FROM JM’s CLOSING ARGUMENT, ON THE DT’S EXPERTS. (his total closing ran 46 pages, typed)
(Out of order, from later in closing)
There were...everything that was presented to you is nothing more than argument with nothing to back it up. Nothing, that is, unless you believe what the defendant is telling you. If you believe what the defendant is telling you, then all of these arguments, then, do begin to make sense, but where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line and believe this defendant when she's lied to everybody that she's come in contact with? And she's lied in other circumstances, too, that maybe didn't involve her being under oath.
(Out of order, close to the end of closing).It is true that the state has the burden of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to be firmly convinced, and it does tell you what happens if the state fails to carry this burden.
The only evidence that you have in this particular case about whether or not the use of force is...here was justified, keep going back to it, it's like a parrot on a....I know I sound like a parrot on a stick, keep going back to the same thing, that would mean that you would have to believe the defendant.
And the defendant is somebody who has demonstrated to you throughout these proceedings, whether they be outside of the courtroom, in person to the detective, on a telephone call to the detective, speaking with her friends, speaking to the psychologist, or coming in here and speaking here to you throughout this whole thing, she has lied.
It requires you to put all of that aside and say, "Something magical happened, and because something magical happened, I'm going to believe her as to this very limited thing even though she's lied to us and she's lied to everybody else."
=======================
THE EXPERTS: (the entire sequence of JM's discrediting of expert psych testimony).
The other thing that she talked...talked to you about was this, uhhhh, this injury to her finger. She said that...she showed you the finger, and she demonstrated it to you, and she that Mr. Alexander had been the person that actually had done that to her.
Well, if you remember during cross examination when she was being asked about what happened in the, uhhh...in her killing of Mr. Alexander, the question was, "Well, you really didn't get any injuries. I mean, aside from the injury to the head. Do you remember? That's all that you got then, right?" And then she said, "Oh no, uh uh. I also got the injury to my finger."
Do you remember her saying that in a moment of candor, in a moment when she wasn't quite expecting it? She said, "Yes, that's what had happened." Yet then she turns around and says later, "No, no, no, no, that's not how I got it. I got it working for Casa Ramos, Margaritaville. I got it at his house." Who knows?
But she looked at you straight in the face about it, an event that occurred at the time of the killing, and she looked at you in the face, every single one of you, after taking the oath, and lied to you. Maybe...maybe this Law of Attraction, maybe something else, maybe that would explain it.
Or maybe her experts will explain these three areas that you know were f....were made up; she just made them up to you. And why did she make them up? Because although she says no jury will convict her, it's because she's attempting to get you...or manipulating you to get to that particular point.
One of the other things that, perhaps, we need to look at or to talk about is their experts. And with regard to their experts, with regard to the defense that's presented, one of the things that, perhaps, you can sort of allude to and maybe make reference to when you're looking at this particular defense is by reference to Elizabeth Barrett Browning in a sonnet where she indicated that, and again, it's just a reference to it, "How do I love thee, let me count the lies."
It's a little bit of a reference to it, but that's not exactly what she said but really, then how do I love thee, let me count the lies. Well, we've counted three so far that in this court. looking at each of you, she said them.
What else can we look at?
Well, perhaps we can look at the motivation, or perhaps we can look at people that have testified on her behalf and then we can understand what's going on. We can talk, for example, about Alyce LaViolette; she's the person who has a master's who came in and has been doing this for a long time.
And one of the things that Alyce LaViolette has, and she has an extensive CD or resume, is, one of the things she hasn't included in those
is that she is also a liar; that is just the bottom line. She came into here, and she told you, in response to one of your questions about whether or not she had ever testified on behalf of a male in court, and she said, "One or two times." Remember that?
And when she was pressed by the prosecutor during cross examination, "Well, who are they?" Uhhhh; couldn't give you the name. Give me a name; go ahead, give me a name. Uhhhh. Pressed even further, she said, "Well, I didn't testify. I actually wrote a report." She wanted to make herself more than she really was.
She also talked about being a keynote speaker at one of the conferences where was Snow White a battered woman. She indicated that she was one of the keynote speakers there at one of those conferences, and she wasn't.
Her CV indicated that she was on the plenary panel, which is just part of people that go there, and she made a presentation to a smaller group.
And just as importantly with regard to lying and Alyce LaViolette, she indicated and tried to justify the defendant's lies for you so that you wouldn't think that they were so bad.
She kept saying, "Well, she lied before but not afterwards." And we got into this conversation about lying and Alyce LaViolette said, "Well, you know, there's such things as white lies; those are okay." See, you don't understand, for her, and for the defendant, white lies. White lies; they're okay. And if it's to her benefit to say that something is a white lie, she will say that it is a white lie.
And in this case, everything that's negative towards the defendant, and it is untruthful, well, that's just a white lie according to Alyce LaViolette, and to her, that's okay.
Probably it's okay to Alyce LaViolette because she wanted herself wasn't truthful to you. It's one thing to be mistaken in a report. It's another thing to look at you as an expert, because they're trying to provide guidance, and say, "Hmmm, yes, I have testified on behalf of men before," and then going back and saying, "No, that's not true." Imagine it? Well, maybe.
That's a guide to the defendant. Maybe that's something that she, of course, believes. Maybe that's something that buttresses the defendant's case, and Alyce LaViolte believes that that's something that she should do
. But what that indicates is that she's nothing more than an advocate.
When you begin lying on the behalf of the person that you evaluated, when you begin to, umm, visit them, when you begin to, uhh, have....give them books, when you're with them for 44 hours, that line was crossed.
Anything Alyce LaViolette said is contaminated. It is foul. It is not something you should consider because how much credibility can you give her if she came up here and, in advocating that position, she lied to you? Absolutely no worth at all.
And then you have Dr. Richard Samuels. And one of the things about mis...
Dr. Samuels was that, and the issue involving lying, is one of the things that he did is that he had trouble with regard to this scoring and rescoring. And there was some issues as to really what the motivation was for the rescoring.
Janeen DeMarte, Dr. Janeen DeMarte, that, "Well, there's no reason to be rescoring three times unless you, perhaps, want to change the scores." Or with regard to the MCMI, there's to submit it twice unless, perhaps, you might want to change the scores.
But one of the things that we do know about Dr. Samuels is that he gave the PDS test, and there is no doubt as to that test that the defendant lied; the defendant made it up. There is no truth to the fact that on question 14, number 4, that whatever seminal event that they're talking about, there was never indicat...any indication whatsoever that there was a guy and a girl that came in and killed Mr. Alexander, but he based his test on that.
And the defense, and the questions may be asked about whether or not it involved attack of a tiger, or if it involved the attack of a bear, or if it involved a gopher, or...it doesn't matter, the bottom is that it's a lie.
Let's say that somebody goes to the doctor, and they go to the doctor and they're talking about some sort of pain that they have. And if they start lying about the pain, isn't the treatment going to be affected by it?
How good is the workup going to be if the seminal event that you're there for is a lie?
Oh, yeah, you can say she suffered trauma. Okay, let's assume that you can go that far and say the PDS test showed that she suffered trauma.
Well, which trauma are we talking about? Is it the bear? Is it the tiger? Is it the gopher? Or, in our case, is it the trauma of lying about killing Mr. Alexander? Is that what we're talking about? Or is it the killing of Mr. Alexander that we're talking about? Or, as the other expert Sheryl Carp found, was it the trauma of this nonexistent domestic violence?
The problem is that when you start lying and the experts get involved, and they start basing their tests on a lie, how valid do...can the results be?
For example, Sheryl Carp found that yes, she believed it was post traumatic stress disorder based on many, many events of domestic violence, yet there were only 4 that were presented to you and never linked to post traumatic stress disorder.
Then there's this test of PDS that was...that was taken, and according to Dr. Samuels, he said, "You know what? I probably should have readministered it."
In a moment of candor, he said that.....
So you have that issue that is sort of floating out there with the experts.”
Link to entire closing: https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/jodi-arias-prosecution-closing-arguments-full.pdf
