Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/5 - 2/9 - Break

[skab]

Yes where is Tuba?

 

[bettybaby00]

Ugh....I've heard enough from her. I'm sorry. MOO

Sigh....she has a point, yet I hope Juan is able to point out in closing how many times the murderess's story has changed over time, and that in the 1st trial the DT fought the BPD diagnosis tooth and nail. Now they are playing it up big time and they had the Geff bring up the idea of her being bi-polar as well :gaah:

it's another good example of her "chameleon-like" behavior(s).

 

[MeeBee]

I dunno. It didn't seem as if most people purported to be reviewing the book. They were talking about the trial and criticising LaViolette's character. Yes, some attacked her, but there were a lot of heartfelt critiques. DV survivors were criticising and exposing her disinformation and character. Yes, the critiques were not book reviews. IMO, big deal. Given her strident mendacity, hatred of men, venality, and generally ugly character, I'm glad she was exposed; IMO it would be irresponsible to recommend her books to anyone. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, with all respect.

Yes I guess we will. It was wrong. Plain and simple. As were the twitter messages sent to her. I am in no way a fan of her, but I get disappointed when I see people stooping to such levels and then trying to claim what they were doing was right.

That is the whole point. They weren't book reviews. They were posts bashing her as a person and then directing people not to buy or read her book. And leaving low ratings that may have been undeserved. Did they read the book? No. It might have been a good one. It might have contained some good information in there. Her danger level and threat to society has been greatly exaggerated. I find the explanation that those people were just saving people from this dangerous woman completely disengenuous. Or warning people. It's not like she was dispensing overtly harmful information to people. It's a copout. It's an excuse.

She has some backwards views, yes. Her continuum of violence, while misplaced in this case, was pretty interesting. I don't like her. But the behavior of some "Travis supporters" at that time really wasn't right and was disappointing. That's just my opinion. They should be better than that. Take the high road.

"It would be irresponsible to recommend her books to anyone." Then don't. It's pretty simple. One need not go out of their way to find the book, not read it, and not recommend it to anyone.

Again...that's just an excuse.

I'm glad you agree to disagree.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Ugh....I've heard enough from her. I'm sorry. MOO

And that's why I don't follow BK. Her HLN 'tude tends to shine through at times. Some stuff is interesting, but others are just way way out there compared to other her other comments. jmo

 

[Myvice]

My vote would be for getting the ring resized...and TA has to marry the woman it fits. A Cinderella story!

 

[daisydomino]

There's got to be an app for hacking the stun belt controls....

LOL! zzzzzzt

Who besides me has spent part of this evening researching stun belt accidents and radio frequencies, considering how one would sneak a gadget through security, etc...

Eight seconds! That's gotta hurt worse than being spun around and body slammed and choked to unconsciousness. I wonder if the deputy with the remote is a hater?

OOOH! Accidents do happen
http://archive.azcentral.com/video/1508632501001

 

[RickshawFan]

Ok, something has been bugging me.

WTH did JA have TAs engagement ring for, and he seemed ok about it?

He may only have appeared to be okay, not wanting to set JA off.

 

[MeeBee]

IMO, Travis didn't sound that ok about her taking the ring. He sounded annoyed but backed off a bit when she gave a response that seemed to indicate she had an innocent reason for taking it. He referenced her taking it in his journal saying something along the lines of, located the ring, I guess Jodi had it for some reason... She probably did have some excuse for it, probably along the lines of what Iliketobendpages said, that she gave him after he asked her about it, when she could have just told him then but he caught her and she needed to tailor a story. The fact that she said, "I can't imagine how stressed and worried you must have been," tells me that's exactly what she wanted him to feel.

So he probably accepted her excuse even if it was weird, but in the end was something he added to the list of actions she took that proved she didn't respect his boundaries. It built up over time. It was just another thing that bothered him but he let go. He may have even kicked himself for "jumping to conclusions" thinking she stole it.

I wonder if he ever got the ring back.

 

[RickshawFan]

"As to the cruel, depraved and heinous: Read through the state Supreme Court's legal interpretation of the phrase. We think you'll agree Arias' crime fits in several ways. The jury will see this language in their final instructions. Here are some highlights:

* "Mental anguish includes a victim's contemplation of his or her ultimate fate." -- Yes. Alexander had more than two dozen knife wounds.

* "As to physical pain, the victim does not need to be conscious for "each and every wound" inflicted for cruelty to apply." -- Check.

* "The plan must be 'such that suffering before death must be inherently and reasonably certain to occur, not just an untoward event.'" -- As with the "anguish" Alexander undoubtedly felt, the sheer number of stab wounds seems to meet this requirement.

* "A defendant relishes the murder when he or she takes pride in, or derives enjoyment from the killing as demonstrated by the defendant's words or actions." -- In addition to stabbing and shooting Alexander, Arias slit her boyfriend's throat from ear-to-ear. Only she knows if she enjoyed doing that -- but it's plain freaky that 24 hours later she was necking with a guy in Utah.

* " The fact finder must consider the killer's intentional actions to determine whether he acted with the necessary vile state of mind. The state must make two showings. The state must first show that the defendant did, in fact, use violence beyond that necessary to kill. The state must also show that the defendant continued to inflict violence after he knew or should have known that a fatal action had occurred." -- Check and check.

* "Needless mutilation occurs when the defendant mutilates the victim's body subsequent to death, reflecting 'a mental state that is `marked by debasement.'" -- Perhaps slashing Alexander's throat wasn't mutilation, but Arias' way of ending the suffering from his knife-gashes and bullet lodged in his brain. We'll give Arias this one."

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/va...a_police_deleted_porn_trial_death_penalty.php

I believe this was covered by the 2013 jury when they specified the murder was especially cruel. That made Jodi eligible for the DP. I don't believe the 2015 jury will have to address these issues.

 

[Myvice]

With all the things he let slide it's hard to see him as abusive.

I'm pretty sure most people would have kicked her to the curb long before regardless of her suicidal manipulations.

 

[RickshawFan]

And that's why I don't follow BK. Her HLN 'tude tends to shine through at times. Some stuff is interesting, but others are just way way out there compared to other her other comments. jmo

I'm surprised BK came out with this. She seems like a smart cookie. But she's not evaluating in what sense BPD would be construed as a mitigator, since it doesn't address stuff like premeditation, stalking, aggression, any of it. And a very low percentage of the BPD demographic commits homicide (lower than the general population); a very high percentage commits suicide. So murder is a not at all common outcome of BPD.

I'm guessing these points are going to come out in re-direct when KN can't get a second go at them, otherwise they would have come out in direct. I hardly think JM didn't anticipate these issues.

 

[RickshawFan]

LOL! zzzzzzt

Who besides me has spent part of this evening researching stun belt accidents and radio frequencies, considering how one would sneak a gadget through security, etc...

Eight seconds! That's gotta hurt worse than being spun around and body slammed and choked to unconsciousness. I wonder if the deputy with the remote is a hater?

OOOH! Accidents do happen
http://archive.azcentral.com/video/1508632501001

Won't we ever get to see poor wittle Jodi spun around......by the stun belt? Dash! Of course, she could try to make a run for it with the help of MDLR if she gets the DP; then we might even get to see a real body slam.

 

[wendiesan]

Ugh....I've heard enough from her. I'm sorry. MOO

RE BK quote: "Kirk Nurmi has basically made the State's psychologist, Janeen DeMarte his own witness. It's not a contentious cross-examination. He's getting his oint out It doesn't mean the jury will necessarily give Jodi Arias life..but it sure does help the def. that the State's own witness is establishing a mitigator for them."

This was something that came up in the original trial, and, IIRC, at the time, the DT refused to acknowledge that JA had borderline personality disorder. This time around, the DT is offering BPD as a mitigating factor. So, it appears, Dr. DeMarte is operating as an expert witness should, that is, she is giving an objective evaluation of JA's mental and emotional structure and explaining to the court how it affects her interactions with other people. BK has been very complimentary of Dr. D, considering her to be a very strong expert witness.

I believe that Dr.D is maintaining her position, and is making important distinctions between what she said and what the DT is saying that she says. For instance, I think that the DT is trying to refer to BPD as a mental illness since that would be a condition over which their client has no control. However, if I understand this correctly, Dr.D is saying, no, BPD is a disorder. Dr. D and the DT both agree now that JA does have BPD. During the trial, the DT disagreed with Dr. D and stated that JA did NOT have BPD. It appears that Dr. D has convinced them, and they accept she is correct in her assessment. So, now the jury can make of it what they will in light of the context which Dr. D has provided regarding the nature of the disorder.

When Dr. D went on to other statements which were not supportive of the DT's agenda, the DT was back to being rude and argumentative, IMO.

So, like JA's age when she murdered Travis and the fact that she had no previous arrest record, the BPD is a mitigator which will not be contested. Since, I believe, Dr. G did not diagnose JA as having BPD, the DT had to get that mitigator before the jury through Dr. D. However, the idea that JA's actions were controlled by her condition has been and will be contested. Dr. D does not believe that JA has PTSD, whereas Dr. G claims that she does. So, the PTSD is a contested mitigator. JA's claims of childhood abuse are contested mitigators. JA's claims of domestic violence at Travis's hands are contested mitigators. In fact, JA's claims of even having a domestic relationship, rather than a casual relationship, with Travis are contested.

Use of Dr. D's testimony by the DT does not, IMO, lessen her impact as a State witness. In fact, again IMO, it shows that she is doing what she was contracted to do: she is providing the court with her expert opinion regarding JA's psychological makeup and providing explanations regarding the terminology, etc., of her field to the jury.

AZL, please correct my post where needed. Thanks.

 

[Amster]

Ugh....I've heard enough from her. I'm sorry. MOO

Just doing what she always done....sucking up for an exclusive....makes me puke.

 

[Myvice]

RE BK quote: "Kirk Nurmi has basically made the State's psychologist, Janeen DeMarte his own witness. It's not a contentious cross-examination. He's getting his oint out It doesn't mean the jury will necessarily give Jodi Arias life..but it sure does help the def. that the State's own witness is establishing a mitigator for them."

This was something that came up in the original trial, and, IIRC, at the time, the DT refused to acknowledge that JA had borderline personality disorder. This time around, the DT is offering BPD as a mitigating factor. So, it appears, Dr. DeMarte is operating as an expert witness should, that is, she is giving an objective evaluation of JA's mental and emotional structure and explaining to the court how it affects her interactions with other people. BK has been very complimentary of Dr. D, considering her to be a very strong expert witness.

I believe that Dr.D is maintaining her position, and is making important distinctions between what she said and what the DT is saying that she says. For instance, I think that the DT is trying to refer to BPD as a mental illness since that would be a condition over which their client has no control. However, if I understand this correctly, Dr.D is saying, no, BPD is a disorder. Dr. D and the DT both agree now that JA does have BPD. During the trial, the DT disagreed with Dr. D and stated that JA did NOT have BPD. It appears that Dr. D has convinced them, and they accept she is correct in her assessment. So, now the jury can make of it what they will in light of the context which Dr. D has provided regarding the nature of the disorder.

When Dr. D went on to other statements which were not supportive of the DT's agenda, the DT was back to being rude and argumentative, IMO.

So, like JA's age when she murdered Travis and the fact that she had no previous arrest record, the BPD is a mitigator which will not be contested. Since, I believe, Dr. G did not diagnose JA as having BPD, the DT had to get that mitigator before the jury through Dr. D. However, the idea that JA's actions were controlled by her condition has been and will be contested. Dr. D does not believe that JA has PTSD, whereas Dr. G claims that she does. So, the PTSD is a contested mitigator. JA's claims of childhood abuse are contested mitigators. JA's claims of domestic violence at Travis's hands are contested mitigators. In fact, JA's claims of even having a domestic relationship, rather than a casual relationship, with Travis are contested.

Use of Dr. D's testimony by the DT does not, IMO, lessen her impact as a State witness. In fact, again IMO, it shows that she is doing what she was contracted to do: she is providing the court with her expert opinion regarding JA's psychological makeup and providing explanations regarding the terminology, etc., of her field to the jury.

AZL, please correct my post where needed. Thanks.

ITA, and I've wondered if that was the reason JA had a tantrum. She can't handle the idea that someone would view her as mentally ill and wrong for killing TA. He deserved it in her mind.

I think De will find a way to get the point acrossed that BPD is not an excuse for what she did, especially the premeditation.

Will JM get a follow up?

 

[Meemaw12]

BK on Trisha's radio show

http://www.truecrimeradio.com/radio-archives/beth-karas-carl-koppelman-radio-archive-jan-2015/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Night-owl]

LOL! zzzzzzt

Who besides me has spent part of this evening researching stun belt accidents and radio frequencies, considering how one would sneak a gadget through security, etc...

Eight seconds! That's gotta hurt worse than being spun around and body slammed and choked to unconsciousness. I wonder if the deputy with the remote is a hater?

OOOH! Accidents do happen
http://archive.azcentral.com/video/1508632501001

Seriously, just found out that I can use my cell phone as a remote control for the TV. If there isn't an ap for stun belts, there SHOULD be.
[emoji1] [emoji298] [emoji298] [emoji298]

 

[wendiesan]

ITA, and I've wondered if that was the reason JA had a tantrum. She can't handle the idea that someone would view her as mentally ill and wrong for killing TA. He deserved it in her mind. I think De will find a way to get the point acrossed that BPD is not an excuse for what she did, especially the premeditation. Will JM get a follow up?

Gee, I think he does. And, I think he gets to cross-examine witnesses that the DT brings forward for their surrebuttal.
IMO, JM will make sure that the difference between "disorder" and "mental illness" is made very, very clear to the jury.
Where the DT has blurred distinctions, JM will bring focus.

I really admired the exchanges Dr. D had with KLN when he would try to twist the meaning of her words by paraphrasing them, and she would say no, and reiterate her point. I wonder if the jury was as put off as I was when Dr. D had to say JA "had taken without permission" the engagement ring from Travis's drawer instead of being allowed to say that JA had "stolen" it. Which, of course, underscored the fact that while Jodi may not have had an arrest record, she clearly was involved in illegal activities like theft making that mitigator less believable.

If she's this strong so early in her career, Dr. D is going to be a force to reckon with as time goes on.

 

[Truth Detector]

Did JA ever live on her own? Even for a short time, did she ever rent her own space, pay her bills, live as an adult without sponging off others? I cannot remember if. when she returned to Mesa, she rented her own place or was couch hopping?

That would require responsibility.

When did JA ever accept responsibility for anything?

 

[Paintr]

That would require responsibility.

When did JA ever accept responsibility for anything?

Agreed! and slightly O/T Truth Detector, I love your sense of humour. Thank you kindly for the laughs throughout this mess of a retrial. :cheers: