever get to that point…………………

  108. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 4:06 pm

    Anna Eaton Re: Post 105, what Travis was talking about was her stalking behavior, crawling in his doggie door, hiding in his closet, following him on dates, slashing his tires, hacking into his bank account, email and Facebook, sending threatening emails and texts to his female friends, etc. That’s why he called her an evil sociopath.

  109. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 4:12 pm

    OMG. JM is not picking up on the judge’s cue:
    He should be arguing that this is NOT RELEVANT. PERIOD.
    Instead he is arguing 401/403, i.e. even if RELEVANT, it is PREJUDICIAL.
    NONONO, Juan!
    Argue that it is NOT RELEVANT!!

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 6:09 pm

      Juan knows what he’s doing…he’s way ahead of everybody!

  110. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 4:38 pm

    At least Wilmott has a normal questioning pace and pleasant demeanor. She is the best thing Jodi has going so far.

    OK. So he moved to AZ to develop a practice based solely on getting paid to testify in court, mainly on behalf of criminal defendants. We got it.

  111. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 4:41 pm

    Ummm… in this case, he would be paid by the STATE, no matter what, so this isn’t one of those cases where he would tell defense counsel he couldn’t be of help/ to not waste monetary resources, etc.

    OMG. Jodi told him the NINJA story. Told her OWN expert LIE #2.
    EYEROLL.
    She is PATHOLOGICAL. Absolutely, positively PATHOLOGICAL.

  112. Janet
    03/14/2013 at 4:53 pm

    The defense is trying to pull a fast one now with Samuels. First he speaks about his background with Robert Woods (Johnson) hospital. Terrible hospital. My moher was there and caught an infection that almost killed her. THEIR psycologist said to LET HER DIE! Well not so fast, the opinion changed when they found out my husband is an atty. I grew up in NJ. Trust me I know these hospitals and I also know these experts. Although my husband was a criminal defense atty (mostly mob guys and drug lords all over the country) I have seen these “experts” in action. They say what “they need to say”. my husband never told anyone what to say, they already knew, also thi sexual dysfunction is BS. I knew a guy that had a PHD and was no more qualified to be a “sexual dysfunction DR????” than I am. Usually I would be on the defense but this is such a heinous crime even my husband is against them. Now he talks of his expertise from PTSD seriously? In and out of it on a dime? Not really. NJ is the LAST place I would look for an expert. You can buy them in a heartbeat. I hope the jury doesn;t buy any of the junk science he will testify about. This broad was jealous that he would use her for sex and look to marry a “nice” girl and she is more of a psychopath than select memory loss. What a crock.

    • janet
      03/14/2013 at 7:43 pm

      Donchais…this comment was from a Janet. I am Janet & I did not post it. How can someone have my I.d. also??

  113. NancyB
    03/14/2013 at 4:53 pm

    I think this is the psychological test he mentioned. He said that he did a few tests but Willmot changed the subject after his answer that he did the Millon.

    http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/millon-clinical-multiaxial-inventory-mcmi-iii/

  114. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 4:55 pm

    We’re listening to the Expert right now……aye! On a side note….does anyone think he looks and sounds like Gus Searcy?!!

  115. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 5:04 pm

    I think she has used some of her vagina voodoo on this sexpert.

  116. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 5:05 pm

    Hmmmmm……he’s saying that humans and animals get a rush of adrenaline and go into fight or flight mode……ahhhh….you mean like TA when he had all those defensive wounds and left smear marks on the wall as he made his way down the hall to get away from his attacker….yea…ok we see how that theory applies to TRAVIS….not her!!!

  117. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 5:07 pm

    And by the way…..can he also show us on that fancy picture of the brain he has up where she stabbed him in the head!? What parts did SHE damage Mr. Man?! Can you point to them with that fancy little red light you’re using?!

  118. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 5:08 pm

    WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
    Willmott asks Dr. Samuels about memory issues. He says a bunch of big words in a run on sentance.

    WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
    Dr. Samuels seems to really enjoy discussing his profession on the stand. I wish I enjoyed listening as much. #JodiArias

    In other words, blah, blah, blah (my words) 🙂

  119. Rache
    03/14/2013 at 5:09 pm

    Everybody here probably knows that during court (while not on the stand) Jodi is drawing and then selling her artwork on e-bay. While this guy is testifying, she looks like she is at her artwork again. Now and then she looks up…. I imagine she is bored as she is not the center of attention anymore.

