Jodi Arias Trial Part 4, starting with redirect of "expert" Dr Samuels, March 19

[MaryAnnDVC]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander

I just found this article that gives a good reference to what the ME said ... And it also gives another pathologist's opinion ... According to the ME, TA had a life threatening wound to his chest and heart ... However, it was the slash to his neck that killed him ...

I also found this part of the article to be worth noting ...

So if we are all here basically deliberating what the actual sequence of events were, I'm sure the Jury will too ... I just hope that it won't cause any reasonable doubt amongst the jurors ... IMO, no matter what the sequence was, I don't have any doubt that she committed 1st degree premeditated murder ... But then again, I have had the benefit of reading and hearing things that the jury may not have ...

Thanks! I think that it's open to debate about what came first. I do think that the DT wants everyone to believe that he was shot first, because it falls better into the defense. And I thought that a stab to his back was feasible. But, now it does make more sense to me that she would shoot him first, esp if she has a gun with her. Who would want to take the chance of tangling with a big guy? I agree...no doubt in my eyes that she premeditated the killing...definitely brought the gun, and either brought her own knife or grabbed one downstairs on the way in from putting her luggage in the car, just as back up. Maybe the bullet casing fell onto his clothes or towels near the shower, and fell out when she was cleaning up. I think there's more truth to her story than we've given her credit for, in the sense that a liar is going to spin a story based on actual facts. Maybe he DID say he was going to F'ing kill her after he was shot, and came towards her stumbling. But I don't think he was ever in control of the struggle...she didn't proceed with the attack to defend herself; she proceeded with her plan to kill him.

There is debatable forensics with regard to the order of events and the condition of Travis' body because of decomposition of his brain, and when and why there was no, or little, blood there.

I don't think that the jury has to agree with EVERYTHING that either side puts out, but now I am getting a little worried about them thinking it just wouldn't be smart that someone who brings a gun would use a knife first. Ugh.

Good picture of the court room from one of the Travis support FB sites:

Looks like it was during a sidebar. Shocking! lol Good pic!

 

[usnuzuloose]

Was a receipt ever shown that Jodi bought a gun?

 

[Brit17]

I clipped part of that article.

But that's only if one believes that Travis died from that gunshot wound (and the ME report doesn't state he did whenever it took place) and Gabby Giffords is evidence enough that gun shot wounds don't necessarily kill. And that doesn't take into context that Travis' gun shot didn't hit any part of the brain, hell, I've got a friend that put a .45 round into his right temple and stood there for a moment after he did it. ME's reports are highly debatable in some instances, especially court cases.

Plus the 1st degree aggravating circumstances are covered by the premeditation factor filed in the charges which if found guilty could get Arias the death penalty. All those factors are laid out in one of the documents on the first page of the thread (I'm not gonna try to find it, but I've posted it before.)

And I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, Brit, I'm just saying all these media hounds and seekers have an opinion, we all got one.

I was trying to say that the DT is saying (per JA) that TA was shot first and the prosecution is saying that he was shot last ... So I was just wondering if the "sequence of injuries" will end up playing a major role in the verdict ... In other words, if the jury doesn't agree on whether JA was shot or stabbed first or last, thus putting a question in the prosecution's theory, will that be enough to prove reasonable doubt, KWIM? ...

I personally never thought about the "sequence of injuries" playing a major factor per se because, regardless of which came first, it's evident that she shot and stabbed him (and I don't buy her story of self-defense at all) ... However, now I'm seeing how someone may think the actual sequence is very significant ... and I agree that everyone definitely has their own opinion ... I don't know if I could ever serve on a jury to be honest ...

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I was trying to say that the DT is saying (per JA) that TA was shot first and the prosecution is saying that he was shot last ... So I was just wondering if the "sequence of injuries" will end up playing a major role in the verdict ... In other words, if the jury doesn't agree on whether JA was shot or stabbed first or last, thus putting a question in the prosecution's theory, will that be enough to prove reasonable doubt, KWIM? ...

I personally never thought about the "sequence of injuries" playing a major factor per se because, regardless of which came first, it's evident that she shot and stabbed him (and I don't buy her story of self-defense at all) ... However, now I'm seeing how someone may think the actual sequence is very significant ... and I agree that everyone definitely has their own opinion ... I don't know if I could ever serve on a jury to be honest ...

I agree with everything.

Could you imagine getting into a jury room, and feeling so passionate and sure about your verdict, and there's someone with the exact opposite opinion? Me and Jennifer Ford (of Casey Anthony jury infamy) together in a jury room would not be good.

 

[crz4mm2]

I agree with everything.

Could you imagine getting into a jury room, and feeling so passionate and sure about your verdict, and there's someone with the exact opposite opinion? Me and Jennifer Ford (of Casey Anthony jury infamy) together in a jury room would not be good.

No, me either. BUT, if I HAD been on that jury, I would have fought til my dying breath that she was (and IS) guilty. So at the very least that would have been a hung jury?

 

[usnuzuloose]

No, me either. BUT, if I HAD been on that jury, I would have fought til my dying breath that she was (and IS) guilty. So at the very least that would have been a hung jury?

You know that baffles me, 6 went in there and said guilty. If they would of held their ground, she would of been retried. Hopefully they would have been upright jurors.

 

[crz4mm2]

You know that baffles me, 6 went in there and said guilty. If they would of held their ground, she would of been retried. Hopefully they would have been upright jurors.

Yes. I really TRULY think, some of the jurors were tired of being there. Wanted to be "done". I would hope that would not be true, but really feel that it is....

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

No, me either. BUT, if I HAD been on that jury, I would have fought til my dying breath that she was (and IS) guilty. So at the very least that would have been a hung jury?

That's how I feel too.

Yes. I really TRULY think, some of the jurors were tired of being there. Wanted to be "done". I would hope that would not be true, but really feel that it is....

Could you imagine that group trying to get through this trial? They'd be putting their feet up, filing their nails, or just plain standing up and walking out. Oh wait...then they couldn't sell their interviews, could they.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Was a receipt ever shown that Jodi bought a gun?

I don't recall if she volunteered that information after the police asked her about it or how their discovery of that weapon came about, wasn't Jodi's mother involved somehow? But no, I don't think a receipt was ever admitted as evidence.

I was trying to say that the DT is saying (per JA) that TA was shot first and the prosecution is saying that he was shot last ... So I was just wondering if the "sequence of injuries" will end up playing a major role in the verdict ... In other words, if the jury doesn't agree on whether JA was shot or stabbed first or last, thus putting a question in the prosecution's theory, will that be enough to prove reasonable doubt, KWIM? ...

I personally never thought about the "sequence of injuries" playing a major factor per se because, regardless of which came first, it's evident that she shot and stabbed him (and I don't buy her story of self-defense at all) ... However, now I'm seeing how someone may think the actual sequence is very significant ... and I agree that everyone definitely has their own opinion ... I don't know if I could ever serve on a jury to be honest ...

Gawd, I hope not because that opens up a big whopping can of worms since the charging documents and *probable cause was based on the State's testimony that Travis was shot first. And I still think this factor is gonna come back again in appeals anyway if Jodi is found guilty of 1st degree and gets a decent appeals attorney, but at least that verdict comes from a panel of judges rather than peers.

I'm hoping the jury focuses on those gas cans, her cell phone turned off and her denials with two different stories that she killed Travis. And please, it's just not likely that Travis owned the same caliber weapon stolen from Jodi's grandparents home just days before she left Yreka. In this case the attempt to get to AZ undetected (as Jodi planned) only makes sense if it was for nefarious reasons. She planned this killing before leaving Yreka, I just hope the jury can say the State proved it or this murderer gets 12-25 years for 2nd degree murder.

ETA: *Has anyone given any thought to that if Jodi is convicted of 1st degree, gets LWOP or the DP, then in appeals how ever many years later can get a higher court to rule she deserves a new trial, would the State re-try her for 1st degree or attempt a plea for 2nd degree and depending on how much time she's served by then, be able to walk out free then?

This case really has been a circus from both sides.

 

[Brit17]

I agree with everything.

Could you imagine getting into a jury room, and feeling so passionate and sure about your verdict, and there's someone with the exact opposite opinion? Me and Jennifer Ford (of Casey Anthony jury infamy) together in a jury room would not be good.

No, me either. BUT, if I HAD been on that jury, I would have fought til my dying breath that she was (and IS) guilty. So at the very least that would have been a hung jury?

You know that baffles me, 6 went in there and said guilty. If they would of held their ground, she would of been retried. Hopefully they would have been upright jurors.

Yes. I really TRULY think, some of the jurors were tired of being there. Wanted to be "done". I would hope that would not be true, but really feel that it is....

I agree with all of the above ... I probably would have held out and caused a hung jury for sure in the CA case ... The CA jury was sequestered, correct? ... I think that has a lot to do with verdicts that make us say WTH?!?! ... Both CA's and OJ's juries were sequestered and they both walked ...

I don't recall if she volunteered that information after the police asked her about it or how their discovery of that weapon came about, wasn't Jodi's mother involved somehow? But no, I don't think a receipt was ever admitted as evidence.

Gawd, I hope not because that opens up a big whopping can of worms since the charging documents and *probable cause was based on the State's testimony that Travis was shot first. And I still think this factor is gonna come back again in appeals anyway if Jodi is found guilty of 1st degree and gets a decent appeals attorney, but at least that verdict comes from a panel of judges rather than peers.

I'm hoping the jury focuses on those gas cans, her cell phone turned off and her denials with two different stories that she killed Travis. And please, it's just not likely that Travis owned the same caliber weapon stolen from Jodi's grandparents home just days before she left Yreka. In this case the attempt to get to AZ undetected (as Jodi planned) only makes sense if it was for nefarious reasons. She planned this killing before leaving Yreka, I just hope the jury can say the State proved it or this murderer gets 12-25 years for 2nd degree murder.

ETA: *Has anyone given any thought to that if Jodi is convicted of 1st degree, gets LWOP or the DP, then in appeals how ever many years later can get a higher court to rule she deserves a new trial, would the State re-try her for 1st degree or attempt a plea for 2nd degree and depending on how much time she's served by then, be able to walk out free then?

This case really has been a circus from both sides.

I hope the jury focuses on those things too ... But, like we said before, there are 12 people with 12 different opinions and different ways of thinking ... Anything can happen ...

I'm just hoping that she isn't found guilty of 2nd degree the first time around ... I don't think she would even appeal that verdict because with time served she'd be walking by the time she's 40 ...

 

[usnuzuloose]

Evidently Mr. Juanderful has huge fan club. There is a link over on WS.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I agree with all of the above ... I probably would have held out and caused a hung jury for sure in the CA case ... The CA jury was sequestered, correct? ... I think that has a lot to do with verdicts that make us say WTH?!?! ... Both CA's and OJ's juries were sequestered and they both walked ...



I hope the jury focuses on those things too ... But, like we said before, there are 12 people with 12 different opinions and different ways of thinking ... Anything can happen ...

I'm just hoping that she isn't found guilty of 2nd degree the first time around ... I don't think she would even appeal that verdict because with time served she'd be walking by the time she's 40 ...

I think they've been fighting for a 2nd degree conviction from the get go, that unfortunately will be a win for the Defense.

And yeah, you're definitely right, 12 jurors, anything can happen.
______________________________________________________

If anyone's interested, here's a case from decades ago in a Dallas suburb:
Murder By the Book: Candy and Betty

Wylie hadn't had a homicide since the 1940s, and Chief Abbott had the good sense to call in outside experts to help. Among them was Dr. Irving Stone, from the Dallas County Institute of Forensic Sciences, who methodically counted the whacks from the ax that the woman had suffered. He finally stopped counting at 41, including blows to her head, arms and thighs. (The autopsy also revealed that Betty Gore had not been pregnant, after all.) The fury of the attack indicated a passionate relationship between the killer and the victim, and the choice of an ax as the murder weapon indicated spontaneity, not premeditation. Crime scene investigators also found a potentially valuable piece of evidence: a clear thumbprint from the freezer door.

I haven't read this mini book version above, but read Evidence of Love written by John Bloom and the newspaper accounts along with watching the local news every day during the trial. The defendant in this case walked and not due to any legal technicality. Everyone was shocked with that jury's verdict!

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I think they've been fighting for a 2nd degree conviction from the get go, that unfortunately will be a win for the Defense.

And yeah, you're definitely right, 12 jurors, anything can happen.
______________________________________________________

If anyone's interested, here's a case from decades ago in a Dallas suburb:
Murder By the Book: Candy and Betty



I haven't read this mini book version above, but read Evidence of Love written by John Bloom and the newspaper accounts along with watching the local news every day during the trial. The defendant in this case walked and not due to any legal technicality. Everyone was shocked with that jury's verdict!

OK, you've got me reading the link, and I haven't gotten to the murder part, but I could clobber you for sucking me in to a story where the murderer walks! *insert head clobbering smiley here* That's one of the great things about those true crime shows...the bad people get convicted in the end (usually). I always come away feeling (like I tell my DH ) that nobody gets away with it (so don't even think about it ), when actually, people do. Quite a bit.

Anyway...I was sitting reading that and pulled up the actual song on youtube that Jodi was singing in the interrogation room. Nice song. Kind of spooky, coming from her tho.

Jodi's song...Dido's Here With Me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g20Pr_fQyzg

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

If anyone's interested, here's a case from decades ago in a Dallas suburb:
Murder By the Book: Candy and Betty

I read the whole thing. Very interesting. There are quite a few similarities between that case and Jodi Arias, aren't there. Ugh. And Candy walked. It is one crazy twisted story, beginning to end.

From the article:

"During the struggle, Candy said, she was hit on the head and the foot, drawing blood. The sight of the crimson ooze touched off some type of hematological rage (we haven't heard that one from Samuels...yet ), she claimed. She grasped the ax and struck Betty."

<snipped>

"It seemed the 12 jurors were the only men and women in Texas who bought the repressed memory defense. Yet foreman Snyder revealed that it wasn't even close. The first vote was 9-3 for acquittal, and the second was unanimous."

 

[usnuzuloose]

I saw the movie, wasn't expecting that ending!

 

[WPack911]

Exactly!! If you look at the picture of Travis on the floor of the shower (during the supposed photo session), that's the point I think Jodi shot him abover the right eyebrow, slightly to the right. And Jodi not being too well versed in weapons didn't realize that little pea shooter wouldn't kill Travis right off and especially since she aimed downward which put the round thru his sinus cavity going to his cheek, may have tried to get off another round and the weapon jammed (letting her use some of the truth for her ninja story the gun jammed). I think Travis came up outta that shower, looked in the mirror to see what she'd done and ended up spitting blood all over the sink and she started the numerous stabbings to his back. He ran down that hallway and she followed. Struggling (crawling) down that hallway, she finally cut his throat at the end and that definitely was all he could take.

All in all, there's no way this wasn't premeditated to some degree, she took that .25 there with the intentions to use it. If she used it to threaten him, she intended to use it and she ended up using it to kill him and did kill him with all the injuries he suffered.

Ok I am catching up on the thread a bit and this just jumped out at me cause I don't think I have EVE heard it said and it seems REALLY key to the murder. The stabbings were to the BACK of Travis? If so how many? How in the hell is this point not being pressed since it seems so damaging to the Self-Defense Defense?

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I saw the movie, wasn't expecting that ending!

I didn't see the movie but the story did sound familiar when I read it. I think I blocked out the ending tho...not guilty verdicts like that put me in a fog.

Betty Broderick (now 62) movies were on last night. I just googled her to get an update. Her last parole hearing was Nov '11...her son spoke against her. (In the movie, she has two daughters; IRL, 4 kids.) One of her daughters wants her released to live with her.

From the article: Board of Prison Terms Commissioner Robert Doyle continued, "You show no significant progress in evolving. You are still back 20 years ago in that same mode. You've got to move on." The parole denial was for the longest term possible, 15 years, although Broderick can still reapply for release in three years if she makes progress.

Honestly, it's scary to think that someone could break in to someone's house CARRYING A GUN, shoot them both (ex and his new young wife in '89), get a hung jury the first trial and 2 counts of 2nd degree murder in the retrial. It's only her lack of responsibility and remorse for the crime keeping her in prison.

 

[lorimay]

OMGOSH.....

That Candy story is beyond scary.

She walked??!?!?!?

I really can't figure out juries...... You just never know.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I read the whole thing. Very interesting. There are quite a few similarities between that case and Jodi Arias, aren't there. Ugh. And Candy walked. It is one crazy twisted story, beginning to end.

From the article:

"During the struggle, Candy said, she was hit on the head and the foot, drawing blood. The sight of the crimson ooze touched off some type of hematological rage (we haven't heard that one from Samuels...yet ), she claimed. She grasped the ax and struck Betty."

<snipped>

"It seemed the 12 jurors were the only men and women in Texas who bought the repressed memory defense. Yet foreman Snyder revealed that it wasn't even close. The first vote was 9-3 for acquittal, and the second was unanimous."

Posted this for others:

In the months before the trial, defense attorney Crowder had arranged for Candy to be examined a total of six times by three different psychiatrists, including Dr. Fred Fason, who maintained a high-fee private practice in the exclusive River Oaks section of Houston. Fason had a profitable sideline as a defense expert-for-hire in criminal cases, often arguing in favor of insanity declarations for accused murderers.

Fason examined Candy under hypnosis, and said she revealed a traumatic event early in her life that may have triggered the ferocity visited on Betty Gore. He took the witness stand to explain.

When she was about 6 years old, in the mid-1950s, Candy cut herself on broken glass. Her mother took her to a doctor's office for stitches. A combination of blood, fear and dread overwhelmed the child, Fason said, and she could not stop crying and screaming. Her mother, embarrassed by the stares of others in the office, finally tried to quiet her daughter with a stern "Shhhhhh!"

Fason testified that when Betty Gore shushed Candy 25 years later, it brought back a flood of repressed memory that touched off a violent "dissociative reaction." The Houston psychiatrist described that phenomenon as a form of neurosis that can prompt "out of body" experiences. Sufferers sometimes do things without knowing it during bouts of amnesia, sleepwalking or dream states.

It seemed like the sort of pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo that might fly with a jury in Manhattan or Los Angeles. But in McKinney, Texas? Reporters in the room nudged one another. A few in the gallery guffawed. The prosecutor smiled. Judge Ryan flipped his pencil. But more than a few jurors apparently nodded their heads.

And I bolded and italicized what I think is the key to Candy and Jodi's trial at least from the Defense's argument to the jury. And while I agree Samuels looks like a bumbling idiot at times on the stand, quite a bit of what he says has validity to people who believe that kinda stuff. And yes, I know the consensus is that Travis never physically abused Jodi, but I predict the Battered Woman Syndrome "expert" will testify that abuse encompasses other factors i.e. emotional abuse and particular factors that fit the model the Defense is arguing to the jury. And again, it really boils down to does just one person on that jury see the possibility that Jodi finally snapped.

I've said this before, there's something about those two interrogations (the day Jodi was arrested and that second day, the I wasn't there and the ninja stories) that just pushes me over the edge and even taking into consideration any validity of the disassociative theory, I still say Jodi was trying to get away with 1st degree premeditated murder during those two interrogations.

Ok I am catching up on the thread a bit and this just jumped out at me cause I don't think I have EVE heard it said and it seems REALLY key to the murder. The stabbings were to the BACK of Travis? If so how many? How in the hell is this point not being pressed since it seems so damaging to the Self-Defense Defense?

Here's the autopsy report.

You heard the same story we did, Travis body slammed her after she dropped the camera, she ran down the hallway, he followed, she got the gun, he linebacked lunged at her and she shot him and then she forgets everything else. That's where the disassociative theory kicks in.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Betty Broderick (now 62) movies were on last night. I just googled her to get an update. Her last parole hearing was Nov '11...her son spoke against her. (In the movie, she has two daughters; IRL, 4 kids.)

No, she had 4 kids in the movie. LOL Heading out the door and had to correct myself! Catch up here later.