I'm not expressly trying to solicit discussion, but you're certainly welcome to add your own comments so long as they are on topic, thoughtful and not unduly disrespectful. You need not agree with me and you may post anonymously if you prefer. That said, I reserve the right to yank nonsense and spam.

** Update 8 June 2013 **
While I continue to monitor this blog, please note I have changed to a different hosting service and therefore a new blog. If you'd like to stay current, please visit me at My Sens-iety.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Arias: Advice to Move On

Chris Hughes appeared on Dr. Drew on HLN April 29.  A long-time friend of Travis Alexander, Hughes states he and his wife, Sky, did not approve of Jodi Arias and tried to convince Travis to stay away from her. [Edited 4/30/13: My reporting of the interview has been substituted by relevant portions of the show's transcript.]

Transcript Excerpts

HUGHES: But really, but let me answer your question in short. Travis -- I want to make this as concise as I can. We had Travis come to our room one night just to talk to him about some of these things that you`re asking about that we had observed in Jodi and her behavior. And it`s a long list, a way longer than we have time for tonight.

And Jodi was there, but she was downstairs in a different bedroom and sleeping. And we`re talking for a couple hours. And all of a sudden my wife, she`s got a sixth sense about things, and she says oh, my gosh. She`s out there. You know, she`s whispering this. And we`re all like looking at her, like, who, Jodi? And she said yes, she`s out there. She`s listening. And so, we`re all kind of freaked out and we change the subject for about 30 seconds.

And then, there`s a knock at the door and it`s Jodi. Now, this is (ph) in the late hours of the night. She`s supposed to be asleep in another bedroom. You know, she says, hey, is everything OK? And we`re like everything`s fine. Travis is like fine, I`ll come down to say goodnight a little bit later.

Well, then, we continue our conversation, maybe another 45 minutes to an hour goes by, and my wife gets this feeling again, and she goes she`s out there again. She`s listening. She`s whispering this, of course. And so, Travis jumps off the bed, jerks the door open, and there`s Jodi Arias with the most frightening, evil, I mean, I`ve never seen anything like it before or since, and I`ve seen a lot of things in my 40 years, nothing like what we saw that night.

And we knew -- it was just a feeling that we had that downloaded everything into our minds what this woman was capable of. We knew it in that moment. And as a matter of fact, we told Travis, you go downstairs and you handle that. We`re going to bed. We were so freaked out. And we laid there in bed, my wife and I wondering, like, are our children safe?

You know? Like do we need to go get our kids? How did we get to this place in our life where someone like this is in our house? We saw it. We felt it. We knew it then.

...

PINSKY: Welcome back. I`m with my co-host, Jenny Hutt, and our panel and Chris Hughes. Chris was Travis` best friend. His wife, Skye, will join us tomorrow. Chris, first, set the record straight -- well, before we set the record straight on that e-mail issue that LaViolette was mentioning, I want to read you a Twitter here.

It is from Mama Bear Jones. She says, "That story from Chris Hughes was mesmerizing and scary. Jodi is a dangerous, pathological person." My understanding, Chris, is your wife had some interesting nickname for her as well, is that correct?

HUGHES: Yes. She -- after that night, the next day, Skye kicked her out of our house, you know, went down in stairs and just said, look, you`re out. We don`t want you ever to come back. We don`t want to have anything to do with you. And from that day forward, she`s called her, you know, Peyton, from "Hand that Rocks the Cradle" --

HUTT: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

HUGHES: Yes. And those are her nicknames from that day forward.

PINSKY: How long was that before she actually killed Travis?

HUGHES: That was April 2007. April-ish. It was around April 2007. So, it was a full year later that she killed Travis.

PINSKY: Now, set the record straight on that e-mail. Go.

HUGHES: Well, I`ll tell you this. I love that Ms. LaViolette did all the speaking for Chris and Skye Hughes. It`s just totally bogus, you know? And I`m so glad that I have this opportunity to set the record straight. Here`s the truth of the matter.

Jodi comes to our house unannounced, unannounced and is whining and complaining about Travis and, you know, lying about Travis and all of these things and we`re saying look, move on. If you`re not getting what you want, get out, you know?

PINSKY: Please move on, yes.

HUGHES: Yes. Move on. I mean, but she`s telling us, oh, I had a vision. I had a vision.

PINSKY: Oh, boy.

HUGHES: And I`m supposed to marry Travis.

PINSKY: Oh, boy.

HUGHES: Oh, yes. Yes. And she just couldn`t let it go. And we`re like, look, he`s not committing to you. Move on, you know? And then, my wife says to her --

PINSKY: Chris?

HUGHES: Yes.

PINSKY: Yes. I just want to interrupt you. I know Cheryl has got a question for you. We have such limited time with you. And again, I appreciate you being here. And Cheryl, that kind of vision and the secret and magical thinking is something that has bothered us about her from the beginning.

CHERYL ARUTT, PSY.D., @DRCHERYLARUTT: That`s right, Dr. Drew. That is so scary. Chris, I just want to say, I`m so sorry for the loss of your friend. And when you were -- when you heard the defense make so much of this e-mail that you and were your wife wrote to really try to, it seems kind of handle Jodi, to get Jodi to maybe stay away from your friend, what was that like for you to hear it misused in that way to kind of framed as - - to try to to look like an abuser?

HUGHES: It was outrageous, you know? And if the truth be told, if we could get those e-mails and read them, I retracted in that e-mail feed, I retracted the word abusive, because I said, you know what? That`s over the top. You know, we would say rough around the edges. He was the T-dog. That`s what we called him, you know?

And I -- it`s just crazy that they were able to take this one little sentence out of a long string of sentences, several e-mails back and forth and manipulate my words. And you know, we didn`t get called in to talk about that. You know, anyway, it`s just --

PINSKY: I`m sorry to interrupt. I`ve got to make another break. I cannot let you go. Please, stay here. Jenny, you have got questions, and Mark, you`ve got questions. I`ve got another question about the way Travis being painted as a bad Mormon. We got a lot of stuff. Please don`t go. I`ll be right back with Chris.

 [Full Program Transcript]

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Arias: "I'm all for the Ten Commandments"

said Jodi Arias during her July 15, 2008, police interview with Det. Esteban Flores.  Oh, really?  I guess Jodi has added an escape clause to at least six of them:
  • Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee... except when you don't need them anymore; grandparents are not covered.
  • Thou shalt not kill...  except someone who won't take you to Cancun.
  • Thou shalt not commit adultery... except fornication is fine.
  • Thou shalt not steal... except from family and lovers.
  • Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor... except when a lie benefits you.
  • Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbors... except things you actually want, expect, deserve or need.
I could continue the sermon, but I think the above makes my point.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Immaturity & Parental Abuse: Related?

Alyce LaViolette found Jodi Arias to have been abused by her parents.  Janeen DeMarte found Jodi to be immature.  Putting the two together, I considered a correlation between immaturity and abuse.  Below are just some personal musings on the subject related in context to the Arias trial.

We know individuals mature at different ages depending on things such as life experience, health, environment, intelligence, education and psychological factors. Maturation is a cradle-to-grave process with no empirical value we can assign to it for comparison.  Still, we each have an opinion as to whether a specific behavior is either mature or immature as compared to the person's chronological age.

As to abuse, I can tell you I was raised by loving but strict, bible-thumping grandparents.  Much emphasis was placed on honesty, responsibility and respectability -- qualities children don't easily understand or appreciate.  The primary teaching tools used on me included a hand to the butt, the belt, the flyswatter and the switch.  I also recall getting a bar of hand soap rubbed on my tongue once or twice.  Should I add Tabasco sauce was used to get me to stop sucking my thumb?  Oh and what about the time they used a child's harness to keep me in bed?  Is anybody feeling sorry for me yet?  I didn't think so.

Did I hate being disciplined?  Naturally.  Did I sometimes blow it out of proportion to my friends?  Oh, yeah.  Did I play the victim?  Yep, guilty.  But, in all fairness, the bulk of my childhood issues were caused by my own hoof and mouth disease -- you know -- leaving the house without permission, not coming home at the appointed time, engaging in back talk, saying a "bad" word, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  Not even mature adults like being told what to do, but we adapt and conform as we mature.  If we mature, we learn to "take 'No' for an answer."  If not, bad things happen.

People like Alyce LaViolette would say I was abused by my grandparents.  But I honestly don't see it that way at all.  I had a normal childhood as we defined it in the 50s and 60s.  Bad behavior had consequences and we expected that.  Now I'm not saying it was ever, in any way, normal and customary to truly abuse children, just that nobody got all worked up over a wooden spoon.  Nowadays, a parent may get reported for simply keeping a child in timeout for too long. 

You get where I'm going with this, right?