  120. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 5:18 pm

    From what we’re hearing in technical terms, it sounds like this doctor may have told JA what he thought may have happened to her mentally and she took his words and built her “I don’t remember” statements around what she was told by the doc. This way when the doc came up her story and his would match perfectly. You can’t convince us that she hasn’t done this (remember the fog?). He even used a term “offline”…..hence her reference to being like a “computer” and it shuts down! We’ve had some pretty bad apples in my family and they made jokes out of the psychologists they spoke to. They manipulated them badly with their lies!

    Please…….give us a break!

  121. katz63md
    03/14/2013 at 5:37 pm

    I’m sorry, but an “expert” relying on Time, of all the possible publications? Why not the medical journals?? Shouldn’t he be pushing his own research? Anyone can sit up there and say they read this article and this is how it is. Doesn’t make them an “expert” Ugh! I understand that he has a very impressive pedigree, but this testimony (can’t quite say it is testiphony right now) is not helping her at all. Can’t wait to hear what JM has to say to him.

  122. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 5:50 pm

    OMG. Have you all noticed how Wilmott touches/adjusts her glasses??
    Jodi was TOTALLY PARROTING her all through her testimony on the stand.

  123. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 5:55 pm

    Chrissie A :Professional complaint against Richard Samuels – entering into relationship with client beyond scope of professional conduct – conflict of interest, crossed boundaries:
    http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/action/20000313_35SI00106000.pdf</

    He HAD to leave NJ, because his ability to review cases and testify was strongly compromised by the above unprofessional conduct. Too easy to take him apart on his credibility after the professional misconduct, i.e. trading psych services for dental work from a dentist in a custody dispute, and allowing that personal relationship with the dentist to influence/determine his findings in the custody dispute. NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY, ETHICAL NO-NO.

    Took him YEARS to develop work in AZ, and no longer "treats" anyone. Only does forensic work now.

  124. Observer
    03/14/2013 at 6:02 pm

    Did anyone else notice that Dr. Know It All started to say he was concerned about her home invasion story that he and Wurmi went to Jodi and Wilmott cut him off and said, “You confronted her?” Is it possible that Dr. Know It All was going to say Wurmi and he told her he thought she had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Stress Disorder and Amnesia and so she changed her story to fit the symptoms.

    In a prison as big as Phoenix they would have a library so Jodi could easily have looked up the symptom and tell a story to fit the symptoms.

  125. WhereIsSHE
    03/14/2013 at 6:06 pm

    Meanwhile.. someone who INTENTIONALLY MURDERED her ex-bf in a jealous rage could also suffer from PTSD,–particularly if she did it in such a violent and heinous manner– so who cares if that’s his diagnosis.
    Not saying I buy it. Far from it.
    Just saying it doesn’t really matter whether he came up with this diagnosis or not.
    Just like the (fake) memory loss.
    Someone who wants to evade criminal liability can just as easily claim no memory/fog rolling in and out when convenient.

    His testimony can be handily dealt with on cross.

  126. Laine
    03/14/2013 at 6:21 pm

    I especially liked the testimony that 30% of criminals have memory loss when it comes to a violent crime….Hahahaha…NEVER! must be why our jails are full of innocent people!!! What BS!!! Yes Judge of course I remember…oops now I get the DP…then no…I have total amnesia…..

  127. Chrissie A
    03/14/2013 at 6:21 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :
    We’re listening to the Expert right now……aye! On a side note….does anyone think he looks and sounds like Gus Searcy?!!

    Ha ha!!! I tweeted that asking if they were relatives 🙂

  128. katz63md
    03/14/2013 at 6:28 pm

    Ci Ci’s Circle :
    We’re listening to the Expert right now……aye! On a side note….does anyone think he looks and sounds like Gus Searcy?!!

    I was thinking the exact thing!

  129. Cats
    03/14/2013 at 6:45 pm

    So, were using this whole PTSD (which she gave to herself) as the rationale for her lies? How does this prove self-defense?

  130. NancyB
    03/14/2013 at 6:57 pm

    So who cares if she was dx. with PTSD? I don’t care if most premeditated murderers can be dx. with this. So what? Interesting that he hasn’t discussed her diagnosis as a sociopath/psychopath who is a true danger to others. Samuels is a sleazy guy. Reimbursement not good in Az compared to NJ for clinical practice so he limits his practice to only forensic.

  131. Anna Eaton
    03/14/2013 at 7:01 pm

    When JA’s doctor discussed the fight or flight instinct, all I could think of was how badly Travis experienced exactly that. She had to overpower a strong male who was fighting for his life. Wow.
    My question to the doctor: if time seems drawn out while a person is in this state, how long do you think those 62 seconds felt like to Travis while he was being stabbed almost 30 times?

  132. Ci Ci's Circle
    03/14/2013 at 7:02 pm

    WhereIsSHE :
    OMG. Have you all noticed how Wilmott touches/adjusts her glasses??
    Jodi was TOTALLY PARROTING her all through her testimony on the stand.

    We noticed that right off the bat! Not only that….Wilmott constantly chews on the inside of her lower lip as she’s listening to the doc give each answer. Her lower lip is going to be gone by the time she’s done with this trial!!

  133. 03/14/2013 at 7:02 pm

    I wish

  134. Marilyn N
    03/14/2013 at 7:04 pm

    Chrissie A :
    I think she has used some of her vagina voodoo on this sexpert.

    Yes, I’m surprised she didn’t break out in a scream with an orgasm!!

  135. 03/14/2013 at 7:06 pm

    She threw the gun in the desert. Did she throw it out the window as the car was moving? Did she pull over and walk into the desert. Did she bury it?

    Also, she didn’t leave bloody shoeprints like OJ, so the fog obviously allowed her to slip off her socks and wash herself up. That fog is pretty smart.

  136. 03/14/2013 at 7:17 pm

    WhereIsSHE :
    OMG. Have you all noticed how Wilmott touches/adjusts her glasses??
    Jodi was TOTALLY PARROTING her all through her testimony on the stand.

    Saw that gesture from Wilmont early in trial then Jodi started doing it. The glasses OMG

  137. 03/14/2013 at 7:18 pm

    And I’m not trying to take away from real amnesia, but I’ve been in combat in Afghanistan. I’ve fought for my life. I’ve been in mortal terror, and I can tell you every second of it.

    • Laine
      03/14/2013 at 7:23 pm

      OMG I’m so glad you said that! First of all how dare anyone compare what she did to what a soldier does serving his country! And secondly I’ve been in a several highly stressful abusive situations and remember every single detail! What a crock!!!

  138. Anna Eaton
    03/14/2013 at 7:22 pm

    bubblebutts :
    And I’m not trying to take away from real amnesia, but I’ve been in combat in Afghanistan. I’ve fought for my life. I’ve been in mortal terror, and I can tell you every second of it.

    Thank you for your service. And I really appreciate you making that point!!

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 7:23 pm

      I second that!

  139. Anna Eaton
    03/14/2013 at 7:24 pm

    Double ditto!

  140. NancyB
    03/14/2013 at 7:41 pm

    bubblebutts :
    And I’m not trying to take away from real amnesia, but I’ve been in combat in Afghanistan. I’ve fought for my life. I’ve been in mortal terror, and I can tell you every second of it.

    YES!

  141. donchais
    03/14/2013 at 7:45 pm

    Must be another Janet, the Gravatar is different, so the id is different. The ip addys are different too.

  142. Rache
    03/14/2013 at 8:06 pm

    Chrissie A :
    I think she has used some of her vagina voodoo on this sexpert.

    Love It!!!

  143. MMD
    03/14/2013 at 8:15 pm

    janet :
    Donchais…this comment was from a Janet. I am Janet & I did not post it. How can someone have my I.d. also??

    The regulars here know the difference janet. I immediately scrolled back and saw that the “gravatar” (new word to me) were different shape and colour.

    • donchais
      03/14/2013 at 8:23 pm

      Both have different ip addys also…I can check all that stuff!

    • janet
      03/14/2013 at 8:40 pm

      MMD & Donchais- thanks. I might just start over & pick a different name. I hope it will let me. I’ll let you know when I do it. Probably not until tomorrow.

      • donchais
        03/14/2013 at 9:01 pm

        email at the blog and I’ll keep an eye on it! {{{hugs}}}

      • JanetO
        03/15/2013 at 9:37 am

        donchais- well I’ll just add an O to my name, n see if that works..

  144. 03/14/2013 at 8:19 pm

    And her domestic violence defense is an insult to true victims everywhere.

    I’d like to point out that the Dr. testifying said he was fond of the DSM number one. And if I’m not mistaken, that is the same DSM that described homosexuality as a mental illness. Which if I’m not more mistaken has been disproved…just sayin’…

  145. Pam
    03/14/2013 at 9:15 pm

    Dr Samuels is not the upstanding dr he tries to protray..
    Pam Cushion http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/action/20000313_35SI00106000.pdf
    6 minutes ago · Like · 1
    LAWSUIT AGAINST DR SAMUELS HERE IN JERSEY. HOPE MR MARTINEZ GETS HOLD OF THIS ASAP

  146. jad
    03/14/2013 at 9:44 pm

    Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! WhereIsSHE [at # 114], and this should anger all Officers of the Law or in our military forces who have suffered complications of [or brought on by] PTSD. Just the thought that Jodi Arias can claim such a defense is outrageous (when Officers who serve continue to do their duty to the best of their ability, under the job stressors and added complications from the criminal element). How many other groups of people is this woman going to outrage. She has used the battered women’s syndrome as a defense, thereby embarrassing all women and men who have been abused; and, she has used the child abuse excuse, ridiculing those who have experienced all forms of child abuse yet were able to live a decent life and contribute to a loving family; and, her criminal lawyers seem to have tried to make a convincing argument for borderline personality or other diagnoses to avoid punishment for her crime thereby taking dignity of those with problems who have gathered the strength to face any obstacle and overcome (while tackling the diagnosis). Mercy! Now, she has brought on a defense using Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, of which is based on an example that again would show that she was the aggressor and Travis Alexander an innocent victim. This is maddening.

    Yep. Laine [at # 96] is absolutely right. The article is irrelevant to the claim made by Jodi Arias and her band of criminal lawyers. NancyB [at # 104] also is in agreement when finding the article totally inappropriate to the defense in this case.

    I thoroughly read that January 26, 2013 dated, article titled Your Brain in a Shootout: Guns, Fear and Flawed Instincts, by Amanda Ripley, at that Time Swampland web site (that we are finding out is the gist of the “new” defense for Jodi Arias). That article points out that the brain (of most people) in life or death situations begins to manipulate the perception of time — thus slowing down motion when a man flees down a hallway corridor to escape an assailant with a gun. (In reality, judging by the facts of the case as a whole [not piecemeal], isn’t that what Mr. Alexander would have had to experience?) The article continued that the brain reprioritizes in a flash to shift finite resources to the cause of survival. It mentioned that an attacker can experience similar changes as the person she is attacking, although diminished because the attacker has the advantage of not being taken by surprise. So, if testifying truthfully, this PhD on the stand would have to speak of the facts and the evidence surrounding Jodi Arias when relating this new found knowledge in the article — for that matter, Jodi Arias would have to be identified as the attacker, since she could not be the person running down the hallway to escape the person holding a gun or shooting a gun. The evidence and her own words demonstrate that she would have been that person that experienced less trauma than her victim, Mr. Alexander — since she was the attacker and the aggressive person of the scenario wherein she admitted to holding a loaded gun that was pointed directly at him.

    The article further reported that, in moments of extreme stress, the brain does not allow for contemplation; it does not process new information the way it normally does. The more advanced parts of the brain that handle decision making go off-line, unable to intervene until the immediate fear has diminished. Thus, the victim [of that example in that story] was lucky because he did not freeze or shut down entirely, as it was reported many people do in life-or-death situations. (In this instance, the victim was able to grab a gun out of a holster to protect himself, which it seems Jodi Arias would like others to believe she did when wrestling a gun out of its holster during her fight or flight moment.) The article documented the fact that a person who had been attacked (NOT an attacker) would begin to shake afterwards, just as this hapless soul (who had started to shake in the aftermath, riding in the ambulance to get medical treatment for injuries sustained in the attack) had read people tend to do as a result — because of an adrenaline surge.

