trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
how did we find out that she stole the ring? my kids were prob talking to me at that point in the testimony...
 
kscornfed said:
maybe she put it on and admired it for a bit while practicing writing 'mrs. travis alexander' over and over.

:woohoo:
Click to expand...

I can certainly picture her doing that. I'm quite sure she would have loved, loved, loved doing that. :floorlaugh:

I keep recalling her Da saying in his police interview, "she was going to marry the guy".
 
Sedonia Sunset said:
Well, the only "animal" involved was JA. There's also a difference between being attacked by someone you know vs. two unknown, masked and armed intruders.

I doubt Travis was violent with her until she, herself, became lethally violent with HIM, so PTSD based on long-term abuse and an imminent attack upon her is out (IMO). Even THEN he may not have been violent; she had very little physical damage, after all. Once she stabbed him in the heart, I think HE was definitely in fight or flight mode and his only goal was to ESCAPE from her. SHE had the weapons, whereas he was naked, wet, and severely (mortally) wounded. Flight would be be uppermost in his mind, because he wasn't capable of fighting back much by that point (emphasis on POINT). SHE, OTOH, was intent on not letting him get away. If someone else found out she was there and severely injured him, she would be in BIG trouble, so she had to stop him at all costs. She was in planning mode, not fight or flight mode. She made LOTS of decisions based on the fear of getting CAUGHT, not on being injured, herself.

For the sake of argument, though, let's say he DID physically abuse her over the long term, culminating in an attack upon her. She still managed to get the upper hand, over and over and over. She survived, cleaned up herself and the scene to a certain extent, and calmly exited, etc. He was dead. He was no longer a physical threat to her in any way, and she would not have any reason to believe someone else close to her would body-slam her, choke her, etc. She would probably have no desire to strike up yet another romance any time soon. How could she trust that someone wouldn't try to kill/hurt her AGAIN? It takes time to get over something like that. The trust issue takes a long time, if EVER, to resolve. Her subsequent reactions/symptoms would be different from the intruder scenario, and the questions asked on the test would be different because they branched off based on circumstances of the triggering event.

Being suddenly ambushed by two masked intruders with guns and knives could very likely cause some sort of PTSD, especially since someone (ELSE) died as a result, while she miraculously survived. If that had really happened, she would probably have a hard time with strangers and being surprised by sudden noises, doors quickly opening, etc. She might even have been afraid to use the bathroom, barricading herself in some way so that she wouldn't be accosted while being vulnerable in such a normally "safe" place. Same with the perimeter of the home. A knock at the door or a phone ringing could be ANYONE about to kill you! How could she even go to work when, at any moment, the place could be robbed or a patron could go berserk? Certainly moving on to the next romantic conquest mere hours after the gruesome murder and her miraculous escape, and then grinding on him would be fraught with unknowns. She would have very little control over RB and HIS environment. Who knows how safe HIS place would be from intruders? For all she knew, someone was hiding in the closet while she was there. Someone could break down the door or climb in a window while she wasn't being vigilant! Then she drives all the way back home, alone, including stopping and filling up the car AND GAS CANS at an unattended gas station in the middle of the night in a strange city because she had to get back in time to go to work, having established an alibi, of sorts. (You know who else was fretting about about getting to work the next day, after her three children were shot, one fatally, by a "bushy-haired stranger"? Diane Downs.) So how JA answered questions based on THIS scenario would be different from how she answered if she was attacked by someone she knew intimately, and the questions, themselves, would be different.

Therefore, how she answered questions on the test WOULD have made a difference, because once she lied about how the incident occurred, subsequent questions were BASED UPON those lies, and she had to continue to make up symptoms based on what happened in the LIE. Things she would be afraid of, or things that would trigger her extreme fear would be different. The anwers were simply unreliable. Something bad happened. Something horrific. JA, however, did NOT have PTSD, at least not that would be diagnosable in the test she was given.

As much as I hate to quote Johnny Cochran, I have to say it: "Garbage in, garbage out".

I don't doubt that she was fearful when she realized Travis was harder to kill than she imagined it would be, and somewhat fearful of getting caught. THAT could be traumatic and there might be moments of panic that would make it hard to remember everything, but those would be isolated MOMENTS. Even so, she didn't look or act particularly traumatized in her mugshot because she was confident she could lie and/or charm her way out of ANY situation.

It probably WOULD be hard to remember every little detail of the murder in progress when so much extreme violence was occurring and all that blood was everywhere; some things would be blurred by all the action and excess adrenaline, but I don't believe she would have a total blackout for HOURS and NEVER remember any part of it except a knife clinking on the floor.

Ok, that was long and rambling, but it's my point of view and I needed to get that out.
Click to expand...


This is a great, no fabulous, post and really summarizes the PTSD baloney that the DT are trying to shove in our face - and why AL's and Samuel's testimonys should be thrown out. The only testimony that is reliable is Dr. JD's. She was very unbiased and doesn't care about the outcome of the trial. She only gave her evaluation, and that's what she was hired to do. She's a cliniical psychologist and she gave her expert clinical evaluation.
 
boonedock said:
Just out of curiosity does anyone else find the way JA whispers to either the mitigation specialist or JW disturbing sometimes it seems very sexual and gives me the heebee jeebies.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is creepy and it is dangerous because they keep forgetting she is a murderer. There is no telling when she is going to snap again and maybe stab them with a pencil or something.

There is no way I would let her get that close to me. They could kindly tell her to pass notes instead of whispering directly in their ears.

I keep thinking that when the trial goes really bad for her, she may snap and start strangling her.
 
I thought someone said that Dr. Horn, the ME, is on the list also. And what about the guy from the gas station in Utah? Someone said that Travis's friends, the Medfords, were on the list. The wife took the video of Travis talking about a gun being held to his head.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
So lets see what more do we have to endure until closing arguments? Are their more witnesses?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in what witnesses folks would like to be called. For instance, Jodi claimed she left Salinas/Monterey and went to Pasadena [a 5 hrs. drive] ostensibly to take pics of Darryl's daughter's new baby. When she arrived, she couldn't reach the new mother, her calls were not returned, and she proceeded on her journey....which just so happened included taking I-10 E straight to Mesa. I'd like to hear from Darry's daughter about whether she knew Jodi was coming and why she didn't return Jodi's calls, if even made.
 
JusticeJunkie said:
If only the jurors could see the behavior she displayed when Det Flores left the room. They would have absolutely no QUESTIONS that she's cray cray. Definitely something more than PTSD.
Click to expand...
i have been wondering if they can see all during mitigation phase.
 
Sleuth5 said:
Good Morrow, Sleuthers! :seeya:

I must say coffee goes well with what I perceive to be the smell of burning cinammon rolls as I watch Dr. D toy with her prey yesterday. Perhaps it is the smell of gears burning as JW tries mightily to outwit her with clever constructions such as, "That's just your opinion, isn't it?" while Dr. D. insists that it is, instead, the product of her professional training and judgment, until, at long last, agreeing to say that "Sure, it sounds like that's what you believe subjective means, so I'll agree with that."You could see the smoke pouring from poor JW's head.

:cow:
Click to expand...

Morning Sleuth

BBM loved this answer :floorlaugh:
 
deb2e said:
she thought it was destroyed ..her lieamony was she doesnt know alot about cameras.just because she liked to take pictures didnt make her a pro.fessional ..look at the shower pictures ja claimed they are posed pictures they dont look professional to me.
Click to expand...

You're so right. She's not a professional anything...well, I'll just leave it at that.
 
buckeyefan1 said:
I have often wondered if she was naked under the Christmas tree with the idea of what a Christmas present she was to TA. :blushing:
Click to expand...

The whole Christmas tree incident shows how far she was willing to go to place herself in his life and how far she was willing to go to make sure nothing threatened that. IMHO.

And isn't this the story where she was laying on another couch and he held her hand? I am a little confused with the story. She calls it an initmate moment where they held hands when no one was looking that reinforced the notion he wanted to be with her, but wanted noone to know because of their sexual activity. She is continually making excuses that favor herself when he is trying to stop things, make boundaries. IMHO

K
 
josie1986 said:
and im sure i heard beth say on tricias shows that dr dreamy was coming back :please:
Click to expand...

:tyou: The thanks (for mentioning the good Dr) button wasn't enough.
 
Sleuth5 said:
Good Morrow, Sleuthers! :seeya:

I must say coffee goes well with what I perceive to be the smell of burning cinammon rolls as I watch Dr. D toy with her prey yesterday. Perhaps it is the smell of gears burning as JW tries mightily to outwit her with clever constructions such as, "That's just your opinion, isn't it?" while Dr. D. insists that it is, instead, the product of her professional training and judgment, until, at long last, agreeing to say that "Sure, it sounds like that's what you believe subjective means, so I'll agree with that."You could see the smoke pouring from poor JW's head.

