Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 31

[DebinGA]

I was on a civil trial jury in December. The deliberations were over how much money the wronged party (lost his right leg above the knee) should receive from the deep-pockets company whose driver mowed him down with the company truck. The discussion was cordial as the foreman used a white board to add up the projected medical costs, pain and suffering, resulting change in lifestyle, etc. Suddenly the last juror I would have expected announced that she'd hang the jury if we went above X amount. She was trembling with emotion and adamant, where all during the week she'd been giggly, chatty, and rather ditzy. Bottom line, we never know how people with very different life experiences will respond to the same evidence. I prefer JA receive the DP because of the danger to others she represents, but LWOP would be fine too. I can't imagine her receiving less that that, but I'm not from AZ.

 

[TexMex]

He has to see what the felon wants him to ask or say.

Jodi has to be seething right now. Her sister, her grandparents, her girlfriend, Darryl, Matt, Sky, Taylor...all of these people (I probably left out a few) spoke to DeMarte about HER.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Rabies is probably a bad example. But what if you had a dog that you know can never be trusted around other people? You can take steps to keep it away from others. And hope that it doesn't go after you when you are distracted. I'm cool with that.

Now, what if that dog does kill someone. Whatever precautions you took were not enough. To me, the only option is to put that dog down. I'm not a "life at any price" person. Given the choice if living in a cage for the rest of its life or humanely euthanizing it, the kinder way is to let it go.

Last March 23, my little Jack Russel MonaLou was attacked by two pit bulls that jumped our fence in the orchard. I wanted them put down, the city asked the people to give the dogs up and they said no - their dogs had no rabies tags or city tags - the city fined them two thousand dollars for each violation - they totaled fourteen thousand dollars, it was reduced to three thousand total. I don't feel comfortable with them back in the neighborhood and wish they were dead.

 

[khaki]

I wonder if anyone on the jury will have a hard time reconciling the sex on the day of the murder. I am in the camp ( I think a camp with very few members) that is not convinced they had sex that day, but the case has been presented that they did, and so just wondering if anyone on the jury may have that weigh into their vote? IDK. It just doesn't jive with all we heard today that Travis would have gone for it at that point in time. Those texts with his friend were in late May. But again, as someone else suggested a few days ago, maybe JA came unannounced but gave the old "I am so sorry, let's make up, let's move on, let's do it for old time's sake speech" and Travis fell for it?? Maybe she threatened suicide?

 

[PenElaine]

I personally think that's what part of the last argument was about. JA was telling TA that she knew all this stuff about him and Lisa/Mimi because someone was telling her. I think she was hacked into his facebook and email and he did not know about it. When he finally confronted her to provide the name of this "person" who was telling her all these things (because at that point he knew she was in his accounts and there was no spy, she was lying...again and I think he caught her on his facebook right?) he was mad as hell. About everything.

What I don't understand is why he didn't make a concentrated effort to keep her away from him sooner. I don't think the sex was THAT important to him. I think he was scared of her...for quite some time. And didn't know what to do about it. A restraining order? Sure. But most people know how well those go over on obsessed people. Keep your enemies close and all that? He didn't seem to have to nerve to really call her out and try to cut her out of his life until she had moved back to CA. Maybe he felt braver at that point that she would truly leave him alone. She was 1000 miles away.

Imagine how he must have felt when she showed up in the middle of the night/early morning on June 4th 2008? I think I understand the sex thing that day now. :thinking:

MOO

I have had someone passively stalk me for three decades - someone I unfortunately befriended (won't write why just in case he has found me on WS - he's discovered me on other forums, has created fake social media accounts, so who knows what other online places he stalks me at). Anyway, when he emails me, I always try to be polite and kind - simply out of fear of making him angry and going beyond cyber-stalking. Anyone reading my responses to him would never guess how I really feel. I've told all of my family members that if anything ever "happened" to me, "X" did it. I could certainly understand Travis "playing nice" for similar reasons. FGS, I'm even nervous posting this much, but I felt it was important to share and may give a different perspective on TA's kind treatment of CMJA despite all of the nasty things she did to him. MOO.

