weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[ElleElle]

BBM~ She panicked in a rush with the shoddy clean-up job. Palm print, hair strands left behind as well.

She took the murder weapons and thought she was good to go.

-or-

She wanted the camera to be found.

BBM: I think she "did the laundry" to get her DNA off the sheets and bloody towels. She missed the bloody palm print because there was so much blood everywhere. Unless one is experienced in crime scene investigation I doubt someone would even recognize that what they were looking at was a palm print.

Re:The camera. She did go to the trouble/time to delete 23 pix. It's been said there are 5 actions required to delete one photo on that camera. (I still don't know why Jodi didn't remove the memory card, her having an IQ comparable to Einstein, and all.) And I REALLY like our sleuth Dana's theory about removing her DNA from the camera by running it thru the wash cycle.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just throwing out my :twocents:

 

[leebee52]

BBM
I'd like to address that. My brother borrowed $500 from me to get his car fixed. Not 2 weeks later, he took his family on a trip to the beach. He never paid me back the $500. Yet, he's telling me his wife is at the tanning beds, (getting ready for their trip) It kinda ticks you off to know that somebody owes you money, isn't paying it back, yet they have plenty of money to blow on other things. I wanted to say to my brother....how can you afford this trip, new clothes, tanning, etc.....but you can't pay me back? She owed him for the car she destroyed, she wasn't concerned that she owed that money, and instead she was spending hand over fist. Here's what Travis was saying in a nice way.........How can you stand in front of me and talk about blowing money, when you still owe me for my car? He wasn't trying to contol her spending, he just wanted his dang money!

Boy oh Boy have I experienced a whole lot of that kind of thing. It's amazing how people are so blatant about doing things like that. I've gotten the lecture a million times about not being to nice to people. It's not that, it's more that you aren't expecting someone to do something like that. You can't judge everyone the same based on what someone else did.

 

[lil_buddy]

You know, there was a lot of speculation early on that it was that tale that she had been circulating back home that might have led to the rage after May 26. After all, she did move to Mesa after they "broke up," (but let's face it, there wasn't much to 'break up'), and that may have been partly to protect the fantasy she was still peddling to family regarding the coming nuptials. It would be entirely reasonable to imagine that she was sporting a ring of some kind when away from Travis, claiming that they were engaged.

It sounds nutty, of course, because it is. But it isn't any nuttier than women who pretend to be pregnant for nine months, and then, when their obvious deception will be paraded for all to see, desperately murder a pregnant women to steal their child. That is an inconceivably bizarre thing to do, but we know it as happened, and more often than we'd like to admit. Anyway, I think it's the same kind of "cornered animal" mentality that JA might very well have felt as she realized she was about to be thoroughly revealed and humiliated. I do not believe she could stand the thought psychologically, and given her obvious narcissism and who knows what other associative NPD's, the behavior would be entirely consistent.

For me, it was the statement of her father in the interview he gave to police that "she was planning on marrying him," or something to that effect, that really sealed the deal for me regarding this scenario. I could see then that she had been projecting an entirely false reality to others outside of the Mesa environment -- where she could easily control the dialog, since nobody knew the people in Mesa and could not verify anything she was saying one way or another. Because 'normal' people do not assume someone will lie about something like this, she was able to easily get away with the tale.

I'm not saying all people who have these disorders would resort to these extremes, of course. Only that in this case it does seem consistent with JA's behavioral patterns. She was caught -- the walls were closing in, and in her mind it made sense to simply remove the problem.

Note that after his death, she made every effort to inject herself into the center of all activities -- funerary, police investigation -- why? Because she still had that narrative of the "fiancee" running in her head, and she wanted to world to view her that way -- even though she knew she couldn't make that story work outside of a small, controlled, isolated group that did not know Travis. I say it's just part of her pathology. I hope I don't go batty trying to figure it out for myself.

:cow:

Just a couple of thoughts b4 I have to take off...
This post really gets closest to anything I have heard for JA's motivation.
These people (BPD's/ClusterB's) build their identities from the outside in - which explains y they are given to things like Munchausen's.

She was building a new identity and she liked the idea of grieving fiance.
It really kills many birds with one stone.

Again. Brill effing post, Sleuth5.

 

[minor4th]

Do you know if the jury will be allowed to speak to the media immediately after their verdict if they vote to convict? I was just wondering if they might have to stay quiet until after the aggravation / mitigation phase. TIA

Probably have to wait til after sentencing.

 

[carnnell]

I don't see logically how real things attributed to JA are too prejudicial. It's like saying to a jury, we want you to determine guilt or innocence but we're going to keep you from knowing what you need to know to do so. You jurors cannot know the facts but everyone else on the planet can.

My father, being an attorney, always said there is a difference between legal truth and moral truth. God rest his soul.

That being said:

Law of Criminal Evidence: Background

The law of evidence governs how parties, judges, and juries offer and then evaluate the various forms of proof at trial. In some ways, evidence is an extension of civil and criminal procedure. Generally, evidence law establishes a group of limitations that courts enforce against attorneys in an attempt to control the various events that the trial process presents in an adversarial setting. There are many arguments in favor of evidence law; here are five of the most common ones:

To ameliorate pervasive mistrust of juries
To further legal or social policies relating to a matter being litigated
To further substantive policies unrelated to the matter in suit
To create conditions to receive the most accurate facts in trials
To manage the scope and duration of trials

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/law-of-criminal-evidence-background.html

 

[MickyTwoShade]

"""Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?"""




I am not seeing your point about the juror mentioning lying in the question. To me, it sounds like they are saying that the bear attack happened while the tiger attack didn't. I think they are saying, "if Jodi suffered PTSD because of Travis attacking her, would you throw out her PDS test if she lied and said the ninjas are attacking her." So wouldn't that mean they think that the truth is that Travis attacked her?

It doesn't make sense. The bear/tiger question isn't equatable to Arias being attacked by a stranger vs. Travis. It's not logical. A juror who isn't reasoned by sound logic may be more willing to believe nonsense if they're compelled emotionally-- and if that's the case, it's more likely they'll hold up deliberations. Ever met someone who just believes something is true no matter what facts exist to the contrary? They're unshakable.

If I'm reading it right, it sounds like they think she has PTSD and buy what Dr. Samuels was selling, ie "trauma is trauma". If they think she has PTSD, it's more likely they don't believe her Borderline Diagnosis, and do believe her "fog" story. It's problematic.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I had not heard about this. I'm sure someone will come along and answer.

Ashl*y (Reed) Thomps*n. Husband was Dust*n Thomps*n.

 

[leebee52]

My father, being an attorney, always said there is a difference between legal truth and moral truth. God rest his soul.

That being said:

Law of Criminal Evidence: Background

The law of evidence governs how parties, judges, and juries offer and then evaluate the various forms of proof at trial. In some ways, evidence is an extension of civil and criminal procedure. Generally, evidence law establishes a group of limitations that courts enforce against attorneys in an attempt to control the various events that the trial process presents in an adversarial setting. There are many arguments in favor of evidence law; here are five of the most common ones:

To ameliorate pervasive mistrust of juries
To further legal or social policies relating to a matter being litigated
To further substantive policies unrelated to the matter in suit
To create conditions to receive the most accurate facts in trials
To manage the scope and duration of trials

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/law-of-criminal-evidence-background.html

My uncle was an attorney too. Sounds like he was like your father. My uncle was an A class attorney and didn't play dirty pool. He also wasn't into scamming clients for money. When he died there were many who said he was the last of his kind. Sad really.

 

[vallie]

ya, Jodi is such a dedicated Mormon. She swore on the bible to tel the truth the whole truth and nothing but, and she continues to lie lie lie and have us believe her NOW. Just the lying alone should make the jury disregard everything she's said, and the juror question "why should we believe you now" was also answered with lies. Makes me wonder why the jurors even had any more questions since her testimony,this is disturbing ,, what is it they have to sort out? do they really care what the psychologists say, what can they possibly say to cause reasonable doubt that this was a pre-meditated murder? what can ANYONE say that would make her not guilty? why does all this stuff matter ? the judge should've not let in any battered woman syndrome as they were not living together!!!!!!

 

[ElleElle]

BBM ~ Yup, at least one juror has bought into the fognesia/alternative reality.

That would explain the camera in the wash question.

If she knew what she was doing, she of taken the camera, but oh, Jodi doesn't remember, as Dr. Samuels reinforced this.

It doesn't make sense. The bear/tiger question isn't equatable to Arias being attacked by a stranger vs. Travis. It's not logical. A juror who isn't reasoned by sound logic may be more willing to believe nonsense if they're compelled emotionally-- and if that's the case, it's more likely they'll hold up deliberations. Ever met someone who just believes something is true no matter what facts exist to the contrary? They're unshakable.

If I'm reading it right, it sounds like they think she has PTSD and buy what Dr. Samuels was selling, ie "trauma is trauma". If they think she has PTSD, it's more likely they don't believe her Borderline Diagnosis, and do believe her "fog" story. It's problematic.

