weekend break: discuss the latest here #125

[Liebchenmutti]

Just saw this--it's a great summary of what Juan did Thursady with ALV on the stand for cross.


Alyce in Jodi-land
6 Replies

Points made by the prosecution:

1. After spending an hour building up AL’s (Alyce LaViolette’s) credentials JM (Juan Martinez) tore them down in minutes. Under cross she became an out-dated (no formal education in more than 3 decades), out of touch (she now lectures about Snow White being battered), under-qualified (because she has no PhD she cannot administer or score tests and is not qualified to diagnose anyone) joke.

2. AL based her opinions on a 44 hour interview with JA (Jodi Arias) and her Journals. She never spoke to anyone else (just read some other things and watched the 48hrs interview). JM pointed out that despite being paid $250 and hour to read JA’s journals she could not come up with a direct answer without wanting to refer to said journals. He simply asked her if there was anything negative in the Journals about JA and she requested that he show her the journals. She had no problem with questions about the journals with the defense because she was reading directly from them as spoon fed by the defense attorney. In fact the judge actually busted her for reading from the journals directly. Not to mention these journals are just like “Snow White”: fairy tales and this is basically what this expert regurgitated on the stand for 6 days.

3. JM got AL to admit the ‘continuum’ she based her ‘expert’ opinions on was made up BY HER! She even admitted to him that she could alter it at will. When asked if there was any diagnosis for “battered Women’s Syndrome” in the DSM (the ‘Bible” of psychological disease according to the last defense witness) she admitted there is no such thing. (Oh, and if there was she is not a Doctor and not qualified to diagnose anyone).

5. Remember when AL went into great detail to point out that because Travis had come from an abusive family that he would grow up to be an abuser? (And according to her everyone else in that circumstance would unless they received some kind of therapy). Well here is how JM used the Fairy Tale “Snow White” to prove the exact same point about JA:

-Snow White was abused by her Step-Mom and her Dad did nothing to protect her. JA was abused by both her Mom and Dad and neither protected her.

-Snow White fled into the woods to get away from the abuse. JA fled to Bobby’s house to get away from her parent’s abuse and control.

-Snow White ended up in a shack taking care of people. JA moved into one room of a hoarder’s house and she was the only one working and bring the food in.

-Something bad happened to Snow White (the apple). Something bad happened to JA (Bobby choked her).

-Snow White becomes unconscious and waits for her Prince. JA starts looking for her Prince. Unfortunately I think her Prince was Travis.

-Doesn’t this then mean JA would grow up to be the abuser according to this expert?

**Mr. Martinez accomplished all this in about 30 minutes.

IMHO: In this version of Snow White the witch was Jodi and the apple she lured Travis with was SEX!

http://mixedbagblog.com/

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Testing 123. Posting from my phone...

 

[kscornfed]

How in the heck would a judge disallow evidence like that?!? Are you sure?

I swear I read this too. They managed to keep her hard drive out. If that's wrong, at least I'm not the only one who remembers it.

 

[kaRN]

That is actually very common in murder cases. The perpetrator often 'inserts' themselves into the investigation because they are desperate to learn what the police know.

It's so common police often look at who is 'inserting' themselves into the case for leads to their first suspects.

Thanks for that heads up!! I live in a hood. Ok it's a Toronto Hood and Michael Moore has exposed our hoods as pretty unhoodlike but nevertheless we have random shootings etc. 2 young men who I've known since they were about 6 had their pictures plastered on TV in connection with a Canada wide warrant and I called homicide to tell them there was no way it could have been them. It turned out it was them and they're both in prison now but would that be considered inserting myself into a case? :what:

 

[DairyGirl]

While I do agree "something" here involves Matt, I'm not so sure I'd peg him as an accomplice. The only reason? Because I believe JA would have quickly thrown him under the bus. Why in the heck would she let him go with no repercussions at all while she most likely awaits death row?

This has probably been answered but someone here pointed out that if she named MM as an accomplice then that would be admitting to premeditation.

 

[SmileBaby]

I'm new at this, so I hope it's o.k. if I bring this forward from the last thread:

Schuby


Quote:
Originally Posted by shane13
What is the consensus view on JA dragging or lifting TA?

Was he not a lot bigger than her?

He was but several WSers actually got their husbands (bless them) to agree to be dragged through the house and found they were able to manipulate them without too much difficulty.

Plus, she has very large hands. When she covered her face while fake crying when JM was asking her about crying while she stabbed Travis, I thought her hands seemed like they were quite substantial.

She does have large hands! Plus, I've always thought she used some of the bedding. It would be easier to drag that.