    The State of Arizona, where the case against Jodi Arias has been filed, had been mentioned twice in this article. The first time, when mentioning Alexis Artwohl, co-author of the book Deadly Force Encounters and a veteran police psychologist and trainer, who has recommended a weeklong program with a requirement that participants meet minimum performance standards (when discussing firearms). The second when mentioning the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, which happened in just 15 seconds, before ordinary civilians tackled the gunman [Jared Loughner], who was clearly the aggressor [holding a gun], who had indiscriminately attacked innocent human beings.

    Although the article was pessimistic about the protection of lives by a mad stalker [or a person with a vendetta who could carry a gun or would be able to reach a gun], the article’s message was that it could be possible that it was not too late for the would-be victims of those crazy sociopaths and other criminal element that wanted to threaten or attack any individual innocently going about his business [in places like the State of Arizona]. Law Enforcement has learned that most shooters belong to the communities they target and go through predictable phases before they kill anyone, from simply fantasizing about the murders and acting on a simplistic scheme to meticulously planning a murder (which could involve others in the plot). The PhD, that brought up this article as an explanation for the behavior of Jodi Arias, must explain how what is being presented would minimize her sinister actions and logically contribute to her defense, when violating the sanctity of the home of a person [known to be Travis Alexander] when invading it and ambushing this home owner to brutally slay him. That is, if this expert witness really wants to interpret this article correctly and properly identify the victim of such a heinous crime. He would also have to identify who the aggressor would be of the two people involved, where the outcome was the death of one of the individuals. This PhD would have to properly depict the role of the woman he was being paid to describe, in accord with the medical literature together with the combined evidence and the REAL facts of the case. If he can’t properly perform his job and testify truthfully under Oath [about this material matter], he should be charged with perjury and never ever be allowed to testify in a Court of Law again, for any reason (and face possible sanctions including loss of license by the regulatory agency with oversight of his position or in a civilian Court).

    This capital murder Trial (as would any murder Trial) is costing the taxpayers of the State of Arizona a small fortune in a time of deep concern for the almost empty pockets of the taxpayer (and an ever enlarging debt senselessly brought on by those [like certain criminal lawyers] who do not believe they have to pay back into the system for game playing and an intentional diversion of public funds). Similarly, this outlandish and despicable characterization of justice in the Jodi Arias case that has brought defamation of the victim to new heights has blackened the eye and besmirched the reputation of upright defense counsel, who might, some day, find themselves unintentionally preserving the rights of a criminal at a high cost to the State. Nevertheless, a Trial has had to go forward to protect all of the citizenry of all of the other States, not just Arizona, and of all of the [Rights of the] people including the accused. However, Arizona should not have to be punished for protecting the citizens and the States when trying to keep a psychopath off the streets in order that someone like Jodi Arias does not repeat the crime elsewhere with another hapless individual. Law Enforcement knows that this behavior repeats itself and realizes the job is thankless when criminal lawyers can hire a mouthpiece [like the PhD] to take the stand to contradict an action made in good faith for good cause to keep a law breaker from violating another person’s rights (that might even take his life, like that which occurred with Mr. Alexander). Even so, Law Enforcement Officers remain to battle against some of the consequences of the job, such as PTSD in order to keep themselves and others safe and secure.

    The criminal lawyers should not use a corollary of the job for a Law Enforcement Officer to make up a defense for a psychopath. The innocent should be protected to the fullest extent available, not the guilty. However, if guilty as charged, a criminal lawyer should not jack-up the State [or threaten to work to release these criminals onto the Streets to take advantage of law abiding people] but offer the best defense available to get the best sentence or least form of punishment according to the circumstance, not use the funds of the State to put on a Chicago Billie Flynn “razzle-dazzle defense” with a circus atmosphere. A criminal lawyer should not use an article about Law Enforcement and certain injuries that befall an Officer as a defense for a psychopath. It is an absolute absurdity. If this PhD can not PROPERLY use material when trying to paint his best portrait of Jodi Arias, this PhD should not use it. Law Enforcement should not be given the same status as a psychopath and made a mockery. That is true injustice, as it was injustice with that which was committed against Travis Alexander when he was stalked and then butchered by the same party, Jodi Arias and then continued to be targeted and abused [even after death] by those associated with Jodi Arias.

  147. Karen
    03/15/2013 at 12:04 am

    I don’t know how I missed this watching the trial but according to the Expert sex can cause amnesia, from now on when I want to forget something I think I will give that a try.

