trial day 44: the defense continues its case in chief #134

[Hopeful One]

Oh, no. Does that mean we will have to listen to it AGAIN?

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! lease:

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I wish the media would STOP referring to JA as an "accused murderer".

She has admitted to murdering Travis.

They need to say admitted murderer. It's not like that have to prove she did it.

Being nurse today..very happy my nephew is home..hope to follow along as I can.

 

[Hopeful One]

Any guess as to how long JW will drag this on? Will we be moving to the next witness today? lease:

It sounded to me like she was starting to wrap things up last night but that's just a guess. She seems to like to drag things out as long as possible so your guess is as good as mine.

 

[EGirl]

I missed yesterday afternoon.... was JW winding down? Or do we think it'll be a whole day of her again?

TIA!

 

[Gwen6275]

I've been doing some reading on male stalking victims and one of the things I've read is that male victims typically don't seek help and may even joke about the stalking. Men may be uncomfortable psychologically by the stalking behavior but since they don't perceive the female as a physical threat then they do not tend to make any official reports. They are more likely to assume that they will not be believed or that displaying any fear of woman will be seen as cowardly or unmasculine. It makes perfect sense to me. How ALV can be so ignorant of dynamic is beyond me. I also found this article about how women can use sex as a means of controlling a man in an emotionally abusive relationship. Really interesting stuff and I see JA's behaviors described a great deal in the article.

 

[LaneGirl]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/jodi-arias-trial/2073067/

More on cyber stuff ALV.
Sad.

 

[EGirl]

It sounded to me like she was starting to wrap things up last night but that's just a guess. She seems to like to drag things out as long as possible so your guess is as good as mine.

Thank you! I sure hope so.

 

[G&AMom]

I posted this in the observation thread but I am also posting it here. Interesting read.

Regarding stalking:
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/0...-is-stalking-and-can-men-be-stalked-by-women/

Who engages in stalking behaviors more? Men or women?

Female perpetrators engage in stalking and harassment behaviors with as much frequency as male offenders do. Why don’t we hear about it? Because most woman-centric (i.e., feminist) domestic violence groups and mainstream media outlets are woefully silent when it comes to male victims of abusive women. Worse yet, female stalking behaviors are portrayed as “funny” or “cute,” for example, Confessions of a Facebook Stalker (That’s Me) and Confessions of a Facebook Stalker.

When a woman is actually acknowledged as a perpetrator, she’s portrayed as having been wronged by some man and in need of our help and understanding. When a man engages in the same behaviors, he’s portrayed as a menace to society who should be locked up. Most DV groups exemplify what can only be described as a one-way road paved with double standards when it comes to matters of abuse and the condemnation and criminality of said behaviors.

If your wife or girlfriend are guilty of these behaviors, you need to understand that this is abuse and it’s wrong.

I thought this was a really good article and well worth reading. I had one bone to pick with the author, though.

She talks about women's stalking being perceived as "cute" and gives links to two articles that women have written about cyber-stalking.

When you read the articles, though, what these women and their friends were doing was checking out their ex's online, mostly via Facebook. Doesn't say anything about posting comments. Nothing about tracking down the new wife or GF. Nothing about tracking him in person, or calling his job. In other words, what they're doing is no different than going to your 20th high school reunion hoping to see that everybody's put on weight, been divorced three times, turned into a drunk, whatever. Is that stalking?

It's my one issue with the article, but I found it annoying.

 

[tss]

Yes, the only thing I could find was from Radar Online. How could I forget she got into an altercation with another inmate and claimed self defense?

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/04/jodi-arias-prison-rap-sheet-attacked-cell-mate/

I recall the mention of JA getting caught with contraband in her cell, 2-3 times, each time for having several pens hidden, under mattress, toothpaste tube, maybe still adding to journals, needing different color ink to look aged???

 

[kaRN]

If LAV doesn't even do email, how can she possibly begin to understand the "modern" day components of cyber-stalking?

Thanks for posting this article!

I'm going to link it again:

http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/0...-is-stalking-and-can-men-be-stalked-by-women/

But then she'd have to acknowledge that people can be stalked without even being aware they are and it's still called stalking. I really feel sorry for ALV's children and for the baggage she has them dragging around.

 

[laniefi]

Originally Posted by Ricki View Post
This according to the St Vs Jodi Arias FB page
Confirmed - The def. next witness will be the computer expert who verified the phone sex audio.


I wonder if the DT is trying to shore up their spindly case because the PT computer expert might have some dynamite coming up with Jodi hacking, using different ISP addresses where Travis could not possibly have posted on his own account or to other people, namely women.
Just because Jodi says she had Travis' permission to tape doesn't mean it is true.

Do we REALLY think Jodi is smart enough to use Internet proxies/spoof her IP address like that?

It's a real looooongshot for me.

Guess we will see!

 

[~ GiGi ~]

Morning everyone. I'm past ready for a gulity verdict. Let's get on with it!

 

[atthelake]

I'm brand new here but have lurked for a long time. I've learned so much from the legal experts and the keen-eyed observers in the JA trial threads. Thanks to all of you!

As a psychologist, I've watched in horror as two of the worst examples of "experts" from my profession have done everything possible to undermine the credibility of the field in front of a national audience. Of course there is always some subjectivity associated with the analysis of human behavior, but adherence to scientific principles can produce reliable and verifiable results. Unfortunately, charlatans can use the language of the field to lend false credibility to almost any opinion.