 

[kaRN]

I swear I read this too. They managed to keep her hard drive out. If that's wrong, at least I'm not the only one who remembers it.

It's true and happened when JA was acting as her own counsel IIRC.

 

[kscornfed]

I believe so, I'm not a lawyer but we all have a right to a lawyer and they are court appointed my dear.

They don't care if the client's guilty. My DA friend told me probably 90% of his clients ARE guilty. They're still entitled to a defense.

 

[Nhic]

Thanks for that heads up!! I live in a hood. Ok it's a Toronto Hood and Michael Moore has exposed our hoods as pretty unhoodlike but nevertheless we have random shootings etc. 2 young men who I've known since they were about 6 had their pictures plastered on TV in connection with a Canada wide warrant and I called homicide to tell them there was no way it could have been them. It turned out it was them and they're both in prison now but would that be considered inserting myself into a case? :what:

No, because you had nothing to do with the crime.

If you were an accomplice calling cops to find out information, yes, that would have been inserting yourself into the case.

Who were those 2 btw?

 

[kscornfed]

It's true and happened when JA was acting as her own counsel IIRC.

This is mind boggling to me. How can the computer of an accused killer be kept out?????

 

[lil_buddy]

I defintely think something was about to start happening with Dan. She spent a lot of time with him and seemed to be inserting herself into his family. The fact that he went to visit her in prison after killing travis speaks volumes. There is no way that I would visit her in the slammer after she killed my friend. My loyalty would be to him first, I remember her doing the same thing to one of her exes. She started hanging with his friend during the relationship and after she broke up with her boyfriend she began dating the friend. something is definitely up there.

JA wrote a journal entry saying she thought DF was into her FWIW.
PS- You are on your own trying to find a screenshot of it.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

This is what I have been saying for weeks now. This Judge is the most unprofessional Judge I have ever seen trying a case of this magnitude. She is allowing evidence and testimony from the Defense that should have NEVER been allowed. She is allowing behavior in this court that is totally unacceptable I.E. the cell phones in court, the computers with the media in court, the behavior of some of the spectators, Arias being allowed to dictate the times court is in session because of her pathetic feeding schedule. (WHO CARES BY THE WAY IF THAT THING EATS OR NOT) Not to mention the total lack of efficiency this Judge has shown for running court promptly and effectively. Court should be running 5-6 days a week from 8 AM to 5-6 PM EVERY SINGLE DAY but Sunday. This is costing the Taxpayers of AZ a ridiculous amount of money and it is NOT right that this judge; who's responsibility it is to spend that tax money in the most efficient way she can; that she is wasting their time and money. IMO she is unprofessional and unethical and she is possibly causing SERIOUS issues for Appeal by allowing the release of those videos of the parents and the other tapes where Arias is doing the handstands etc. Especially since this Jury is NOT sequestered. People are completely FOOLING themselves if they think that Jury is NOT being exposed to the media, news, etc.

I think this judge is doing the best that she can. I don't agree with everything she has done, but still, I think she's doing as well as anyone else could.

It's not at all uncommon for court to be dark on Fridays. The Phil Spector trial was the same way, IIRC. Many of the trials that go on in my county are dark on Fridays.

As far as the tapes of her parents and the headstand being released, I don't think she has a say in that one way or the other. Didn't Nurmi argue that the State's Attorneys office were the ones responsible for that?

I think the jury is honest and it's quite possible they are following the admonitions and aren't watching, reading or listening to anything to do with this case. Case in point: ratting out Juror #5. I can't see any of them doing that if they didn't care about the case to the point they don't want things fouled up and have the state of Arizona doing this all over again.

MOO.

 

[kayice]

Just saw this--it's a great summary of what Juan did Thursady with ALV on the stand for cross.


Alyce in Jodi-land
6 Replies

Points made by the prosecution:

1. After spending an hour building up AL’s (Alyce LaViolette’s) credentials JM (Juan Martinez) tore them down in minutes. Under cross she became an out-dated (no formal education in more than 3 decades), out of touch (she now lectures about Snow White being battered), under-qualified (because she has no PhD she cannot administer or score tests and is not qualified to diagnose anyone) joke.

2. AL based her opinions on a 44 hour interview with JA (Jodi Arias) and her Journals. She never spoke to anyone else (just read some other things and watched the 48hrs interview). JM pointed out that despite being paid $250 and hour to read JA’s journals she could not come up with a direct answer without wanting to refer to said journals. He simply asked her if there was anything negative in the Journals about JA and she requested that he show her the journals. She had no problem with questions about the journals with the defense because she was reading directly from them as spoon fed by the defense attorney. In fact the judge actually busted her for reading from the journals directly. Not to mention these journals are just like “Snow White”: fairy tales and this is basically what this expert regurgitated on the stand for 6 days.

