The Jodi Arias Trial--Fatal Attraction – The Murder of Travis Alexander

[BlueTiki]

And now . . . accusations of "Witness Tampering" attacking LaViolette:

Video Here

Tampering allegation begins around the 1:22 time stamp.

[Jimbone]

What a circus this case is. She's loving it!

[HairOfTheDog]

Tweet, tweet, jailbird. Craziness.

I've seen Donovan Bering's name come up before. She's the friend of Jodi's who told the media that Jodi's migraines were caused by being awoken at 1:00 or 2:00 am (which turned out to be bullshit).

I understand that she knows Jodi because she's the girlfriend of one of Jodi's ex-jail mates, Ann Campbell. Campbell is the person through whom Jodi tried to smuggle the coded magazine which was (allegedly) intended to be delivered to Matt McCartney.

Jodi has a lovely group of female believers and fans upon whom she is able to cast her magical spell.


Ann Campbell......Donovan Bering....................Alyce LaViolette.....................................
(Despite the uncanny resemblances, I don't believe any of them are related.)

Snipped from the story Tiki posted in #580, another clear example of Jodi Arias's low self esteem:

But she also uses Twitter to further what appears to be a healthy business selling her art from behind bars.

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

[username]

Jodi Arias Operating Twitter Page from Jail with Outside Help

"Jodi Arias is at the center of one of the highest profile murder trials the valley has ever seen. And now she's tweeting from behind bars.

But how can Jodi Arias use Twitter from jail? She doesn't have a computer. She does it through this woman -- Donavan Bering -- a close friend Jodi talks to almost every night on the phone."

Story and Video Here

Un-fucking-believable!

She gave Nancy Grace the cyber finger though.

[BlueTiki]

She gave Nancy Grace the cyber finger though.

Hmmmm . . .

I wonder if LaViolette would consider "the finger" as an expression of anger?

Or the comments made against Martinez as character assassination?

[HairOfTheDog]

Just got caught up on the last 2 days of trial. One juror was dismissed today due to illness; down to four alternates now. LaViolette is done with her testimony, but has to be back in court on Tuesday for some matter (don't know what).

Through the looking glass…

The juror questions for Alyce LaVioltettes, to me, reflected complete skepticism of her evaluation, her testimony, her objectivity... Doesn't mean that the prosecution has a sure thing; not all jurors submit questions. But, it’s clear that LaViolette did not sway the jury in the way that the defense team and Arias had hoped. High priced clunker.

I didn’t read/hear any questions that were clearly favorable to the defense claims; a huge hit to the Arias and team as they near closing of their case. LaViolette was touted as their top gun witness and Arias's best hope.

I lumped some of the best juror questions (and LaViolette's answers) into categories. The Q & As aren't verbatim in some cases; relied on HLN tweets as reference.

[HairOfTheDog]

LA VIOLETTE: JUROR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

REGARDING: JURORS STILL APPEAR TO VIEW JODI AS A LIAR AND MANIPULATOR

Juror Question: Please state how confident you are that Jodi did not lie to you.
"Like, ever? I don’t believe she lied to me about significant things. I don’t have reason to believe she lied to me. I don’t have evidence to support she lied to me. Is it possible she lied to me about things? It’s possible," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: It has been proven that Jodi has lied multiple times… how are you able to know everything she is saying is truthful?
"I don’t, I don’t know everything she told me was true. I know that I have enough to back up with the information that I got… to believe that she is telling me the truth about things. That she lied after the killing of Mr. Alexander does not make her a liar. It makes her a frightened human being," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Do you think Jodi could have lied to you to help her case?
LaViolette says she didn't think Arias was lying and that former boyfriends never accused her of lying.

"I don’t find it unusual for people to lie when they’ve done things abhorrent in their own lives," said LaViolette. She brings up Lance Armstrong and Bill Clinton. "People lie when they are afraid and they are afraid of the repercussions."

Juror Question: Do we have any reason to believe Jodi has not manipulated you as she has others?
I didn't use Jodi as my evidence, I used so many other thing sto look at. So I don't believe that Jodi manipulated me because the evidence that I looked at wascorroborated by other people. I mean, it's possible. I also don't have any evidence that she's been manipulating people. So I'm not sure where that actually came from," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Please explain why you believe Jodi isn’t manipulative, before or after the killing.
"I don’t see a pattern of manipulation in the way I would define it… I think anybody can be manipulative. What I look for are patterns and I didn’t see that in the materials that I read," said LaViolette.

Juror Question:: You keep saying Arias wasn't manipulative. "Is it possible that your definition of manipulation differs from others?"
"Yes," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: "Is it possible your definition (of manipulation) is wrong?"
"Sure," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Who did you speak with from Arias' past to find out if she had a pattern of being manipulative?
"I wasn’t able to interview anyone from her past directly," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Do you consider someone who says "no jury will ever convict me" to be a person with low self-esteem?
LaViolette says it sounds like a foolish statement.

[HairOfTheDog]

LA VIOLETTE: JUROR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2 OF 3

REGARDING: JURORS DOUBT LA VIOLETTE’S ASSESSMENT OF TRAVIS AS A CONTROLLING PEDO ABUSER

Juror Quesiton: Do you have any other evidences of abuse besides Arias' word.
“I actually didn’t see other evidences of physical violence by Travis other that what Ms. Arias told me,” said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Do you think that Alexander making comments about a 12-year-old girl during a phone sex conversation is fundamentally different than him masturbating to pictures of young boys?
"I think it’s different I just think it’s an unusual comment to make from a 30-year-old man about a 12-year-old girl," said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Do you have any proof, other than Arias' word, that Alexander ripped out pages of her journal and made her only write positive things.
LaViolette said she does not.

Juror Question: Can you explain how Arias can remember physical abuse incidents so vividly but didn’t write anything in her journal?
"I know that people remember things they don’t write down,” said LaViolette.

Juror Question: Is it possible that Alexander said some of the negative things about Arias because he was worried about her stalking and wanted to distance himself from her?
"No, no I don’t believe that," said LaViolette.

[HairOfTheDog]

LA VIOLETTE: JUROR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 3 OF 3

REGARDING: JURORS (IMO) BELIEVE LA VIOLETTE IS BIASED, BAMBOOZLED, ETC…

Juror Question: Would you change your opinion if you knew the abuse was made up.
LaViolette says she still would have looked at the psychological abuse.

Juror Question: Have you ever had any physical contact with Arias – hugs, friendly touching, etc.?
"I don’t think so, I might have touched her arm, I don’t know," said LaViolette. She also said there was glass between them during their jail visits.

Juror Question: Is not the perpetrator of the greatest domestic violence, Jodi?" The juror was asking about all the stab wounds and the gunshot wound on the day Alexander was killed.
"I think what happened to Mr. Alexander is horrific. I think that self-defense..." LaViolette said before the prosecution objected. She then simply answered, "No."

Juror Question: A juror asks about a specific incident in which the prosecutor was marking an exhibit and LaViolette gave a smile and shrugged at Arias.
LaViolette says she didn't even know she was doing that, that she shrugs sometimes: "I don’t even know what to say to that question."

Juror Question: A juror wants to know why LaViolette has made eye contact with Arias and given her a small "warm" smile during breaks and sidebars.
"I have done that on occasion just to acknowledge her but no other reason... I have friends that have been coming and I look in a direction and it doesn't necessary mean that I'm looking at Ms. Arias," said LaViolette. She says she has tried to avoid that.

Juror Question: Is it possible that your view of men in general is skewed or biased towards being abusive?
LaViolette says she has great men in her life: Her dad, brother, son, brothers-in-law, friends.


LaViolette can cry that she's been bullied by meanies on the internet til the cows come home. She effed herself in every way by her own choices. She should be shamed; the criticism of her is well earned (and she's made tens of thousands of dollars shaming herself in this case). People who are making threats and harassing her IRL are idiots, imo, but she's again foolish for being surprised by any of it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Half listening to an evidentiary hearing that's going down now.

The defense is trying to get new evidence introduced at this late stage.

Apparently, this video/audio expert has blown up the shot of Travis's sullen face as he sits on the shower floor and it looks like the defense is going to claim that a reflection in his retina or cornea shows something favorable to the defense. Never seen anything like this presented at trial before.

Well, hell, their shrink and DV experts bit the dust big time. This is kinda interesting, but grasping at straws. Betting the judge will allow it in anyway to avoid any appellate issues later.

[username]

Thanks for the awesome update, HotD! I missed all the jury questions; big help.

[BlueTiki]

Apparently, this video/audio expert has blown up the shot of Travis's sullen face as he sits on the shower floor and it looks like the defense is going to claim that a reflection in his retina or cornea shows something favorable to the defense.

Claiming both hands on the camera . . . therefore, not holding a weapon.

Arias is getting every penny of her (at the time of this posting) over $1.5M defense.

[username]

Martinez sees a dog.

[HairOfTheDog]

Or, a gopher. Haha.

Nurmi has nothing left to lose, he really needs to get this admitted.

I don't think the defense has done anything to create reasonable doubt against this being a case of calculated murder. Nothing to support self defense has been presented and the defense's case in chief was supposed to finish with LaViolette, who ended up being more advantageous to the prosecution, imo.

Desperate, costly, stalling...last measures here. I hope Judge Stephens rules this inadmissible, but don't think she will.

[HairOfTheDog]

Judge Stephens seems extremely irritated with the defense team.

She ruled against the defense's motion for mistrial, which Nurmi based upon Martinez's alleged intimidation and misconduct in outsude-of-jury interviews with Samuels and LaViolette. The tape played of Martinez interviewing Samuels just before his testimony was a perfectly normal exchange. Nurmi claims Martinez was leaning forward in an intimidating way. Stupid waste of the court's time.

Judge Stephens ruled that none of what the defense brought up took place in front of the jury nor does it have any potential impact on them. She added that Martinez was professional in his conduct in accordance with the purposes of his interviews with Samuels and LaViolette.

I don't know what happened behind closed doors with LaViolette, but both Martinez and Judge Stephens seemed highly annoyed when they referenced her today; will be interesting to see what it's about when she's back in court tomorrow.

[username]

I'm not sure why Martinez agreed to stipulate that Jody wasn't holding a weapon. She could have had it in the waistband of her pants.

[BlueTiki]

I'm not sure why Martinez agreed to stipulate that Jody wasn't holding a weapon. She could have had it in the waistband of her pants.

Waistband = not in hands = not holding.

Never stipulated that she wasn't possessing.

My guess: The jury would have found this witness, his "science" and conclusions, credible.

[HairOfTheDog]

My guess: The jury would have found this witness, his "science" and conclusions, credible.

Either that or the expert's conclusion just doesn't help or hurt the prosecution case in any way and not worth the time/effort.

The prosecution never contended that Arias was holding a weapon in her hands when taking the shower photos. She could have had the knife in her waistband as User suggested. Or, she could have had the knife and gun hidden or in a purse anywhere upstairs and gotten to the weapons in a matter of seconds.

I'm relieved Martinez stipulated rather than go through the process of another expert witness on the stand. Hope I'm not underestimating how much value the defense can pump out of the stipulation.

[username]

I only saw the enhanced photo briefly but it didn't look that conclusive to me and I would have thought Martinez would have taken the opportunity to say that just because a knife (or gun) wasn't evident in the photo, it doesn't mean she didn't have it close by or on her person elsewhere.

Maybe he'll have the opportunity to address that later...in closing arguments or something.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's likely that Martinez only had two choices once Judge Stephens ruled the expert admissible.

He either had to face this expert on the stand, or he had to agree to the stipulation uncontested.

I don't think Martinez was technically prepared to argue the science; this was an unexpected last minute defense ploy.

Maybe more importantly, putting this expert witness on the stand could have added at least another week to the trial and thrown off Martinez's rebuttal witness' schedules again. All that just to keep the defense from making a claim based on the interpretation of a retina reflection; a claim that doesn't contradict what the prosecution has presented and doesn't support what the defense has presented.

Negative return on investment; I'd have stipulated too.