P.S.  I said in other posts that I am an abuse victim and that is true.  However, lest you think otherwise, the abuse had absolutely nothing to do with my childhood or my grandparents.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Arias: Rebuttal April 25

Medical Examiner, Dr. Kevin Horn, was again questioned about the sequencing of the many wounds sustained by Travis Alexander.  Important points:
  • As before, he testified the gunshot wound could not have been first in the series of injuries as Jodi Arias alleges.
  • The gunshot wound would have been almost instantly incapacitating (within a few seconds).
  • Blood evidence strewn from the master bedroom to the master bathroom [a distance of perhaps twenty feet] along with the presence of defensive wounds on Travis Alexander's hands and arms show that the attack had to have taken some length of time and that he would have had to have been conscious and ambulatory for most of it in order to try to defend himself.
  • He continues to assert the bullet had to have passed through the right frontal lobe of the brain even though he was unable to see a wound track through the brain due to decomposition.
  • Horn still does not recall having any conversation with Det. Esteban Flores subsequent to the day of the autopsy.  [Flores admits he misspoke during a pretrial hearing when he said that the gunshot wound came first according to Dr. Horn.]
Cross examination by defense attorney Jennifer Willmott was aggressive and largely pointless in nature, rehashing territory she'd cross examined on during the state's case in chief.  She was unable to illicit the answers she sought:
  • that the gunshot wound could have come first;
  • that Horn told Flores the gunshot wound came first;
  • that Horn lied when he said he took slices of Alexander's brain after having previously described the brain as being liquified; he clarified that the brain was the consistency of pudding and not completely liquified;
  • that if he couldn't see a bullet track through the brain, he couldn't possibly be certain the brain had been injured [he insisted he was certain the brain was injured based on simple geometry from the entry wound to the position of the bullet where it lodged in the sinus cavity].
On follow up to jury questions, Juan Martinez inquired whether it would have been possible for Alexander to get up off the floor following the gunshot wound [as Arias alleged].  Horn indicated he does not believe that would have been possible.

Juror #8 has been excused (no reason given).

The state rests so it appears the defense has been granted a surrebuttal to take place on May 1.

Arias: The Psycho Photos

All I can say is omg.  Anyone who saw the images of Travis Alexander in the shower side-by-side with stills of Janet Leigh in the shower in the Hitchcock movie, "Psycho," has got to admit the similarity is nothing less than chilling.  JUAN MARTINEZ, DID YOU SEE THESE?!  They were first shown last night on the Dr. Drew show on HLN and again today on Raising America.

Remember Jodi Arias testified Travis wanted her to take the shower photos but that she had some ideas for the poses.  I will have to go back and watch the testimony again, but I believe she claimed her inspiration was from Calvin Klein.  Here, she mixed a little truth with her lie cocktail.  She had the ideas for the poses alright -- SHE did -- and her inspiration was definitely not Calvin Klein.  There were only two photos in the series left to go:  one of the knife of Norman Bates coming down on the back of unsuspecting Janet Leigh and one of the blood swirling down the drain.  Ooops, the knife slips [eyeroll] as she begins to stage the knife photo.  End of photo shoot.  End of Travis Alexander.

"I just remember dropping the knife and screaming."
"He just wouldn't die."

We've learned sources told the National Enquirer [story here] that Jodi claims Travis was obsessed with the Psycho movie's shower scene, that it aroused him, and that he was the one who wanted her to take those specific pictures.  Regardless of whose idea it may have been, they would have needed a knife for a reenactment.  And we know Jodi loves knives.

Yes, it's late in the game to reintroduce the shower photos in this context but I firmly believe the jury needs to see the comparison.  It's another piece of evidence to suggest Jodi is lying about the rope and about the gunshot wound being first in the series.

Update 4/30/13

"PINSKY: Robi, I`m fascinated by the psycho story she added. The reason we had those psycho pictures on hand, my producers brilliantly pulled them up from weeks ago, there they are again, we noticed these association from Alfred Hitchcock`s film and magically the pictures Jodi took of Travis. It gave us chills. They both are preoccupied with this thing." [Transcript from the "Dr. Drew: On Call" program of 4/24/13.  Link Here.]

"The Famous Shower Scene from Psycho" [video posted by newcarscent7 on YouTube].  I've not yet been able to find the comparison photos shown on HLN.  You're invited to watch the movie clip and make a mental comparison for yourself between the movie and the posed photos of Travis in the shower as shown during the trial.

Update 5/10/13

To view side-by-side thumbnails of the Psycho poses, click here.  [Posted by Angels_Dwell]

Arias: Who Brings a Knife to a Gunfight?

One of my psychology professors once said something that I think was extremely profound.  As a class, many of us were struggling to understand the Whys behind various abnormal and deviant human behaviors we'd been studying.  Sensing our frustration, he offered some simple advice.  "All you need to understand is that nobody ever does anything which they don't think is a good idea at the time they do it."  Suddenly we understood.

Take a look at this video clip from In Session: "Police: Arias was preparing to flee."  This report gives me a bone-chilling peek into the strange mind of Jodi Arias.  It also provides an answer to my title question above:  Jodi Arias Does.
  1. Jodi slashed the tires of Travis Alexander on multiple occasions, presumably with a knife.
  2. A .25 caliber handgun was stolen from the home of Jodi's grandparents about a week before she killed Travis.
  3. Two weapons were used to kill Alexander: a .25 caliber gun and a knife.
  4. There is no evidence Alexander or his roommates owned any guns of any kind.
  5. There is no evidence any of the knives in the Alexander home were missing following the killing.
  6. There is no evidence any of the knives in the Alexander home was the murder weapon.
  7. Police found .25mm ammunition at the home of Jodi's parents.
  8. Arias purchased a High Point 9mm gun after the killing, later found hidden in the rented getaway vehicle, a Chevy Cobalt.
  9. A search of the Cobalt at the time of Jodi's arrest revealed 9mm ammunition packed in her suitcase and two knives inside boxes of her books.
A gun, a knife.  A knife, a gun.  Wouldn't two weapons be better than one?

The acquittal of Casey Anthony apparently pivoted on a single, unanswered question:  How did little Caylee Anthony die?  Even though they didn't believe Casey was innocent, they felt they could not convict her without having a definitive cause of death.  In addition, they failed to understand why Casey would murder Caylee.

The jury in the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray for the death of Michael Jackson was able to overcome the obstacle of not knowing exactly who gave the fatal propofol injection.  They weren't distracted by an obvious lack of motive for the killing  They understood that the ultimate culpability rested with the doctor who provided the drugs then failed to administer and monitor them in a professional manner.  And they understood why Murray was willing to administer the inappropriate drugs in the first place.

The jury in the Jodi Arias case will never know for certain which of the three fatal wounds inflicted on Travis Alexander came last, but that doesn't matter because the cause of death is exsanguination from the many knife wounds.  They may be confused as to Jodi's motive -- was it jealousy or not? -- but that doesn't really matter because motive is not a required element to prove murder.  They may be distracted by the conflicting psychological evaluations, but those only matter during a penalty phase following a 1st degree murder conviction.

As in the trial of Casey Anthony, they will be confused by the multitude of lies told by the defendant.  But the lies don't really matter.  There is zero doubt that Jodi killed Travis.  The jury's only concern should be to convict her of the appropriate charge.  In order for them to reach a guilty verdict for 1st degree murder, they will have to understand the nature and value of the circumstantial evidence presented -- taken together, the state has proven premeditation.  We shall soon see if the jury is able to understand that.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

HLN After Dark

Here's my own Bold Accusation:

I Shouldn't Watch this Show Ever Again


Why?  Because it never fails to tick me off in one way or another.

The Crime Scene Mockup:  How many times must I see ill-informed attorneys climb the closet shelves to get the gun as part of a reenactment and later proclaim it proves Jodi's story is true?

Judge Karen:  It would have been nice if she'd at least read the Cliff Notes of this trial before she went flapping her gums about Jodi being a Victim.  But hey, she convinced Juror #2 (the ladle in the knife drawer).

Judge Larry Seidlin:  What a whack job this dude is.  Does he drink?  His appearance alone decreases the show's credibility.

Holly Hughes:  She gets her facts wrong about 20% of the time on this and every other show she appears on.

Dwane Cates:  (see Holly Hughes).

Please don't make me go on.  It's no wonder every guest jury gets hung.