 

[AZlawyer]

While I know AZl says that the only thing that is relevant as far as an aggravating factor is the murder itself, I respectfully disagree. If that was all that was relevant in the sentencing phase then JSS wouldn't allow all of JA past behaviors/actions to come in plus the aftermath after she murdered Travis. Everything entered in this phase can be weighed by the jury including the stalking, the slashed tires, and how she has continued to totally lie about him after she killed him, and disparaged his name. Or anything else that has been entered.

Of course I do agree that the murder itself was the element needed to get to the cruelty aspect of the case in the first trial.

In every death penalty case I have seen the actions of the convicted defendant before and after the murder or murders were very relevant in the jury making their determination of LWOP or Death. I have seen them introduce evidence about the defendant killing pets and going all the way back to school days entering the bad things they have done even though those things really didn't have anything to do with the heinous murder(s) themselves.

I have seen no mitigating factor that can even begin to compare to the aggravating factors in this case much less overcome them. The mitigating factors have been almost non-existent which has been pretty much putting Travis on trial for months rather than the murderer.

I think the jury will be intelligent enough to know that BPD doesn't render someone where they are unable to make choices where they don't know right from wrong. JA certainly knew it was wrong and that is why she lied and covered up her dastardly deeds. Its obvious that JA had lived for many years as a free woman with this disorder before she resorted to murder.

If there is a psychiatrist on the jury they will know that BPD is just like it states........a personality disorder.

I am trying to remember a case where the jury gave LWOP because they believed BPD was a mentally illness and cant think of any at the moment. Most jurors don't buy into the mentally ill excuse when coming to their verdict at sentencing. IMO

The only reason JSS has allowed all the "bad stuff" about JA to come into this phase is that it rebuts all the "good stuff" the defense witnesses were saying in "mitigation." The jury gets to weigh aggravation vs. mitigation. Aggravation is ONLY the cruelty of the murder. If the jury decides that JM has sufficiently rebutted all the mitigation, then they won't weigh any mitigating factors against the cruelty. They will be instructed NOT to consider any of the "bad stuff" as additional aggravation.

 

[khaki]

Just wanted to add that I feel justice has been served in these last few days. JA's core and true and utter evil has been laid out crystal clear and on the record. No matter what the sentence, she has been exposed for all to see.

Thank you Juan Martinez and Esteban Flores.

 

[Love Never Fails]

You make it sound like she had no choice. Many people with BPD would disagree with you. She also knows right from wrong. It's not like she heard voices and followed directions, which is a true mental illness. She is not a victim of her disorder.

Further, Dr M said this is NOT a mental illness. It is a psychological disorder. Her words.

 

[RickshawFan]

Borderline and bipolar are different. They're sometimes confused and even sometimes misdiagnosed because both feature extreme mood swings. Bipolar is caused by a chemical imbalance. It can be successfully treated. Borderline is a pervasive, lifelong disorder notoriously difficult to treat featuring manipulation, sometimes deception, fear of abandonment, primitive coping mechanisms, impulsivity, self-harm, suicide, etc. BPD is most often a result of severe childhood trauma (though not always) and has been linked to depression and post traumatic stress disorder.

Lack of remorse isn't a borderline trait that I'm familiar with but there is debate (as always ) within the psych community whether borderlines do feel guilt or remorse. Personally, I believe they do based on what I know. Lack of remorse is most certainly a trait associated both with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy (which we won't hear from DeMarte for reasons already explained). Narcissists too have limited capability of remorse.

I still feel there's a whole lot more than borderline to Jodi. And that too would explain her lack of remorse and doggedness to destroy her victim over and over again.

