Jodi Arias--Trial for the murder of Travis Alexander #15

3 methods for testing a gun for links to a specific crime:

1. "Blow-back" of tissues, matter from a close-up shooting;
2. Gas test for finger prints;
3. Ballistics test

@ 48:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiiBh9nWP2U

Women who kill:
Interesting stats and facts

"...Once the manicured finger of suspicion points at them..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UTALcVICOQ

@15:50
Gun forensics for shell ejection
-- Note the size, type of gun: ejections @ 3 1/2 ft; size of gun is similar to gun stolen from JA's grandfather's home;
@17: 25
-- Victim taped his apprehensions for his life from his wife much as Travis did with his friends, in writings;

I think it would be a very bad mistake for the defense to put on a surrebutal case at this point. Every one of their witnesses have been marginal and not credible. The fact remains that you can't create a case when there is no basis for their case and never will be!
I think that to drag this on longer, adding more rather cheesy witnesses is only going to hurt their client, not help her.
I heard they want a doctor now, so my first thought was that they want to try to get someone to say that the shot came first, but that would have been presented in their case in chief, not in a surrebutal.

If they are trying to play down things like Jodi's pilfering of the ring, or the Christmas tree incident, I think they are going accomplish just the opposite, and draw MORE attention to it, as well as arouse the anger of the jury with their protracted examinations, innumerable and petty sidebars, and sleazy courtroom antics.
At this point they should STOP. They still have the opportunity to cross examine Juan's witnesses and their closing statement.
I think that witnesses such as Samuels and LaViolette have hurt their case, not helped it, especially when compared to professional and believable witnesses such as Dr. De Marte.

No one they put on the stand now and nothing they say can ever change the facts of this case that have been so well presented by the prosecution---And that is the problem; they don't know when to stop. They seem not to realize that they are spotlighting every flaw in their client with a preposterous defense, and by their continual nit picking and parade of witnesses that are outrageous and not believable.

I fear this judge will allow them to continue to go on...and on...and on.
I really can't see what they can address in surrebutal that can be of significant value to their client. As mentioned above, they can only address things that come out in Juan's rebuttal.
I think the jury has had enough. The DT already takes 3 times as long to cross examine each and every one of Juan's witnesses as HE did to question them initially!

I can't watch much more of this trial, and frankly I am so angry that the judge in my opinion has let it spiral completely out of control, that I too have had enough.

IF Jodi is indeed putting artwork out there that in some way portrays likenesses of Alexander family members, than that IS abusive and a mockery of the system. I would hope Juan would file a motion to address such actions, if that is really going on.

I am going to watch the rest of Juan's rebuttal, but that's all. I will probably catch his closing statement on Youtube later, and I hope to hear the verdict.

I have a life and responsibilities, and as another friend here mentioned, it was one thing to tune in on winter days when there weren't a lot of other pressing matters or things to do. Now I am disgusted with the ridiculous circus this defense team has made of this trial.

have had no time to comment but found the whole gun finding extremely interesting and wondering if maybe that is why the surrebutal has been filed...I think judge Stephens will grant the request myself and since I agree with what 18th just said above regarding that I am gonna say once again..come on Juan..get er done!

Gizmo711 wrote:Another reason why this defense may be taking this case to the extreme is that, at 300.00 per hour per attorney can bring them a hefty pay check and how often would these same attornies get an opportunity to such a "high profile" case? So therefore they are milking it for all they can. JMO

Exactly my thots! The dteam does NOT want an end to this case.
They are milking it for the steady income it provides as well as name recognition.
Sadly, this time of advertising is NOT going to help them.
Investment returns are at some of the lowest our country has seen in decades...

carlakay wrote:have had no time to comment but found the whole gun finding extremely interesting and wondering if maybe that is why the surrebutal has been filed...I think judge Stephens will grant the request myself and since I agree with what 18th just said above regarding that I am gonna say once again..come on Juan..get er done!

IMO, the dteam is only trying to throw doubt upon this case.
I sure hope prints are recoverable (or other forensic evidence) that point back to alliances with the dteam... perhaps, little bro or sister Sue or maybe the Donavon character.