Arias: Rebuttal April 24

Det. Robert Brown, computer forensic examiner for the City of Mesa, testified regarding three photos of Jodi Arias retrieved from a Helio phone.  To whom the Helio phone belonged wasn't stated.  All three photos were taken on June 3, 2008.  Each showed a closeup of Arias with what appeared to be brown or dark auburn hair -- without highlights.
  • Exhibit #637 taken at 2:12pm
  • Exhibit #636 taken at 2:25pm
  • Exhibit #638 taken at 2:28pm
Two other photo exhibits (dates and times not given during this testimony) were reintroduced:
  • Exhibit #414, photo of Arias (with blonde hair) and a black dog 
  • Exhibit #452, photo of Arias (with blonde hair) and her sister (wearing a cap)
Exhibit #237.008 is reintroduced, a Walmart receipt dated 6/3/2008 at 15:22 military time (3:22pm):
  • FACIAL CLEANSER #002270000054 @ $3.97
  • FACIAL CLEANSER #002270000054 @ $3.97
  • NEUUS85BNS #007050157285 @ $9.92
  • NEUUS85BNS #007050157285 @ $9.92
  • 5G KERO CARB #004454931777 @ $12.96

I believe it's been well established Jodi dyed her hair after renting the car in Redding but before arriving at Travis Alexander's home in the early morning of June 4, 2008. But the purchase of two facial cleansers and two other unidentified items bug the heck out of me. Arias testified she returned the five-gallon gas can because she really couldn't afford it (and we know she didn't).  So why did she buy two facial cleansers?  Why did she need so much cleanser if money was tight?

Det. Esteban "Steve" Flores, Mesa Police Department, returned to the stand for rebuttal testimony.  On direct, Flores states the home of Travis Alexander was thoroughly searched over three days from "top to bottom" -- including the attic.  The following items were not found:  gun holster, gun case, bullets, gun cleaning kits.  Neither of Alexander's roommates owned guns.  Under cross examination, Flores admitted he did not personally conduct the search but relied on others working under him and their findings.

He also testified he returned to the crime scene on March 5, 2013, to reexamine the closet in the master bedroom. He restored the configuration of the shelving in the master bedroom closet to the state they were in following the murder.  He showed that the shelves are all the type which rest on four metal pins, i.e. they are all adjustable.  The distance from the floor to the top of the top shelf is 83"; from the floor to the ceiling is eight feet.  A photograph was shown of Flores resting his hand on the front of a shelf, showing that the back of the shelf flips up with relatively little pressure. (ref. Photo Exhibits #639, 640, 641).

Thank God for this rebuttal. I feared Juan Martinez wasn't making it clear during the main case how unstable that type of shelving is. The minute I saw the original closet photos I knew Arias was lying about standing on a shelf in order to reach the alleged gun.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Arias: Nurmi Acts Wormy


I'm relieved to see I'm not the only court watcher who believes Kirk Nurmi went way over the line today in his cross-examination of Deanna Reid.  Reid, former girlfriend of Travis Alexander, was called to the stand as part of the state's rebuttal case against Jodi Arias.  Under direct examination by prosecutor Juan Martinez, Reid revealed a portrait of Alexander seldom seen in this courtroom.  The couple dated from 2000-2005, having what most people would consider a normal, healthy relationship (Mormon prohibitions aside).  Once Reid realized the relationship would never result in marriage, she advised Alexander she wanted to move on.  The couple remained friends and kept in contact up until May, 2008 -- shortly before his death.

On cross-examination, Nurmi droned on in his zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz style, rehashing testimonial territory already covered on direct.  Just as I was wondering why he bothered getting out of his recliner for this, he switched tracks and attacked Reid, forcing her to admit to having had a sexual relationship with Alexander -- unnecessary and irrelevant questioning in every respect.  Why didn't Martinez object?!

Making a bad blunder worse, Nurmi went on to question Reid as to whether Alexander had ever called her any of the long litany of x-rated names he'd used on Jodi Arias.  Primacy and Recency... I'm sure that's the only excuse Nurmi had for "going there" with this witness.  He couldn't leave the jury with an image of Travis as a nice guy.  While that may be a good defense tactic in theory, I would bet my last nickle the jury will be as offended by it as are the rest of us.  God speed Deanna Reid for handling it like a lady.

Is there evidence Alexander ever treated any other woman in the manner he treated Arias?  Not that I've seen.  Perhaps that's because he had a preference for Good Mormon Women (e.g. Deanna Reid, Lisa Andrews-Daidone and Marie "MiMi" Hall).  What he learned was that even though he could make Jodi a Mormon, he could never make her a good one.  Nor could he ever be rid of her.

Snark Alert

I get a kick out of Kirk Nurmi's cheek-puffs.  I snapped a screenshot of him doing it a couple of times...

Monday, April 22, 2013

Arias: Picture Perfect??

The movie title Picture Perfect has been pilfered as the descriptor now associated with Jodi "Norman Bates" Arias.  Used both by "48 Hours" and author Shanna Hogan, one really must wonder what possessed them to apply such a flattering phrase to such an ugly personality.  [facepalm]

Now a dowdy brunette with bizarre bangs and jail house glasses, Arias seems to have lost her former photogenic beauty.  Picture Perfect?  Hardly.

Speaking of pictures... I was reviewing a few YouTube videos of the Arias trial and snagged this screen shot of her (right) immediately following testimony from the Medical Examiner.  Jodi had pretended to cry throughout his entire testimony (which included gruesome autopsy photos) and yet... notice her eye makeup is still in place and that there is absolutely no redness of the face or nose.  This is just another example of Jodi's manipulative acting. As with most criminals, the only remorse Jodi has is for getting caught, not for killing Travis Alexander.

Arias: Would You Believe Manslaughter?

In a last-ditch but not altogether unexpected move today, the defense team of Jodi Arias made a motion to add the charge of "Manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion" as a lesser included jury instruction.  The defense apparently believes they've been able to make a case for it, although I'm not seeing it unless...

Earlier in the trial, the defense fought to admit testimony from Dr. Samuels regarding his interpretation of the crime scene photos.  According to Samuels, the photos "proved" the attack on Alexander was not premeditated.  Objecting on grounds of Daubert, Frye and lack of foundation -- i.e. there is no scientific basis to support any such interpretation nor is Samuels a crime scene expert -- the state successfully argued against admission of the testimony.

The defense is also seeking permission to present a surrebuttal case to counter the testimony of state's witness, Dr. Janeen DeMarte.  DeMarte, during the state's rebuttal case, effectively dismantled the testimony of Dr. Richard M. Samuels and Alyce LaViolette, mental health experts for the defense.  HLN reports the defense wants to call Dr. Robert Geffner, founding President of the "Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma" (founded in 2005) as their surrebuttal witness.  Oh lordy, lordy, here we go again with more red herrings about abuse and trauma.

Arias: What's With the Remote?

I stumbled onto an interesting video of court testimony posted on YouTube related to a remote control titled, Jodi Arias Pre-Meditation Smoking Gun AKA "Remote Control".  While I wouldn't go so far as claiming this as evidence of premeditation, it certainly presents an interesting point of view which never occurred to me.

Darryl Brewer and Jodi Arias were questioned on the stand about a remote control.  Jodi arrived at Darryl's house around 7am on June 3rd.  She left but returned around 10am to bring him his DVD remote control.  Why was that important?  Is there any relation between the burglary at Jodi's grandparents home days before and Jodi's failure to return the gas cans to Darryl?  The whole line of questioning seemed silly and irrelevant at the time.  But this YouTube video posted by "fastedu1" presents an !AHA! hypothesis on the potential importance of that remote.

Definition Wanted: Reality TV

Say someone asks me, "Do you like Science Fiction?"  I have no trouble responding, "Yes!" because I know what the question means.  But if someone asks, "Do you like Reality TV?" I hesitate.  Not that this is a rage issue for me, but it's a minor life irritant to have to provide a lengthy explanation for the only honest answer I can give:  "It depends on what your meaning of 'reality' is."

Two programs on my must-see list are Duck Dynasty on A&E and Big Rich Atlanta on Style.  I fantasize seeing Ashlee and Katie (Big Rich Atlanta) sitting at the dinner table of Phil and Kay Robertson (Duck Dynasty).  Oh, what I wouldn't give for an SRO ticket to that event!!  And, in a contest of who is the better "true southern lady", I'm betting on Miss Kay over Katie every day of the week.

I watch reality "makeover" programs such as Kitchen Nightmares on FOX, Restaurant Impossible on the Food Network, Tabatha Takes Over on Bravo, Hoarders on A&E, Love It or List It on HGTV and re-runs of the now-cancelled Supernanny.  I enjoy these for their feel-good, happy endings for struggling individuals and families, even though not every episode turns out that way.

Furthermore, I enjoy biographies, documentaries and general news and information programming which all deal with "reality" but it doesn't feel right to include them in the same category as the examples above.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Arias: The Case for Premeditation

Jodi Arias is charged with first degree premeditated murder in the death of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, on June 4, 2008, at his Mesa, AZ, home.  Arias admits to killing Alexander but claims it was in self defense after Alexander attacked her for dropping his new camera.  Arias also claims Alexander had physically abused her in the past.