 

[Nhic]

BBM~ She panicked in a rush with the shoddy clean-up job. Palm print, hair strands left behind as well.

She took the murder weapons and thought she was good to go.

-or-

She wanted the camera to be found.

Years and years ago I read that the subconscious of psychopathic murderers compels them to leave clues leading to their eventual capture and arrest.

 

[leebee52]

The jury questions are certainly an opportunity to gather information that they might not get in the situation where they aren't allowed to ask questions. As we've seen, some things via their questions have slipped out.

 

[Sleuth5]

Just watching day 21 when JM begins his cross-examination of JA. He asks her if she went over to TA's house after they broke up. She says yes, after he (Travis) tells her to. Then she says when she got there Travis was with a woman, JA had gone around the back of the house and peeked in. <---stalker

Travis wouldn't have told her to come over if he was with a woman. Surely everyone on the jury caught that lie of hers?

Yep, I sure don't think the jury believed they were still "courting" at that time, either.

 

[minor4th]

Just wanted to make a general comment about prejudicial evidence.

Evidence is not excluded just because its prejudicial. Any evidence of Jodi's guilt is prejudicial against Jodi. Evidence is only excluded if the prejudicial effect clearly outweighs the relevance and meaningfulness of the evidence.

So Jodi's psychiatric diagnosis would not be excluded because its too prejudicial. If Dr D had diagnosed Jodi with ASPD or schizophrenia or mental retardation or anything else, she would have testified about it, and it would not have been excluded because its too prejudicial. And the only reason Dr D was even allowed to testify about Jodi's diagnosis at all was because the defense made an issue of Jodi's mental health.

If the defense had not raised PTSD or BWS, Dr D would not have been able to testify.

 

[wasnt_me]

BBM~ She panicked in a rush with the shoddy clean-up job. Palm print, hair strands left behind as well.

She took the murder weapons and thought she was good to go.

-or-

She wanted the camera to be found.

Maybe she wanted it to be found without pictures, so people would always wonder why that was, but she'd know it was her mark left on the crime, and possibly, his loved ones would suspect but never be able to prove. Maybe she wanted it there for that reason.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Years and years ago I read that the subconscious of psychopathic murderers compels them to leave clues leading to their eventual capture and arrest.

Yes, they want recognition for their "handywork". Which is why some are even compelled to write letters to media or LE if their crime continues to go unsolved (ala BTK).

 

[Sleuth5]

You're right. Here's another question that may, or may not have, come from the same juror: "Do you consider Jodi stabbing, shooting & slitting TA’s throat to be a traumatic event?"

The problem I have with PTSD is exactly what Dr. DeMarte highlighted- Arias has shown ZERO aversion to talking about Travis and talking about the murder. In fact, during the early days, she was calling Detective Flores up and pumping him for information!

Too true, and leave us not forget her "morbid curiosity" about seeing the crime scene photos. You know, the ones that included the picture of how she had slit his throat from ear to ear down to the spine. Hmmm. Seems inconsistent with PTSD to me.

:cow:

 

[wasnt_me]

I was rewatching day 24, where JM brought up a Feb 2008 text where Jodi volunteers that she wants to "do" Travis like a horny little school girl. Why didn't this come up with ALV?

I'd love to know what ALV thought of Jodi saying that to Travis before the sex tape call.

 

[gwenabob]

Plus she has to add it was her car registration the Ninjas found in her purse (her address on her drivers license is a P.O. Box!)

So, so ridiculous. Who would carry their car registration in their purse, especially when on a long distance trip and you aren't even driving that car?

 

[Nhic]

Just wanted to make a general comment about prejudicial evidence.

Evidence is not excluded just because its prejudicial. Any evidence of Jodi's guilt is prejudicial against Jodi. Evidence is only excluded if the prejudicial effect clearly outweighs the relevance and meaningfulness of the evidence.

So Jodi's psychiatric diagnosis would not be excluded because its too prejudicial. If Dr D had diagnosed Jodi with ASPD or schizophrenia or mental retardation or anything else, she would have testified about it, and it would not have been excluded because its too prejudicial. And the only reason Dr D was even allowed to testify about Jodi's diagnosis at all was because the defense made an issue of Jodi's mental health.

If the defense had not raised PTSD or BWS, Dr D would not have been able to testify.

This is what is difficult to understand. JA's score on the psychopathic deviate scale was off the charts it was so high. Assuming that isn't BPD, why wasn't that embellished upon in court?