  148. Family of Law
    03/15/2013 at 1:07 am

    WhereIsSHE :
    Also, folks… Try not to get too annoyed by Nurmi’s objections.
    It will be really difficult for Jodi to argue what we refer to as “IAC” –”Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”– on appeal if she is convicted.
    Frankly, were he to have sat there silently yesterday, she would have a great shot at such an argument on appeal.
    Nurmi is fulfilling a professional obligation that ALL lawyers have, i.e. to “zealously” represent his/her client.
    Plus… I have no doubt that the jurors are just as annoyed by his constant interruptions of the testimony for objections and side bar requests.

    Where Is She

    That was so interesting to hear your expertise- I agree that even Wurmi Nurmi is getting frustrated by his infuriating client! I think I caught him looking dumbfounded and exacerbated when she suddenly, out of nowhere, added, “oh, well I saw him loading the gun in December 2007, and took it somewhere”. He must have been thinking, “oh, fantastic, now I have something else to explain”!

  149. Family of Law
    03/15/2013 at 1:51 am

    On Dr. Drew tonight: re: “Dr.” Samuels testimony- Quote of the night came from Dr. Drew’s guest, Cheryl Arutt, PSY.D “So, he’s saying that Jodi actually intercoursed her brains out?”. I laughed out loud, loud enough to wake a sleeping puppy!

  150. Bethany
    03/15/2013 at 2:00 am

    Today when Juan Martinez was arguing against the Time Magazine article about the brain because the defense expert is a psychologist not a psychiatrist or medical doctor, Whilmott stated that psychology is the study of the brain. That is not entirely true it is actually the study of human behavior. I do agree that the function of the brain is studied but usually in specialized fields such as, neuropsychology or developmental psychology. A forensic psychologist deals mostly with the behavioral aspect NOT the brain!!!! He cannot possibly discuss the many intricate parts of the brain if he mostly specializes in the forensic part of psychology!!! He is a joke! He gives all psychologists a bad name by testifying beyond his expertise. I believe that this is highly unethical. If I am wrong I will gladly admit it. I am going by what I have learned through my many years of education in psychology I was even really close to getting my masters in forensic psychology and none of my classes discussed anything about the different functions of the brain it focused mostly on the behavioral aspect.

  151. Bethany
    03/15/2013 at 2:07 am

    Laine: Crap, Sorry donchaise I hit the wrong quote! that was obviously in reply to Bethnany!

    I wasn’t implying that she is a genius. Just smart enough to be cunning enough to manipulate people. She was able to manipulate and trick Travis throughout their relationship and Ryan. She can also think quickly on her feet. That is not something a dumb person can accomplish in my opinion. Once again, I am not saying she is a super genius and is smarter than the average bear just intelligent enough to fool a few people.

  152. Randy
    03/16/2013 at 10:31 am

    Just read this thread…..kudos to the posters here, so knowledgeable and thought provoking.

    Sort of off topic…..but to me the smoking gun is the 25 caliber shell found at the scene in the bathroom. That shell was CLEARLY laying on top of blood, it was as shiny as it came out of the barrel of the gun. IF she had shot Travis first that shell casing would have HAD to have blood spatter on top of it. That picture is literally worth a thousand words. That, along with the medical examiner’s testimony that the bullet wound didn’t bleed out/hemmorage because the victim (Travis) had already bled out or expired.

    The FORENSICS tell the tale here……along with those photos that speak loudly for Travis, those photos that Jodi had not an inkling would ever show up. You can BET that Juan Martinez will get back to the facts…..knock down one brick from Jodi’s storyline and it all crumbles down in the eyes of the jury. Pay attention to that shell casing!

  153. boop
    03/17/2013 at 9:32 pm

    Does anyone know if there was ever a gun registered to Travis in AZ? If not, why hasn’t this been brought up to prove that he never owned a gun? He doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would have an illegal gun. There are no coincidences- that gun was brought there by Jodi, stolen from her grandparents- the only gun that was stolen when “someone” broke into her grandparent’s home!

  154. 03/21/2013 at 10:18 am

    Jody Aries is guilty of first degree murder and I hope and pray the Judge and Jury sees it the same way. I believe Jody is a danger. My heart is for Travis family. Juan Martinez is doing an awesome job. Go Jaun go.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: