Crime & Trial Discussion Forums

Duluth, I was confused by that comment she made about Naps too. This is a typical made up email. She makes up nonsense to make it look like she and Alexander were so close that she couldn't possibly have had a motive to murder him.

Something is up with the jury. Court has adjourned for the day and the jurors are being questioned one by one in the judge's chambers. Flores, Martinez, the Alexander sisters, Nurmi, Wilmott, De La Rosa and Jodi Arias were all in chambers when Judge Stephens questioned the jurors one by one. After they came out of chambers, Nurmi argued case law, according to reporter Michael Kiefer but that's all he said.

Earlier in the morning, Jen Wood tweeted that someone heard Wilmott say: "Oh my God," and Arias rubbed her back while De La Rosa looked concerned. Then later Martinez was seen talking to the Alexander family.

There will be no court tomorrow and court will resume at 9:30 am Wednesday.

Tomorrow Nurmi's appeal of the Superior Court of Appeals ruling is on the docket at the State Supreme Court. The justices will decide if they will review the Superior Court of Appeals ruling that Arias can't testify in secret. The Supreme Court ordered the judge had to release Arias' testimony transcript so they aren't going to review the ruling.

Regarding Naps, if Travis isn't shown to have mentioned that he was leaving Napoleon with a friend or a kennel, wouldn't that be a good evidence point? In other words, how did she apparently know that Naps wasn't supposed to be there that week that she says she might go stay at Travis' house. Yes, Travis was dead at the time of the email, but she is trying to act like she doesn't know that. Oh, well. It is just a thought. And she was bright enough to leave the stairway blocked off so that Naps didn't go to Travis' bedroom door and bark and yelp which would have looked odd to the roommates, I think.
She is such a liar.
And I wonder why there is no trial tomorrow? There is no telling what Nurmi or Arias have done.

I don't know what to think of the juror questions to Dr. DeMarte.

Jury questions

Q: Was Jodi mentally ill prior to the murder?
DeMarte: She has Borderline Personality Disorder. That doesn't come out of the blue, it happens over time.

Q: Without having training in DAPS testing, what is your basis for believing Dr. Geffner administered it incorrectly?
DeMarte: It's a self-reporting test. Don't need extensive training in it. Any psychologist could have picked out his errors.

Q: How many tests are there to diagnose Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD?
DeMarte: There are hundreds of tests. Some are more popular than others.

Q: How many did you personally administer?
DeMarte: I administered 4 tests: MMPI, RAP, TSI and WAIS.

Q: How many years experience do you have in treating domestic violence victims?
DeMarte: Since 2004

Q: How many years do you have in treating sexual abuse victims?
DeMarte: Since 2004

Q: Do these fields require certification?
DeMarte: Yes for a clinical psychologist. To treat PTSD or victims of domestic violence, there's no certification out there.

Q: When you were treating patients from 2004-2008, was it by yourself or with another psychologist?
DeMarte: Before licensed I practiced under the license of another psychologist but I met alone with the patient. This is standard.

Q: Do you feel that the knowledge of a sexual assault is as damaging as having a memory of it?
DeMarte: It can manifest into PTSD but you have to have the symptoms. It wouldn't be PTSD without memory.

Q: Can the body have reactions to certain stimuli that trigger feelings to suppressed memories?
DeMarte: Yes, there could be a physiological reaction.

Q: In one of the communications between Jodi and Travis, Travis says Jodi can have all of his passwords. Is that still considered unwanted intrusive behavior?
DeMarte: No, not when they exchanged information. As time went on, it was clear that Travis took away the permission.

Q: There were some communications between Travis and other women where he complained that Jodi wouldn't leave him alone. Were these people, like Michele Lowry, aware he was still seeing Jodi?
DeMarte: Not to the extent it was sexual.

Q: How long in total did Jodi work at the Purple Plum both times?
DeMarte: I would need to look at my notes.....I'm not sure.

Q: Did you monitor her at all after the four times you met with her?
DeMarte: No.

Q: How far back did your forensic evaluation go and were all the records were available?
DeMarte: All the records pertaining to her were made available to me, as far as I know. My evaluation went back to her childhood.

Q: Do you consider Borderline Personality Disorder a mental illness or a psychological disorder and why?
DeMarte: It's a psychological disorder which has the same meaning as mental illness.

Q: How does dissociation play into Borderline Personality Disorder?
DeMarte: It's a technique to distance oneself from an environment that is anxiety provoking. One of the symptoms of BPD is dissociation and paranoia.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/02/jodi-arias-dr-demarte-completes-her.html?spref=tw

(02-09-2015, 11:30 PM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what to think of the juror questions to Dr. DeMarte.

Jury questions

Q: Was Jodi mentally ill prior to the murder?
DeMarte: She has Borderline Personality Disorder. That doesn't come out of the blue, it happens over time.

Q: Without having training in DAPS testing, what is your basis for believing Dr. Geffner administered it incorrectly?
DeMarte: It's a self-reporting test. Don't need extensive training in it.  Any psychologist could have picked out his errors.

Q: How many tests are there to diagnose  Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD?
DeMarte: There are hundreds of tests. Some are more popular than others.

Q:  How many did you personally administer?
DeMarte: I administered 4 tests: MMPI,  RAP, TSI and WAIS.

Q: How many years experience do you have in treating domestic violence victims?
DeMarte: Since 2004

Q:  How many years do you have in treating sexual abuse victims?
DeMarte: Since 2004

Q:  Do these fields require certification?
DeMarte: Yes for a clinical psychologist.  To treat  PTSD or victims of domestic violence, there's no certification out there.

Q:  When you were treating patients from 2004-2008, was it by yourself or with another psychologist?
DeMarte: Before licensed I practiced under the license of another psychologist but I met alone with the patient.  This is standard.

Q:  Do you feel that the knowledge of a sexual assault is as damaging as having a memory of it?
DeMarte:  It can manifest into PTSD but you have to have the symptoms. It wouldn't be PTSD without memory.

Q: Can the body have reactions to certain stimuli that trigger feelings to suppressed memories?
DeMarte: Yes, there could be a physiological reaction.

Q:  In one of the communications between Jodi and Travis, Travis says Jodi can have all of his passwords. Is that still considered unwanted intrusive behavior?
DeMarte:  No, not when they exchanged information. As time went on, it was clear that Travis took away the permission.

Q: There were some communications between Travis and other women where he complained that Jodi wouldn't leave him alone. Were these people, like Michele Lowry, aware he was still seeing Jodi?
DeMarte: Not to the extent it was sexual.

Q:  How long in total did Jodi work at the Purple Plum both times?
DeMarte:  I would need to look at my notes.....I'm not sure.

Q:  Did you monitor her at all after the four times you met with her?
DeMarte: No.

Q: How far back did your forensic evaluation go and were all the records were available?
DeMarte:  All the records pertaining to her were made available to me, as far as I know. My evaluation went back to her childhood.

Q: Do you consider Borderline Personality Disorder a mental illness or a psychological disorder and why?
DeMarte: It's a psychological disorder which has the same meaning as mental illness.

Q:  How does dissociation play into Borderline Personality Disorder?
DeMarte: It's a technique to distance oneself from an environment that is anxiety provoking. One of the symptoms of BPD is dissociation and paranoia.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/02/jodi-arias-dr-demarte-completes-her.html?spref=tw

The questions sort of scare me. I am thinking of the original trial's jury foreman, frankly.

I am not concerned by the jury's questions. As I said, I think they were fair and they were looking for credibility of DeMarte and clarification.

The foreman of the jury in the first trial was an ass BUT that does not mean the same for this jury.

What's up with no court? Who knows? Something personal with Wilmott? Something about a juror come up? Who knows? I cannot even speculate.

