Day 19 of Jodi Arias trial: "My anger is very destructive"

http://www.kpho.com/story/27649384/day-19-of-jodi-arias-trial-back-to-business-for-jury

"DR. CHUCKLES CHRISTMAS PRESENT" BY: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective

DAY 19

“DR. CHUCKLES CHRISTMAS PRESENT”

A diamond would not be valuable were it easily discovered. The Defense Team handed one to Juan Martinez. It was wrapped in coal and hidden from sight. It was subtle and became the jewel that the Jury will take with them on their time off until next year.

It would be the fourth day of testimony from Dr. Geffner, the trial experienced Psychologist. It is also the eleventh day in a row of hearing psychological testimony. It has become two Doctors who have said almost the same thing but with different affectations. It can get tiring but Jennifer Willmott kept a good pace today by constantly presenting new documents for the Jury to see. This was a continuation of yesterday’s timeline of the life of Arias and Travis Alexander seen mostly from Arias’ eyes through the continual presentation of pages from her journals.

Simultaneously, Jennifer Willmott would query the Doctor on a timeline he created based, again, on mostly Arias’ journal. It was lightly seasoned with some loose corroboration and a touch of nastily worded e-mails. Much of this had been visited through the testimony of Dr. Fonseca.

It is the note takers that I watch on the Jury since the rest of the Jurors carry stoic faces that reveal nothing of what they may think. I see particularly five note takers. I take notes as I did as a Juror on the capital murder case of Marissa DeVault in the premeditated murder of her husband. Our second of three verdicts reached qualified DeVault for the death penalty. We had fourteen days of Psychological testimony throughout the three phases. My book, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale” (available on Amazon.com) is the story of this recent and similar trial.

The note taker on a Jury, once started, realizes that he or she has to be quick with the pen. They want to make sure that nothing is missed because he or she never knows what is going to become critically important. The note taker learns to write in outlines instead of paragraphs. They find that dates and times are important and they focus on writing exhibit numbers down and what the exhibit refers to. At the time, they don’t realize how important the writing down exhibit numbers is.

The Jury will not get transcripts of the trial in the deliberation room once they are reduced to twelve members. They will, however, have access to all the evidence including that of the previous first and second phases. When the Jury deliberated in the first two phases, the evidence was in the Jury room, at least the pictures and documents. They could always request additional items. The third phase is different because the evidence must be requested by the Jury and requested by Exhibit numbers. 

It is from one of the note takers where the eventual Jury Foreperson will arise.

Throughout the morning, Jennifer Willmott rotated between the showing of Dr. Geffner’s objective timeline and the writings of Arias directly from her hard bound diary. Her writings were careful written and accented by rounded letters. The penmanship was deliberate. It was written with particular care to the styling of the letters and their grace and flow. It was something the Jury would see all day. I think the Defense Team was trying to humanizer her. Days and dates abounded for the note taking Juror even though much of the testimony was tired, worn and redundant.

The Jury was dismissed for lunch and Judge Stevens stayed the Court. We were given a treat that the Jury missed.

Juan Martinez stood up and took a few steps in front of the Prosecution table, facing Dr. Geffner. He wore a gray suit with yellow shirt and a spotted design gold tie. 

“Did you interview Travis Alexander?” Mr. Martinez pointedly asked.

Dr. Geffner nervously laughed. “Well, no,” he said. “I couldn’t do that.”

“Did you speak with Mr. Alexander?” Juan asked as he took a step forward.

“That’s kind of ridiculous,” he answered. “He was already gone.”

Juan Martinez stood his ground as he stared at the Doctor. “Did you use the word ‘Manipulative’ in regards to Travis Alexander?”

The Dr. answered and there was the slightest undertone of nervousness. “No. I don’t remember saying that.”

“Aren’t you labeling his conduct by using the word, ’Manipulative’?” he asked, obviously ignoring the Doctor’s memory loss of testimony he had just given minutes before the Jury was dismissed.

“It could be interpreted that way,” he relented with a shrug of his shoulders.