:cow:
Click to expand...
Willmott seems to be extremely undereducated or maybe just the last person who should be involved in actual trials. Her ideal job would be to maybe work as a collections attorney or sue people for rent/credit card payments...and no I'm not kidding. Other professionals in the legal field have to be wincing with her as a visible representative of their craft.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
Why didn't willmott do a minimal amount of research to get some understanding of the interpretation of these tests? She's bad enough at her own job, now she's embarrassing herself in other professions as well.
Click to expand...

It's a stumper, ain't it.
 
The ring that should have been hers. The engagement ring he was never going to present to her but kept around, in case he wanted to give it to a more worthy girl or trade it in for one more appealing to a worthy girl.

That ring. You just know there was no way she would ever leave that behind. She could not help herself. That ring should have been hers. Hadn't she done EVERYTHING for this man? Hadn't she conformed over and over remaking herself to be who he needed?

I so wish the jury could know that ring she stole was an engagement one. goes straight to the heart of the motive. Woman scorned. Really burns my chaps that they are not allowed to hear more about that ring and exactly what it signifies.

It goes to the heart of JA's MO IMO. She deified TA, until she figured out he was never going to fall in line with what she wanted from him and their "relationship" and goes right along with her BPD diagnosis from Dr. D.

Once he was no longer deified, then he must be vilified, reviled, a monster, a user and abuser.

Oh that ring. Why oh why is it that it is considered to be too prejudicial for the jury to know. I have never gotten that "too prejudicial" thing. Makes me feel that if there were video of her attacking TA like a banshee from hell it might not be allowed into evidence because it might be "too prejudicial" WTH?

I mean I get why defendants are not dragged into court wearing prison stripes and why the are not to appear to jury in restraints etc etc.

But some of the other stuff, like evidence that is disallowed, I will never understand. If its evidence that is especially damning, why tie the prosecution hands and disallow it because the jury might jump to the conclusion she is guilty?? Makes no sense. Let them jump if the evidence supports the leap?
 
Hatfield said:
Yes. It is creepy and it is dangerous because they keep forgetting she is a murderer. There is no telling when she is going to snap again and maybe stab them with a pencil or something.

There is no way I would let her get that close to me. They could kindly tell her to pass notes instead of whispering directly in their ears.

I keep thinking that when the trial goes really bad for her, she may snap and start strangling her.
Click to expand...

That is why she has the shock belt on. Because there is always the chance.
 
For anyone interested in JA MMPI-2 "elevated" scores on the 10 Clinical scales. She was elevated on 7 of the 10 clinical scales.

I was most interested in the one she was the most elevated on and thought you might be too. Her T-score on the Psychopathic Deviate scale was a 105 (highest of all of her elevated scores) with 65 being the threshold for clinically significant. If you want to research the scales the developer of the test is Pearson.

Psychopathic Deviate (PD)- Hathaway & McKinley (1944). (50 items). High: Poor impulse control, disidentification with societal standards, authority conflicts, marital and family conflicts, inconsiderate, narcissistic, poor judgment, extroverted, self-confident, hostile, parasitic and externalizes blame. Low: Overly conventional and conforming, passive, trusting and non-competitive. Pd is a great characterlogical scale of narcissism, externalization of blame, exploitiveness, and hostility. The subscales for Pd are very important in understanding elevations in Pd. Elevations in Pd can be due to a hostile, exploitive and truly psychopathic mentality, or moderate elevations can be an extroverted normal going through a divorce, or a normal teenager. If Pd-O is greater than Pd, then the more pathological interpretations should be used. If Pd-S is higher than Pd, then the more benign interpretations should be used. It is helpful to also look at the content scales of anger, authority problems, family problems etc. to help understand elevations in Pd.

I know scales need to be seen globally as well as individually, yet I do not understand why this scale was not discussed in detail/ad naseum IMHO.
 
raisincharlie said:
Dr. DeMarte brought it out when describing some of Jodi's aggressive behaviors.
Click to expand...
thanks, I heard her say that, but did she say how she knew it? did JA tell her, or was it in the police reports? do we know how? I am sure there is SOOOO much we don't know....
 
boonedock said:
Just out of curiosity does anyone else find the way JA whispers to either the mitigation specialist or JW disturbing sometimes it seems very sexual and gives me the heebee jeebies.
Click to expand...

If you mean does it make your skin crawl in that creepy kind of way normally associated with viewing loathsome spiders or slithering snakes, yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 63 more.
Total: 403 (members: 64, guests: 339)

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
339
Total visitors
403
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,412
Messages
18,253,732
Members
234,649
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top