Someone on the jury will pick up on the "Naps" story.

I agree with you, Duluth. It does sound like at least some of them see mental illness as a strong mitigating factor.

I think Dr. Janeen DeMarte has probably presented the strongest evidence for the defense to date. She diagnosed Jodi Arias as mentally ill and all the defense witnesses did was slander Travis Alexander and make Poor Widdo Jodi the victim.

If the jurors believe Arias is mentally ill, they may also believe that Travis Alexander was taking advantage of a mentally ill girl.

Deanna Reid told this jury that Travis never put his hands on her in an offensive way but she didn't say how sensitive and caring he was, that he never raised his voice to her, that he didn't get mad when she broke it off. Mimi and Lisa didn't testify to this jury that he never sexually, verbally or physically abused them and he wasn't angry when they broke it off with him like they did the last jury.

DeMarte told the jurors Jodi Arias had a pattern of glomming on to men quickly, clinging and then when they tried to break it off, stalking and pursuing them.

But she never told the jurors that Travis Alexander had no pattern of abusing women to counter those emails where Sky and Chris Hughes said he abused women.

Marissa DeVault who killed her husband Dale with an ax while he was sleeping was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and the jury unanimously gave her life instead of death. But then her young daughters begged for her life.

Jodi Arias has no family members begging for her life. It will either make the jurors think her relatives are glad to be rid of her or make them sympathize with her because nobody cared enough to beg for her life.

Marissa DeVault was over emotional when she gave her allocution like you expect from a Borderline. She was so emotional that I couldn't understand a word. But Jodi Arias had a flat affect and was detached and unemotional like a sociopath when she gave her allocation. It was like she was a businesswoman giving a power presentation for a corporation.

Duluth glad you found our new blog, I posted on JDT that their were only three of us and the board crashed asking for people to converse here.

Their were a few timelines and, I date new threads by actual court day and weekday on JDT (alike 01/01/2001 Monday) instead of the confusing day 22, 33 or whatever!

Here is a timeline' it follows my replying, tell me about when and about what and I'll likely find the timeline you want, if this isn't the one you want!
Nurmi' was a lowly public defender' that's what Attorneys do who cannot develop a client base' they collect no unemployment or workmen's compensation, he got the judge to double his pay claiming a desire to enter private practice' he will never be an accomplished attorney' but he could invest in a law firm employing attorneys who could supply him business.
I wouldn't work for him but attorneys don't prefer public defending, Nurmi proved ineptness and lack of fiber' only recently jiving determination! He's good for filing motions but I doubt his research exampled the best 'case history' examples!

Of course Jodi has the final choice of how defense is argued, it's her life or death or jail time, exactly alike a doctor, the patient pays and theirs no guarantee, if the patient refuses to adhear its not the professionals fault or job' attorneys can only quit or be fired' but their a contractual agreement that their committed without unknown attorney intervention.

Jodi for the first time gets to try going to sleep tonight knowing she has been exposed for all she is worth!

Observer said this and some of it is a repeat' consider it a edited version!

The jury finally got to see today why no relatives took the stand to beg for Jodi Arias life.
They didn't like her according to Dr. Janeen
DeMarte. She testified that Arias' cousin Amy said in an interview in 2008 that at family functions Arias was snide, smirky, sarcastic and a total bitch.
DeMarte quoted Arias's maternal grandparents saying in an interview in 2008 that Arias was mean to her mother and would tell her how to raise her younger brothers and sister. They also said Arias didn't want anyone running her life and if you spoke to her you had to use perfect grammar or she would correct you.
DeMarte says this is overbearing and aggressive. She said the most problematic issue for the relatives was Arias acting rude and over bearing.
Juan says this isn't suffering in silence or a wilted flower as was testified to by Fonseca and Geffner.
Nurmi tried to keep this testimony out claiming it was character assassination of Arias and that isn't allowed in the mitigation phase.
The judge overruled him and let the prosecution actually say something negative against the murderer finally.
This is only fair because the jury needs to see the true side of Arias to decide whether she deserves to live or die.
We saw this side of Arias in her cross examination with Martinez. She corrected his grammar and was snide, sarcastic, smirky and a total bitch. So we know Amy isn't lying. Arias' witnesses who said she was always sweet and nice and perfect are. But Martinez won't get a chance to bring that side out in her in front of this jury. At the secret testimony, she put on an act of being an innocent victim who was beaten by mean abusive drug addicted parents, being cheated on by boyfriends and was truly remorseful for this "horrific crime." She spoke so quietly the judge had to keep asking her to speak up so the jury could hear her. At the allocution she will put on an act of being a prim and proper and caring person who donated her hair, glasses and artwork to charity. According to Jenn Wood, DeMarte rebuted the testimony of Fonseca and Geffner that Arias:

1- Lacked self esteem by reading an interview from Gary Brinkman, owner of the Purple Plum where Arias worked as a waitress which she says shows Arias is assertive. Brinkman said he knew her since she was 17 and she would flirt with the good looking guys and ignore female customers. He said Arias flirted with and used men. He said she would tell guys she was new to Yreka and ask them to show her around. This shows she more of her lying to manipulate men because Arias lived in Yreka most of her life.

2- Never asserted herself in the sex games but always did what Alexander dictated by reading smutty text messages where Arias says if he will give her a facial, she'll give him a BJ or they can just grind and she wants to "lick him up and F" him like a horny schoolgirl.

3- Was physically abused by testifying that she found no documentation of physical abuse and it was never in Arias' journals and she told inconsistent stories to different psychologists and while being tested and she knew domestic violence should be reported because she wrote that in her ournal.

4- Was not sexually inappropriate with men by reading an interview in which a waitress named Nichole at the Purple Plum quoted Arias as saying she was a goddess, smelled like a goddess, looked like a goddess and was all over the men. JA was all over the young men and couldn't stay focused. She was very inappropriate with men. She would sit and kiss Edgar. As for the text messages from Sky and Chris Hughes to Alexander, DeMarte said Sky Hughes told her the skank comment was a joke and Alexander called Arias late at night because of her work schedule and Lisa Andrews told her Alexander was concerned about the pay of a teacher, not the career choice and any sexual contact between them was consensual and that Arias was in his house turning the lights off and on when Lisa was there with Travis.
Court adjourned for the day without DeMarte mentioning anything about the tires being slashed so either the judge won’t let that come in or she hasn’t got to it yet.

In the midst of this tragic drama, I think we can all use a little humor.

Bryon Wilson's Jodi Arias cartoons crack me up.

This Juanopoly Game is excellent.

https://www.facebook.com/JuanMartinezProsecutorSupportPage/photos/a.143279079199010.1073741832.135700933290158/350363818490534/?type=1&theater

So is this Estrella Moment

https://www.facebook.com/JuanMartinezProsecutorSupportPage/photos/pb.135700933290158.-2207520000.1423529518./350361918490724/?type=1&theater

Wilson's Youtube video: DeMarte is Irresistible complete with music is hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCveq7OwXxY&feature=youtu.be

For 93 Jodi Arias homemade blogger comics you must register with Just Da Truth Yuku @ thread (Comic strips and Photoshop gallery) thread has 8,535 views to date, some are in series some are great (priceless) and some are lame' but none are worthless or a waste of time, none are mine!

DeMarte's testimony certainly showed that Arias has personality issues. She agreed that BPD can be deemed a mental illness. She said that this does not come on all of a sudden.
She gave evidence of Arias' stalking, suspect illegal activity regarding Travis, conflicts with family and friends and other events in her life that point to her disorder.

BUT...

She emphatically stated that Arias knew and knows right from wrong.

