site
stats
Menu

New motion filed + Dr. Robert Geffner listed as surrebuttal witness

in Latest News by

.
Kirk Nurmi filed a request on Sunday to add “Manslaughter by Sudden Quarrel” or “Heat of Passion” charges to the jury instructions.

The defense is also requesting they be allowed to call another witness to impeach and/or discredit the prosecution’s “expert witness”. In court documents, Kirk Nurmi writes it is “necessary and critical to Ms. Arias’ defense after this court allowed the state to present new evidence during rebuttal via its witness Dr. Janeen DeMarte.”

Based on this new information – and their right to call another witness – Dr. Robert Geffner was therefore listed in the motion as a surrebuttal witness.

Dr Geffner is a psychologist with 28 years of experience. He’s also the founder and president of the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute in San Diego and often speaks out against domestic violence.

Here’s coverage & commentary from MyFoxPhilly.com:

“The Jodi Arias trial has been going on for nearly 4 months. The defense finally finished its case last week. Or did it?

Defense attorneys may not be done after all — and they make a move that could get their client minimal jail time even if she is convicted.

There were no trial proceedings Monday, but there was plenty of legal wrangling in the case.

The defense wants to call a psychologist to the stand to contradict the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Janeen DeMarte.

DeMarte testified she did not believe Arias was an abused by Travis Alexander and did not suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Instead she feels Arias has a borderline personality disorder.

Arias claims she killed Alexander in self-defense and cannot remember most of what happened

However, the defense Monday asked the court to add “crime of passion” to jury instructions. That would give the jury the choice of acquitting Arias on self-defense or convicting her of first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter, due to heat of passion.

If convicted of manslaughter, Arias would serve 7 to 21 years in prison with credit for the 4 and a half years she’s been in jail awaiting trial. The judge has not ruled on either motion.

The trial resumes Tuesday with the prosecution expected to call either two of Alexander’s former co-workers or a Wal-Mart employee.”

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

Leave your comments below. The trial kicks off again today @ 9.30 am JT.

SJ
Team Jodi

 

150 Comments

  1. “The trial resumes Tuesday with the prosecution expected to call either two of Alexander’s former co-workers or a Wal-Mart employee.”

    Hmm.. sounds like Martinez cannot quite make his mind up!
    I have an index of exhibits here: http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Exhibits
    which sorts the knives out. But we are witing for Exhibit 195, which is likely the knife that killed Alexander.

  2. Why are the defense calling another Psychologist? I thought Ms Demented did an excellent job of sub-rebutting herself. Why are they calling for manslaughter now? Its odd timing, or is it. I thought the self-defense story was looking better and better. Should we be afraid of the Walmart receipt?

    • Depends on what JM has from Walmart. All of that goes to Jodi’s credibility on the stand. If he can refute her returning the can then he’ll argue that she was still lying, so don’t believe anything she says.

      Need to wait and see what he has.

  3. Good morning! I just posted on the Dissecting Photos page FYI about the crime scene. Going to take a nap now….zzzzzzzzz

  4. Seems like this is good news to me!

    Thank you, SJ, for providing us with this venue!

    Please know that each one of you, exactly as you are, with all of your pet peeves and side splitting quips, with your depth of wisdom and insight, peppered with lighthearted innocence and curiosity — it is these qualities that shine through in each of you that I adore and that gives me hope. It is a hope that maybe I’m not so alien in believing in Jodi’s innocence after all, and for that, I am grateful. 🙂

  5. If anyone is interested to read this, I transcribed the answers to the 19 juror’s questions. I was not able to add the correct amount of condescension in her responses, but it comes through anyway. Also, I cut out all the lip-smacking for your benefit. 😉 Also, I did not post the original questions since they appear at the beginning of the previous thread.

    1. . I’ve been doing forensic cases for several years. If we’re talking about cases that are specifically where an attorney has hired me or the court has hired me, I’ve been doing that since 2010 when I became licensed. I’ve been doing other forensically related work beginning in 2007.

    2. While I’ve done several forensic evaluations, I have only been asked to testify three times. This is my third time.

    3. ..Are you? If this is specific to forensic cases, or in general? Several of my general evaluations it’s commonly the case that abuse is involved whether it’s child abuse, sexual abuse or domestic violence. If it’s related to forensic cases, I’ll need a second to think.

    4. Yes, those would be different events. Uh…a lot of times what you see..uh with PTSD is that there’s different triggering events that remind them of the trauma so I would expect that a bear and a tiger would look different, smell different, act different and the subsequent symptoms would be associated with those variables, with those differences among them, so I would say that they were different and that I would.

    5. Can you ask that again? They would be answering VERY different.

    6. I do think it’s possible to remain….. unbiased if you have some compassion..and there are indicators that we have to look within ourselves and barriers that we have to have in front of us to suggest whether we’re crossing the line. So crossing the line could be giving something to someone. Or maybe even being triggered by… [JW: Objection!] [ST: Overruled] …maybe even being triggered by our own traumas, our own life experiences that could make us feel bi..biased, so I think is very possible to have compassion and not be biased, but we have to makes sure that we as professionals are really paying attention and watching that line.

    7. Unfortunately anyone’s at risk, but what we see is a higher prevalence rate of Borderline Personality Disorder in individuals who have been exposed to trauma and neglect throughout their lifetime. One of the important variables is often talked about in the literature is this idea of being invalidated…by family members and by parents. What invalidation means, is if the person says, for example…let’s say a child is riding their bike and they fall and they hurt their knee and they’re crying because their knee hurts. An example of an invalidation would be a parent saying, “Your knee doesn’t hurt, you’re fine!” They’re invalidating their emotion, they’re invalidating their experiences. When we see that happening frequently throughout their childhood…that tends to increase the chances that they’ll develop Borderline Personality Disorder.

    8. I think that’s another example um of uh…self-esteem and it’s also an example of that immaturity that I talked about before. Making these uh immature statements…, [JW: Objection!] [ST: Overruled] …these immature statements that are often seen in people with Borderline Personality Disorder. I do think that that’s consistent.

    9. I would say that they’re both an example of organization just different type of organization with the goal being… hide the evidence, take away information associated with the killing.

    10. Yes, throughout her diary she used that word exactly, fear of abandonment… Oh, I take that back… “Abandonment”, “I feel abandoned”, she made that comment at least a couple of times with other boyfriends. There was also indication in those relationships that they had cheated on her and that she continued to stay in that relationship, and then subsequently befriend them and become very close to them despite being treated in that kind of way. Those are some of the examples that were found in other relationships.

    11. That’s the impression that it gives, yes.

    12. Can you ask that again, please? Putting it.., yes… my knowledge of cameras is that if you put it in water that it would be destroyed and that we wouldn’t expect the camera to continue to work and that the memory card would be destroyed, but again, my knowledge of cameras is probably that of the average person.

    13. Yes, I’ve worked with many individuals who are incarcerated. Interestingly, you don’t consistently see it in all of them, but certainly is not something that’s outside of the scope of what we would expect to see in someone who has a significant change in environment…living, you know, at home and then all of a sudden being controlled in a jail setting. It’s a big difference and I would expect to see some changes.

    14. [Long pause before her answer] …. That certainly is an event that could be considered traumatic. The variables that would be important for me to know is how she experienced the event. [JW: Objection!] [ST: Overruled] [JW: Objection!] [ST: Overruled] …PTSD…traumatic events that are associated with PTSD we’d look for the person’s response to it. Did they experience horror? Did they experience fear associated with the event? If there was this association of being terrified, fear, or horror as a result of the event and there’s evidence that there was this horror or fear that continued after the event, then yes, I would consider it as a potential for the development of PTSD.

    15. Yes, the tests that I gave…I gave four different tests. One was again, just a measure to make sure that she had the right reading requisites uh, for the self-report measure. [JW: Objection!] [ST: Overruled] The other tests, the WEIS and the MMPI, those are tests that are very commonly used in forensic settings and for good reason, they provide us a lot of really good and important information, so I decided to, *I* made the decision to use those tests because I thought it would be very helpful. In terms of why I didn’t use the other tests, I felt like the tests that I gave, answered the questions that I needed and that it wasn’t necessary to administer those other tests. And I made the decision to administer the TSI because I did want to look at continuity across, uh evaluators.

    16. There’s slight differences in terms of scale scores. I have not used the TSI-2 so I’m not as familiar as I am with the TSI-1. And there’s updated norms also.

    17. I would have to make the assumption that this is… [JW: Objection!] [ST: Sustained].

    18. [to the judge] Of this? Yes, this is often given to the person to fill out themselves. The only time that that can happen is if, it’s someone who doesn’t have the mobility to be able to do it themselves or is unable to see properly or there’s some sort of impairment there that would prevent them from doing it. Um, so I do see it problematic that if Ms. Arias didn’t fill this out. That she didn’t uh, that just isn’t inline with how its typically administered and could potentially uh..be suggestive of something else.

    19. Yes, I would be very concerned.

        • 1) She did not answer the question that was asked. The question was How many forensics cases have you worked on.
          3) Again she did not answer the question that was asked. Instead she said she needed time to think.
          4) She totally screwed that one up LOL
          5) Why would they be answering very different, an attack is an attack and very traumatic is it not?
          6) Book knowledge absolutely no life experience.
          These are just a few of the answers she gave that made no sense and made one wonder what that has to do with the price of tea in china. If I were a juror I would not rely on any of her testimony because it would seem she has no clue what she is talking about.

          • Question 13) In your opinion, is it normal for a person who is incarcerated to be depressed and have anxiety? How would she know the answer to that question if she had not seen the person outside of jail? How would she know that there were any differences at all?

            • MsEvilEyeVocalFry said she ran a therapy group at a prison. Which would give her knowledge to answer the question. It’s within her scope. She really made a fool of herself with the expert questions. In her mind, and with her vast experience of 3 years being a psychologist and testifying 2 other times…. I’m sure she would say she was an expert in prisons, and anything else she encounters, LOL.

  6. Good Morning all!! Tgis morning as I read the posts from yesterday I enlarged the photo to 400% the highest my computer goes. The photo I am talking about is the one where it shows someone supposedly dragging TA. Well I sat there and looked at it for about 5 minutes straight. I noticed two things ONE the fact that the person who is standing appears to have a belt of some sort tied around their waist. The belt resembles one that would be worn to keep a robe closed but not the tie that comes with a bathrobe but one that would be worn during some religious practices. The SECOND thing that I noticed was above the head of the person standing there is a vent of some sort like that high up near the ceiling in newer homes for the airconditioning/heating system. Where is it that the prosecution is stating that this photo was taken? I am not from Arizona and my fiance has barred me from HLN after I threw a cup at the TV during Nancy Graces Show and happened to break the new TV set. I am a JODI suppoerter and very very vocal about the fact that I am. I am wondering about the I think it is called “bleeding or blood letting” that the Mormens are said to practice when someone higher up in the church breaks one of their mortal sins. Who is it in the church that would preform the ceremony? I am very close to Nauvo ILL and have been told their are experts there on the Morman faith does anyone else know anything about that?

  7. Jennifer you have a very smart man there….wow you honestly brook the TV? LOL Yup I do understand and if you get that up set have him block that channel…..I do not know anything about the Mormons except what I have learned out here and the Osmens… I have old eyes so I’m not much help…

    Please today sit on your hands so you don’t throw anything more…..

  8. Ok I want to touch on a subject: Ok so the wally world guy comes in and testifies that Jodi did not return the gas can and it is proven that she lied about that….(I’m not buying it) but what happens. Is her whole testimony thrown out or just that part?

    • i don`t get it either. it wouldn`t prove a thing. my friend told me she`s bought toys at zellers and returned them to walmart because of the easy return policy. they could have just used a generic scan code for a no receipt return. and even if jodi had 10 cans it does not make it a pre meditated murder or anyone with a shed would be a suspect any time anyone was killed. i would understand the big deal if she had burned the body but she didn`t. i just don`t get it.

    • i think the gas cans in this case might be the the cloroform in the casey anthony trail. the prosecution tried to make a big deal out of it and the jurors said it was non existent to them.

      • Regardless if she lied about the gas (kerosene) can or not, I hope the jury will see that The Persecutor originally was going to hide the cas purchases made in SLC for the trip home from them. Makes his whole theory a moot point. When the prosecution tries to hide stuff, beware!

    • Nothing is thrown out per se. It’s up to the jury to decide what credibility and weight they give to her testimony. Obviously if you can show that a witness lied it goes a long way to undermining her credibility.

      In as far as wally world is concerned it really depends on what the moose at the gate says (and how many here get that?)

  9. Remember when JW ask Dr. JD for the all her scales results from the one of the test? Dr. Data Point gaves them to her but stated, all the scales aren’t used in the evaluation. I think Jen going to have Dr. Geffner rebut that statement and say you have look at all the scales and deaper when evaluating a DV victim.

    • I think you’re right. The MMPI is a subjective test trying to look objective. As time goes on they keep adding scales to the thing to try and quantify more aspects of human personality.

    • I agree also. I don’t understand how one Dr can just throw a scale out if they dont want to use it in their evaluation. I’m interested in hearing what another expert has to say about that.

      • That’s the whole issue with this stuff. DeMarte would have us believe that these tests are objective in nature. Yet she says she doesn’t consider some of the scales because there isn’t enough empirical data to back them up (possibly because they haven’t been around long enough). Of course that means that various and sundry psychologists can pick and choose scales, based on what they, or someone else deems to be an adequate basis for the scales validity. That practice in itself makes the tests subjective. So in her case she decided to not use scales that would have contradicted her diagnosis and testimony. That is the most unscientific load of claptrap I’ve ever seen.

        This is why Dr Samuels testimony makes so much more sense, and in fact DeMartes, without saying it sort of confirms his statement. He claims that the test are just one more tool in a psychologists inventory and you must use them all to arrive at a diagnosis. In fact he believed that you first form a diagnostic hypothesis based on observation and clinical interviews and then select the appropriate tests to help either confirm or refute you hypothesis. So in fact, DeMartes was trying to do the same thing, except that when the tests showed things (like elevated PTSD symptoms) that did not meet the states theory she decided to ignore those results. Of course then she has to come up with some reason for ignoring them.

        • Right, Al, and then, you have the question of “Who do you believe?” A smarmy whippersnapper who got her license 2.5 years ago, or a highly respected clinical neuropsychologist who has been practicing for 28 years?

      • By the way, I think the tests and results she discussed during her testimony are really the crux of the new evidence argument. She basically produced a set of evidence, the MMCI-2 and TSI test results, that the defense has never really had a chance to rebut. They couldn’t have done it during their case in chief, because it wasn’t something the prosecution brought up in their case-in-chief. The defense didn’t even know for sure if DeMarte would be called, so they might have had to go address phantom testimony. And how would they lay the foundation for that evidence other than to call DeMartes to the stand.

        This is the equivalent of the situation, where let’s say, JM had not introduced Jodi’s handprint being found at the scene during his direct. He then whips out some expert and lays that on the table during rebuttal. That would be new evidence, and so are these tests.

  10. Thanks for the transcripts Sil. Dr. DeMento was incapable of forming a coherent thought. How can such people graduate from college, let alone receive doctorates?

  11. I’m so grateful for the discussion we have here. I try to talk to my mom or S.O. about the trial a lot and they just look at me like, “huh?” Haha. I really appreciate you all.

  12. Hey, did you all see the TFC (Travis Fan Club) is claiming Jodi used Travis’ “beautiful” sister as her inspiration for her latest drawing? Dang, I was so hoping that was me in that drawing!

    • They’re trying to find a way for Jodi to stop selling her art. I think they succeeded with eBay. These people won’t stop until they completely destroy her. Grrr! It makes me so mad!

      • sick people.. just imagine how horrible their lives are.. spending so much time, energy and thought doing hatefull deeds….

      • Hi Sil,

        Note Jodi response to eBay’s action. From Jodi’s Twitter account:

        Jodi Arias ‏@Jodiannarias 22 Feb

        Ebay has banned all listings of my artwork. The silver lining in making my art more difficult to obtain is that it keeps increasing in value

        • Thanks cc53! I’m glad she’s able to sell it here. But I wish she had other venues. I’m pretty sure her financial situation is not as good as the Alexander’s.

          Do we know why eBay stopped selling her art?

  13. Well good morning everyone..! It’s about damn time lesser charges are added to the jury instructions…if Bewitched doesn’t deny like she always does…

    SJ you are a treasure!

  14. Lifetime is planning a movie. It will be an unfair biased account with TA as a victim. Why cant someone with talent write this like it really was, showing his own immature emotional duplicity as being the reason that this whole thing came about?

    I am beginning to think that all TV is now dirty and uninspired.

    First a book is written without ever seeing all the evidene by that STupid Shanna Hogan, and now this.

    • I’m sure many many books are going to come out portraying TA as a saint and JA as the vixen who derailed him from his holy path. 🙄

      People will get rich off this tragedy, that’s for sure.

      • I would love to read a book by willmott or nurmi though, talking about how they have experienced this circus ……
        Have a great trial day today you all, sending swiss chocolate hugs to you all. Trying to stay away from the afternoon session since it starts 11;30 pm have caught myself falling asleep with JM ranting in the background doubt that helps improving my dreams especially now sleep deprivation has been kicking the last week.

    • I saw the casting call for the “Jodi” role in the movie and it made me sick. I’ve always liked Lifetime movies … until now.

    • He is all smoke and mirrors with a bunch of mumble jumble thrown in for good measure. I think he knows he makes no sense at all, hence the need for smoke and mirrors.

  15. When I was young, I would ask my uncle stupid questions, he would answer with this question; Does a bear shit in the woods? I don’t know if this reply question is universal or local. Several times during JD testimony regarding “patterns within” TA text rant messages, then saying she didn’t find a pattern of TA temper/anger. I wanted to scream my uncle’s question back at her! So when the juror question came in about the bear and tiger..I about choked..is this person asking.. Does a bear shit in the wood? I know the question was more about how she viewed truama.

    • Perfect Ann! Reading that, I just keep thinking back to Jodi, during the Flores interrogation tapes on July 15, 2008, when the female officer asked if Travis beat her up and that’s why she killed him, and she responded talking about how that happened a couple of times before she moved and he got mad at her for wearing short sleeves with her bruises showing and people asking her if Travis beat her up. And also, that one post way back in February 2009 right around the 48 hours “Picture Perfect”, from someone who knew Travis and suggested Jodi might try a battered woman defense — even though, at the time, Jodi was talking about the intruders about the time.

    • OMG, thanks for making the connection. I think you are right, lol. It was the brilliant former “class clown”, no doubt.

  16. Top of the morning, folks!

    I pray that Pickles grants this sur reb. I dont know how she CANT, being as Baby Doc essentially brought in new information.

    I was doing a lot of doc reading yesterday, and I think it was in the Florres report that the last person to hear from Travis was Chris Hughes, in a text message that afternoon. Do we know what TA texted him? I am just curious.

    😎

  17. 12.8 REBUTTAL AND SURREBUTTAL

    http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/trial/12.8.html

    At the end of the defense case, the prosecution or plaintiff is given the opportunity to present evidence in rebuttal. Whether to allow this evidence is in the trial judge’s discretion. Rebuttal evidence is evidence that tends to explain, refute, counteract, or disprove evidence introduced in the defendant’s case-in-chief. A prosecutor or plaintiff may not go into new matters that don’t contradict the evidence or inferences raised by the defense, nor simply repeat evidence presented in the case-in-chief.

    At the end of rebuttal, the defense may be allowed surrebuttal. Surrebuttal evidence is limited to responding to issues that were raised for the first time in the rebuttal case. It is not an opportunity for the defense to present their whole case again, or to open up the door to new issues. It is reversible error for the trial judge to prevent a defendant from introducing surrebuttal evidence to meet new matters raised by the rebuttal evidence presented by the plaintiff or prosecutor.

    • That’s from the Boulder County Bar Association’s Bar Media Manual, which could reasonably be argued is persausive for Arizona.

      Look especially at the last sentence, which deals with “reversible error”

      “It is reversible error for the trial judge to prevent a defendant from introducing surrebuttal evidence to meet new matters raised by the rebuttal evidence presented by the plaintiff or prosecutor.”

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reversible+error

      “reversible error n. a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant (resulted in an improper judgment) that the judgment must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is minor or did not contribute to the judgment at the trial. (See: reversal)”

      • Hi Wes, it looks like Colorado is a bit less restrictive than Arizona than Arizona. I looked up the case that, as far as I can see with some very limited research on Google Scholar (not complete by any means), sets the most recent standards on surrebuttal in Arizona.

        Basically, the Supreme Court previously held that it would only be error to deny surrebuttal in only the RAREST cases. They subsequently qualified that by saying the evidence proffered must be more than cumulative (which I’m sure JM has argued in his Objection that Dr. Geffner’s testimony would be, in addition to the defense experts). However, if the evidence goes to the heart of the defense, it was held to be an error to deny the surrebuttal (since self defense because of domestic violence does go to the heart of Jodi’s defense, I believe it’s a relevant precedent here — but JM could argue that BPD v. PTSD is not the guts of the defense). Also discussed was experience in the particular subject matter. Obviously, Dr. Geffner has signficantly more experience than Tot Doc, and as a clinical neuropsychologist, could more fluently discuss testing.

        The case is very interesting as it discusses the duties of a prosecutor to accomplish justice and to ensure that guilt is decided on the basis of sufficent evidence. I liked the last paragraph:

        “Justice in this case dictated that a jury hear the best witness and examine the best evidence to determine whether TBBD exists in fact and whether defendant’s daughter suffered from the disease. … The State should, at the very least, be interested in hearing testimony from a leading expert in the TBBD field—Paterson, Miller, or their equivalent. ”

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15339478391147477001&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

        Then again, as far as I know, Dr. Geffner was not on the original witness list, and it seems in the case above, the doctor was.

        I didn’t conduct an exhaustive search for other AZ cases.

        • AA, I cannot imagine how JM could successfully argue that BPD (/PTSD) does not address “the guts of the defense” since BPD is associated with lying, or at the very least, fibbing, i.e. manipulative behavior.

          The biggest disadvantage in Dr. Demarte’s finding of BPD to the exclusion of PTSD for Jodi is that it points both directions on the time-space continuum, whereas PTSD does not. BPD provides traction to the premeditation charge, and that’s exactly where JM wants this jury to go: BACK in time. He must get them there for premeditation.

          With a BPD diagnosis, JM can diminish – at least to some degree – the defense’s claim of self defense by suggesting that JA was entirely (a diagnosis being a sort of blanket statement about a person’s quotidian behavior) too difficult for a normal person to handle. JM will never be able to un-ring the bell of TA’s belligerence and duplicitous behavior but if he can characterize TA and Jodi as Equal Players in terms of destructive/self-destructive behavior, he can then turn to Jodi’s lying after the fact and characterize it as part of her own pattern, suggesting that BPD insidiously led her towards aggression all along – even if it was latent during most of the relationship – and whether or not Travis abused her.

          Since the jealousy assertion has been undermined, BPD is even more necessary to the prosecution’s case; it allows JM to develop a scenario for both TA and JA with regard to TA’s evident pattern of demeaning Jodi, without besmirching TA. (Demarte went too far in asserting that there was no pattern; JM was just happy to have her declare a BPD diagnosis and go home.)

          A BPD diagnosis would exist independently of Travis, obviously. PTSD implicitly involves both the defendant and the deceased. It reminds us that Jodi could have feared for her life even if “the perpetrator” can also experience the condition. And, there is no doubt that she feared for her life when you look at the aftermath at the crime scene. There was an obvious struggle. A PTSD diagnosis (and its criteria involving a threat to one’s life) underscores and reinforces what any sentient person would conclude in observing that horrifying aftermath: A life-threatening situation existed for BOTH of them.

          Of course, the prosecution wants PTSD off the table because it allows that lying after the fact, even in (an innocent) self-defense situation could be a normal reaction – almost expected. But those lies are the most probative evidence the prosecution really has since she has admitted to it. They want the sinister element left in and undiminished, not de-mystified by neuroscience.

          Additional expert support for the PTSD diagnosis creates more doubt that there could have been malice aforethought by JA. It gives the jury a reasonable explanation for why she lied after the fact. It explains her anguished confusion after she was traumatized.

          With only PTSD diagnosed, Travis hasn’t sufficient reason for “reacting” to her in the ways demonstrated by their correspondence. That diagnosis poignantly contrasts with the picture of the lighthearted woman who had lived with Mr. Brewer, a man who said she did not lie, did not have financial problems, and comported herself in an exemplary manner at work – at a job in which he also had expertise.

          I would guess that Dr. Demarte opened the door for another Dr. to assert that Travis’s destructive behavior historically outstripped Jodi’s and was escalating while Jodi’s was not; a conclusion that the defense desperately needs the jury to come to.

          I know this is all generally obvious and that your legal knowledge far exceeds mine but wanted you to know how another person sees the big picture. I just cannot believe that the death penalty is so zealously being sought for Jodi. I have serious questions about our society’s ability to protect civil rights when I see this distortion of law. Your knowledge and steady input has been a big help to my understanding of these legal proceedings and the abuse issue.

  18. This was actually a local news story this morning, yes I live in a state with a hefty Mormon population.

    Missionaries are now allowed to exchange emails with their friends, including those they make while on their missions. Previously they were only allowed to exchange emails with family.

    Can they be any more controlled?

  19. Mormons should move away from seeking converts in desirable, pleasant, and exotic locations and show their ultra seriousness or holiness or religousness and seek converts in the muslim world, no matter how dangerous

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

    Blasphemy law is law limiting the freedom of speech and expression relating to blasphemy, or irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs.

    Some countries, especially countries which have Islam as the state religion, regard blasphemy as a serious offence. Pakistan, for example, has legislation which makes execution a penalty for blasphemy.

    Afghanistan

    An Islamic state, Afghanistan prohibits blasphemy as an offence under Sharia. Blasphemy may be punished by penalties up to execution by hanging.

  20. Goodmorning all!!!!

    Praying for Jodi today to have the strength to get through another long day of trial.
    I can not even imagine what she must be going through.

    JUSTICE FOR JODI THE REAL VICTIM!!!!!!!!!

  21. So looking forward to Dr. Geffner taking Kardashian Klone down a notch! Her comment about giving Jodi a reading test was sooo catty. Talk about passive-aggressive! Dr Geffner is definitely taking the stand is he not? Or does the judge still have to allow it? If she denies this motion there will be no doubt what side she is on.

  22. it’s a despicable affront to one of the central tenets or presumptions of common law, and justice of innocence, that one is innocent until proven guilty, that jodi has been kept in prison these four and a half years by excessive bail requirements.

  23. Good Morning Everyone!
    I’m looking forward to a GREAT DAY!! Things are looking better and better for the defense, and my favorite thing, the TA Taliban cult is PISSED!! Lol!

    Hi Candie! Glad you made your way back over! You always manage to dig up some good info!

  24. OMG The mouth-breathing on the hater Drew show is gonna be witnesses for the pros! LOL!

    This is great news for the defense, all they have to do is show that clip with the wife holding hubby’s hand in a UFC death grip going on about how she knew Jodi was the type who would take a married man, LOL! Even if she WAS, not any of the pansy ass Chester-molester husbands in THAT circle, LOL!!

    The BEST part is where she told the part about S. Hughes yelling at Jodi for 15 minutes and Jodi’s reaction was to sit at their kitchen table silent and then leaving. I think that is GREAT evidence that shows she became “foggy” when she was yelled at, and that she never became violent or even defended herself! BRING IT JUANITA!!

  25. Hello everyone,
    I’m new here, but have been reading your insightful and intelligent posts for awhile now. So glad to find there are at least some of us that have open minds and hearts left concerning this trial and Jodi.

    I was initially convinced that this was a done deal as to Jodi’s guilt, but after listening to her testimony with no bias I soon realized this girl was indeed abused and I did not just base that on her words.

    I recently watched Jose Biaz (sp?) re-inacting the scene and how the blood evidence left at the scene shows how is had to play out….just based on the physical evidence. Wow, he is impressive …what a shame he cannot participate in this trial as counsel, but I am very happy with both lawyers Jodi has, they are doing a terrific job in my opinion.

    I do not see how a jury of fair minded folks could possibly convict Jodi of 1st degree…….she shot him that’s for sure, but the rest is up for grabs. I have my own theory that at least 1 and possibly 2 others were involved, most likely the roomates. I have it all worked out in my mind as to how that is a plausible scenario, but even bringing that idea into play here in this trial would surely muddy it up so much that everyone would just say Jodi is trying to blame someone else for what she is responsible for.

    Jodi shot Travis in self defense….that much I am sure of….the rest could have played out in many different ways in my mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Go to Top