All JMO

Disclaimer: I'm most familiar and confident with narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders since those are what I've experienced firsthand. Borderline overlaps, some, with those disorders as well as psychopathy - like not having a true identity of one's own, being chameleon-like.

BPD can be managed to a degree with a therapy called "Dialectical Behavioral Therapy" (DBT); it takes commitment on the part of the BPDer, much like working a 12 step program.

BPD or no, Bipolar or no, Jodi had an obligation to manage her behavior! There are plenty of ways she could have addressed her problems, likely including medication and therapy. But did she do any of it? No! Adults have an obligation to mitigate if they are likely to hurt others. Totally, the ball was in JA's court to get help, and there were plenty of helpful resources available. But she made no good faith effort to do so.

 

[AZlawyer]

Further, Dr M said this is NOT a mental illness. It is a psychological disorder. Her words.

It really doesn't matter too much. The jury can consider a psychological disorder as mitigating evidence if they think that is appropriate. It's up to them.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I wonder if anyone on the jury will have a hard time reconciling the sex on the day of the murder. I am in the camp ( I think a camp with very few members) that is not convinced they had sex that day, but the case has been presented that they did, and so just wondering if anyone on the jury may have that weigh into their vote? IDK. It just doesn't jive with all we heard today that Travis would have gone for it at that point in time. Those texts with his friend were in late May. But again, as someone else suggested a few days ago, maybe JA came unannounced but gave the old "I am so sorry, let's make up, let's move on, let's do it for old time's sake speech" and Travis fell for it?? Maybe she threatened suicide?

I have thought this from the beginning. I think the pictures and time stamps were doctored. JMO. Unless she held a gun to his head....and may have. Literally.

 

[Love Never Fails]

It really doesn't matter too much. The jury can consider a psychological disorder as mitigating evidence if they think that is appropriate. It's up to them.

True. At this point I am good with whatever the jury decides. Just want it to end.
goodnight.

 

[bsk]

No one is asking this jury to dismiss a darn thing. BPD is not a mitigator or cause for murder.

It's walking a fine line. It's not an excuse for the murder, as in a reason that she should be found not guilty, but it can be considered as a mitigator as to whether or not she deserves the death penalty for having committed that crime. So for example if she receives treatment could she begin to lead a 'normal' life for 50 years behind bars? If so, then maybe she deserves to live. Or maybe not. But at least it's the only thing we've seen after the defense wasted two months that could be a possible mitigator.

The real irony will be if a couple jurors are softened up by it and on the fence now, and then get pushed back over it by KN attacking DeMarte for a week.

 

[Amster]

I know....trial by tweet....but, nobody said Dr. D testified that Jodi couldn't help what she did. She was powerless to stop herself. Jodi was unable to control what she did or what she said or how she acted. None of that!
Yet....here we are. After a day many of us have waited for....prayed for....Jodi exposed for what she truly is. And, Bless his heart, Travis shown for who he was. Not an abusing, sex fiend, cruel man. But a caring, gentle soul who was slaughtered by a jealous, stalking, evil monster.
Poor Jodi? Really? Had no choice? Powerless not to lie? Unable to help the trashing of the man she killed? Because of a personality disorder???
I'm stunned. I bet Dr. D and Juan would be too. And the dear Alexander family and loved ones....
Seems pretty strange to me why anyone would be "enlightened" by the testimony today. Dr. D diagnosed Jodi with BPD during the trial. It's not new.

 

[MeeBee]

Further, Dr M said this is NOT a mental illness. It is a psychological disorder. Her words.

Juan asked her if BPD was a mental illness and she said some call it that but it's a personal tiy disorder. It sounds like she was making a distinction between the two things.

 

[Tiki]

Didn't they also say Dr D was totally incorrect with her BPD diagnosis? Are they going to thank her for it now seeing as they say it is mitigating?

Nurmi said in his opening that that jury would hear two doctors testify that CMJA has BPD and the only one who has is Dr D. Dr G went with bi polar based on things her friends and family said, not nothing he noticed.

