Hi Vlad,

Great question. In my opinion, for this psychologist to have said- that it is not relevant, the specific details of Arias' story- at the time she took that test - that it is only the emotions behind whatever the event WAS- that is important -is just absurd. Remarkably absurd. I am sure we will hear a far more thorough explanation of Jodi Arias with Dr janeen DeMarte. A question for you, in Arizona, is it like other states, that when a defendant offers a psychologist to speak on their behalf as an expert witness and has met face to face with same psychologist, that the state's expert witness must also be allowed face time with the defendant in order to assess her? I know this ws an issue in the C Anthony case and the defense pulled their expert psychologist witnesses after 1. the state demanded to have their own evaluators assess Ms Anthony and B. one of the defense's own psychologist in a deposition with the state stated over 10 times that he felt extremely uncomfortable being "a vector for someone he could not say was NOT lying and did not want to be responsible for blaming an innocent man for things there is no evidence he ever did them". (George Anthony.)

For a patient or a test subject to be lying during a psychological evaluation- it opens up a whole new set of psychological issues that are extremely pertinent to an evaluation, assessment or Diagnosis - and a credible professional would be concerned, not saying its irrelevant. And a true professional interested in the truth RECOGNIZES this as important. He seemed to have been completely giving Ms Arias a pass on her lies by couching them all as a form of extreme denial. But he NEVER addressed her attempts to cover her tracks either, at least the ones in which there was no way he could use the "denial" excuse. Cleaning up the crime scene, taking the gun and getting rid of it. He also stated something ery interesting during his testimony yesterday. He said, that Ms. Arias told HIM that she "PULLED the TRIGGER and the gun went off". I believe wilmott was stunned when he said that and glossed over it very quickly. That, and the fact he said she "ran down the hallway after she shot him". These are two things that he claims SHE said and yet, Arias on the stand claims never to have remembered ANY of the details about that. There was also the whole issue of Travis grabbing her sweater in the CLOSET which the psych. claimed Arias said that was the TRIGGER for her memory about the gun being in the closet. That is very specific and I doubt he was confused. I know Wilmott during re-direct tried to make it seem as if the doc MEANT in the bathroom, but I am quite sure we will be hearing jury questions on this. But my point is, this doc NEVER seemed to be concerned about the pathology of lying to START with and was always and only interested in seeking ways to excuse her behavior. I know that's his job, he is paid for that reason, but it did not help his credibility, especially since the jury questions were so much about questioning her word.Finally, the PTSD Scale test he said was very difficult to fake. Thats ludicrous. Its all over the web. The questions are as transparent as something could possibly get. "Do you experience anxiety or sweats when you recall the traumatic event". That is just an example. I think Arias could have figured out the correct response. But my point is the fact he actually made a point to say it was very difficult to fake. Second, the whole issue re: Arias having told the good doctor that she NEVER had anal sex before Travis. When Wilmott re-directed she focused her question on whether the anal sex COULD have been more traumatic with Travis for whatever reason. Whether or not it was traumatic had NOTHING to do with the question. Again, the POINT of JM's cross was -she was LYING to the doctor about obviously MANY things! It was from these interviews he claims that he primarily came up with his dx. He had no credibility in my mind. He appears like a perfectly nice guy, knowledgable, but clearly a guy for hire to say what it is you want him to say.

Just discovered the newer articles from you Mr. Gagic.

re: Is Arias' doctor helping or hurting her case?

I prefer to leave the 'speculation' to her doctor. Yes, that was a well deserved dig for his apparent belief that he's involved in an anything goes case being tied in a kangaroo court. Of course, the real responsibility falls onto the shoulders of Jodi's attorneys who apparently felt that as long as he delivered the diagnosis they wanted, it's all that mattered. WRONG, and thank you Mr. Martinez for keeping the trial on fair and ethical ground.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow's questions from the jurors for Jodi's doctor. The questions they posed to Jodi didn't seem to indicate she helped her own case much. I expect their questions for him will be just as revealing.

@Cate, thanks much for conveying that info. Just this weekend it occurred to me that Jodi is probably costing Arizona a fortune. What a piece of work.

In our present justice system with the high profile cases, it seems impossible to see through the games and tactics played out by the defense and state. Is it a personality contest for the jury, or whom is the smartest in coming up with a defense that works well with the forensics? Whether truth or not? Are we fooled by a deliberate murderer or by a showman of a prosecutor.

We sit at our TVs and listen to the trial, while the talking head so called experts tell their opinions. We can only hope that jurors that sit and hear ALL the testimony are fair and can see through the bs..

.

phoenix-

You are exactly right. I am bewildered at the people who think Martinez should be treating Ms Arias "respectfully", like her own attorneys are. WOW. They believe JM should even call her 'MS Arias', not "Ma'am". This "respectful" tx of Arias by her attys is ALSO a tactic to telegraph this idea that if THEY think she should be respected, then maybe she is a person that SHOULD be respected. They again, are trying to humanize her. Again I get that it really pisses off the defense the gruff way Martinez treats her, but that's really because it only blows part of the cover off their defense and shows Arias for who she really is. This is a highly manipulative defendant who is capable of a type of slaughter so brutal and so shocking- caught sending coded messages out of the jail in order to get a witness to lie for her-who is extremely capable of understanding what freakin' PTSD is (doc yesterday was just insulting...he says "you'd have to study PTSD to know what it is" . Is he now just going for broke? Since his career maybe over?. This just goes to show the entire defense team thinks the jury is stupid). The defense wants to LULL this jury to sleep with psychobabble BS that poor Jodi is the real victim here. It reminds me of what I believe the defendant did to Travis in order to more easily kill him.

I'll stick my neck out and make a prediction: Jodi will get convicted of 1st degree murder and get life in prison without the possibility of parole.

It completely baffles me how anyone could even suggest that the state should let Jodi dictate the terms of how she is prosecuted for such a gruesomely inhumane crime. There is nothing to prove that it wasn't premeditated, and just because someone is a pathologically brilliant liar and diabolically devious enough to plan a clever crime is not just reason to discount an abundance of circumstantial evidence all pointing to premeditation.

Remember, Jodi offered to take a plea of second degree murder -- which would have saved the state of AZ a GREAT deal of money -- and resulted in a very lengthy sentence.

http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Plea-Bargain-document-2011-Jodi-Arias-Is-Innocent-com.pdf

The state refused because they wanted to take the case to trial. In this country, per the constitution, a defendant is allowed to defend him/herself and if he/she cannot afford a lawyer, to have one appointed. If you want to blame anyone for the costs of this trial, therefore, either blame the constitution or blame the state of AZ.

So phoenix, what should happen to abusive men who commit grotesquely abhorrent criminal conduct such as hitting women, choking women until they pass out, raping, controlling and beating women? Because I believe Travis was an abusive man. His own words lead me to that conclusion. Or, are you saying he already got his own just desserts?

No phoenix, I never inferred that. I just asked a question.

But you haven't answered at all about what should occur to men who commit grotesque crimes against women. It seems you're saying it's okay for a man to be an abuser, but it's not okay for a woman to defend her life.

Yes, I am an abuse survivor. But it seems you know nothing about abuse, or what effect it has on the victim. I used to call myself the walking dead, and I was. I came very close to ending my life to be free of my abuser, many times. And I guess you could call me a serial liar as well. I often lied to protect him. Best wishes to you also, but I really hope you learn about abuse, and how devastating it is, because it could happen to someone you're close to. I don't wish that on you. But it happens to more women than you realize, and it may well be happening to a woman you know, right now, as we write back and forth.

On that final night with my abusive ex-husband, he was going to kill me. I wondered if I could get into that kitchen, grab a knife and have it be him, instead of me, that died. It was that close. Today, it could be me on that stand instead of him. And it could very well be me that you're saying these things about. Or, it could be that woman you may know. Just think about that for a second. That's all I ask.

@Also Abused, the law specifies what should happen to abusers regardless of gender, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Now let me ask you something - If Travis and Jodi's positions were exactly reversed, would you be posting daily comments in his defense on websites convinced that he wasn't the one who had been hacking into her accounts and slashing her tires, that she had been abusing him, that he didn't stage a robbery at his parents home to obtain a .25 caliber gun and then drive from California in a jealous rage after she broke up with him, that he didn't borrow gas cans to avoid leaving a paper trail or being photographed between his home and hers, that she attacked so he grabbed a gun which accidentally discharged into her head, that he then had a blackout and couldn't remember also stabbing her 29 times and nearly cutting her head off, that he cleaned up the crime scene and deleted photos and disposed of evidence in the desert - and that all of this occurred in a post traumatic stress syndrome fog?

And there are many, many other 'coincidences' too numerous to detail.

Something for you to think about for a second too.

Phoenix, I've asked same question on other blogs and never received a direct answer. Very good summation.

@Cate, thanks :) Why some are looking for any excuse to let a viscous murderer basically get away with it is extremely troubling to me.

@1488:

Don't stop there, finish what I said.. "and just because someone is a pathologically brilliant liar and diabolically devious enough to plan a clever crime is not just reason to discount an abundance of circumstantial evidence all pointing to premeditation."

The only way to CONCRETELY prove premeditation beyond the shadow of any doubt is to be able to get inside someone's head and access their memories because premeditating is fundamentally a thought process.

Right phoenix, I thought it remarkable yesterday when the doctor seemed extremely satisfied with himself, when he said, and Wilmott EVEN repeated it
"She never wrote anything about wanting to kill Mr Alexander in her journals"!

Really? Well, ok then, that settles that. NOT.
And THIS is an "expert witness". Uniquely qualified to tell us about human nature. This giy needs a new rodeo circuit.

Cate:

''Right phoenix, I thought it remarkable yesterday when the doctor seemed extremely satisfied with himself, when he said, and Wilmott EVEN repeated it
"She never wrote anything about wanting to kill Mr Alexander in her journals"!

Really? Well, ok then, that settles that. NOT.
And THIS is an "expert witness". Uniquely qualified to tell us about human nature. This giy needs a new rodeo circuit''

Cate! Jennifer Willmott repeated it so that the JURY would hear very clearly, a resounding ''No'' from Mr Samuels..and, yes, Cate, the expert witness. I think you might have forgotten his title because you clearly can't resist demeaning him.

You obviously see Mr Martinez very differently to me; you think he's wonderful, when, in truth he's just a bully, a small man with a large mouth that yells abuse at witnesses and delights in rudely asking people if they have lost their memories, when its clear that Martinez has lost the plot.

Court Minutes doc #1 – 5-24-2011 ——- Court Minutes doc #2 – 5-25-2011

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Take a look at her permanently deformed hand, where he broke her finger in one of his many angry outbursts.

Q. Why wasn’t it set?
A. She didn’t go to the hospital that’s why. She was protecting him.

Q. Why didn’t she go to the hospital???
A. Because a report would be made that could lead back to him and he knew it.
Jodi is an artist. Her hands are a critical element in her life. Not only is she a photographer, she is also a painter.

I personally witnessed the purple finger shaped bruises on her neck. She originally claimed was from a seat belt. Later, after much debate, she admitted they were from him. She assured me that: “He is a good man” and “He didn’t mean it”.

In one of our many conversations, I asked her why she wouldn’t “Just leave him.”
She said: “I can’t leave him, you don’t understand, I’ve tried. He wont let me!” She refused to elaborate.

I was Jodi’s boyfriend for around two years and in that time, she wouldn’t so much as squish a bug. I caught her on many occasions, fishing bugs out of the tub, so they wouldn’t get washed down the drain. She had this crazy neurotic cat, that would flip out and attack her for no reason and she didn’t so much as swat it. Jodi is NOT a violent person!

When we ended our relationship, I was living and working at a distance. During that period, I began spending time with a colleague. One of my douche bag coworkers decided to “inform” her. There was lots of crying, many talks and a few letters. She was NEVER VIOLENT in any way. We remained friends and since then, she had a few other relationships ending with Travis. I personally know the man she was with before Travis. He and Jodi maintained a friendly relationship after they parted. He also had NO issues with violence. So why now? What changed?

Before Jodi was arrested we would talk on a regular basis. I am one of her longest lasting friends and former lovers. I could be a important character witness. At one point, I asked Jodi to leave me out of this situation, so as not draw attention to myself or my new family and since then, she has.

Her life is on the line. She could get the death penalty. Yet she’s made it a point not to involve me.

Why? Because I asked her not to….

That is the kind of person Jodi is!”

Kate,

I agree with everything you have said. Martinez has blocked evidence from the Defense, he doesn't want anything coming out to support Jodi, he just wants her dead. This is not how to expect a Prosecutor to behave, he's thoroughly underhand and a total bully, he even wanted to 'prove' Jodi a liar about the damage Travis did to her finger, however, this backfired on him and I applauded the Defense team! And yet, some people on here support Martinez--unreal.

Very glad to see your post, thankfully we see things from the right way up!

Heather, u still haven't told me the question u think I'm avoiding. You still aren't answering my question either. Why?

I've read what u posted above on the innocent site already. What about it? I see you've the part where he says that he would lie for Jodi. He has impeached himself. If we are talking the truth here, then why would he feel the need to lie. I've been paying close attention to Matt mccartneys involvement in this case. If he is on the up and up, why wouldn't she call him up? As far as this business of jodi wanting to keep Matt out of anything, it doesn't jive. She gave testimony mentioning his name. I believe that Matt McC. Was very involved with sending her lawyers the letters that were ruled to be consistent with Arias' own writing. But I believewe won't need to guess for very much longer because I believe Matt is going to be a witness for the state in the rebuttal case .

And why is it tout guys don't look at base logic on anything jodi says to anyone? If, it were even remotely possible that TRAVIS was responsible for breaking her finger,why does she all of a sudden have a problem a t all? Jodis know stranger to coming up with lies on the fly. She could've made up anything. The dog or kid she was rough housing with accidentally bent back her finger. This wS hardly some hard proof of domestic violence. It was more like a boo)boo.

And, why doesn't her team get her xrayed? It certainly seems to be along the lines of their style. I believe they have not, becaiase jodi is double jointed. Sorry, bit that's pretty Mitch the consensus of the majority of trial watchers are seeing. Again, I've never seen jodi as very smart. Just cunning and persistent with the gift of being able to speak well.

Cate:

While you insist on believing what Martinez says about the forged letters, there is nothing I can say to you. Martinez does Not want Any evidence that would support Jodi (thought you'd have worked that one out by now, Cate..)

And while you think there is nothing wrong with Jodi's finger other than double jointedness--how ridiculous, but I can't say I'm surprised you and others think this, why, should I be?

The juicier LIE the better, that's what excites you, isn't it, Cate. Well as long as you and all the rest of the haters who refuse to believe anything Jodi says, enjoy these absurd theories, who am I to stop your enjoyment?!

As for the (trick) question you haven't stopped asking me about that seems to be the flavour of the week: As it *isn't* the reverse I am not going to further indulge you!

Heather,

Says SHE who comes up with the most absurd theories about this case and chooses to believe the stories of a confirmed liar, save all your howling for when this jury, made up of people obviously far less gullible than you and your few cohorts, returns the guilty verdict. As evidenced by their clearly sarcastic questions to her "expert witness".,Heather, check out the scathing review of Dr Samuels by a much revered psychologist. Title 'Just how Expert of a Witness is Richard Samuels". In it the author absolutely annihilates Samuels credibility, expertness etc etc. Oh, but I guess the author MUST be a hater too. You don't know how silly and impotent you sound. Good luck with that. You sound as emotionally unbalanced as Jodi Arias. You can keep repeating this lie about her finger all you want. But the fact her defense has not presented xrays tells the world this finger was never broken. Smart people know that xrays can also tell a doctor approximately how long ago the injury happened as well. Like I said, save yr howling for the verdict. Yeah, EVERYBODY is out to get innocent victim jodi Arias. Read the article , you will LEARN something.

Arabian Rider,

Your second paragraph.. where were you when the taped evidence was listened to in court? To say there is nothing to substantiate abuse? I gues to to you it is natural and a loving and caring thing to say that Jodi is a 3 holed wonder, a skank and so forth.. I suppose you take all your girlfriends and tie them to a tree, speak with threatening behaviour, oh and it would be normal to throw a bar of toblerone at her feet when you'd had your way with her and walk away.. and THIs is not substantiating enough to be abusive? Oh, silly me for thinking this! I just can't waur to find such a person for I just know it will be love..

And, it doesn't follow that Travis or indeed any abuser would be abusive to all his other girlfriends, it simply isn't so. Travis Knew that Jodi wanted his approval and that she would do anything for him--people are readable, you know, even if the words are not spoken! And so he used her, abused her.. he wouldn't have been able to get away with that to his past girlfriends, what, do you think all people are the same?

And, because nothing was found, either in his room (photo's of young boys) and on his computer.. so we are told.. you don't think the State could be underhand?

My my...

Heather, just watch the trial. Your posts are so much more about your feelings, your anger towards men. For some reason you think it unimportant that we don't have context for Travis' scathing email to jodi calling her a liar, manipulator, sociopatg. What was it that jodi did to bring on these feelings in Travis? And please, don't just regurgitate what JODI says it was about. I now believe NOTHING she says. Did u watch the trial today? We saw this doctor's testimony and credibility destroyed. Are u a family member? While I sympathize if you are, it makes sense then why you despise this prosecutor, assume 'truth' is ONLY being presented by the defense and just absolutely refuse to look at the evidence in this case. Along with your naive and rose tinted view of this defendant and all her manipulations, machinations, lies and very obvious sociopatic and narcissistic personality. I believe this jury suffers from no such delusions.

Cate:

So, you wouldn't mind being shouted and yelled at by Martinez? LOL!!! Best laugh I've had all day :D

You must like being abused. Obviously you see nothing wrong with that. You can't do.

My anger towards men? lol How stupid. I think its funny you can't see what a complete asshole he's made of himself--he knows he's lost this case :)

The jury aren't the ones suffering from delusions..! :)

All your hate for Jodi is showing (hadn't you better try to conceal it again?)

Cate,

''Context''? You.. really NEED context? You need glasses, it was there on the screen--all his abuse, all his threats, and you're seriously telling me you need.. context?,

You need Something, I wasn't thinking of context! lol

O.M.G!

An article titled "JODI ARIAS TRIAL: HOW "EXPERT" WAS DR SAMUELS' EXPERT TESTIMONY"

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-how-expert-was-dr-samuels-expert-testimony/

Taken from the Mental Health & Criminal Justice website. Written by Kristina Randle

Ms Randle is a licensed psychotherapist and an Assistant Professor of Social Work and Criminology with extensive experience in the field of mental health. an “Ask the Therapist” columnist for www.psychcentral.com,

Ms Randle articulates why this jury had the type of questions they had. She articulates why people thoroughly familiar with the suffering and victimology of Domestic Violence, thoroughly familiar with narcissism and well read on the subject of trauma- just cannot be sold the bill of goods this doctor and his "client" are peddling. THIS was not "denial". THIS was all about manipulation, rage, mental illness and lying to avoid accountability.

Most survivors of abuse watching and listening to this trial (and there are many) are incensed at the outright and abject use of their pain for one woman's selfish gain. They know that Travis does not look anything like the abusers in their life. They are shocked at the ludicrous examples this woman and her defense team have put up for display as if they are anything more than examples taken completely out of context. A few ask us how we would feel if we had a prosecutor screaming at us? A few will try anything to keep the conversation off the real victim, the slaughtered Travis Victor Alexander, and like the defendant seek to keep the attention, the pity, on the defendant. I have no more pity for this defendant than she had for Travis. Your questions and pleas for attention to be given to Jodi's false testimony will continue to be ignored.

I see no remorse in this woman for what she has done and this is really the part that unites so many against her. NOT jealousy. We are mothers, sisters and wives. We care about the men in our life just as much as the women. We know there are evil men that do evil things to women and we know there are evil women that do evil things to men. Are there many screaming for blood? Sure. But there are far more that only want justice. I personally believe Jodi Arias deserves not Death but a mental institution. People that do things like this are ill and depraved and dangerous to society. I don't call that bloodlust. I call it justice.

The problem with bad people is that they use the words of good people.

LM

I thoroughly agree with all you have said. I'd bet every penny that the members of the Jury have spoken to people about the trial, gone online, etc, its ridiculous of the Judge to imagine otherwise--the Jury Should have been sequestered. This and other things show me that the State is playing a dirty game.

Cate:

I guess it won't be long till you undermine the expert on Domestic violence, too.

Cate:

Haters of Jodi don't think at all--they get the media to think for them.

Hi LM,

I recognise you from the Jodi support site, how odd you should get that email from Walmart, very strange, have you done anything about it to check the email address? I think I'd have hit the floor if I'd received that.

Cate:

I could get a home study course and be a social worker in 6 months, yes, really!

Another good article from the guardian/Observer on the under reporting and factual statistics known on female violence and abuse against their male partners:

In the UK:

The number of women prosecuted for domestic violence rose from 1,575 in 2004-05 to 4,266 in 2008-09. "Both men and women can be victims and we know that men feel under immense pressure to keep up the pretence that everything is OK," said Alex Neil, the housing and communities minister in the Scottish parliament. "Domestic abuse against a man is just as abhorrent as when a woman is the victim."

Mark Brooks of the Mankind Initiative, a helpline for victims, said: "It's a scandal that in 2010 all domestic violence victims are still not being treated equally. We reject the gendered analysis that so many in the domestic violence establishment still pursue, that the primary focus should be female victims. Each victim should be seen as an individual and helped accordingly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

THE TRUTH.

When you watch the media coverage of Jodi Arias, you hear a lot of focus on her lies/stories, but not a lot of focus on the evidence. There are some very important considerations getting lost in the noise on TV.

The most important being that everyone lies. A lot of people lie to the police and their motivation isn’t just guilt. People lie to police over the stupidest things, including traffic violations. Their motivations can be anything from minimizing their involvement to hiding a completely unrelated embarrassment. People cover up for someone they love, people are afraid of the police or authority, and scared of being wrongfully convicted. Even mental illness can affect truthfulness. The list goes on and on. It is an indisputable fact that 99% of all people lie about one thing or another in their lifetime. Politicians lie, prosecutors lie, business people lie, companies lie, salesman lie, forensic experts lie, husbands and wives lie, boyfriends and girlfriends lie, children lie, teens lie, the media lies, etc. etc.

Even the police lie! As a matter of fact, police are legally allowed to lie during interrogations. However, some police also lie illegally under oath.

Because lying is so common, it should not be used as the sole piece of evidence to put someone in prison (unless of course they are charged with lying).

Shockingly enough if you watched the HLN: After Dark episode (Bold Accusation: Travis Attacked Jodi) with Jose Baez, Vinnie Politan, Charles Mittelstadt, Mike Brooks, Ryan Smith, and Holly Hughes, you may have actually learned something! (Yes, I ashamedly watched this episode, but only to see how Jose Baez would have argued the case.)

Regardless of what you think of any of the featured people or the channel, this program made valid points.

ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEFENSE THEORY

According to Jodi Arias’ testimony, after she dropped Travis Alexander’s new camera worth thousands of dollars, he attacked her body slamming her onto the tile floor near the tub area adjacent to the shower (marked with a rectangle in the above diagram). She was able to roll away and run down the hallway (black arrows).

She veered right into the closet (follow the black arrows in the above diagram). The green arrows represent how she would have ran if she ran out of the bedroom and down the stairs, which is around a corner and through double doors that open inward (towards you).

Jodi ran through the closet and grabbed the gun (marked by a square in the above diagram) before exiting the closet.

Jodi stated that she did not run in the direction of the stairs (green arrows) because she had previously ran in that direction and he caught her.

As you can see in the above picture, Charles Mittelstadt demonstrated that he had no problem jumping up on the shelves without disturbing anything or knocking down the shelves. He weighs more than Jodi and is taller. It only makes sense that she would use the shelf because she couldn’t see the gun unless she did. Feeling around would take extra time she wouldn’t have if Alexander were pursuing her.

As Holly Hughes demonstrated Jodi was shorter than Alexander was and he was crouched at a distance, the evidence lines up completely with this, including the fact that there was no stippling.

She turned as she ran out of the closet (black arrow in the above, left, diagram) and somewhere in the general vicinity of the black line (above left diagram) Jodi turned and shot Travis Alexander as he crouched and lunged at her. The gun was a small caliber, so he could have continued to move about after being shot.

The red circle (in the above left diagram) marks blood spatter in the bathroom (close up in the picture on the right). If the orange arrow (in the above left diagram) is about where Jodi was standing and the black line (in the above left diagram) is about where Alexander was lunging, this positioning would cause the spatter in the red circle area (above left diagram) and would have caused the injuries that he sustained.

What about the shell casing? Well, with items such as a shell casing many things can occur. We know that the shell casing had no blood on it itself, so that means it had to land on dried blood or on no blood. This could mean all sorts of possibilities:
•The people who found him, his friends and roommates, could have kicked it.
•Police on the scene could have accidentally bumped it.
•Jodi might have attempted to clean up, so she could have displaced the casing from its original position by the tub to the other side of the room merely by kicking it.

As evidenced by the above diagram, the end of the hallway had to be where the stabbing occurred.

The hand print/palm print (above right) that was a mixture of Arias’ DNA and Alexander’s, is quite low to the ground. Why would she be so low to the ground? If she was in a struggle for her life with Alexander, at some point, the two of them were probably on the floor at the end of the hallway. She could have been bracing herself against the wall during the fight. Alexander’s wounds on his hands and feet could easily have happened during a fight in the cramped space.

In the left picture, we can see how small the hallway really is, an odd place to premeditate the murder of a person using a knife, especially on someone who is bigger and stronger than you.

I often wondered why Martinez droned on and on about Jodi’s sex life and not about the forensics. Then Jose Baez painted out that the forensics actually support Jodi’s account. The spatter and small amount of blood in the bathroom. Then down the hallway, the majority of the blood.

Also, the lack of drag marks anywhere puzzle me. If he was stabbed first then drug back into the bathroom and then shot, there should be evidence. Even if Jodi used items, such as the towels found in the washer to clean up, there should be some evidence left behind.

Why would the lead detective (Flores) testify at the death penalty hearing that the Medical Examiner told him the shot happened last (lining up with the defense’s theory and the blood spatter) if he didn’t in fact tell him that? The M.E. testified differently at trial and completely denies ever saying that.

I found one particular piece of testimony that Jodi said during direct extremely interesting. Defense Attorney Kirk Nurmi asked Jodi why she would say that two people killed Alexander. Jodi answered that she thought that would match the evidence. He seemed a bit shocked and asked her if she had said she thought that would match the evidence? She answered yes. I haven’t heard anyone else mention or discuss this point, but I find it curious.

Holly Hughes pointed out an extremely important question. Why, if Jodi premeditated this, would she stab him when she had a gun? Why attack a man with a knife, when you have access to a gun, when you know this man is bigger and stronger than you?

Also if premeditated, why would Jodi wait so long, about 8 hours, before attacking him, knowing he has roommates and other people that come over to his house all the time?

WATCH THE ENTIRE EPISODE HERE —> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shmCLChbSVU

Share this:

Twitter1
Facebook
Print
Email
Pinterest
Tumblr
Google +1

Like this:

★

Join the Discussion

Enter your comment here...

.

How Much Is Jodi Arias Worth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Greyzed by The Forge Web Creations.

Lets break down this post shall we? Let's compare Ken Popehat's post on Aaron Swartz to that of the Jodi Arias case and see if the main arguments the author makes in THIS opine, are even relevant to Jodi Arias. By the way, I recognize that it was not Ken Popehat that intended the specific comparison. Had he intended to write about Jodi Arias, the main crux of his argument would have needed to be different.

MANY people are HIGHLY critical and outraged at what happened to Aaron Swartz. The Aaron Swartz story was a true tragedy. And nothing HE did, resulted in the brutal slaughtering of a human being- taking away a young person's right to life permanently and forever. The same right that Jodi Arias claims she should be entitled to despite what she did to another person. In fact all that I have read on Aaron Swartz' criminal prosecution and resulting suicide is that the criminal justice system failed and must be examined in cases like his and overhauled. But comparing the Aaron Swartz case to the Jodi Arias' case is like comparing your average teenager's mistakes to that of Joran Van Der Sloot's sins.

1. "It is especially the case in the field of criminal prosecution that not only is the understanding of mental illness lacking, but the willingness to comprehend how mental illness plays a part in so much crime. It seems that psychiatry and psychology are regarded as inconvenient fields that interfere with the main aim of the state in criminal cases – to get “Guilty” verdicts, get people out of the way and win kudos with a revenge-oriented, rather than rehabilitation-oriented public. Psychosis in particular, whether chronic or acute, is something that no-one wants to hear about when it is associated with the most heinous and horrifying crimes. It is regarded as an “excuse”, and people contort their “common sense” into all kinds of odd, illogical theories about the motivations of certain criminals to account for the inexplicability of their acts, citing medieval notions of “evil”, as if psychosis were less feasible an explanation than a little hooved and fork-tailed man toying with one’s conscience"

Response: While I agree with the author that this happens in some cases where a defendant claims a psychological illness and that there IS at times a very one dimensional 'guilty before innocent' mindset in a large portion of the public at large- but mental illness is not at issue here in J Arias' case-at least that's not her defense. Even though the RE-poster of Popehat's article says that "Domestic Abuse, low self-esteem etc can be substituted here-I disagree. ( And I believe most people have become very familiar with the signs of Domestic Violence. And just because the defense's way of dealing with the fact that people are not believing she was abused is to PRETEND its just because people are not EDUCATED on Domestic Violence or abuse to KNOW the difference, is trickery imo and an obvious attempt to change the conversation. )

Dr Samuels said Jodi Arias has NO mental illness. Jodi Arias on the stand made it clear she suffers from NO mental illness. She claims 'self-defense', a far different thing from psychosis. And the reason in THIS case why the self defense claim must be so critically examined is because a slaughter of a young man happened AND because every witness out there who seems to have known the victim claims he was anything BUT an abuser. The other very REAL fact is that in order to be acquitted of premeditated murder the defendant HAD to come up with some defense, so it is expected that she come up with something that attempts to mitigate the circumstances. You do NOT just accept any old excuse because a defendant tells you it happened. And given the fact the woman is a confidant liar, (NOT just a common liar BTW that tells the everyday garden variety lies), it is imperative what she said be corroborated. Had she claimed temporary insanity or some sort of psychosis I believe much of the public would have been far more inclined to believe THAT then even premeditation perhaps- because after all sociopaths and evil are something that is imo difficult sometimes for some people to comprehend. Nobody wants to think evil people are out there. Its easier imo for people to think the person is insane. If the argument was compelling and there was evidence by a doctor to back that up-temp insanity I believe many people could have believed. What she did was insane. But the defendant did NOT claim psychosis or mental illness. She decided to claim low self-esteem and self-defense and chose to blame the victim, stating he was a pedophile and abuser. Domestic Violence in THIS case is NOT interchangable with "psychosis" or mental illness. I am not sure if the author is unwilling to acknowledge that sociopaths and narcissists exist in our society but people DO kill due to jealousy and rage. Sometimes mental illness can apply. But this idea that sociopaths are a myth and should be as believable as "little hooved and fork tailed..etc" (IF that is in fact what the author is saying...its unclear) is to deny so much science and medical research that the argument in many cases, fails epically.

2. "Comments like “he/she planned it”, “he/she knew exactly what they were doing” and they “planned” that they would “claim insanity” defy the very “common sense” to which people are supposedly so beholden: when someone plans and commits an act of terror then doesn’t appear to have thought about or even care about how they would get away with it; when someone allegedly kills in a pre-planned, brutal fashion then hours later, in the realization of what they have done, makes a hysterical phone call to confide what they should, logically, be pretending not to know…..doesn’t “common sense” suggest that the person’s “sense” is decidedly and severely uncommon, and therefore merits profound investigation?"

The part above "then hours later, in the realization of what they have done, makes a hysterical phone call TO CONFIDE what they should, logically, be pretending not to know", is exactly WHY this whole post does not apply to Jodi Arias. She did the VERY opposite of this. She called the victim and everyone else in an attempt to COVER her act. NOT TO ADMIT IT. Had she done what the author described above though, this case would be very very different.

There IS plenty of circumstantial evidence that Jodi Arias had the intent to kill Travis Alexander. JUST because she did not do a very good job, and was most likely overcome with rage, was sloppy, things happened she probably did not count on, does NOT suddenly mean this is proof there was no intent. Doing a BAD job of premeditation means they did a bad job and was not very careful in their planning. THAT is it!

To deny sociopathy as a very real reason behind a murder is then to also deny that MEN who KILL their intimate partners due to rage and jealousy must ALSO ONLY be victims themselves of a mental illness, not evil. Therefore to prosecute a batterer or perpetrator that kills is unfair in this author's argument in every circumstance. Except, Oh wait, perhaps the author was only talking about situations in which the killer admits what they did SOON AFTER the event. That if they admit what they did right away then that is proof there was no diabolical INTENT. I might agree with THAT. But in the case against Arias, she continued to cover up the "truth" for over two years. Does the author than acknowledge that THAT course of action is PROOF of premeditation?

