trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Borderline fits with motive. I believe it only scrapes the surface of JA's psychopathology. But it fits the crime, explains it to some extent, and gives the jury something concrete and understandable to hang their hats on. I think the strategy is brilliant.

I think she kept locking on to guys, but none of them were worth killing. Her relationship with Travis was very different. On the outside looking in, he was rich, had power within PPL, and liked to travel. This wasn't going to be a stop at Mimi's to have "a talk" with her. He was gonna pay.

Borderline fits with motive. I believe it only scrapes the surface of JA's psychopathology. But it fits the crime, explains it to some extent, and gives the jury something concrete and understandable to hang their hats on. I think the strategy is brilliant. It's an Occam's razor kind of approach.

I think Juan is saving the most damning evidence for the end of the trial. The jurors have three days to think about Jodi hiding behind a Christmas tree and stealing a ring.

Some points about the questions from jurors.

They did not grill Demarte about her relative lack of experience.

No questions about her BPD diagnosis. Shocker for me.

No questions about her saying that JA is not a battered woman. Another shocker. I expected at least one question about that.

No question about Demarte's opinion that Travis' anger was directly delated to JA's lies/snooping. I expected a question about whether Demarte believes that Travis' anger was justified etc.

No follow up questions. If the juror who asked about the bear/tiger was on JA's side ( as opposed to just asking critical questions) then there would have been follow up questions regarding that. No other follow up questions.

A small number of questions and no follow up tells me that this jury is on the prosecution's side. Remember they can be criticial of Demarte and still be on JM's side but I think this jury was impressed with Demarte.

DeMarte was the best witness of all so far. She made sure to clarify what the exact question was. She wouldn't let Wilmott use lingo out of context, she admitted she didn't know everything, She explained things in an authoritative, but easy to understand manner, and she was even keeled during the whole questioning session.

I think the jurors will throw away LaViolettes and Samuels testimony wholesale. Wilmott did a very good job cross examining her, but you can't polish a turd. JMO
 
I just watched the last part of the cross, and JW was a real embarrassment, trying to lecture JD on how to read psychology tests. When JD would offer to look up the meaning of a scale for her, JW wouldn't let her. Bad form.

"You think other psychologists don't use these scales?" Like JW knows better. She's a joke.

I think it was gitana who posted that the courtroom is total drama and that it's basically a free for all.

It sounded to me like attorneys have no shame.

IMO, JW should have felt shame, simply from an intelligence point of view. She was bad, really bad with some of her questioning. As in, stupid bad, enough to leave me slack jawed. Seriously, this is a court of law, and she teaches trial tips and tricks???? Are we supposed to take her seriously? I do believe I am shocked and appalled.
 
I agree with this assessment. This question worries me as well. What difference does it make if a bear or a tiger attacked me, I'd be just as scared all the same, thus the outcome would be the same. MOO

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.
 
Good morning:seeya:

What have I missed while I was catching some Z's??

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
Watching now JW questioning DeMarte after jurors questions....I think Nurmi like Dr. D.
He cracks up at her answers and asking for clarification of the questioning....he is ALL smiles.....haha
 
I think she kept locking on to guys, but none of them were worth killing. Her relationship with Travis was very different. On the outside looking in, he was rich, had power within PPL, and liked to travel. This wasn't going to be a stop at Mimi's to have "a talk" with her. He was gonna pay.



I think Juan is saving the most damning evidence for the end of the trial. The jurors have three days to think about Jodi hiding behind a Christmas tree and stealing a ring.



DeMarte was the best witness of all so far. She made sure to clarify what the exact question was. She wouldn't let Wilmott use lingo out of context, she admitted she didn't know everything, She explained things in an authoritative, but easy to understand manner, and she was even keeled during the whole questioning session.

I think the jurors will throw away LaViolettes and Samuels testimony wholesale. Wilmott did a very good job cross examining her, but you can't polish a turd. JMO

Stark and astute. Kind of ironic, not a guy she would die for but a guy worth killing.

The Christmas tree and ring scenarios definitely highlight the desperation, craziness and drama of being Jodi. Imagine how innocuous it seems to us, seemed to Travis. It's not like she had psychopathic killer tattooed on her forehead.
 
I'm really glad Dr. D got in how Jodi was flirting with the guy on the plane after the memorial, especially that she DID call him, and the ring she stole, although I wish Dr. D had included it was an engagement ring TA had for someone else...minor detail though I guess.
:clap:
 
Everybody at PPL Jodi was trying to latch on to had already done the work to be advanced in the organization or at least was on the right track. That's what she wanted, but not do the work it took to get there.

A lady on NG told how Jodi would hang out at places where everyone was preparing to leave for meetings reserved for upper level members. Jodi would make an excuse like 'I can't go with you because I have to work.' She was never asked to go or even allowed to attend.

The Mormons, from my experience with acquaintances, are very open and inclusive. If someone is alone, they are invited along to community activities and such as Family Home gatherings. Jodi was overtly NOT included.
 
I'm really glad Dr. D got in how Jodi was flirting with the guy on the plane after the memorial, especially that she DID call him, and the ring she stole, although I wish Dr. D had included it was an engagement ring TA had for someone else...minor detail though I guess.
:clap:

Would be interesting what Jodi told this guy on the plane. Was she wearing the ring, claiming it was hers?
 
Watching now JW questioning DeMarte after jurors questions....I think Nurmi like Dr. D.
He cracks up at her answers and asking for clarification of the questioning....he is ALL smiles.....haha

Good Morning,

I said it yesterday twice, he is in love with her!
 
I think maybe the juror asking about the bear and tiger might have had some training in that? I was attacked by a doberman years ago. I still have flashbacks if I see a doberman, not a poodle or shepherd etc., but anything that looks like a doberman. And I certainly don't have flashbacks if I see a cat, tiger or bear. I almost go the feeling listening to the questions that they really didn't have any questions but after 150-200 question to the previous 2 experts --- they had to ask her SOMETHING
 
You guys are the best, is there a link we can read about the incident?

It was in a record somebody pulled from the jail and posted here. She's also gotten in trouble for stealing pens on a few occasions and having them stashed in shampoo bottles and under her mattress and there was one incident where she disobeyed an order from staff and was returned to her cell. I'll see if I can find the link either here or on the web and post it again. This isn't the best source but should help you until I get a better one....
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/04/jodi-arias-prison-rap-sheet-attacked-cell-mate/

Here's a better link. http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/03/hln-after-dark-jodi-arias-discipline-reports
 
Watching now JW questioning DeMarte after jurors questions....I think Nurmi like Dr. D.
He cracks up at her answers and asking for clarification of the questioning....he is ALL smiles.....haha


As to Mr. Nurmi - I'm thinking he was thinking if he needs a head shrink expert in the future, Dr. DeMarte would be a good choice. Much of my :floorlaugh: coincided with Nurmi's, I was :floorlaugh: at Ms. Wilmott's shrill little voice and dumb comebacks, such as because Travis is dead you didn't try to find out how he felt. Ms. Wilmott had some rare moments during her not so well put together cross. I howled especially loud when Dr. DeMarte told Ms. Wilmott she could not answer one of her questions as yes or no and Ms. Wilmott said "that means no" and the good Doc just responded no it can't be answered by yes or no. I realize a trial should be a serious event, but this cross conducted by Ms. Wilmott was much closer to the 3 Stooges "Who's of First" skit, than a real cross examination.
 
I think maybe the juror asking about the bear and tiger might have had some training in that? I was attacked by a doberman years ago. I still have flashbacks if I see a doberman, not a poodle or shepherd etc., but anything that looks like a doberman. And I certainly don't have flashbacks if I see a cat, tiger or bear. I almost go the feeling listening to the questions that they really didn't have any questions but after 150-200 question to the previous 2 experts --- they had to ask her SOMETHING

Mornin' everyone! Just finishing up yesterday's testimony and I am not going to lie, but I skipped to Juror questions. I love the jury questions.

One comment about the bear/tiger example. As an adult survivor of severe childhood abuse, I have issues with men. Though my mother was negligent in protecting us, I have never allowed a 'man' i.e. dh or boyfriend to discpline my children because it causes me a great deal of anxiety due to the abuse. In my mind a man is large and powerful and therefore unable to control the level of discipline they can render. I start to cry and can not control my feelings of wanting to protect them..even yelling bothers me. My current dh has children and corporal discpline was something he and his ex wife used. I have never used corporal discipline with my children. The first time he went to spank one of his children was a horrible experience. I went into the mode of protector. He said later it was unlike anything he had ever seen. I jumped up and stood between them and was screaming at him to stop. He had not touched her yet and was not using a 'weapon' but was going to spank her with his hand. However, when his ex wife smacked her I had no reaction.

