long weekend break: discuss the latest here #101

[Clue Finder 55]

Thank you!
I remember early on a Juror question for the blood splatter expert something to the effect (not exact words).. "Are you able to tell where the most Blood was found or accumulated at the scene?"
unfortunately, she couldn't answer Where with certainty bc water had accumulated on the floor which flowed everywhere..

My guess, a Juror would know to ask bc is clear the main artery throat slash would have caused more blood to exit the body and a rather quick bleed out, poor Travis..

After today I definitely now believe one Juror is educated in the medical field.. this could be an advantage for the others IMO..[/QUOTE

The main return artery to the heart was cut by a stab already so most of his blood would have already drained into his chest cavity by the time his throat was cut so there might not have been a whole lot of blood left to empty onto the floor in one spot

 

[bsk]

Do you think the jury has noticed that when Samuels says "possible, but not probable" what he really means is: "You know darn good and well that you, me, and anyone with half a brain knows that is true, but I can't say that because it hurts Jodi's cause."

 

[zoozoo]

I totally agree. Jodi was dressed to travel NOT take consensual nude shower pics of Travis.

Or she was dressed to kill. Who wears black socks and sweatpants in AZ in June?

 

[G&AMom]

Afternoon session con’t. Juan Martinez questioning Dr. Samuels after juror questions.
DS: Sympathy means [feeling] sorry to me but I feel compassion. I saw this person having a great deal of difficulty . . . that is the full extent of my [action].
Q: You felt a desire to alleviate her distress. Your initial impression was that you felt sorry for her? [The book] might help with the accuracy of my report.
Q: Are you a support group? Book would make my evaluation more accurate . . . I have been trained to disconnect my feelings from my evaluation . . . I don’t think it is therapy.
Q: Didn’t you say she had a breakthough? I said in therapy it would be considered a breakthrough . . . we had several visits before she revealed the story [about self-defense] . . . I have no idea whether book [was responsible for] changed story.
Q: During 2nd meeting you still had feelings of sympathy? No, we talked about evaluation, I was simply collecting data.
Q: If you had feeling at first meeting did those feelings change? We are trained to remove personal feelings.
Q: Did those feelings change? Did you still have feelings of sympathy? No.
Q: You met with her between Dec. 2010 [Dr. Samuels gave this date] through Dec. 2012, two years. During the course of two years you administered PDS test. Why didn’t you do the test again? The answers would have been the same. . . it didn’t matter what triggering event was for the purpose of scoring.
Q: When was PTSD hypothesis formed? Several months into the evaluation.
Q: Would reporting non-sexual assault by a stranger matter? No.
Q: Would it matter if she reported 20 people [at Travis’]? Yes, it might change the results.
Q: Why would it make a difference? The chaos involved with 20 people would be greater, but in both instances someone tried to kill her, whether intruders or Travis.
Q: Intruders or self-defense, one statement has to be untrue. Doesn’t that make a person suspect in truth-telling? Why would you accept questions 16 through 21 [on PTSD test] as true if you know [the answer to] question 14 is a lie? Are you thinking that because you have compassion for the defendant? No.
Q: You have changed scores because you have sympathy for the defendant or are biased? Absolutely not.
Q: An identical issue, Ex. 535 is only raw data but Ex. 550 is of same person taking same test but you didn’t tell anybody? No. [Repeats story of misplaced test.]

 

[pinkie60]

Do you know where I could find this tidbit? Have not heard this story!

this was on the HLN shows, JVM and Drew a while ago. I think this would be on youtube. I'll check

 

[gngr~snap]

Or she was dressed to kill. Who wears black socks and sweatpants in AZ in June?

Ninjas? :waitasec:

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Snoozefest...no one else noticed. Seriously? It was discussed here until I nearly spontaneously combusted! There ain't nothing worth mentioning in any eyeball picture of Travis's. it's like Jesus toast.