Note: This post has been updated to include significantly more detail than was contained in the original post.  Be aware other updates may follow.

There is no time restriction for premeditation.  A murder can be planned years in advance or it can be planned in the blink of an eye.  The question is always whether or not the accused formed an intent to kill.  It's my belief there is ample evidence to support the accusation of premeditation in this case, presented below in chronological order based on my recollection of the evidence and my notes.
  1. March 26:  Arias and Alexander have an argument via text message.  It appears Alexander is done with her, calling her a sociopath.  In addition, Alexander is planning a trip to Cancun on June 10 with another woman (Marie "Mimi" Hall).
  2. March 28: The Yreka, California, home of Arias' grandparents is burglarized.  Among the handful of items stolen is a .25 caliber handgun (the same caliber used to shoot Alexander) and a DVD player. Arias was living in the home at the time and was the last person in the house prior to the burglary.  None of the items have been recovered and the crime was never solved, although Arias was the only suspect in the case.
  3. June 2, 3:04am:  Call from Travis to Arias (831-402-1901) lasting 1,011 seconds.
  4. June 2, 3:21am:  Call from Travis to Arias (831-402-1901) lasting 2,450 seconds.
  5. June 2:  A total of fourteen calls from Arias (831-402-1901) to Travis were recorded.  The duration of most or all of these calls appear to have been short in nature.
  6. June 2, 5:39am:  Siskiyou Food Mart in Yreka, CA - Arias makes a fuel purchase of 3.334g [MC acct #2015]. Exhibit #237.002.
  7. June 2, 8:04am: Budget Rent A Car at Municipal Airport in Redding, California - Rental, Ford Focus 4-Door.  Raphael Colombo, who rented Arias the car, testified she had (at the time) blonde hair, was with a man, and requested she not be given a red car.  Terms of the rental were for local use only.  [MC #2015]  Estimated fuel tank size for this model car: 12-14g.  Exhibit #237.001.
  8. June 2, 7:32pm:  McDonalds in Lodi, CA - Food [Cash]. Exhibit #237.003.
  9. June 2, 8:41pm:  Valero - Receipt (details not in my notes) [MC #2015]. Exhibit #237.004.
  10. June 3, 7am:  Pacific Grove, CA, near Monterey - Ex-boyfriend, Darryl Brewer, testifies he loaned Arias two red 5-gallon gas cans.  She leaves his home shortly thereafter but returns at approximately 10am to return a DVD remote to Mr. Brewer.  He never asked for the gas cans back and Arias never returned them.
  11. June 3, 8:31am:  CVS Pharmacy in Pasadena - "Health Care Eligible" purchase for $6.37 [Cash]. Exhibit #237.009.
  12. June 3, 10:10-10:15am:  WaMu bank branch in Monterey, CA - Arias makes three deposits:  one deposit of $400 into account #8006 and two deposits totaling $400 into account #7148. Exhibits #237.005, 237.006, 237.007.
  13. June 3, btwn 10am & 2pm:  Arias receives a Helio phone from Gus Searcy to replace the one she claims she lost.  Searcy testifies he gave her the phone in Pasadena between those times but does not recall the precise time. My notes do not show the phone number of the Helio phone if it was ever given.
  14. June 3, 2:12 -2:28pm:  Three photos show Arias with brown hair.  Photos were recovered from the Helio phone. Exhibits #636, 637, 638.
  15. June 3, 3:22pm:  Walmart in Salinas, CA -- She uses cash to purchase a third 5-gallon gas can which she testified she returned to the same store on the same date.  A Walmart employee testified the store has no record of the return. Exhibit #237.008.
  16. June 3, 8:41pm:  Starbucks in Pasadena, CA - Receipt [MC acct #2015].  This is where Arias testified skateboarders removed her front license plate and remounted the back plate upside down. Exhibit #237.010.
  17. June 3:  Arias testified she returned the gas can to Walmart right after visiting Starbucks. Testimony Video posted by PKReport on YouTube.
  18. June 3, 8:42pm: Arco on Foothill Blvd in Pasadena - Receipt, fuel purchase of 8.301g [MC acct #2015]. Exhibit #237.011.
  19. June 3, 8:46pm: Arco (same location) - Receipt, fuel purchase of 9.594g [Cash]. Exhibit #237.012.
  20. June 3: Arco (same location) - Receipt, fuel purchase of 2.774g [Cash].  Total fuel purchase for the three Arco receipts:  20.669g.  I failed to note the precise time on this 3rd receipt. Exhibit #237.013.
  21. June 3, circa 9pm:  Arias calls Ryan Burns.  She tells him she's in Pasadena and is on her way to his house in West Jordan, Utah.  Burns estimated the drive would take her about twelve hours.
  22. The cell phone of Arias mysteriously goes dark (untrackable) before leaving California.  I'm unclear whether this applies to the original phone or to the Helio phone she received from Gus Searcy or to both.
  23. June 4, 4:08am-4:38am:  Arias arrives at the home of Alexander with badly dyed brown hair.  Alexander was still awake, watching videos on YouTube [forensic examination of his hard drive confirms activity in this time frame].  I believe this is the pivotal moment where her plan begins to fall apart -- instead of killing him in his sleep then continuing on to Utah to set up her alibi, she's forced to stay and spend time.  She has to find another way to get him into a vulnerable position without herself being equally vulnerable.
  24. June 4, 3:34pm: Last known activity detected on Alexander's laptop, a Compaq Presario, according to a forensic examiner.
  25. June 4, 5:22:24-5:32:16pm:  Photo shoot of Alexander in the shower, using his Sony camera.  Last image appears to be accidental, showing Alexander on his back and bleeding from the neck.  In the foreground is Jodi's leg and foot. Exhibit #162.
  26. June 4, after 5:32:16pm: Arias attempts a cleanup and coverup but the task must have overwhelmed her.  She leaves without completing the task, probably fearing the return of a roommate.
  27. June 4, 11:48pm: Arias leaves a voice mail on Alexander's phone.  According to cell phone records, Arias called from a location 45 miles north of Kingman, AZ, and 27 miles south of the Nevada border.
  28. June 5, prior to next item:  Arias arrives at the home of Ryan Burns in West Jordan, UT.  The two leave in separate cars to go to a meeting. Burns noted Arias had one or two fingers bandaged when she arrived but could not recall which hand.  [During interview with Det. Flores on July 15, Arias appears to be showing him healed cuts to two fingers on her left hand.]
  29. June 5, circa Noon:  Arias is stopped by West Jordan officer Michael Galetti for having her rear license plate upside down.  Arias is pleasant and tells him her friends must have played a joke on her.
  30. June 5, circa 8-8:30pm: Leslie Udy testified she rode with Jodi to Chili's and did not see any stains in the car.  Udy didn't notice whether the floor mats were missing. During the dinner, Udy's husband asked Jodi about the injuries to her fingers.  Jodi stated she cut them at work.  [Arias told Alyce LaViolette she cut them while cutting apples.]
  31. June 6, 3:57am: Tesoro on North Temple in Salt Lake City, UT - Fuel, 10.672g [MC #2015]. Exhibit #237.016.
  32. June 6, 4:01am:  Tesoro (same location) - Fuel, 5.09g [MC #2015]. Exhibit #635 (Tesoro records presented in rebuttal).
  33. June 6, 4:05am:  Tesoro (same location) - Fuel, 9.583g [MC #2015].  Total fuel purchased at Tesoro: 25.255g. Exhibit #237.017.
  34. June 6, 10:34am:  7-11 on Pyramid Way in Sparks, NV - Fuel, 5.178g [MC #2015]. Exhibit #237.020.
  35. June 6:  Flying J Travel Plaza on Winnemucca Blvd in Winnemucca, NV - Fuel, 12.175g [MC #2015].  Exhibit #237.018.
  36. June 7, 12:20pm:  Hilltop Valero on Cypress Ave in Redding - Fuel purchase $48.25 [MC #2015]. Exhibit #237.021.
  37. June 7, 1:08pm:  Ford Focus is returned to Budget in Redding, CA.  Miles used: 2,834.  Rental agent, Colombo, testifies all floor mats are missing and describes what appeared to him to be red Kool-Aid stains on the back seat and the front passenger seat.
  38. June 9: Alexander's body is discovered on June 9.  His throat has been slashed from ear to ear, he's been stabbed in the heart, has a .25 caliber gunshot wound in the head and suffers 28 other stab wounds (nine of which are to his back).  Someone wanted this man dead and suspicion immediately falls on Arias [ref. 911 call].
  39. My notes don't reflect a date, if one was given, for the purchase of a 9mm gun by Arias.  Police determined she purchased it after the death of Travis Alexander. This gun was later discovered by a Hertz employee hidden in a Chevy Cobalt during detailing.
  40. July 15: Arias is detained at the home of her grandparents in Yreka.  She was preparing to flee.  Among items seized were receipts for the "Utah Trip" from a cardboard box in Jodi's room.  Other items found during the search included two knives inside boxes of her books and 9mm ammo in her suitcase.
Even if you're inclined to dismiss this impressive collection of evidence leading up to the murder, consider the condition of Alexander's body.  I cannot imagine any way in which nine stab wounds to the back could ever be credible as self-defense.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Heroes

Superman fights for truth, justice and the American Way.  The long-running television series, Smallville, is creatively written to fill in the gaps of Clark Kent's youth -- providing a blow-by-blow account of how he matured into Supermanhood.  I could sing the praises of this well-executed, feel-good series, but I'd rather focus here on a single question:  Could superheroes ever exist?

Today's episode of Smallville airing on TNT [Season 8, Episode 15] provided a deep, philosophical answer.  The evil Linda Lake (reporter for The Daily Planet) knows Clark Kent's big secret and is blackmailing him.  In a peremptory move, Clark goes to Lois Lane (also reporting for The Daily Planet) and asks her to write his story.  Still known only as "the red-blue blur", her front page story reveals him to be "an alien from Kryptonite" sent to protect the world from evil.  As one might expect, the news generates instant fame and adoration for Clark from the citizens of Metropolis.  Not to be out-scooped, Linda Lake then holds a press conference to accuse Clark of every sort of heinous crime, including the murder of Lex Luthor.  Our newborn superhero goes from idol to hunted pariah in the blink of an eye.  If he's ever to carry out his noble mission, Clark must again use his special ring to turn back time.

As a society, we dream of superheroes... even just plain heroes... who can create, restore or affirm a sense of faith and hope that Goodness does indeed exist.  Sadly, our world is plagued with Linda Lake characters. Goodness may be a universal ideal, yet it ever and only exists in the eye of the beholder.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Arias: Another Diagnosis

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Dissociative Amnesia
Battered Woman Syndrome
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

Dr. Janeen DeMarte, a licensed clinical psychologist, took the stand yesterday as the first witness in the prosecution's rebuttal case.  Under direct examination, she destroyed the testimony of defense witnesses Dr. Richard Samuels and Alyce LaViolette.  Under cross-examination, Jennifer Willmott is looking petty and desperate in her attempt to devalue DeMarte's experience and opinions.  And although DeMarte's C.V. is lightweight in comparison to those of Samuels and LaViolette, it's clear to me she has at least been objective in her assessment of Arias where they clearly were not.  During pretrial investigation, DeMarte tested and evaluated Arias after Samuels but before LaViolette.  LaViolette testified she'd read Dr. DeMarte's report and, apparently, ignored it.

I have to interrupt to get snarky with Willmott.  You'd think she'd have had her hair professionally cut and highlighted, knowing she was going to be on television every day for four months.  I find her messy mop to be very distracting.  But maybe that was the plan.  Anyway, I've not had occasion to make fun of an attorney's hair since Marcia Clark's afro during the O. J. Simpson trial.  An omen?
Is BPD the correct diagnosis?  It's a step in the right direction, an indication of psychopathy, but I still believe Jodi's mental issues go far deeper.  Most people with BPD don't end up as killers, but inappropriate snap rage is certainly a hallmark of the disorder. 

Snark Alert:  Ms. Willmott, what part of "I don't remember" do you suddenly not understand?  Haven't you noticed Dr. DeMarte is actually answering your ridiculous questions when she can?  Are you making up this cross-examination as you go?  Are you even listening to the answers (you keep repeating the same questions over and over)?  Are you confused by having a credible and objective witness on the stand?  Are you seriously implying that Jodi's failure to report physical abuse is proof it actually happened just because that's what battered women do?  Thank God for a lunch break.  My BP was starting to rise.

Jodi and her defense team had a closed meeting with the Judge during the recess.  I noted Jodi appeared frightened when she returned to the courtroom... breathing heavily, swallowing hard and looking more pasty than normal.  The jury entered, then Judge Stephens advised them an issue had arisen and they were being excused for the day.  HLN talking heads all seemed to think Jodi must be feeling ill but I'm not so sure about that.

Aw, C'mon, HLN

Develop some programming.  Instead, all you've done is suck up the most competent, brilliant and interesting anchors in the business just so they can do live bumpers for your interminable commercial breaks.  It's no wonder you had no viewers until the Arias trial.  It's time to get rid of the socially worthless TruTV - a black hole of crap programming - and to restore CourtTV to all its former glory.  Did any of the executives at Turner ever watch CourtTV before they axed it to see what an outstanding job they did?!  At least someone there had the wisdom to port all the anchors over to HLN.  I love them all.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The Marathon Massacre

Since this is my rage vault, one would expect me to blog about yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon.  My first reaction was that it was domestic terrorism... April 15 was "Patriot's Day" in Massachusetts; April 19 will be the 20th anniversary of Waco.

First, the sadness.
No room for rage.
Yet.
Wait for it.

May God Bless America

Arias: All the World is a Nail...

If You're a Hammer


Post Traumatic Stress Disorder experts see traumatized people.
Domestic Violence experts see abuse victims.

I haven't harped on the testimony of Dr. Richard Samuels in the Jodi Arias trial yet I've rambled on and on about the testimony of Alyce LaViolette.  My husband asked me to explain why. =D

Let me begin with a few disclaimers.  One, I am a survivor of physical, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse.  Two, I have been stalked twice.  And three, I suffer from PTSD as a result of an incident in 1978 (which I remember in excruciating detail to this day).  You could accuse me of having a "dog in this fight" and you'd be right.

Back on point, I was upset/annoyed/infuriated by the testimony of both Samuels and LaViolette.  Both evidenced some degree of emotional attachment to Jodi Arias, an absolute no-no for evaluators.  Both were manipulated by her lies.  Both are legitimate experts in their respective fields, however their conclusions in this case were wholly discredited under cross-examination.  Both did a great disservice to real victims by taking on Jodi Arias as a client, to their own detriment and mine.  There is, however, one distinction which must be taken into account.

Dr. Samuels diagnosed Jodi with PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia.  His conclusions were based on some of the same evidence used by LaViolette.  The difference is that Samuels also used (a) two psychological tests and (b) accepted criteria published in the DSM-IV manual.  If Samuels knew or even suspected Arias had lied on these tests, I can only assume he had no ethical choice except to run with the results.  He was snared, if you will.  He knew Jodi lied to him (about the ninja story as a basis trauma on the PSD) but he excused the lie by adopting a "trauma is trauma" attitude.  Bottom line, I still don't see how the PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia diagnoses benefit Arias in any significant way beyond explaining why she told so many lies and why she claims not to remember stabbing Travis Alexander or where she disposed of crime scene evidence.  If his testimony was also meant to illicit sympathy for Arias, it failed in that regard.

Ms. LaViolette, on the other hand, was unable to do any psychological testing.  If she knew or suspected Jodi had lied to her, she could have backed out... but she did not.  This suggests she is sincerely certain of her subjective assessment of the Arias-Alexander relationship.  That said, she made a number of key mistakes to arrive at her conclusions.  The first and most grievous mistake was in failing to recognize that Jodi displays symptoms of psychopathy.  Psychopaths [often referred to as sociopaths] are, by definition, perpetrators, not victims.  Secondly, LaViolette should have insisted on being able to conduct her own interviews with as many persons as possible.  If the defense team was disallowing access needed to properly complete her assessment, she should have declined the case.  Finally, LaViolette didn't fully appreciate the difference between criminal proceedings and civil or family law proceedings.  Nor did she understand she wouldn't be allowed to tap dance around questions she didn't want to answer.  She brought new meaning to the term "hostile witness".

As a footnote, it appears LaViolette is in some trouble with the court.  The matter is being handled in sealed proceedings so we, the public, are unaware of the nature of the trouble.  I hope this eventually comes to light if it can, in any way, serve as a teachable moment to other expert witnesses.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Arias: Defining Psycopathy

I did some homework...

Jodi Arias exhibits all the key elements required for a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy. This is what a defense witness, Alyce LaViolette, fails (or refuses) to recognize and factor in when presenting her conclusions in this high-profile murder case.  Instead, LaViolette has placed all emphasis on describing the verbally abusive behavior pattern of Travis Alexander, the victim in this case, and refused to acknowledge the long-standing psychopathic behavior of the defendant.