Basically, in my mind the male abuser is the one with the most power and the one who can hurt the most. Females do not. I understand the bear/tiger thing and do not know if I stated the difference in a way anyone could understand. But yes, there is a difference. Its about what you know to be true and what you don't trust. I know that a man is physically stronger and larger, I do not trust that. I had to learn to trust that he would not spank/abuse his dd but he also had to learn that corporal punishment causes me to feel physical symptoms, anxiety, sweating, fear even when it is not directed at me but at someone smaller than him. Females are smaller and do not pose the same threat to me.

K
 
i dont think ja ever intendent to take the camera with her..because why take the time to delect the photos if she was going to take and destroy later...the defense is pushing her being a photographer and therefore knows cameras i call bs ..if so knowlegable why not just take the sim card out of camera..ja thought she destroyed that camera and everything on it by delecting and putting it through a wash cycle with bleach..i hope pros. can clear it up..also i do think (but i dont know how) jm needs to clear up the difference between 2 people breaking in had 2 weapons and killed travis..than jodis lieamony about being lunged at and having to defend herself by getting the gun and killing travis. 2 very different fears ,i think these are 2 ques. the jury might be having a hard time with ,the defense is hitting very hard on the point about the camera.(why leave the camera behind)
 
I'm really glad Dr. D got in how Jodi was flirting with the guy on the plane after the memorial, especially that she DID call him, and the ring she stole, although I wish Dr. D had included it was an engagement ring TA had for someone else...minor detail though I guess.
:clap:

I find the ring issue quite intriguing. I do wonder when this happened as I just have this suspicion it may have happened in January when Jodi claims Travis broke her left ring finger. Perhaps I just have a good imagination...
 
i dont think ja ever intendent to take the camera with her..because why take the time to delect the photos if she was going to take and destroy later...the defense is pushing her being a photographer and therefore knows cameras i call bs ..if so knowlegable why not just take the sim card out of camera..ja thought she destroyed that camera and everything on it by delecting and putting it through a wash cycle with bleach..i hope pros. can clear it up..also i do think (but i dont know how) jm needs to clear up the difference between 2 people breaking in had 2 weapons and killed travis..than jodis lieamony about being lunged at and having to defend herself by getting the gun and killing travis. 2 very different fears

I think too, the higher level thinking would be to place it in the washer. The lower level thinking would be to pull the sim card as it would be something she would do 'automatically' or had done before. Kinda like putting the knife inthe dishwasher. Possible she did that because she has done it before.

Thats what I get out of that whole thing!

K
 
Rose, the question that struck me was the one asking her if she thought the camera would have been damaged in the washer. Wow! They already heard her say on the stand that she didn't know much about cameras. The jury also knew that Jodi didn't know much about cameras.

They wanted to see if Dr. DM thought the average person would think that the camera/memory card would be destroyed (along with evidence). Bingo! when the Dr. said she knew as much as the average person.

That juror just cemented premeditation in his/her mind. :rocker:






Some points about the questions from jurors.

They did not grill Demarte about her relative lack of experience.

No questions about her BPD diagnosis. Shocker for me.

No questions about her saying that JA is not a battered woman. Another shocker. I expected at least one question about that.

No question about Demarte's opinion that Travis' anger was directly delated to JA's lies/snooping. I expected a question about whether Demarte believes that Travis' anger was justified etc.

No follow up questions. If the juror who asked about the bear/tiger was on JA's side ( as opposed to just asking critical questions) then there would have been follow up questions regarding that. No other follow up questions.

A small number of questions and no follow up tells me that this jury is on the prosecution's side. Remember they can be criticial of Demarte and still be on JM's side but I think this jury was impressed with Demarte.
 
I think it was gitana who posted that the courtroom is total drama and that it's basically a free for all.

It sounded to me like attorneys have no shame.

IMO, JW should have felt shame, simply from an intelligence point of view. She was bad, really bad with some of her questioning. As in, stupid bad, enough to leave me slack jawed. Seriously, this is a court of law, and she teaches trial tips and tricks???? Are we supposed to take her seriously? I do believe I am shocked and appalled.

Perhaps having videos of her direct and cross examinations in this case will be an eye opener for her. I'm sure her students will point out contradictions between what she says and what she did in court.
 
My friend is posting photos on twitter. The bullets went through the computer chair! I'm not even sure at this point I'm going to send my kids to school.. people are acting far too damn nutty.

And yet gun control is a bad thing. Constitutional right to possess lethal weapons yada, yada, yada :facepalm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
1,604
Total visitors
1,760

Forum statistics

Threads
606,217
Messages
18,200,603
Members
233,781
Latest member
MG89
Back
Top