I'm hesitant to question JM's judgment on any aspect of his cross examination, partly because I thought he was amazing (no notes!?!) but also because I would never want to incur the wrath of his fans here. I am new, after all. Still, he could have hammered ALV on her lack of scientific rigor, especially her repeated assertions that she was able to do all of the diagnostic work "in her brain". An absence of written work to explain in detail how her decision was reached is a huge red flag.

Also, the definition of "stalking" doesn't require the victim to respond in any particular way. Here's the American Psychological Association's description:

"Stalking refers to repeated harassing or threatening behaviors that an individual engages in such as following a person, appearing at a person’s home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person’s property. These actions may be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm, and they may or may not be precursors to an assault or murder"

Again, thanks to all of you and of course, much gratitude to Tricia for creating and managing this site.

:wagon:

We really really really do want to hear your opinions on Juan. an educated person with logic is always appreciated to have different opinions here very much so! I enjoyed reading your critique and would like to know more of your thoughts!

Long time poster here, but most of the" bashing" comes when people just say things they do not make sense or are not logical. your credentials and logic are exactly what this forum is all about... and alternate opinions and insightful opinions such of yours with your credentials are very much welcome

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bravo]

I don't think the defense issued the subpeona so they could call him to the stand and show his video of Travis shooting a gun. Instead I believe it was issued to shut him up and keep him off of HLN and repeating that Travis did not own a gun.

That makes perfect sense. I couldn't figure out why the Defense would call him. It hurts there case rather than helps.

 

[Snoopy1]

:floorlaugh:

WildAboutTrial ‏@WildAboutTrial 6m
If @jodiannarias is really her account like it's reported, why would she use such an unflattering picture on it?

 

[kayice]

Does anyone know if there is a computer program that gather all social media entries on certain crime victims/perps...times, dates, ISP address and match everything up as it happened, to tell the story? Plug in phone times...if such as thing doesn't exist yet, that inventor will be one rich person. Too bad, I'm a dunce.

 

[SunnyinMO]

Yeah, I think Martinez is doing a fantastic job, but I agree with you. I thought he was going to hammer her about it when she first said that junk about doing the work in her brain, but he moved on. Maybe he didn't think he needed to go further into it, but I do wish he would have.

Good Morning All! I think JM will use that in his closing.lease:

 

[nursebeeme]

I'm brand new here but have lurked for a long time. I've learned so much from the legal experts and the keen-eyed observers in the JA trial threads. Thanks to all of you!

As a psychologist, I've watched in horror as two of the worst examples of "experts" from my profession have done everything possible to undermine the credibility of the field in front of a national audience. Of course there is always some subjectivity associated with the analysis of human behavior, but adherence to scientific principles can produce reliable and verifiable results. Unfortunately, charlatans can use the language of the field to lend false credibility to almost any opinion.

I'm hesitant to question JM's judgment on any aspect of his cross examination, partly because I thought he was amazing (no notes!?!) but also because I would never want to incur the wrath of his fans here. I am new, after all. Still, he could have hammered ALV on her lack of scientific rigor, especially her repeated assertions that she was able to do all of the diagnostic work "in her brain". An absence of written work to explain in detail how her decision was reached is a huge red flag.

Also, the definition of "stalking" doesn't require the victim to respond in any particular way. Here's the American Psychological Association's description:

"Stalking refers to repeated harassing or threatening behaviors that an individual engages in such as following a person, appearing at a person’s home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person’s property. These actions may be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm, and they may or may not be precursors to an assault or murder"

Again, thanks to all of you and of course, much gratitude to Tricia for creating and managing this site.

welcome!!!!!:rocker::rocker:





we would love a verified psychologist around these parts! Here is the info on verification:

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters
If you would like to add youself as an expert in a certain field or as an insider to a case, please send an email to wsverify@xmission.com.

If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.

If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion; much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.

Locals who are describing the area or are members of the gyms and that sort of thing do not need to be verified.

We only verify people who know the players or have been named in the media, etc. This does not include people who may befriend a player on internet social media and then wish to post about it.

If a member wants to post as a professional (a lawyer, shrink, and so on) or as a local/knows the people involved then they must email us at the following email.

wsverify@xmission.com

Please include:

The case
Your Websleuths name
Your phone number and a good time to call
Your real name
Location (City and State)
In the subject line please put your user name and which case you are asking to be verified on

All info will be kept strictly confidential.

Thank you!

 

[Kentucky Gal]

Who is Nancy that JA claims the 'finger' was for in her tweets?

HLN's Nancy Grace. MOO:moo::moo::moo:

 

[tss]

I just logged in so I don't know if this has been mentioned:

AZRepublic Front Page:
ARIAS WITNESS FEELS SOCIAL MEDIA'S GLARE

Online attacks on defense expert decried as digital "lynch mob"

All this sent her to the hospital last weekend.
Is it witness tampering?
Threats to ALV office and online and Amazon
Possibility of removal of TV cameras.

I would post a link but I don't know how.

I wonder what percentage of them are made by team members, shills, of the Defense, in order to paint this picture...they are devious, and exactly one thing they would do