LaViolette is a domestic violence expert with over 30 years of experience working with both abusers and victims.  She is not, however, a psychologist, a psychiatrist or a medical doctor licensed to make any clinical diagnosis.  Furthermore, her area of investigation in this case was limited to selected documents provided by the defense team and a series of interviews with the defendant totaling 44 hours -- ample time for bonding to have occurred between an expert and a manipulative defendant.

For instance, LaViolette concluded Arias must have been physically abused because (a) Arias alleges Alexander broke her finger and (b) she has a "broken" finger as proof.  Technically, Jodi has a crooked finger.  Other than the defendant's word, there is no corroborating evidence being offered that the finger was ever broken, let alone when and how it happened.  Conversely, there is state's evidence to suggest she cut the finger (likely severing a tendon) during the brutal knife attack on Alexander: witnesses testified seeing one or two of her fingers bandaged immediately after the killing; her blood mixed with the victim's blood was found on a palm print at the crime scene.

There is plenty of evidence to show Travis Alexander was a user of women.  Reasonable people could disagree on whether or not his "use" rose to the level of "abuse".  LaViolette spent a lot of time on the stand relating how he verbally abused Jodi Arias, citing examples of some of his rants contained in various phone text messages and instant messages.  What confuses me is that LaViolette did not seem concerned about the underlying causes of the rants or any of the specific accusations he expressed.  Travis calls her a sociopath and says if people only knew how sick Arias is they would spit on her.  How on earth is that not a huge red flag?!  One should also take note of the fact that Travis seemed to have had many good friends and was generally liked (a positive indicator) while Jodi has almost no friends and is generally disliked (a negative indicator).

LaViolette's testimony pivots around her extremely narrow conceptions of what defines Deception, Stalking, Manipulation and Narcissism.  She repeatedly testifies she looks for patterns, not merely individual instances of behavior, apparently using a subjective behavior-over-time analysis to assess whether or not a behavior pattern exists.
  • Deception:  LaViolette continually asserted seeing no evidence to suggest Jodi is deceptive.  "She only lied about the killing."  On the other hand, she finds Travis was deceptive solely for asserting he was a virgin.  In order for deception to occur, there must be a pattern, i.e. examples over time.  LaViolette only cited the one lie about his virginity but insists it was a pattern over time because he perpetuated the lie for purposes of retaining his priesthood.  Conversely, according to LaViolette, there is no pattern over time with regard to Arias:  she told a multitude of lies but only about the killing (from June 4, 2008 until the present) and only for the purpose of not getting caught.  Is not this a distinction without a difference?
  • Stalking:  When confronted with numerous instances which most reasonable people would define as stalking, LaViolette disagrees.  According to her narrow definition, Travis would have had to have taken steps to demonstrate his fear (e.g. making a police report or obtaining a restraining order) in order for Jodi's outrageous behavior to be classified as stalking.  While that is indeed the legal definition, it is certainly not a real-life definition. The prosecution clearly established a real-life pattern of stalking behavior on the part of Arias.  It's a tragedy that, while Alexander expresses his fear of Jodi to several other people, he clearly had not yet had time to fully assess and process the danger he truly was in.
  • Manipulation: "I didn't say Ms. Arias wasn't manipulative.  I just said I have no evidence of that.  There was no pattern of manipulation in the evidence I saw."  Arias testified she routinely used sex to "de-stress" Travis.  Alexander wrote in a text message that he felt like he was nothing more than "a dildo with a heartbeat" to Arias, a strong indication he felt sexually manipulated by her.  A co-worker of Alexander recalled an incident where he invited about 30 out-of-town co-workers to spend the night at his house during a convention.  Arias was not invited, was told not to come, but showed up anyway and spent the night there.  I have conflicted feelings about this incident as to whether it would properly fall under Stalking or Manipulation.  It may be a blend of both: arriving uninvited is stalking; getting Travis to allow her to stay is manipulation.
  • Narcissism:  LaViolette makes two memorable, contradictory statements about Arias: (1) that she suffers from low self-esteem and (2) that Arias thinks she may have an IQ up there with Einstein's.  She was unwilling to make a self-esteem judgment about Arias having written and autographed a yet-unpublished Defendant's Manifesto "in case she gets famous".  LaViolette cites Alexander calling Arias a porn star as an example of his verbal abuse escalating to character assassination.  Yet we get the impression from Jodi's testimony that she saw it as a compliment, an affirmation of her sexual prowess.  Wouldn't that remove it from the list of abuse altogether?
I copied and pasted a brief overview of psychopathy (at the end of this post) from an internet reference site; a link to the original source is included in the title.  Court watchers are encouraged to read it over and evaluate whether or not the defendant fits the diagnosis.

Why is this Important?

Jodi Arias is accused of premeditated, first degree murder.  She alleges it was not premeditated but, rather, it was spontaneous self-defense.  If self-defense, she can be convicted of a lesser crime or simply acquitted.  If premeditated, the jury will be asked to hear evidence regarding mitigating and aggravating factors then decide whether or not to impose the death penalty.  If the death penalty is imposed, it should be because no possibilty of rehabilitation is possible.  If the jury believes she is, or is likely to be, a psychopath the death penalty is appropriate as such persons cannot be treated and continue to be a danger so long as they live.

In the words of Judge Judy, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."  Most of Jodi's current "story" doesn't make sense to me.  For example:
  • Aside from Jodi's questionable testimony, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that Travis was ever physically abusive toward her.  Furthermore, jurors should ask what would be the more "natural" reaction to someone dropping their new camera:  body slam the person... or yell at the person while grabbing the camera to see if there's any damage to it?
  • Jurors should recall the extent of the injuries Arias claims to have sustained on June 4.  All that comes to mind as of this writing is a sore shoulder (probably from stabbing him 29 times).
  • Jodi needed an explanation for her crooked finger that does not involve June 4 in order to support her initial "story" of not having been in Mesa on the day of the murder.  The convenient solution to support her current "story" of self-defense is to claim Travis broke it during a previous incident of physical abuse.  A simple x-ray, even one taken this long after the fact, would support her claim yet none has been provided.  The obvious inference is that an x-ray would not support her story that the finger had been broken.  I find it very difficult to believe that Jodi's love-of-self would have allowed a broken finger to go untreated to the ultimate effect of it becoming deformed.  She could have given any excuse for the break to a doctor; she could have (at the very least) told someone that she had a broken finger.  She did not.  Nobody ever saw her finger in a splint.  If she received the injury on June 4, she could not have gone to a doctor and leave evidence behind.  One last point, she told Ryan Burns she cut her fingers on a glass at "Margaritaville" -- a non-existent establishment where she claimed to have been employed -- and she specifically used the word "cut".  I continue to assert the finger does not look broken to me.
  • The best self-defense is escape.  If she truly was afraid for her life, she surely would have and certainly could have escaped from a naked, dripping-wet man.  Instead, her first thought for self-defense was to run into a closet, climb shelving and grab a gun she thought wasn't loaded.  This part of the story is further complicated by (a) friends of Alexander saying he did not own a gun, (b) shelving which can't be climbed and (c) no ammunition was ever found in Alexander's home.  If, in fact, a gun was hidden in the closet, Arias most likely put it there herself.
  • If Jodi was, in fact, body-slammed (and the intent of Travis was to kill her) she would be dead today.  She would not have been able to immediately get up and run to the closet.
  • There is no adequate explanation for where the knife came from.  Arias claims it was used to cut a rope used during a sexcapade earlier in the day.  She thinks she must have taken the rope and thrown it into a "dumpster somewhere".  One difficulty with this story is that people don't generally use knives to cut ropes if scissors are readily available (and in this case they were).  Another is Arias needs to invent a reason for the knife being in the master bedroom area.  The rope is the "excuse" for having the knife.  When a rope wasn't found at the crime scene, Arias postulates she must have disposed of it (although she doesn't really remember).  What evidence did she think was on the rope that prompted her to remove it?
There are many more examples to show that not one of Jodi's stories, to date, can pass the smell test.  If the jury decides this killing was in self-defense, they will do so based solely on her words and not on the myriad circumstantial and physical evidence pointing to premeditation.  I have great empathy for the defense attorneys.  They simply have nothing to work with.