She also defended, vigorously and confidently, her expertise in her field despite all of the attacks on this issue by Nurmi.

She conceded points when it was appropriate and stood her ground when Nurmi tried to rattle her. Her opinion did not waiver. Again, this shows her honesty and professionalism along with her knowledge in her field.

The jury's questions centered on the mental health issue and how it relates to Arias. They also focused on DeMarte's experience.
I believe that clarity is what those questions were aimed at. I also believe that the jury's questions were to see how DeMarte answered given her testimony. They were looking for consistency.

To determine whether the DP is appropriate for Arias, they MUST be clear in the evidence presented. That is another reason for their choice of questions.

I believe it bodes well to remember that each jury may consider the weight of the mitigating factors individually, may consider others' opinions when deliberating but in the end, must come together with a unanimous decision. This is the process.

Does BPD trump and the DP is not appropriate?
Only the jury can determine that.

They have heard ALL of the testimony and will base their decision on what they have heard and seen.
We, as the public, can only rely on the tweets and other postings and have not been sitting in the courtroom day after day as the jury has. We come in with a biased opinion. The jury does not.
We can only speculate as to what the jury is thinking at this point and we react to the news that we get.

The state has the conviction on their side. Premeditated First Degree Felony Murder with the aggravating factor of Extreme Cruelty.
The jury must remember this AND remember the importance of the aggravating factor in this case when they deliberate.

We all must continue to remember that Arias knew and knows right from wrong despite her diagnosis.

I believe that the weight of the state's evidence in this case outweighs the mitigating factors and especially the diagnosis of BPD.
THIS is the task that the jury has before them - to make the decision that this is true.

Do I believe that Arias will get the DP? I have absolutely no idea! I am not on the jury.

---

Murderpedia
Wendi Elizabeth Andriano
http://murderpedia.org/female.A/a/andriano-wendi.htm

The following are excerpts from this site with my comments.

“Cruelty” involves the infliction of physical pain and/or mental anguish on a victim before death.   A crime is committed in an especially cruel manner when a defendant either knew or should have known that the manner in which the crime is committed would cause the victim to experience physical pain and/or mental anguish before death.   The victim must be conscious for at least some portion of the time when the pain and/or anguish was inflicted."

In the Arias case, cruelty as an aggravating factor was part of her conviction. this is because of the 29 stab wounds she inflicted, Travis crawling down his hallway and then having his throat slit ear to ear and finally with Arias dragging him back into the bathroom and shooting him in the head. The jury cannot ignore this.

"Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-703(G) (Supp.2004) provides that mitigating circumstances are “any factors proffered by the defendant or the state that are relevant in determining whether to impose a sentence less than death, including any aspect of the defendant's character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.”   The defendant bears the burden of proving mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.  Id. § 13-703©.  The defendant cannot, however, prove “mercy” by any standard, nor does it relate to the character or propensities of the defendant or the circumstances of the crime.   Therefore, mercy is not a mitigating circumstance."

Should Arias plead for mercy in her allocution and/or in the closing statement by the defense, the above makes it clear that it is not a mitigating circumstance for the jury to consider. It is Arias' job to prove her mitigating circumstances outweigh the propensities of the evidence presented in the trial. If one goes back to the mitigating factors listed by the defense, it is very easy to refute them - even the issue of mental illness when she knew right from wrong.

"1995 amendment to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 22.4.
In Lowenfield, the trial court gave an instruction that said in part, When you enter the jury room it is your duty to consult with one another to consider each other's views and to discuss the evidence with the objective of reaching a just verdict if you can do so without violence to that individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself but only after discussion and impartial consideration of the case with your fellow jurors.   You are not advocates for one side or the other.   Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and to change your opinion if you are convinced you are wrong but do not surrender your honest belief as to the weight and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.484 U.S. at 235, 108 S.Ct. 546."

The above speaks for itself with regard to the jury's responsibilities during deliberations.