trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #88

[WhoaIsMe]

After giving it some thought, I think JW anticipates that JM will bring up the ethics citation in NJ. She seemed to be preempting this in the beginning of his testimony by having him give a reason for moving his work to AZ. She also seems to be preempting the contradictory statements Jodi gave to him and then testified to something different. Juan, on a few occasions, asked her about things she told to Samuals and the DV expert that was different from her testimony. She denied ever telling them some things. So now Samuals says he didn't record anything (read he mis-wrote her statements or mis-remembered exactly what she said.)

I don't think the jury will buy it. It smells like so much BS.

 

[audreyparker]

DD's juror, Katie, said she or someone overheard him in the hallway talking about how his appearance would be great for his up coming book sales.

Wow, I hope they tell someone about that!

It seemed obvious to me that he was approached and hired to "validate" the diagnosis that the defense wanted him to and told him about ahead of time, and he's obviously doing that.

He didn't look at any other diagnoses, he is only on the stand to regurgitate the defense's explanation for her behavior.

I hope JM brings up his comment in the hall and his sanction. It looks like he traded his opinion for some benefit before and he's doing it again.

I also thought it was very unprofessional how he kept adding things he said he "forgot", there were a few times he said, oh yes, I should have added that she meets criteria ...... He's had a lot of time to prepare, and he couldn't even fill his report out right??

 

[Schuby]

LOL,,,We Jehovah Witnesses? Is that close? They knock on the door like that!

other than the missionary aspect I don't think the two are close at all, but I can hardly claim to be an expert!

 

[nightsweet]

The answer to this case is simple! Someone needs to get Jodi some of this:

edit: that's not photoshopped either lol

 

[Schuby]

Wow, I hope they tell someone about that!

It seemed obvious to me that he was approached and hired to "validate" the diagnosis that the defense wanted him to and told him about ahead of time, and he's obviously doing that.

He didn't look at any other diagnoses, he is only on the stand to regurgitate the defense's explanation for her behavior.

I hope JM brings up his comment in the hall and his sanction. It looks like he traded his opinion for some benefit before and he's doing it again.

I also thought it was very unprofessional how he kept adding things he said he "forgot", there were a few times he said, oh yes, I should have added that she meets criteria ...... He's had a lot of time to prepare, and he couldn't even fill his report out right??

He's going to be shredded on cross.

 

[Schuby]

I didn't really have a problem with his testimony per se, the problem is that his conclusions can only be based on Jodi's self reporting.

 

[audreyparker]

He's going to be shredded on cross.

Yeah, I can't wait to see JM tear him apart!!

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/jodi-arias-psychologist-sanctioned_n_2881222.html

Check this out, has it been posted?

Next!

 

[Schuby]

The other great moment yesterday was when he said, "she was the perpetrator of a horrendous crime," and JW was like :what::what:

 

[KandyKane]

Good morning!

There are three photos in the shower sequence that have bothered me. They are at 5:24:48, 5:24:52, 5:24:56. There is clearly a substance that is running down his neck in all three photos that looks a lot like blood. I've missed any discussion regarding this, and I'm wondering what others think about these three photos. I'm thinking that her attack on Travis began even before he got in the shower? If it is blood running down his neck, what is the source? And if it isn't blood, what is it?? The fact that it appears in all three photos indicates to me that something is definitely there.

They look like streaking artifacts from the photos having to be forensically removed from the memory card since they'd been deleted. There are white artifacts is some of the other photos that are a lot more severe. If you look at the photo right before the one at 5:24:48 that one has more of the dark streaks than any of the others. That last photo of his face is pretty clear that he's not injured before then.

I also think the one after that where his head isn't in the photo is just before the first strike, and he was sitting in the shower. I also believe that the last one of his face he was also sitting in the shower. I don't know why anyone thinks that his sitting in the shower is somehow gross. Besides, he's not got his bum right on the drain anyway. The drain is in the middle of the shower, and he's got his bum close to the wall with his back leaning against it. Besides, guys do gross things that are way worse than sitting in the shower. I don't think sitting in the shower is gross anyway. I have one of those regular bathtubs where the shower and the tub are combined and sit in the bath all the time without a thought that anyone would think it gross. His shower appears quiet clean, and I've know guys that never clean anything in the bathroom and the shower is covered with icky mold... and don't get me started on how gross the potties tend to be! Guys can be quiet pigs. Travis certainly didn't seem like one of those unsanitary type of guys, but I don't think he'd ever have a thought that sitting in the shower was gross. Heck, I don't think it's gross at all, and his shower looked quite a bit more presentable as far as cleanliness goes than my own.

In any case, I really think that photo of him sitting in the shower where the picture cuts off his head was really the last one taken of him before the attack and only moments before. He's relaxed with his back leaning against the shower wall, there's no blood, no wounds, and Jodi still had the camera in her hand taking photos. I think it was immediately after taking that photo that she attacked him with the knife and dropped the camera which took the photo of the ceiling by itself in being dropped.

 

[G&AMom]

I don't know if that article has been posted but there was some discussion about the ethics inquiry yesterday after trial. Something about trading testimony for dental work? Lol..bizarre. Everything in this trial is so bizarre!

I don't know how to feel (sorry, that's how to feeeeeeelll) about this ethics complaint. On the one hand, this guy seems to have made a rather obvious and stupid mistake, which certainly says something about him. OTOH, if I was a juror would this really affect how I see his testimony? From what I understand from you guys watching it yesterday, it's already obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. If I was JM I'm not sure I'd bother bringing up the ethics thing unless the jurors were inclinded to believe the guy.

 

[MissJ]

This psychologist seems soooooo unprofessional! JMO

 

[Mykeru]

I think the mortal chest happened early on in the attack, as you say. This would have caused shock and immediate pain, but would not have immediately incapacitated him. He put up a fight in the shower and is able to push her off and run to the sink where coughs up blood. She attacks his back and he runs out into the hall but collapses from the blood loss onto all fours. This is where the ninja story has a ring of truth to it. He tells her he can't feel his legs, she comes up to him and continues stabbing him in the back. He rolls over and tries again to defend himself. The pic at 5:32 is snapped as he does this. At some point after that, she slashes his throat. She uses the gun for whatever reason. Maybe to finish him off. Maybe she figured she went to the trouble of getting it so she might as well use it anyway. IDK the logic.

Also, keep in mind that some of the back wounds struck the vertebrae without penetrating through the bone, but a narrow blunt force blow like that to could have caused the sense of not being able to feel his legs or walk.

If you've ever been merely punched in the back, you know a bit of what that would be like.

It was a horrible death where he was chipped away in a merciless fashion.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I didn't really have a problem with his testimony per se, the problem is that his conclusions can only be based on Jodi's self reporting.

And JA has admitted to the jury being a lying liar that lies.

I don't believe the jury is buying this at all. moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[G&AMom]

Ahh, got it. Thank you. Did Juan even argue against him quoting an article written by someone who does not have a degree in psychology? I seriously can't wrap my brain around this being allowed. It's almost the same as allowing an article, written by a tow truck driver, about how eating Cheerios for breakfast may make one's tongue itch resulting in stress hormones being released making the person's ability to reason and "premeditate' next to impossible.

It just doesn't make sense to me. There just just doesn't seem like there is any solid foundation as to the credentials of the author, therefore rendering the article itself inadmissable. Call me crazy....

ROFL

This was exactly my reaction.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Samuels has some point that he wants to make that is perfectly outlined in the Time article. Plus the article has some great photos that the Dr. couldn't reproduce.

First off, this Time article wasn't published until January 2013. Since the trial almost started in December 2012 (before yet another short delay), Samuels could easily have been called to testify before the article came out. So what was he going to use before? Did he have the author's permission to use his piece? I've heard that the author didn't have any credentials that would have made him/her an expert in this field, which is probably why they didn't call this person to testify, but then if he/she's not an expert, why are we listening to them?

I didn't actually see the testimony, just read your guys' posts & in the news, and I just don't understand how Samuels was allowed to give this testimony.

 

[rose222]

This Richard Samuels made a custody recommendation without examining the mother all for some dentist work? That's sick!

 

[Schuby]

This Richard Samuels made a custody recommendation without examining the mother all for some dentist work? That's sick!

Seriously...what the ---- was wrong with his teeth that it would be worth that?

 

[Dmacky]

This Richard Samuels made a custody recommendation without examining the mother all for some dentist work? That's sick!

NG was calling him DICK Samuels, which of course CAN be used for the short form of Richard. It just stuck me as funny yesterday :giggle:

 

[KandyKane]

And JA has admitted to the jury being a lying liar that lies.

I don't believe the jury is buying this at all. moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really do think that they've long since made up their minds that she's guilty as sin. A lot of those jury questions were scathing.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I don't know how to feel (sorry, that's how to feeeeeeelll) about this ethics complaint. On the one hand, this guy seems to have made a rather obvious and stupid mistake, which certainly says something about him. OTOH, if I was a juror would this really affect how I see his testimony? From what I understand from you guys watching it yesterday, it's already obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. If I was JM I'm not sure I'd bother bringing up the ethics thing unless the jurors were inclinded to believe the guy.

Well...in Russian teeth are called "zoobies".

JM can say, "Good Morning, sir. How are you and your zoobies, today?".
He can then turn to JA and say, "Mam, how are you and your boobies, today?"....LOL

Sorry....had to do it!