How to Spot a Psychopath

What kind of person could be a psychopath?  Professional have highlighted a few warning signs. They include:
  • Playing on our sympathy: Psychopaths will use us, will hurt and rip us off – then heartlessly play to our sympathetic feelings - and we blindly believe them and tend to let them off. But if this happens often, it shows a lack of conscience so don’t be fooled by their cheap and empty words.
  • Being manipulative: Psychopaths, in general, love to play with your emotions. They want you to jump, squirm, feel anxious or afraid.
  • Being a parasite: The psychopath will use their charm and persuasion to get you to pay, or to meet their various needs. There’s rarely any benefit or payoff for you. You’re just being exploited – you’re a pawn in their hands. 
  • Being deceitful: They’re con men who’ll trick you and lie constantly. Their life is a deception; you can’t trust a word. But if you point to a snag in their tangled web of lies they’ll vehemently deny it, and jump to their defence. 
  • Highly charming: Psychopaths are usually charismatic characters. That is, they’re often mesmerizing, can pull in a crowd, and make a person feel like they’re a famous movie star. But it won’t last forever … they drop you and move on.
  • Conceited: Psychopaths are caught up with themselves and their importance. They’re boastful, proud, haughty, heartless, arrogant – and like to undermine, criticise and put you down.
  • Are never to blame: The psychopath believes that they are never to blame - and they won’t accept any culpability.
  • Being highly reactive: Although psychopaths can quickly cover up their anger, they will overreact to perceived slights and offences … or to insufficient deference, recognition and respect.
  • Risk-takers: These types of individuals are extreme risk takers who draw in others to their games, schemes and plans. They’re hungry for power and they seek control – regardless of the risks or the danger this entails.
Note: Research indicates that psychopaths cannot be treated.  So put up your guard and keep a healthy distance – and don’t ever form a relationship with them.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Travis Alexander: Loved to Death

There's no doubt in my mind that Jodi Arias loved Travis Alexander.  Bobby Juarez, Matt McCartney and Darryl Brewer should be down on their knees thanking God every night for the rest of their lives that Jodi didn't love them as much as she loved Travis.


Random thoughts on today's trial coverage...

If I hear Alyce LaViolette support her opinions of Jodi and Travis based on "the evidence I've seen" one more time I think I'll have a meltdown.  She hasn't got a clue just how much evidence she hasn't seen!  Now, if I put on my defense attorney hat, I have to admit hiring LaViolette was a strategic necessity.  She isn't a psychologist or psychiatrist.  Force her to focus solely on domestic abuse and she may not notice the depth of Jodi's psychopathy.  Solely from that standpoint, the strategy worked fairly well.  What has backfired is that her failure to recognize and admit that Jodi is an abuser has gone over like the proverbial lead balloon.

Jennifer Willmott needs to sit down.  The more she scrambles to rehabilitate LaViolette's testimony, the more ridiculous they both look.  The jury is pissed off and frustrated that LaViolette was manipulated by Jodi and her defense team -- and their 159 questions all show that.  The more LaViolette protests that Jodi was not an abuser/manipulator/stalker, the more likely it is Jodi will get the death penalty.

One of the jury questions had been regarding how many times LaViolette had testified in a criminal trial on behalf of a man.  Her answer was, "One or two times."  Juan Martinez just got her to admit that was perjury.  She has never testified in a criminal trial on behalf of a man.  BUSTED!

Martinez, still in followup, can't get her to admit some of her own testimony earlier in the day regarding Jodi being (or rather not being) a manipulator.  She's still insisting she "saw no evidence" to support that.  [cough]  Actually, she saw two pieces of evidence which she opted to disregard.  BUSTED!

"Hypothetically speaking, would your opinion of domestic abuse change if you learned the defendant has lied in this case?" asks Martinez.  OBJECTION!  SIDEBAR!  SUSTAINED!  He rewords the question... OBJECTION!  SIDEBAR!  Again the question is reworded.  "It would depend on what Miss Arias lied about.  Once again, I'm looking for... patterns of behavior," said LaViolette.  She goes on to needing more information about what type of lie it might have been (suggesting it probably isn't going to matter to her anyway).  Now he's nailed her, pointing out her own "lie" about having experience testifying for males in criminal court.  "Did you tell the jury that with the same degree of certainty with which you told them the defendant was a victim of abuse?" [crickets]  Flurry of unsustained objections ending in a sidebar.

[Juror #11 is ill and has been excused from the trial according to Judge Sherry Stephens.]

"So people who tell lies are liars, right?" asks Martinez.  It took him awhile to get the answer he was looking for but he did get it.  "Yes," LaViolette replied.  [LMAO]  In context, LaViolette refused to admit that Jodi might be a liar because she didn't see a "pattern" of lies (she "only" lied after and about the murder) while, on the contrary, LaViolette had characterized Travis as a proven liar based solely on his claim of being a virgin.  Apparently, LaViolette doesn't see the inconsistency.

Martinez finishes up by showing the jury that LaViolette will not concede her evaluation was defective because she was not able to interview Travis.  By extension, the implication is that we all know Jodi is a liar; Travis can't give his side of the story; and LaViolette doesn't have the Big Picture.  Well done, Mr. Prosecutor!!


What's this?  Following one last juror question and followup by the State, Judge Stephens dismisses the jury and addresses LaViolette:


The record will show the jury has left the courtroom... Miss LaViolette, we will need you to return on Tuesday to complete your testimony unless I release you from your subpoena prior to that time.  There is another issue that the... I think you are aware of the additional issue... this is a priority... [LaViolette speaks to the Judge, inaudible]... don't tell me about your personal issues.  Here's my concern.  My concern is that we will have a conversation on Monday, on the record, after everyone has had an opportunity to follow up on the issue we've discussed and at that time I will hear anything else.  You will have made preparations and we can talk about it at that time... You are still under subpoena.
Wow!  Sounds like reporters will be scrambling over the weekend to find out what's going on with that.

Fonda Under Fire (Again)

Veteran actress Jane Fonda has been cast in the role of former First Lady Nancy Reagan in an upcoming film entitled, "The Butler."  Casting such an outspoken leftist in that particular role has some U.S. War Veterans outraged.  Fonda -- nicknamed "Hanoi Jane" in reference to her highly controversial trip to North Vietnam in 1972 -- has a flippant response to the outrage: [people should] get a life.

Nobody can deny the fact that the Vietnam War was hugely unpopular.  And I find nothing wrong with hating a war -- any war -- on principal.  However, what she did in North Vietnam was both appalling and shameful.  Whether she ever made a public apology for the trip or whether she ever even had a change of heart regarding it, I don't know and don't particularly care.  An adequate apology would be hard to come by, at least for me.  Her outrageous display of contempt for our men and women in uniform -- in the middle of a war! -- broke my heart.  Yet even though forgiveness doesn't seem likely, to continue to trash her for things she said and did forty years ago provides me no emotional reward.

Jane Fonda was then and still is one of my favorite actresses; only a select few in the trade can tackle both dramatic and comedic roles with equal perfection as she can [cf. "Klute" and "Fun with Dick and Jane"].  I won't advocate for a boycott of The Butler... I think the casting director had a good eye to spot Jane for the role of Nancy Reagan.  Both women have a similar build and carriage which is an important consideration when casting a historical role.  I am confident Jane can and will portray Nancy as Nancy would wish to be portrayed.  Hopefully the screenplay, which I know nothing about, doesn't get in the way.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Arias: Sex and the Priesthood

Arias Trial - Witness Bias

I take back anything nice I ever said to or about Alyce LaViolette.  She is no longer "credible" in my eyes.  I can't wait to see if the Jury questions reflect the outrage I'm feeling right now toward this witness.


GENDER BIAS:  LaViolette thinks Travis is a big fat rat liar because he was not telling the world the truth about his lack of virginity.  Gasp, omg, shoot a priesthood member for not wanting his church and friends to know he's had s e x.  Oh wait, Jodi already shot him.  Of course LaViolette finds Jodi to be "credible" and "truthful".  That's because Jodi "only" lied about murdering Travis.  LaViolette believes anyone who says Jodi is a pathological liar -- or even a sociopath -- is not "credible".  Later, on redirect, LaViolette asserts Jodi is not a good liar, otherwise she'd have done a better job at it.  Smart as Einstein, eh?

GENDER BIAS:  LaViolette believes Jodi was afraid of Travis even though (a) she never told anyone that until after she murdered him, (b) she never reported abuse to anyone and (c) she continued to sleep with Travis.  Conversely, LaViolette believes Travis was NOT afraid of Jodi even though (a) he told people he was extremely afraid of her, (b) he told people she'd been stalking him and (c) he continued to sleep with Jodi.  [facepalm]

REMINDER:  Following more than a week of domestic abuse testimony aimed at destroying Travis's reputation, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the subject is entirely irrelevant in this case, just another red herring presented by the "credible" [not] Jodi Arias.  In my opinion, evidence pointing to a cold-blooded, premeditated murder is simply overwhelming.  If Jodi had killed him in self defense, she'd have absolutely no reason to take a coverup to such an extreme (and, frankly, ludicrous) length.  Catch a replay of Jodi's testimony and watch her smirking as she recounts her ridiculous story.  And remember she said she couldn't say whether or not she'd have ever turned herself in if she hadn't gotten caught.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Jodi Arias Trial

Mark My Words

Travis Alexander, a 30-year-old motivational speaker, was found murdered in his Mesa, AZ, home by concerned friends on June 9, 2008.  His naked, decomposing body had been stuffed into the master bath shower stall.  Autopsy showed that, in addition to 28 stab wounds to Alexander's head, neck, chest, back, hands and legs, there were three potentially fatal wounds:  a 3.5" deep stab wound to the heart, a gunshot wound to the head, and his throat had been slashed from ear to ear.  Obvious, if ineffective, attempts had been made to clean up the crime scene.  The tape of the 911 call reveals immediate suspicion was directed on Alexander's ex-girlfriend and stalker, Jodi Arias.