If there were any chance that Jodi had an accomplice, she would have made sure that she was not implicated alone in this brutal crime. The non-assertive, non-aggressive, non-confrontational waif would have brought out the heavy artillery to make sure that she wasn't blamed for Travis' death without dragging someone else down with her. :moo:

 

[Southern_Meadow]

At 1:07:46 Judge Stephens asks him "Do you have any exhibits in your folders?".
Hmmmmm
Jodi Arias Full Trial - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - Day 35 - Part 3 - YouTube

I said yesterday and the day before there was something hinky with this man. Anyone with a minimal IQ would be able to see that and judging by most of the jurors questions, they do see it.

I think there is something hinky with LaViolette, too. Juan hinted at something to do with pedophilia and Travis' computer when he did his cross of JA. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was something to the affect that she (JA) lied to her telling her there was child on his computer when we all know there was not. When Juan asked her, she said did not tell her that, that she told her he had actual pictures. I think he has proof otherwise. So I think there's more bombshells to come when she's on the stand next week.

 

[ElleElle]

L@@kie!

Found some postcards JA wrote from jail: :rocker: sold on eBay.

 

[sacrablue]

Thank you!
I remember early on a Juror question for the blood splatter expert something to the effect (not exact words).. "Are you able to tell where the most Blood was found or accumulated at the scene?"
unfortunately, she couldn't answer Where with certainty bc water had accumulated on the floor which flowed everywhere..

My guess, a Juror would know to ask bc is clear the main artery throat slash would have caused more blood to exit the body and a rather quick bleed out, poor Travis..

After today I definitely now believe one Juror is educated in the medical field.. this could be an advantage for the others IMO..[/QUOTE

The main return artery to the heart was cut by a stab already so most of his blood would have already drained into his chest cavity by the time his throat was cut so there might not have been a whole lot of blood left to empty onto the floor in one spot

The Vena Cava is a vein not an artery. I remember artery are (A) away or blood away from heart. Veins are low pressure compared.

 

[Softail]

L@@kie!

Found some postcards JA wrote from jail: :rocker: sold on eBay.

Who the hell would buy this crap? :waitasec:

 

[neesaki]

I couldn't help but think about the movie What About Bob, I thought that movie was hilarious. What was the book baby steps? Can't remember.

Yes, Baby Steps. And remember how Dr. Marvin told Bob to take baby steps to get through all his fears and phobias? So Bob did just that, he baby stepped all the way to Lake Winnipesaukee to the front door of Dr. Marvin's vacation home :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh::floorlaugh: I love that movie, no matter how many times I watch it, it makes me laugh.

 

[pip]

She would have to have something very big on him for him to withhold information in court in a murder trial. When JM was first questioning him about her coming back, he claimed he didn't even remember it!

Do we really know how he felt about losing Jodi to Travis? They bought a house together, she was great with his son as he said. Did he plan on spending his life with Jodi and she was ripped away from him by a young strapping, good looking man and by the Mormon Church? He may be a man still obsessed with Jodi and his lost dreams. He may have absolutely despised Travis for wrecking his life with Jodi. Maybe he feels triumphant that Travis was taken out and chooses to stand by Jodi out of undying love (obsession) for her. We have no idea what kind of guy DB really is. Maybe the same thing happened with his first wife and he carried anger about that too, blaming the man more than the woman and his anger was only heightened by this second round of deep emotional loss.
Of course I can only speculate, but isn't it possible?
ETA: It was quite evident that when he was on the stand that there is some deep emotional hook that Jodi still has him on. She played his heart strings with her face during his testimony big time. He still has a thing for Jodi in my mind and she knows it. She continues to emotionally manipulate him and he responds to it just as she knows he will and so evidently did.

 

[Karmady]

Good morning all. I would think jm could/will file a complaint against Samuels.

He definitely will not, imo. Samuels hasn't done anything unethical imo (at least any more than any other expert ever has done), and he testifies in Maricopa County with at least some frequency, so he's not some random they dragged in off the street to testify. I posted a link a while ago to an evaluation he did in an AZ murder of an entire family which included the rape of the teenage daughter and the torture of the young son while their parents were tied up and helpless to stop him. The prosecutor's office knows him.

eta: the link wasn't to the evaluation, but just a copy of a decision in the case that referred to him having worked on it.