3. JM got AL to admit the ‘continuum’ she based her ‘expert’ opinions on was made up BY HER! She even admitted to him that she could alter it at will. When asked if there was any diagnosis for “battered Women’s Syndrome” in the DSM (the ‘Bible” of psychological disease according to the last defense witness) she admitted there is no such thing. (Oh, and if there was she is not a Doctor and not qualified to diagnose anyone).

5. Remember when AL went into great detail to point out that because Travis had come from an abusive family that he would grow up to be an abuser? (And according to her everyone else in that circumstance would unless they received some kind of therapy). Well here is how JM used the Fairy Tale “Snow White” to prove the exact same point about JA:

-Snow White was abused by her Step-Mom and her Dad did nothing to protect her. JA was abused by both her Mom and Dad and neither protected her.

-Snow White fled into the woods to get away from the abuse. JA fled to Bobby’s house to get away from her parent’s abuse and control.

-Snow White ended up in a shack taking care of people. JA moved into one room of a hoarder’s house and she was the only one working and bring the food in.

-Something bad happened to Snow White (the apple). Something bad happened to JA (Bobby choked her).

-Snow White becomes unconscious and waits for her Prince. JA starts looking for her Prince. Unfortunately I think her Prince was Travis.

-Doesn’t this then mean JA would grow up to be the abuser according to this expert?

**Mr. Martinez accomplished all this in about 30 minutes.

IMHO: In this version of Snow White the witch was Jodi and the apple she lured Travis with was SEX!

http://mixedbagblog.com/

Hopefully this ends up on the next page, that was excellent. Thanks for posting it.

 

[spcagrl]

I don't mean to sound crass, but I am curious to your thoughts.

Do you think if Jodi had actually completely decapitated Travis that the jurors would view the murder differently? Even though she didn't manage to completely detach his head, he is almost decapitated. The fact that his body is still in "one piece" per se in the photos is no less devastating than if she had actually decapitated him. But I think the murder would be viewed quite differently from everyone's perspective.

Just something that came to my mind while thinking about the DT and their supposed "professionals" testimonies.

I REALLY hate to say this but this chick is so crazy and macabre that if she had gotten his head off she would have taken it with her. Can't believe I just wrote that but I do believe she would've done it..

 

[Mykeru]

Famed XKCD cartoon characterizing the smug, snotty version of agnosticism:

Which, before you get your Ger-animals in a bunch is not, by definition, an attack on people's religion, or the lack thereof, but against people who think they get brownie points for willful indecisiveness. Worse, are people who demand a place at the table for their pet ideas no matter how many times they've been wrong and keep right on with it.

The relevance, your honors, will be apparent.

So as not to refer to any posters by name, mostly because I can't remember, I periodically see people complaining about the barely concealed contemptuous attitude some people, myself included, have towards the defense team and, as a kind of parlay, not giving proper consideration to those to adhere to the theory of defense in whole or part.

In fact, just so as not to irritate the sensitive, I will admit upfront that no one ever posted anything of the sort and I'm just making this all up, this is a work of fiction and any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

First, even though we refer to the defense as a "team", this isn't a game. For the defendant there are life and death issues at stake and, for the victim and his family, they only got one of those options.

However, if the defense stuck to making a case for some sort of crime of passion (good luck with the premeditation) or even an attack based on an outlier physical conflict in the relationship between Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander, I might even give them a "nice try". But they haven't done that. Their strategy is to vilify the victim as a relentless abuser who, for good measure, was also a rapist and nascent pedophile. This, if you think about it, isn't so much a defense as a giving approval to an act of murder: Travis Alexander was a , he had it coming and why are you people so bent out of shape about it?

That tactic doesn't get a sporting "nice try", because it's an abomination, a concoction of people who presume everyone lacks their moral compass.

And I doubt this "defense" is Jodi Arias' "nice try". She basically had two stories: 1. I wasn't there and 2. It wasn't me.

I have no urge to parse ownership of this atrocity, but I think it's clear to me that the true facilitators of this defense are Dr. Samuels and, to a greater degree Alyce LaViolette, who fed Arias the information she needed to run through the checklist of PTSD and Battered Woman Syndrome (Aside: One thing I don't like about Martinez' questioning, was the possibility of someone thinking he was implying Battered Woman Syndrome isn't a real thing. If you want to see how a legitimately battered woman kills out of defending herself and her own, and the behaves after the fact, look up Amber Cummings).