Alexander's digital camera was discovered in the home's washing machine, apparently destroyed in a wash cycle.  Digital photos which had been deleted were recovered from the camera's intact sim card by forensic experts.  Images of both Alexander and Arias before and after the killing place his time of death at approximately 5:30pm on June 4th.  Other evidence pointing to Arias recovered at the scene included bloody strands of hair and a bloody palm print on a bedroom wall.  Lead Detective Esteban "Steve" Flores remarked he'd never had a case with so much physical evidence.

Arias gave authorities a series of stories about her whereabouts on June 4th and the circumstances of Alexander's death but eventually confessed to the killing, asserting self defense.  She has been charged with first degree (premeditated and felony) murder.  Prosecutor Juan Martinez is seeking the death penalty.  Notable quotes by Arias in media interviews following her arrest on July 15, 2008:
The evidence is very compelling. But none of it proves I committed a murder.
No jury will ever convict me. Mark my words.

What's a Witness to Do?

In general, I have a favorable opinion of the domestic abuse expert currently testifying in the Jodi Arias trial, Ms. Alyce LaViolette, when it comes to her understanding of the various dynamics of domestic abuse. However, in addition to her obvious gender bias in favor of female victims, she is showing a complete lack of understanding of how a witness must behave in a criminal trial.

To date, she has been admonished untold times by Judge Sherry Stephens to "wait for the question," "answer the question," "answer the question, yes or no," "listen carefully to the question," "answer only the question," "do not volunteer information," "if you need to clarify, you can do that on redirect."  Is it any wonder Maricopa County Prosecutor Juan Martinez is getting exceptionally testy with her?  LaViolette's irritating the hell out of me... and tainting her credibility.  I think I'll keep a tally of judicial interventions today...
Witness Admonitions (to LaViolette):  3x
Sidebars (due to LaViolette's refusal to properly answer questions):  6x
Jury Directives (to recall previous testimony to supplement LaViolette's refusals):  4x

Is Jodi a Manipulator?

Not according to the testimony of Ms. LaViolette.  There is SO much evidence to suggest that Jodi is a master manipulator that it's almost impossible to believe LaViolette saw "no evidence" of it.  For example, when Travis would go on a verbal tirade about Jodi's bizarre, infuriating behavior, Jodi "manipulates" him into calming down by refusing to engage.  On other occasions, she "manipulates" Travis with sexual encounters.  She manipulated her attorney, Kirk Nurmi, into not resigning by threatening suicide.  LaViolette witnessed a meek, soft-spoken little Jodi, afraid to stand up to Travis because that's how Jodi presented herself in her infamous journals and during the 44 hours of interviews with LaViolette... during which time Jodi was absolutely "credible".  And that, my friends, is the magic of manipulation.  Lies?  What lies?

Is Jodi a Narcissist?

Not according to the testimony of Ms. LaViolette.  Do I really have to refute this?  Jodi doesn't have low self esteem.  On the contrary, she has what might be described as delusions of grandeur.  I mean, seriously, who writes a manifesto from jail, has copies made and then autographs them for when they get famous?  Not someone with low self esteem.

Is Jodi a Stalker?

The short answer is, "Hell yeah!"

LaViolette was retained by the Arias defense team for a narrowly-defined purpose:  to regurgitate Jodi's claim of being abused by ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in order to bolster her claim of self defense in his killing.

On direct, Ms. LaViolette testified at length to explain the nature of domestic abuse and used her trademark "Continuum of Aggression and Abuse" chart to illustrate various stages and intensities of abuse.  Yet, on cross examination, she repeatedly tries to distance herself from the relevance of the chart in the context of this trial. Today, she refused to even admit the first type of abuse listed under the category of "Terrorism" refers to "Stalking" even though that's clearly the term used.  She insists that the Continuum refers only to Abuse and that abusive stalking requires the victim to exhibit fearful behavior (not just feel fearful).  By that standard, Ms. LaViolette "sees no evidence of stalking" on the part of Jodi Arias.  The fact that Travis told someone he was "extremely afraid" of Jodi due to her stalking is not credible to LaViolette since he continued to "engage" with Jodi after saying that.

Let's look at some stalking behaviors exhibited by Jodi which Ms. LaViolette asserts do not qualify as abusive stalking:
  • Continuing to call an ex-boyfriend who hangs up on you
  • Leaving a sack of groceries on your ex-boyfriend's doorstep
  • Confronting your ex-boyfriends new girlfriends
  • Crashing an ex-boyfriend's party and refusing to leave
  • Moving a thousand miles to an ex-boyfriend's general neighborhood
  • Peeking in an ex-boyfriend's window, watching him make out with another woman
  • Crawling through your ex-boyfriend's doggie door when he's not home
  • Stealing an engagement ring intended for another woman from your ex-boyfriend's house
  • Reading your ex-boyfriend's email
  • Searching through your ex-boyfriend's phone and reading text messages
  • Sending text messages to "other women" from your ex-boyfriend's phone, pretending to be him
  • Slashing your ex-boyfriend's tires (twice)
Okay, so.... none of that is abusive stalking, right?  And, if not abusive stalking, can we at least agree it's stalking?  LaViolette says no.  I'm so confused.  Travis claims to be afraid of Jodi but that can't be true because he continued to engage.  Jodi claims to be afraid of Travis but that must be true because she continued to engage, waited until he was naked and vulnerable and then butchered him?  Pass the aspirin!!

Despite LaViolette's protests, the points Martinez made on cross examination are resounding loud and clear with court watchers everywhere... that Travis and Jodi were both abusers... that Jodi was, by far, the more dangerous of the two... and that LaViolette will never admit that her biases affected her conclusions about the nature of their toxic relationship.

This whole "Jodi isn't a stalker because Travis didn't call the cops on her" testimony by LaViolette is pure sexist crap and pisses me off!!!  If a female doesn't call the cops on a male abuser, it doesn't mean she wasn't abused (because not all women report).  Yet if a male doesn't call the cops on a female stalker, it's proof positive he isn't really being stalked.  Does she have any statistics to prove that men habitually call the cops on female stalkers?  Leaving gender out of it, what if the Stalker was so sneaky that the Victim didn't even know it was happening?  What then?  Would she (LaViolette) continue to assert that no stalking occurred?  Or would she just appropriate some other word for it?  I understand she has a "special" definition for purposes of domestic abuse but I would assert that it's a bullshit definition, utterly devoid of any semblance of rational logic!!! 

Is Jodi Mentally Ill?

On May 26, 2008, just days before his murder on June 4, Travis called Jodi a "sociopath" in a text message.  LaViolette believed that statement was nothing more than a meaningless, angry abusive rant.  Excuse me?  The word sociopath should have set off bells and whistles to any licensed psychotherapist.  LaViolette should have wanted to know why Travis called Jodi that instead of just dismissing it.  At the very least, she could have (and absolutely should have) re-evaluated her unquestioning reliance on Jodi's unsubstantiated claims about virtually everything at that point.  It appears she did neither.  But then that's not her area of expertise.  With blinders on, she focuses on domestic violence and apparently fails to recognize mental illness, even in cases such as this where the illness is severe and apparent to even a non-professional.  I don't know whether or not Jodi is a sociopath in the strict clinical sense (psychopath might be a better diagnosis), but I do firmly believe she is mentally ill and, as we now know, extremely dangerous. In the same text message chain, Travis told Jodi that she was the worst thing that ever happened to him -- a point I'm guessing not even the combative LaViolette would attempt to argue against.

LaViolette testified she found no evidence of Jodi being jealous of Travis's other women.  If that's the case then Jodi is indeed mentally ill.  She says, "I love, love, love Travis" yet doesn't have the mentality to be jealous of his flirtations and dalliances?  Riiiiiiiiiight.  Of course she was jealous and she thought she could literally screw Travis into a state of fidelity (there's the narcissist at work).  When that didn't work, after a year of trying, she killed him.  The Cancun trip was the trigger -- Jodi realized he'd rather go alone than take her with him.  In her mind, not gonna happen.