 

[bsk]

Didn't Samuels characterize the TR version of DSM-IV as being just some text changes that might be helpful to a lay person, but having nothing of substance from the point of view of an expert like himself?

Do you think JM's expert will contradict this, or does this really sound trivial? Could it be that this is part of a pattern of his that he hasn't really kept up with things that well since he started in the field back in Jimmy Carter's day before PCs were around?

Yeah it's mostly text changes, but not entirely.

In anticipation of the fact that the next major revision of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) would not be published until at least 16 years after DSM-IV, a text revision of DSM-IV was published in 2000. The primary goal of this document, titled DSM-IV-TR, was to maintain the currency of the DSM-IV text, which reflected the empirical literature up to 1992. Most of the major changes were confined to the descriptive text. Changes were made to a handful of criteria sets in order to correct errors found in DSM-IV. In addition, some of the diagnostic codes were changed to reflect updates to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding system adopted by the U.S. government.

http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm-iv-vs--dsm-iv-tr

 

[snowshuze]

Who the hell would buy this crap? :waitasec:

A nefARIAS con-a- sewer.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Jodi's lack of remorse, and her claims about Travis keep me awake at night.
Can I ask you all- do you think Jodi wishes this had never happened, that she could turn back time, if only because she was caught, and now has to face the consequences?

I DO think she would if she could. Simply because in her sick twisted way she loved Travis and knows that her life is gone now. I think maybe she thinks if she could have "handled" things differently, they would be married and riding off into the sunset together.

That, of course, is not the reality of it, but I do believe it is what Jodi thinks. Fantasy.

But truth is, she could not suppress her rage at being rejected by the one man she wanted more than anything else.

 

[Maryann123]

She wanted to keep things neat? Well that was an epic fail.

I can't remember if Jodi claims it, or if it's Juan's theory, but somehow it came out that she got a glass, or cup from under the bathroom sink and poured water on the tile floor in order to drag Travis back into the shower. Now who said that? If it was Jodi, what happened to her memory? She was still in the "valley" according to the good doctor. Or was it the "fog"......hard to keep up with the stories out there.

As far as the doctor saying the crime scene was chaotic, and anybody that premeditated this would have been better prepared....I call BS! The plan was to kill Travis in the shower. How much cleaner can you get? But Travis was strong willed and he didn't die like she thought he would. She followed him all over the upstairs area, stabbing him in the back. He damn well wouldn't die, so she shot him. Only one shot, and then she was afraid someone would hear the gun shots, so then she slit his throat. They can spin it anyway they want to, but I believe the evidence. As far as Jodi using a knife that was already in Travis' house, I don't buy it. They make a big deal about why bring a knife, if you have a gun.......well, that's exactly what they found when she was arrested. She had packed up the new rental car, and she was taking a gun and two knives. Probably doing the same packing that she did when she headed out to Travis' house. Jodi isn't logical, and I don't know why the talking heads keep insisting Jodi wouldn't need to bring a knife when there are plenty in his home. I keep wondering if the gun and knife(s) were taped inside her luggage (unidentified duct tape found in the bedroom) perhaps under that hard plastic piece that fits in the bottom of some bags. She absolutely would not be running downstairs to bring a knife into the bedroom. Travis was already wondering if she was an ax murderer. I think she read that blog, and decided to show him just how much of an ax murderer she could be. She wanted it to be personal, and shooting him wouldn't get it.

 

[Alice Ramnit]

Just catching up on yesterday...can anyone direct me to video of Juan Martinez challenging Samuels??

Thanks!

 

[justsharing]

I'm really confused about the book because yesterday, on cross, he said that he gave it to her at their first meeting. In previous testimony, he said that he bought it for through Amazon and that it was mailed to her directly from them. Which is it? Also, if he had it mailed to her, did he send it to her before he even had the first meeting?

Very confusing!

Yes, when a person lies things do become quite confusing. If the good Dr. were being completely honest there wouldn't be any confusion. I can imagine the jury throwing all his testimony out by the time Juan is done with him.