If you are going to take the position that she is innocent because even though she did not admit the "truth" for two years, she DID finally tell the "real" story... the same should be true for every MAN that brutally kills his significant other due to jealousy or rage and denies jealousy or rage was a factor, claims two other versions of what happened and then after 2 years uses the defense of mental illness after the fact or self defense. You are saying this man should NOT be found guilty of premeditated murder. Somehow I believe in THAT scenario, some of the people on Jodi's side, would say, NO, those men are sociopaths and deserve to be found guilty. This case has brought out all sorts of gender bias. And I have found it really interesting that so far nobody who believes Jodi innocent has had the courage to consider whether they would have been so supportive of TRAVIS had he been the one who killed Jodi Arias. The subject is ignored on every single blog I have posted on and others have posted on. Do you believe Betty Broderick was really a victim of abuse too?

3. "When individuals commit incomprehensible, brutal acts of violence, society is more interested in quenching its blood-lust than in dispassionate exploration, understanding and finding solutions so that other potentially so-predisposed individuals do not repeat the horror.

But these considerations are all just a little too complicated, requiring a psychological, intellectual and ethical stretch of the mind that the prevailing Pitchforker culture doesn’t have time or mental capacity for. "

"Mocking is the symbiotic companion of bloodlust. It is a way of persuading oneself that one is so much more evolved than the defendant – it implies that the person is a ridiculous specimen who does not even count as human. Very dangerous. Much as many do not want to entertain their common humanity with killers, the uncomfortable fact is that most of us are just further back on the same very wide human behavioural continuum as defendants are – not on a different continuum.

Perhaps it is the insanity of the Pitchfork-wielding tomato tossers that is worthy of ridicule, not that of their psychologically-compromised and cavalierly neglected targets.

Response: While much of what Mr Popehat has to say in this argument is true and has legitimate merit, has very little to do with the Arias case. Much of the argument actually argues against Ms Arias being found NOT Guilty. Popehat points to people who soon AFTER a brutal event, ADMIT to what they did, which in and of itself points to a lack of intent. I would in some cases agree with THAT- but THAT is not what happened here. The people who believe Jodi Arias' defense, (or pretend to believe it -as I suspect some are in the "Jodi Innocent" camp for the hell of it and principle of the issue-being anti authority etc), want to use articles like this, point to people like Aaron Swartz, a true victim, as if there is ANY such comparison that would make sense.

Whether you like it or not, there is rational analysis being taken by many of the people who know that Arias is guilty. They are not easily discarded into this big pool of the "bloodlusters" as the innocent Camp would so much like them to be. THESE are the folks I BELIEVE that the Innocent Campers are really threatened by. They seek to minimize the integrity of these folks by calling them names. Something they scream about when its done to them by the other side.

"Bloodlust" is a very real phenomena and may certainly apply with some people calling for Ms Arias' death, but it does NOT mean that all people thinking she is guilty of premeditated murder are guilty of bloodlusting. Many who think she is guilty have looked closely at all the facts so far presented and the evidence in this case and have made what they believe to be a perfectly reasonable and to them, in fact probable assessment of what happened. They see Arias as a danger to society, a narcissist, someone who believes that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Someone who sees the victim as wholly disposable, not only in terms of his very life, but in death, his reputation. Someone who has no qualms about attributing some of the most vile allegations a person could allege if it would save her from being held accountable. This is not a person that can safely be introduced back into society and expect to not cause harm to anyone else who in the future may get in their way. BUT we realize- that a reasoned, calm, non-emotionally charged assessment that finds Arias guilty is NOT the way one who believes she is innocent wants the opposite side portrayed. Much more convenient and easier to call them blood thirsty, not listening to facts in case (IOW -not buying the defense strategy), simple, stupid, jealous, sensationalist TV addicted, evil & ignorant people who know nothing of PTSD, trauma, low self-esteem, psychology in general, Domestic Violence, Batterers etc all the associated trappings.
I DO get it.

Thank you.

Sigh. Heather. You are so threatened by others whose views are different from your own and you get so worked up about it- that all you can do is post derogatory and insulting things about them rather than articulately argue yr points in an effective manner. I know that works at that fansite of yours, but its thoroughly innocuous anywhere else.

Let me be clear: I personally do not want Jodi Arias to die. I do not believe the state should ever put anyone to death. I'll admit that when the defense began blaming the victim and making allegations on his character wholly inconsistent with the truth, I started wavering in my long held conviction of being against the death penalty. But now I believe that Jodi Arias is sick. She really cannot understand what right and wrong in this case is. There is a flat affect consistent with a personality disorder that says in some respects she really cannot be held so accountable for her actions that it merits the death penalty. I just want her removed from civilized society where she could do no further harm. Life without the possibility of parole would be fine. I know the the research shows that narcissists and those with anti social personality disorders cannot be treated, especially once they are of a certain age. But I think one should try anyway.

Cate:

So, now that the trial has moved on and other things have come to light you can't deny, you have conveniently altered your opinion to suit!
Your opinion now is that Jodi is sick.. well, guess you had to change it to something--and that kind of fitted very nicely, didn't it! :)

All I can do is laugh!