I was in time-out at the time, but when it was revealed Alyce LaViolette gave a convention lecture of Snow White as a battered women that previously inexplicable doodle by Arias showing Snow White with a black eye made a piece fall into place with an audible thump.

I really don't care what part of the defense theory I am supposed to give deference to, because when it has come down to single disprovable facts, the defense claims have fallen apart and revealed to be inventions. Not big things, because reality is made up of little details, like whether pin shelving could support the leaping weight of a 125 lb person, the sums you get when you do the math of gas station receipts and the like.

For some bizarre reason some people seem to think that being somehow "objective" by sheer force of will even if it means they have to hold onto ideas regardless of how conter-factual they are puts them in a superior state of knowing which works something like this:

"I know many of you hold to the idea that the moon is made if igneous silicates formed when a planet-sized body has a near collision with the proto Earth, flinging ejecta into orbit that coalesced into the moon 4.5 billion years ago, but why are you so contemptuous of people who think it's made out of green cheese?"

Sorry, being "fair and balanced" for its own sake isn't a virtue depending on just how stupid one idea on the scales is and, in the case of entities like Fox News claims of objectivity are just a cover for being completely partisan.

You know who wants "equal time" and "teaching the controversy?" Creationists, that's who, because forced equivalency is the only way they can keep from losing. Actual scientists, people who do the hypothetical-deductive model for a living and are used to the idea of rejecting ideas for which there is no evidence have no problem letting it come down to an intellectual fight to the death. Hopefully we can include fact finders such as law enforcement and juries in that ideal.

So, yes, I understand how people like their opinions and how some people who like their opinions resort to tone-policing and cries of incivility as they claw their way off the cliff. And, no, I won't come right out and go ad hominem ----- which is not, as some think, "name calling", but irrelevant name calling. Calling Jodi Arias a liar whose claims should be judged as coming from a liar isn't ad hominem, it's inductive probability based on past experience or, to think of it this way, the probability Jodi Arias will lie tomorrow is about the same as the sun rising, if we can go by past experience -- on people, but I do reserve the right to call ideas unfounded, stupid or just plain evil. Whether the person making them is stupid or evil can only be implied.

Asking for unwarranted consideration of the defense case for Travis Alexander being an abuser, a pedophile, a user of women, a sex deviant who had it coming isn't being objective, it's being recalcitrant in the fact of fact because, regarding all of the above, their just no freaking evidence for it except the narrative of a known liar as filtered through some mercenary ideologue expert witnesses in the pay of a defense team who even John Wayne Gacy in his clown outfit would think is kind of tacky.

If rejecting things for which there's not only no evidence, but a lot of countering evidence, makes me close-minded in some people's eyes, I will just have to shed a little tear and live with it.

Variously attributed to many, including Carl Sagan: "We should keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean our minds should be so open that our brains fall out".

 

[gngr~snap]

I swear I read this too. They managed to keep her hard drive out. If that's wrong, at least I'm not the only one who remembers it.

They really don't need her computer... other than photographs she uploaded form her camera etc....

WHAT INFO DOES GOOGLE KEEP?
BY JBAT - JANUARY 27, 2006

Like most Web sites, our servers automatically record the page

requests made when users visit our sites. These “server logs”

typically include your web request, Internet Protocol address, browser

type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or

more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser.

http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/01/what_info_does_google_keep.php

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/faq/

 

[Mellinyce]

Testing 123. Posting from my phone...

Loud and Clear StephanieHartPI =D

 

[TexMex]

They don't care if the client's guilty. My DA friend told me probably 90% of his clients ARE guilty. They're still entitled to a defense.

Absolutely. John Adams the Second US President defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre:

John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them. Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to offer the British soldiers an adequate defense.

 

[TXHoney]

One of the talking heads said...Jodi was dating or living with this one guy...who was room-mates with MM, who worked for DB, who was the boss of all, who was having financial problems when Jodi went to Vegas (trolling for men, imho)...and met Travis, broke up DB within a week. She traded up, never without a man in between. Did she ever get over the previous man? Kind of like getting a new pet immediately after you lost the old one, did you mourn its' death? jmho

And she was setting Ryan Burns up as her next one.

 

[tinkabella]

I read somewhere that the DT was able to get a motion preventing anything on her computer from being entered as evidence. However, recently it has been observed that there have been two computer experts added to the witness list for rebuttal so we'll see if they are limited to Travis' computer or not.

I don't understand how anything from her computer is not able to be presented as evidence. This trial really blows my mind. There has to be something really bad on that computer for the DT to want it out.