Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 36

[Val1]

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 27s 27 seconds ago
Geffner says DeMarte had all their stuff and all 3 tests revealed emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual issues #jodiarias #3tvaris

My question to this is, when Dr.G was coaching JA, was it made clear that the abuse referred to on the tests was to have originated from someone else, or could the person answering the questions simply give answers on experiences that were abusive, whether it was instigated by her or someone else?
ie. assuming JA ever had been really choked, what led up to it? perhaps she kicked them in the nether regions, freaked out and was kicking in walls, smashing/slashing their possessions, perhaps threatening them with a knife, scissors, broken glasses.... iow's, who's gets to answer the questions on the tests, the abuser or the abused?

We've heard(although this jury may not have) from family members about how some of them were physically assaulted(just the phone calls her parents told Det.F were emotionally abusive) by this murderer, and sexual issues... obviously JA has those starting at about age 16 or so(first bf, student exchange time period) and that's if we believe that BJ was her first...

None of which gave JA the right to drive 1000 miles to viciously murder someone just because she had "invested" two years of trying to "groom" them into marrying her so she could live out her life in a manner that she felt, as a "goddess", she was entitled to and then discovered that she'd already burned through all their funds. Major ****off eh?

 

[BritsKate]

I thought Borderline was on the DT's list of mitigators at the start of this retrial? And they are pounding home that it is a mental illness.

They want the jury to accept she is mentally ill--they do not care what illness they accept that she has, as long as they accept she has one. They want PTSD but are open to Borderline if that is the one the jury is more willing to accept.

Am I mistaken that it was on their pre-retrial list of mitigators? I know they listed mental illness but it seems to me they had Borderline listed also. I thought at the time how odd that was since they pooh-poohed that idea the first time around.

I'd like the jury to be aware of everything that the DT now embraces that they had kicked to the curb initially.

No, you're not mistaken but they haven't introduced any evidence of it themselves. Not even so much as a dx by anyone other than DeMarte. They didn't rebut DeMarte on BPD - they accepted that part of her testimony but then sought to discredit her on general experience as well as her expertise with abuse and trauma.

 

[Amster]

Looks to me like Arias had some brow work done. Starting to look a little bit like Graucho Marx.

With really, really ugly hands.....

 

[Val1]

geez she's looking awful!!! Tons more grey thinning dull hair!

I hope JM remembers to refer to her as this middle-aged defendant during his closing.

 

[mydirtysecret]

Wizzy. Geffner was hired on tax payer dollars to examine cmja forensically and to share those findings with the court. The entire purpose of the testing is to share it with the court. It is evidence. They weren't used as part of treatment. Usually it is released to counsel under a judges order basically telling them to secure the data. It just isn't nearly a big deal as geff is trying to portray

 

[bettybaby00]

Nurmi in his opening said JA was "diagnosed with BPD and PTSD", so they really, really want the "diagnosed" with a "mental illness" part of BPD. What they don't want is for jurors to make the logical leap that JA's malignant BPD makes her too dangerous to live in the general population at Perryville.

And yet they want to adopt the BPD diagnosis while discrediting the dr. doing the diagnosing :facepalm:

 

[Hez]

Thank you. I didn't think I was alone and now I know I am not and many have expressed the same opinions about this one case who have been trial watchers for many years or decades.

This is the only case that I can ever remember that seems to have no boundaries or guidelines in the courtroom that must be followed. It seems if it is the defense side saying any disparaging thing they can think of its a free for all and can be said without admonishment from the Judge.

It really has been like an all out slug fest throughout this part of the case. One man stands alone among all the slime that is thrown at him and the victim.

I do know this it sure wouldn't happen in a Georgia courtroom. The many cases I have seen in Georgia the presiding death penalty Judge runs a very tight ship and has full control of what goes on in his or her courtroom. And believe it or not makes rulings immediately instead of finally deciding days or weeks or months later. And believe it or not refuses sidebars.

If all of these antics being displayed in this case had gone on here in my state someone would be getting heavy sanctions and a big dressing down right in front of the jury and they could also spend some time in the county jail. And in death penalty cases I have seen the Judges are even more in control and all parties are expected to be respectful to each side and to the Judge as well and if it doesn't happen then someone's head is going to roll compliments of the Judge. For instance: KN called DM 'doctor death' and Juan objected and it was sustained. BUT then even knowing it was wrong he called her Doctor Death again. That is nothing but thumbing his nose at the Judge would had already made it damn clear he wasn't to say it further.

That is why I say I don't think any of us will ever see another trial quite like this one. If the DT cried prosecutorial misconduct any other Judge would tell them they better be able to prove it and in short order. The prosecutorial misconduct claim sure wouldn't be tried before the jury listening to the case either but would be determined by the Judge only and in short order after the hearing was held.

This is a very bizarre case..........so much so I will never watch another AZ case unless Juan is the prosecutor, and hopefully if so, there will be a no nonsense Judge at the helm.

It is like two trials are going on and none of them have to do with the actual murderer.

1. Juan is on trial for supposedly prosecutorial misconduct right in front of this jury who has no power to find him guilty.
2. The victim TVA is on trial.

BBM - It's sad that the only people regularly admonished in this courtroom, is the jury. :facepalm:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I watched a lot of the DeVault trial from YouTube videos this weekend and JUDGE STEINLE got after the witnesses, in front of the jurors, and told them to just answer the question that was asked and not add to it. He did this with Defense witnesses and Prosecution witnesses. He had control of his courtroom and he would have really let Dr Geff and Dr. F have it with their unprofessional comments. Why JSS doesn't just shows me she is incompentent. DeVault was a DP case too. But he didn't let the DT run amuck and go over the same testimony over and over again. He even interruped the Pros objection to tell the DT "asked and answered, move on counselor. He also admonished the DT and the Pros that the jurors were getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. That trial was nothing like this trial. He would have slammed Nurmi and Wilnot and put them in jail for malpractice demanding to approach every other question. Seriously. He told both counselor teams HE WASN"T PLAYING GAMES.:maddening:

Why am I not surprised?

Thank goodness. Its comforting to know this Judge (JSS) isn't the norm in death penalty cases.

If I watch another AZ DP case I hope Judge Steinle is the presiding Judge. It would be nice to see Juan as the prosecutor too.

I bet that case didn't cost the taxpayers nearly as much as this one.

 

[krkrjx]

I hope JM remembers to refer to her as this middle-aged defendant during his closing.

Yep, especially since she was "a young girl" when trial started.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM - It's sad that the only people regularly admonished in this courtroom, is the jury. :facepalm:

That is another thing I find very odd in this case.

Most Judges I have seen are very personable with the jurors especially on long cases and are always mindful that their time is very valuable since they are doing their civic duty yet here JSS doesn't seem to have much of a courtroom relationship with the jurors.

I just find the entire atmosphere strange.

IMO

 

[rose222]

With really, really ugly hands.....

Why does she groom her hands? If I even accidentally killed another living being I'd hide my hands in shame, guilt and sorrow.

 

[Nali87]

I could never take Dr. G seriously as an expert. He doesn't even have enough sense to color his mustache the same color as his hair.

:giggle:

 

[Paintr]

Yep, especially since she was "a young girl" when trial started.

So was I :laughing:

 

[LinasK]

Yes, my response was meant to be specifically about psych/MH experts. Psychology by its very nature (especially before the recent advances of Neurological research as it pertains to human behavior/mental health disorders) has a built-in and inherently "slippery slope", if you will. So, I, as a professional in the field, believe there is a need to address issues related to "expert" testimony, "expert" opinions, test reliability and the uses thereof in the CJ system, as well as witness credibility and standards of practice as an "expert".

As a side note: Psychology as a field was literally in its infancy in the 70's--and for what it is worth the theories and tenets of DV at that time, while well intentioned, were nonetheless very narrow, largely anecdotal, gender specific, politically charged and influenced by the Women's Liberation Movement, and sociological in nature. And those who where educated/licensed at that time and specialized in DV were (and to a large degree still are) Sociology majors (and trust me when I tell you that a person who Majors in Psychology--far more empirical and systematic--receives a very, very different education than one that majors in Sociology), and it has been my experience that many of these "old guard" DV specialists, such as ALV, MFons, and to some degree Geffner, are very resistant to change and view things from a very narrow perspective that is woefully outdated/antiquated and inherently riddled with gender bias.

BBM. I only minored in Psych in the early 80's, but that's exactly what I see too!

 

[Mindmatters]

Steve Krafft ‏@SKrafftFox10 · 17s18 seconds ago
DeMarte's testimony re: #jodiarias psych testing was "downright misleading," says Dr. Geffner

You know, given this duplicitious assault of Dr. D's credibility, it really seems as if JM will have no other option but to put Dr. Hayes on the stand. IMO The psych testimony is crucial in the penalty phase, and while this is a bunch of BS I believe the DT's allegations of ineptitude on the part of Dr. D could have an impact on one, some or all of the jurors. Just seems to me that so much has been sacrificed to seek the DP for JA--and IMO deservedly so. JM has gone this far, and has invested so much, I think that it would be worth him calling Dr. Hayes in for surrebuttal (?).

The interesting thing here is how is the DT going to salvage/rectify BPD as a mitigator when this information came from a Dr whose credibility they have repeatedly assailed/called into question.

 

[geevee]

I thought Borderline was on the DT's list of mitigators at the start of this retrial? And they are pounding home that it is a mental illness.

They want the jury to accept she is mentally ill--they do not care what illness they accept that she has, as long as they accept she has one. They want PTSD but are open to Borderline if that is the one the jury is more willing to accept.

Am I mistaken that it was on their pre-retrial list of mitigators? I know they listed mental illness but it seems to me they had Borderline listed also. I thought at the time how odd that was since they pooh-poohed that idea the first time around.

I'd like the jury to be aware of everything that the DT now embraces that they had kicked to the curb initially.

What's especially telling is the DT is using JM's witness to prove Borderline because they made sure their experts didn't diagnose her with that during the first trial, then she was sane but defending herself, now she's not so sane and snapped due to all of her issues we never heard about before. <great big ol' eye roll>

 

[sumbunny]

I could never take Dr. G seriously as an expert. He doesn't even have enough sense to color his mustache the same color as his hair.

:giggle:

Maybe he's going for the "ying yang" look...~snorts~

 

[samspace070]

Thank you. I didn't think I was alone and now I know I am not and many have expressed the same opinions about this one case who have been trial watchers for many years or decades.

This is the only case that I can ever remember that seems to have no boundaries or guidelines in the courtroom that must be followed. It seems if it is the defense side saying any disparaging thing they can think of its a free for all and can be said without admonishment from the Judge.

It really has been like an all out slug fest throughout this part of the case. One man stands alone among all the slime that is thrown at him and the victim.

I do know this it sure wouldn't happen in a Georgia courtroom. The many cases I have seen in Georgia the presiding death penalty Judge runs a very tight ship and has full control of what goes on in his or her courtroom. And believe it or not makes rulings immediately instead of finally deciding days or weeks or months later. And believe it or not refuses sidebars.

If all of these antics being displayed in this case had gone on here in my state someone would be getting heavy sanctions and a big dressing down right in front of the jury and they could also spend some time in the county jail. And in death penalty cases I have seen the Judges are even more in control and all parties are expected to be respectful to each side and to the Judge as well and if it doesn't happen then someone's head is going to roll compliments of the Judge. For instance: KN called DM 'doctor death' and Juan objected and it was sustained. BUT then even knowing it was wrong he called her Doctor Death again. That is nothing but thumbing his nose at the Judge would had already made it damn clear he wasn't to say it further.

That is why I say I don't think any of us will ever see another trial quite like this one. If the DT cried prosecutorial misconduct any other Judge would tell them they better be able to prove it and in short order. The prosecutorial misconduct claim sure wouldn't be tried before the jury listening to the case either but would be determined by the Judge only and in short order after the hearing was held.

This is a very bizarre case..........so much so I will never watch another AZ case unless Juan is the prosecutor, and hopefully if so, there will be a no nonsense Judge at the helm.

It is like two trials are going on and none of them have to do with the actual murderer.

1. Juan is on trial for supposedly prosecutorial misconduct right in front of this jury who has no power to find him guilty.
2. The victim TVA is on trial.

I can't agree with you more Oceanblueeyes. I will never watch another trial with the presiding judge being JSS. I watched some clips of Judge Steinle III and it was like night and day compared to JSS.

I have watched trials live in Missouri (won't name city) and it was nothing like this courtroom. All judges I saw holding court were like little kings and no one stepped out of line. I saw a court deputy ask an elderly lady to remove her hat in the gallery. Poor thing hardly had any hair, I felt sorry for her. She was small and her hat was small and in no way interfered with anyones visibility. It was just plain mean. He told someone outside the courtroom it was disrespectful to the judge. PLEASE.

But in all the trials I have watched, in person or on court tv or YouTube, none have been as outrageous as this one. JSS has no control at all. I think DT knows if they don't get a DP this judge will give their client LWP. And if that happens, I am writing to the AZ Judicial Review and complain about how bad AZ looks to the rest of America. It won't do any good but it will make me feel better.

 

[~Lyric~]

After reading here about the "Experts" and their own problems...someone posted this on twitter and I just had to share it.
I'm sure you all have seen this before, but I had to laugh.

Jodi Arias Psychologist Sanctioned In New Jersey

Psychologist Richard Samuels was sanctioned by the New Jersey State Board of Psychological Examiners in 2000 after two people, identified only by their initials in the document, complained he made a child custody recommendation without examining the mother and "bartered services with [an individual in the case] so that [they] received psychotherapeutic services from respondent in exchange for respondent receiving dental services" from them, the document says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/jodi-arias-psychologist-sanctioned_n_2881222.html

 

[LinasK]

From N20C:

Tammy Rose &#8207;@News20Chopper · 1m1 minute ago

Dr. Robert Geffner, Nurmi, Willmott & mitigation specialist walk out of court during lunch break. #JodiArias

Who are the other two women with them- the one with the bun, and the blonde with the long hair??