Willmott stood up in her deep aqua colored business skirt suit. “This is discovery and not a cross-examination!” she said vehemently.

“Go on,” Judge Stevens motioned to Juan. Jennifer Willmott remained standing, waiting to pounce.

Juan Martinez did not look at her. He looked at the Judge before he continued his cross examination. He opened his arms with his palms opened and slightly turned outward, looking at the Doctor. “Is saying a ‘Manipulative’ relationship a diagnosis?”

Dr. Geffner looked toward the Judge and saw no help being offered. He looked back at Juan Martinez as if he understood his semantics mistake. “I was looking at all the information. So, no. It’s a general behavior I may have perceived. It is not a diagnosis.” 

Juan Martinez did not thank him. He turned on his heel and went back to the Prosecution table while Jennifer Willmott glared at him.

Judge Stevens recessed the Court for lunch. It was really an early Christmas gift from the friendly Doctor seeing Juan take a sample of his eventual prey. Dr. Geffner collapsed like a house of playing cards. His confidence seemed weak and his laugh was nervous with an artificial hollowness. It was going to be a bloodbath.

The Defense spent the return from lunch and the rest of the afternoon presenting a line by line repetition of Jodi’s journal entries. The Jury was fed hours of it while it was interchanged with the kind Doctor’s objective timeline. There may have been those who tired of hearing Arias’ words but they worked not to show it in his or her faces.

The Jury heard of trivialities in Arias’ life and the drama she produced. They saw some of the harsh words of Travis and it reminded them that they still did not know what made him so angry with her on May 26, 2008. Certainly, I think the idea was to present her as a victimized angel but something else happened. The date of this Gmail is also the last communication they knew of between Arias and Travis Alexander. 

That was until Jennifer Willmott’s started presenting communications after May 26, 2008. It had my interest and that of the Jury. They still want to know what happened. They will recreate the murder in spite of a decision being reached by another Jury. They need to know themselves because it is natural instinct. It will be an easier path in the Jury room to put it back together. The timeline and her Journals are the closest we get to his death thus far in the retrial phase. Just because the lawyers and the prior verdicts say premeditation existed will not stop them from looking to answer the questions they never got to see in the first phase.

As they sit in the Jury box, they are trying to answer in their minds why the Defendant in the chair, and the words they have heard read aloud, could have done such a horrific act. They become detectives, especially the note takers.

“So, Doctor,” Jennifer Willmott began, “we are reading from her journal of June 1, 2008.”

“Yes,” the Doctor agrees as he reads the projector screen while she reads aloud. It is the same large screen that is in front of the Jury. I notice that Juror # 17 is looking forward toward the screen and I can tell he is writing down quotes just as I am.

“Anyway, after San Diego, I’ll drive to Utah,” Willmott reads from Arias’ journal, written only three days prior to the brutal killing of Travis Alexander. “I’m not sure what we’ll be doing there. It will be nice to get to know Ryan (Burns). I think cuddling is definitely on the list. After some dinner. Maybe after a nap.”

I notice something. It is something about the writing. It was the handwriting. We had seen the bulk of what amounted to two days of seeing her hand written journals. They had always seemed the musings of a teenager of sorts with their care in being written with round and flowing cursive letters. It was something you no longer noticed because you hand seen so much of it.

This journal entry was different. It felt different and its penmanship seemed rushed. There did not seem to be the particular care normally taken in the hand writing. It is speculation and it will be dismissed as speculative that it is different from the rest of her hand writings.

Willmott continued reading Arias’ words, “I mentioned my road trip to Travis. He didn’t sound all that thrilled to me. As far as I know, he knows nothing of Ryan. I asked Zion not to mention it to him so I wouldn’t have to explain anything or hurt him further. It would only be a repeat of our last blowup,” Jodi finishes writing.

“Tell me, what does this mean to you, Doctor?” Willmott asked.

The Doctor rambled on about Jodi moving on in her life but she cannot escape the cycle of abuse. She sees new beginnings while he is exercising control…

I had just finished taking notes of her journal on the screen of June 30, 2008. I stopped writing to ease a cramp in my hand and as I was doing that, my eyes happened to fix on Juror # 17. My Juror acumen from my experience as a Juror kicked in.

He stands about six foot, two inches. He has a shaved head and a long handlebar mustache that runs down the side of his jawline. The mustache is always impeccably trimmed. It takes away from looking at his cleanly shaven head. His shirts are always pressed and he always looks comfortable in his position. He is a note taker but does not work hard at every single detail by writing as furiously as I might. He seems to write when important issues are presented. He flies under the radar but I feel confidence in his walk without being over bearing.

The Doctor was talking but most of the note takers had stopped taking notes. Juror # 17 had his head cradled in his hand. He was looking downward and writing. I could tell he wasn’t listening to the Doctor. He would look up occasionally his look was distant and pensive. It was something I think few would notice unless you have sat in the Jury box.

One can write anything they would like in their Juror- issued folders with legal pads inside. The words in these notebooks are the property of the State and remain in the Jury room for the duration of the trial. Eventually, when the verdict is finally reached, each Juror book is destroyed by the State.

The note taker will sometimes write thoughts that he or she will want to bring up later in the Jury room.

I could tell with his thoughtful looks into space that he was working something out and then writing it on his Juror pad. I saw him flip back a couple pages and then return to writing.

It took one journal entry by Jodi Arias to render the prior two days of testimony as useless. He was putting pieces together. He was looking at dates. I was doing the same thing. It was beginning to dawn on him that the journal entry from June 1, 2008 was manufactured for people who might look at it the future and the future was here.

The letter was staged. There was no trip to San Diego planned. It was a lie. The Journal had impeached itself in the craftily placed words of Arias. The entirety of the journal would be dismissed in deliberations.

The Defense Team wanted to humanize Jodi Arias in the presentation of her journals but instead revealed a killer of the utmost evil.

This is the mitigation and aggravation phase. The Doctor spent four days on the stand and the bulk of this past two days fell into the Prosecution’s hands as the Journal entry gave rise to premeditation instead of mitigation. The Jury will have a Dry Erase board to work with when they get back to the deliberation room at some point. They will draw a line down the center making two columns with one for aggravation and one for mitigation.

Premeditation will go into the aggravation column among many other factors the Jury will see at the start of the New Year. They will see the Cross Examination of Dr. Geffner. They will eventually see Dr. DeMarte when Juan Martinez presents his side of the case.

We may or may not see Jodi Arias on the witness stand but we will eventually see her make her “Statement of Allocution”, as is her right, to the Jury.

We will not see her take ownership of this brutal murder nor will we not see the remorse she needs to show if she wants to stay out of the death chamber.

We close out the year in the Jodi Arias Retrial with hope and not just because of my speculative musings on what a Juror is thinking. It, however, is becoming clearer by the day that there are no mitigation factors.

This Jury will find Justice for Travis Alexander and his family. But, first, Juan Martinez will present the sword as Lady Justice watches…

I wish the family the most blessed of a Christmas Holiday and hope the New Year finally brings them some resolution and the Justice they so richly deserve… 

I wish all of you, my Dear Readers, a rich and warm Holiday Season with great Hope and personal growth in 2015. I am humbled by the great amount of support as we collectively search for Justice for Travis…

“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the Spirit of Travis Alexander.”

Justice 4 Travis Alexander…

Justice for Dale…

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Ex-Jodi Arias lawyer: I didn't delete porn files

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/14/jodi-arias-trial-lawyer-porn-files/19033947/

Appeals court: Jodi Arias testimony must be made public

Appeals judges said they did not doubt the volume or malicious nature of Arias' jail mail, "her concern does not, as a matter of law, amount to an extremely serious substantive evil warranting closing the trial to the public and press."

Media story:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/16/court-jodi-arias-testimony-public/20485865/





 ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS RULING:  

 

http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CourtOfAppeals.pdf

“BOULDER OF EVIDENCE” Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective

DAY 17

“BOULDER OF EVIDENCE”

This is the third phase of the Death Penalty Retrial of Jodi Arias for the premeditated and heinous murder of Travis Alexander. The third phase is sometimes called the sentencing or penalty phase. It can also be called the aggravation and mitigation phase. This phase is different from the first two phases for a Jury. In the prior two phases, they reach a decision “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and this is done collectively and requires a unanimous vote. The verdict in the first phase determines the type of murder. The agreement of a verdict in the second phase is the death penalty qualifying phase.

The third phase requires a Juror to come to his or her own decision in deciding life or death for the defendant. Their path of knowledge and experience does not have to be agreed upon by the Jury as a whole. Each Juror makes their decision influenced by their own personal experiences. It is usually those same experiences that are drawn out of the Voir Dire Questionnaire prior to their final selection.

One of those questions read, “Have you ever experienced Domestic Violence in your direct household? Please explain:”

In the mitigation phase, a Juror must ultimately decide if there is a preponderance of evidence, or it is more likely than not, that mitigating factors will reduce the culpability of the Defendant’s act. For the Juror to give abuse weight as a mitigating factor, they must determine that it was more likely to have existed than not. The Juror may decide that some abuse may have existed but it is not enough to reduce culpability. Or, they may decide it did exist and should be considered as a mitigating factor There is a specific law addendum that focuses on Domestic Violence that the Jury is given.

Juan Martinez has to convince twelve Jurors that the Defendant’s aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors in this case.

The Defense team only has to convince one and they win the best possible scenario in their case: the life of the Defendant.

Sometimes, when I go to the Jodi Arias Retrial, I feel like I am walking down a slightly unfamiliar path but know exactly what is around the corner. I spent six months as a Juror the similar case of the brutal killing of Dale Harrell by Marissa DeVault. Our case had similarities that extend to this Jury. It had a similar path of testimony and it required twelve of us to pass through all three phases separated by deliberation periods. The longest period we deliberated was in the third phase of the trial. We deliberated over three and a half weeks to reach a decision in the sentencing phase. It is the most difficult phase of all. The difficulty is entrenched in “a preponderance of evidence” as opposed to a “shadow of a doubt”. It is the decision that requires truth from the soul as well as experiences of life.

Our Jury had three Domestic Violence survivors on it. This Jury is more likely than not, to have two to four Jurors who have experienced Domestic Violence. I am one of the three Domestic Violence survivors. It is not a fact I am proud of and it is not a badge. It is a life experience that requires soul searching in determining if someone else was a victim of a similar experience. There are rarely witnesses. There are rarely those who will stand up and admit they were abusers. There are the people who look away and pretend it does not exist.

I know that the Jurors who admitted on the Voir Dire that they had experienced Domestic Violence all regretted writing the experience down while they were driving home. A Juror completes the Voir Dire without any notice that a question like that will appear. The answer to that question was a big reason they were qualified for the Jury. Its importance will be realized in the deliberation phase and the law recognizes its challenges.

The day opened with Dr. Geffner on the witness stand being questioned by Jennifer Willmott. It was not the most exciting day for many because the day was spent mostly on the education of the Jury on Domestic Violence. It began with some loose and sloppy evidence when Jennifer Willmott put Dr. Geffner’s DAPS (Detailed Assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress) Report on all the screen for the Jury to see.

The Jury saw what I saw. The paper displayed on the screen had been copied about twenty times with little gray flecks all over the documentation. There were a bunch of scribbled dates on the top of the sheet done in Sharpie. The dates were scribbled out and changed. The Doctor claimed he got his paperwork mixed up. The graphs on the screen did not look computer generated although they may have been.

The center of the graph has a thin line going through it. It is the “mean” or average results. Jodi Arias’ results featured a bar graph that was at the very top of the graph. Dr. Geffner stated that her results “profile is extreme with some exaggeration.”

The Jury won’t look at that document in the deliberation room. It impeached itself by its presentation so all the words that may have been spoken to the Jury may as well have been the same white noise we hear in the Gallery when the Judge has a bench conference.

He and Jennifer Willmott continued the education of the Jury on Domestic Violence by putting up a chart that was circular with pie slices.

“If you look at it as a pie,” Dr. Geffner said in a professorial tone, “You will see that each piece is has a name for it and represents a segment of Domestic Violence. Consider the entirety of the pie as power and control. One piece of it is physical abuse. This covers such things as hitting, hair pulling, slapping and generally violent physical behavior.”

The Jury looked at him and I saw two or three taking notes. I would have expected more taking notes. I remember as a Juror that I took notes on everything because I did not have the knowledge to discern what was important or not. There were times I did not take notes because we had either heard it before or the testimony was valueless because the witness had impeached him or herself.

In my book, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale”, one such witness was Stanley Cook who was a direct witness to the murder of Dale Harrell. One would think a Juror would be a voracious note taker when that witness was on the stand. Once you meet the witness in the book, you’ll understand why none of us wasted our time with notes.

The fact that few are note taking tells me many are not appreciating the weight of his testimony as the Defense would like.

The Doctor continued, “There is emotional abuse which includes putting a person down, calling a person names and blaming the other person for many things. We can see another slice enumerating isolation as a form of abuse. The abuser will keep a person hidden away from family and friends.”

Although it was simple to follow, it became tireless in its unending detail of the complete rainbow of the abuse spectrum such as sexual abuse, intimidation, economic abuse, using male privilege to control and threats of suicide.

I felt the air change when Jennifer Willmott began pursuing how these attributes applied to Travis Alexander. I thought this Psychologist affable yesterday and my opinion changed with each question that Willmott asked. I did not feel that this was a foundation of what Travis Alexander was as a person and I did not agree with the Doctor “making the pieces” fit. I don’t think the Jury liked it either because we were back on Travis Alexander with only one day of respite in his character assassination.

The Jury wants to know about Jodi Arias and this argument was deflected in the wrong direction. Juan Martinez objected to much of this testimony’s relevance throughout the day.

The Jurors who have experienced Domestic Violence were not relieved when the Doctor’s focus changed to the upbringing of Jodi Arias.

The Doctor spoke in long paragraphs about the Psychological reactions to being an abused child and how it manifests itself in adulthood. He talked of the loss of identity a victim goes through. He speaks of the fears, guilt, shame, self-blame, depression and suicidal thoughts of victims of child abuse. He was not afraid to speak of the dependency, emotional instability and host of other ramifications of abuse that appear in adulthood.

The Doctor drizzled the knowledge he was conveying to the Jury by randomly connecting it to Jodi Arias and the abuse she allegedly suffered. He spoke of the wooden spoon incident about seven times throughout the day emphasizing its welts. It was because of her upbringing that she became the introverted victim that she was. The results of abuse were conveyed in her cognitive, emotional and social character of being a victim of intimate partner violence.

Jodi Arias’ mother sat in the front row. I wonder what the Jury searched for on her face.

Juan is going to have a field day on this Psychologist. I noticed that the Doctor brought up incidents between Arias and Travis Alexander from 2006, 2007 and 2008. He used these dates more than once. The Jury is wondering how that is possible if they only dated for four months.

The Jury was also introduced to a new “memory gap” from Dr. Geffner. He claimed she had issues remembering anything from when she was twelve to fourteen years of age. I don’t think it got past the Jury to see that it coincidentally lined up with when she was caught growing Marijuana in her room in the seventh or eighth grade. The Doctor offered that she could not remember the trauma she must have suffered.

We are in the middle of the afternoon and no one on the Jury is taking notes.

Her second memory gap surrounds the murder of Travis Alexander but the Doctor does say she is “remembering bits and pieces”. I looked toward the Prosecution table and thought about what Juan Martinez might do with that tasty morsel. Juan loves dates. Dr. Fonseca remembers that much of her interrogation.

This Jury does not care to see this Doctor any more. His evidence is like an artificial boulder made from Styrofoam. It looks big and heavy and when lifted it is weightless.

Those who have survived Domestic Violence, a most horrific thing to go through, can see straight through this Red Herring. There is nothing there and its value lost in paperwork somewhere. Somebody forgot to prove that Jodi Arias experienced abuse whether it was in her childhood or by the hands of Travis Alexander. The rest of the Jurors will dismiss it far faster than those who have experienced it.