I thought the DT's 2 "experts" were not allowed to diagnose, but only gave opinions. If so, who is the second Dr.?

 

[MeeBee]

Further, Dr M said this is NOT a mental illness. It is a psychological disorder. Her words.

Juan asked her if BPD was a mental illness and she said some call it that but it's a personal tiy disorder. It sounds like she was making a distinction between the two things.

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

I don't know if this has been on here or not, but earlier today someone was asking who Michelle Lowery is. I looked it up. She is Mimi's friend. Mimi called Michelle and her boyfriend to come to Travis's house the night before she and Travis were supposed to go to Cancun. Michelle's boyfriend and Travis's roommate Zach Billings were the two people who found Travis's body in the shower.

 

[Magdalyn]

I have had someone passively stalk me for three decades - someone I unfortunately befriended (won't write why just in case he has found me on WS - he's discovered me on other forums, has created fake social media accounts, so who knows what other online places he stalks me at). Anyway, when he emails me, I always try to be polite and kind - simply out of fear of making him angry and going beyond cyber-stalking. Anyone reading my responses to him would never guess how I really feel. I've told all of my family members that if anything ever "happened" to me, "X" did it. I could certainly understand Travis "playing nice" for similar reasons. FGS, I'm even nervous posting this much, but I felt it was important to share and may give a different perspective on TA's kind treatment of CMJA despite all of the nasty things she did to him. MOO.

As a stalking victim myself, and a person who has read up in depth on dealing with a stalker, can I offer some unsolicited advice?

Stop responding in any way to your stalker. It actually encourages them to continue. Save all copies of the instances of stalking. Consider making a police report. :hug:

http://stalkingbehavior.com/interventions.htm

ETA: I'm so sorry this is happening to you. :hug:

 

[bsk]

While I know AZl says that the only thing that is relevant as far as an aggravating factor is the murder itself, I respectfully disagree. If that was all that was relevant in the sentencing phase then JSS wouldn't allow all of JA past behaviors/actions to come in plus the aftermath after she murdered Travis. Everything entered in this phase can be weighed by the jury including the stalking, the slashed tires, and how she has continued to totally lie about him after she killed him, and disparaged his name. Or anything else that has been entered.

Of course I do agree that the murder itself was the element needed to get to the cruelty aspect of the case in the first trial.

In every death penalty case I have seen the actions of the convicted defendant before and after the murder or murders were very relevant in the jury making their determination of LWOP or Death. I have seen them introduce evidence about the defendant killing pets and going all the way back to school days entering the bad things they have done even though those things really didn't have anything to do with the heinous murder(s) themselves.

I have seen no mitigating factor that can even begin to compare to the aggravating factors in this case much less overcome them. The mitigating factors have been almost non-existent which has been pretty much putting Travis on trial for months rather than the murderer.

I think the jury will be intelligent enough to know that BPD doesn't render someone where they are unable to make choices where they don't know right from wrong. JA certainly knew it was wrong and that is why she lied and covered up her dastardly deeds. Its obvious that JA had lived for many years as a free woman with this disorder before she resorted to murder.

If there is a psychiatrist on the jury they will know that BPD is just like it states........a personality disorder.

I am trying to remember a case where the jury gave LWOP because they believed BPD was a mentally illness and cant think of any at the moment. Most jurors don't buy into the mentally ill excuse when coming to their verdict at sentencing. IMO

BBM - The jury will take into account not only the murder but also how she has spent 6-1/2 years trying to manipulate everyone and everything including throughout this circus of a trial. That's where remorse would have come into play, though it's obviously too late for her to try to fake it now: If she had been remorseful she wouldn't have tried to destroy him and his family with a bunch of lies for years on end. So whatever sympathy they might feel is probably overridden by seeing how much of a monster she continues to be, as the cross of DeMarte will no doubt show.