The feigning of abuse by partner or parent is particularly personal to those who have been persecuted by an abuser. It makes us angry because it diminishes its great importance and reality that it exists. It exists behind closed doors and to the deaf ears of neighbors. It has many forms and its damage is real. Many survive and some do not survive its effects. We have heard stories of feigned abuse all of our lives which is survivors reminder, and it upsets us.

There is a line between discipline and abuse. If the discipline is physical to a child, the line is defined by the presence of a mark.

The Jury will have an impossible time trying to link abuse to Jodi Arias.

Jodi wore her “poor little me” face all day. I did not see her look at her mother once…

“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the Spirit of Travis Alexander.”

Justice 4 Travis Alexander…

Justice for Dale…

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter)

Picture of ja in court. Showing a bit too much for court.

Here she is, once again, trying to use her body to manipulate male jurors by wearing a shirt that doesn't cover up her entire chest.  The Judge needs to take her aside and tell her and Maria De La Rosa what kind of clothing is appropriate attire inside of a courtroom.  Apparently, neither ja or Maria get it.   

ja's attempt to try and manipulate the court.

Reposting:  The motion JM filed to object to ja's request that the court reconsider its order denying dismissal of the State's notice seeking imposition of the death penalty.  

Filed on Dec. 1, 2014 by Juan Martinez.


ja's CLAIMS that her "alleged" witnesses are refusing to testify unless the court proceedings are closed to the public while they are testifying.  ja tried to make up her own "legal reasoning" where no law applies to her BS. JM made it pretty clear that ja's attorneys can subpoena her witnesses and that it'll be the DT's own fault if they don't. Also that the jury can't be faulted for not hearing any evidence that the DT doesn't put out there for them to see/hear.  
   


http://karasoncrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/States-Objection-to-Motion-to-Reconsider.pdf

ja tried using this same game of manipulation before during the retrial of her sentencing phase when she took the stand.  The only differences is that before she implicated herself as being the "uncooperative" witness.  Judge SS isn't stupid.  She has got to see the game of manipulation that ja has been playing.  Judge SS needs to put a stop to ja's and the DT stall tactics and BS reasons that ja and the DT come up with in an attempt to take the DP off of the table.     

azfamily.com

Posted on December 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Updated today at 1:06 PM

The opinion said Arias did not feel she would be "able to fully communicate what she wants to say, communicate her remorse and go through all the mitigating factors and get them out there in front of the jury with the public here," her lawyers told the judge.

The judge suggested that the public and press be moved to an overflow room, and Arias objected to that alternative despite the judge expressing concern that she was being manipulative. She objected "because of the pressure that I would feel because of these threats," according to the opinion.

Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Court-reveals-why-Arias-wanted-testimony-private-285980661.html#ixzz3M69enS00

"FLAW IN FOUNDATION” Written by: Paul A. Sanders, Jr. The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter

The Jodi Arias Retrial: A Juror’s Perspective

DAY 16

“FLAW IN FOUNDATION”

The Jury came in today looking crisp and sharp. They filed in and the first row had to back step slightly in their row to account for the empty seat of Juror # 3. The seats are assigned by Juror numbers and those seats remain that way until the end. We are missing sit # 3 and # 9 in the first row and seat # 14 in the top row. Sixteen remain on the Jury and the four alternates will be chosen just before the Jury goes into the deliberation phase. There is not one Juror that wants to be an alternate and at least they won’t have to worry about it during the Holiday break.

We had one witness for the duration of the day and the Jury was happy not to see Dr. Fonseca.

Dr. Robert Geffner was called to the witness stand with Jennifer Willmott in charge of his questioning. It was a nice change of pace after the long period of time with Kirk Nurmi. There were a lot of things the Jury would have liked about today aside from it being a new witness on the stand. As I have mentioned before, Juries love evidence that they can touch and feel. Even though this was psychological testimony, the Jurors liked having evidence to look at. They were able to see a plethora of documentation of test results. 

Dr. Geffner was dressed sharply yet comfortably in a black suit with a white shirt complimented with a diamond pattern tie. His hair was trimmed and his face was accented by a salt and pepper mustache. He engaged well with Jennifer Willmott and he seemed to involve the Jury without the artificial behaviors that Dr. Fonseca endowed upon them. They felt they were being spoken to instead of being spoken at. I may not have seen a lot of note taking but I did see that many lacked the long faces displayed during the latter days of Fonseca being on the stand. They seemed to be leaning forward slightly and they looked at him and the displayed multiplicity of test results on the screens with keen interest.

The Jury is hungry for information and evidence and they are starving for forward progress. They liked that this Psychologist’s evidence focused solely on Jodi Arias instead of on Travis Alexander. I say this as a former Juror on the Death Penalty Trial of Marissa DeVault. We saw this same sequence of Psychological evidence and we, too, begged to know about the defendant. Instead of Dr. Geffner, our trial featured Dr, Cheryl Carp who spoke of the same battery of tests given to DeVault in her evaluations.

The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was explained by Dr. Geffner as having been one of the oldest and most tested of all examinations in the field of Psychology. This trusted examination has been used for nearly fifty years It has an updated version that was used in this case by both himself and Dr. DeMarte. Generally, this test is most valuable when taken a number of times over a span of years to track changing results and trends.

The Doctor spoke in a very affable manner as he discussed the things that came up as red flags for Jodi Arias. He said the test results revealed that she had a low self-esteem and was subject to anxiety and depression. Her personality traits showed under average signs of aggressiveness and hostility which she kept inside as she was more introverted than extroverted.

There was a point when the Doctor said that many personality disorders are actually signs of mental illness. He spoke specifically that she had a high range score in anxiety, paranoia and Schizophrenia. She fell into the category of a Psychopathic Deviate as she felt generally alienated from authority and society.

I watched Juan Martinez as he sat as his desk. He had his cheek cradled in the crook of his arm. He would look at the results of the test scores on the large screen directly across from the Jury. He looked at each presentation without emotion. Every once in a while, he would jot notes on his legal pad and then resume his position and look at the screen. I swear I could feel the wheels turning in his head. He was remarkably free of objections today.

I felt sorry for this nice and affable witness, for one day soon he would have to answer to Mr. Martinez. 

The Doctor spent the day covering such tests as the TSI (Traumatic System Inventory) in both the older and newer version, the PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory), the IBS (Interpersonal Behavioral Study), and the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test). Results were put on the screen in the form of graphs showing high levels, normal levels and below average levels. Numbers and abbreviations were used flowingly. It was fairly easy to follow and track his results and perceptions based on those results. It had the look and feel of evidence and all Juries like that. 

I remember feeling the same way when Dr. Carp walked us through the identical test results of Marissa DeVault. The evidence looked good. The test results looked tangible. A Juror rarely knows much about Psychology or its tests and applications. There is a greater trust when you can see it front of you.

Jennifer Willmott spent significant time on each piece of Psychological evidence by directing Dr. Geffner to show that each test had an embedded validity test. The scale is a computer interpretation of these test answers to detect flaws in patterns of answers and their consistency to each other. Each test showed a validity test that verified these results were sound.

I will say that Jennifer Willmott did a respectable job in handling her witness throughout the day. She asked questions that she seemed to know the answers to before she asked, she carried herself comfortably with fluid motion and one felt forward progress in moving through testimony.

“Let me ask you, Doctor,” she said with pointed interest toward him, “How can you tell if someone is lying or not on these examinations?”

Whether anyone new it or not, this was the most important question of the day.

In that moment, I realized that I had heard the very same question of Dr. Carp in the DeVault Trial. I also wrote about this in creating one of my favorite chapters in, “Brain Damage: A Juror’s Tale (available on Amazon.com). Those who have read the book remember a chapter by the same title, “Malingering Problems”.

Malingering is a term used by Psychologists assigned to test answers that are maligned to be “Faking Good” (“I am an angel, I wouldn’t do that.”), or “Faking Bad”, (“I like to kill small animals because I am screwed up in the head”). The answers are manipulated by the subject to fit to what they think is the best answer to their situation as opposed to what the real answer is. 

I thought it interesting that Dr. Geffner found all the tests to be objective. I found it curious that the results of the tests of her personality do not match the horrific killing of Travis Alexander. The Jury will have just as hard a time matching her face to the crime as well as trying to match Psychological test results to the premeditation and cruelness of the crime.

At some point, the Jury will look at this evidence in the deliberation room as we looked at it in the DeVault Trial. A Jury judges the validity of witnesses before they ever start looking at evidence. In our case, we knew that the murderer was adept at lying and well versed in manipulation. There are few that are better than she was. As a Jury, we tossed anything she said or did out as useless. She spent hours and hours with Psychologists taking examinations. We spent hours as a Jury looking through test results during the trial. It was amazing how fast we discounted the evidence in the deliberation room because Marissa DeVault had provided the answers. She was a liar so her test results were not worth the dirt on the bottom of someone’s shoes. It is a Juror’s right to dismiss all or part of evidence and witness testimony.

Malingering is another word for lying. Jodi Arias is a proven liar. Kirk Nurmi stated to the Jury that, “We know Jodi Arias is a liar”, during the time when Dr. Fonseca was on the stand. I do not believe this Jury will be able to use any of this as evidence. It is inherently flawed because the test subject is inherently flawed.

The Jury may not figure it out right away. Some may even be going home tonight thinking there was some good evidence to work with. Others will give it little value.

We know something that the Jury doesn’t.

Dr. DeMarte is on the horizon. It may not be until January but she is coming. She knows what malingering is and the Jury will know what it is by the time she leaves the witness stand.

Her rebuttal testimony will render the conversation short in the deliberation room…

The oddest thing happened today. It is the first time that I have not heard the name of Travis Alexander during proceedings.

None of us have forgotten that he was there in each of our hearts.

“Every good relationship that develops as a result of this Trial is the manifestation of the spirit of Travis Alexander.”

Justice 4 Travis Alexander…

Justice for Dale…

Paul A. Sanders, Jr.
The 13th Juror @The13thJurorMD (Twitter

ja trial 12/15 Morning Session

http://tamaratattles.com/2014/12/15/jodi-arias-trial-1215-morning-session/

Posts made by some of the "crazies" that support ja.

^A Lonely, pathetic creature, whose mind is in the wrong place.  

^^^This one has their crap all twisted.          

Someone posted:  "She admitted, and the evidence clearly showed, that she brutally killed Alexander."  matken copied and pasted their comment into his/her own comment and posted the MESS underneath that sentence.  smh....It is CRAZY that matken actually posted the mess that he/she posted, let a lone that he/she actually believes it!   

^^^This gave me a headache when I read this mess.  There are no words to describe this person's babbling, except that this person is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.  

^^^This is just straight up FILTH.  Facebook ALLOWS the BS that he(possibly a she) spews.  

^^^Trash and stupidity!  

    

^^^Stupidity in it's truest form.  

^^^Disgusting TRASH!  

^^^More vomit spewed by this very disturbed and attention seeking idiot.

^^^More stupidity.  Like they are going to set a murderer free because some idiots claim to be in love with a murderer.  

^^^Crazy talk.  

^^^In denial and believes the lies that ja spews.

UNLIKE Team Tra$h, (Team ja), the money that some of TA's family members and/or friends  received/receives is NOT going to a murderer(ja), some of her family members(that are NOT the victims in this case), or to any other undesirables($cammers.)  

Unlike Team Tra$h, (Team ja), that are scamming, lying to, and begging people to get money from them, the money that some of TA's family members and/or friends are receiving or will receive are going about things in an honest and legal way.  Team Travis has done, is doing, and will continue to do some great things for a lot of people.   

^^^This is a comment that was posted below the original posting about TA's book that "GIVE ja a fair trial" posted on their page.  This comment is the type of GARBAGE that some of ja's supporters find acceptable.  TRASH!  

       

It appears that the administrator of the FB page "GIVE Jodi Arias A FAIR TRIAL" is racist against "American Whites."