Here again, IF JA had really taken the gun from Travis' she would have be Johnny on the spot to point out exactly where she dumped the gun, the knife/rope and the clothing. Since she maintains she does NOT recall where she dumped it (or the missing hours--- something like 10?) I seriously doubt anything out of her mouth at this point. And that includes her rabid (and boring) sex sessions.... with anyone!

I have to say, as an aside, I checked on here and online in case things happened over the weekend. But a long weekend without Jodi was a weekend of much needed fresh air and sunshine, even though it rained here. Also, for those of you who follow Wildabouttrial....he/she broke his/her right ankle this weekend. So, driving in out of the question and has to get ride to court house. I told her/him to lay off the pain meds in the courtroom lest there be an outburst. LOL

wild about trial is funny... from the tweets I think it's a man...

I think walmart and tesero witnesses will come near the end of the rebutt... I'd think he'd work in reverse from the defense, working backwards dismantling each witness since that's the stuff the jury has freshest in their minds so address that first then bring them back to the premed and stuff like that near the end to refresh that back in their heads...

JA's back up plan?
Heat of passion ...? That is manslaughter with 7-20 yrs and credit for time served.
This is sad. Reminds me of baby Gabriel Johnson...

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/04/22/jodis-back-plan?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I don't understand how the Dt can throw a last minute hail mary and think it should be approved. They've had Dr. D's reports and info for a long time now, they knew what she was going to say and should have had AL counter it before it happened. So now that they see how bad Dr. D actually hurt their case they want to bring in another DV expert(the rumor is colleague and editor of one of her books)? You had your chance, you knew the info and you chose not to work with it. Isn't this the 2nd bite of the apple we learned about before? If the Dt hasn't proven their point yet they're not going too....

Possible surrbuttal witness (dteam):
Post 14781:

Dr. Geffner:
" Found this on Dr. Geffner where he testified in another case. He was discredited in this one. (Not trying to dis the doc, just trying to find how juries took to him)"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Bullet point: 22
" ... The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner's affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark's conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark's childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark's attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner's affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue. ..."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A-h44Sjj_i9MJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fbulk.resource.org%2Fcourts.gov%2Fc%2FF2%2F956%2F956.F2d.68.92-2142.html+dr+geffner+testified&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page592

Case was Clark vs TX

One thing that I think came out that was really good with Dr. D and I think the jury picked up on it too if I remember some of the questions properly... According to us, and everyone else it seems and the jurors AL could find abuse in everything, you can't function around another human without abusing them in some way... She found patterns in TA's behavior to us seemed absurd. Dr. D also found patterns in TA's behavior but they were isolated to some e-comm... She said yes his words were mean but he was acting that way because she violated boundries and he was having to reset them, push her back. She said out of the tons of e-comm the handful of 'mean' ones were just that a handful, not a big deal and not abuse. Also interesting all the patterns found by Dr. D when it came to JA but AL found nothing but a victim... You'd think she'd at least admit there was some tit for tat but she wouldn't even go for that, all or nothing...

" ...The question of what evidence is to be considered proper surrebuttal is one of first impression in Arizona. There have been, however, several cases which had considered what evidence is appropriate on rebuttal. See Central Copper Co. v. Klefisch, 34 Ariz. 230, 270 P. 629 (1928); Lowery v. Turner,19 Ariz.App. 299, 506 P.2d 1084 (1973). These cases indicate that the decision whether rebuttal evidence should be admitted is within the sound discretion of the trial court and generally will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. It follows that the discretion of the trial court in allowing surrebuttal testimony is even greater. Surrebuttal testimony is usually offered to explain away new evidence brought out in the rebuttal presentation or to impeach the testimony presented in rebuttal. Only in rare cases will it be error for the trial court to refuse to admit the testimony. Wigmore on Evidence § 1874. ..."

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=19&xmldoc=1978421120Ariz301_1343.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

Dr Robert Geffner: Surbuttal witness for dteam?

California boy who shot neo-Nazi dad was abused: psychologist

" .... Robert Geffner was called to the witness stand by defense attorneys, who concede that Joseph Hall, now 12, shot his father at point blank range in May 2011 but argue that he should not be held criminally responsible...."

"... Geffner, a psychologist and president of the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute in San Diego, told the court that Hall suffered a "long history of abuse - physical, emotional and likely sexual" that led to Child Protective Services being summoned to his home 23 times by the age of 10.

Geffner said that such abuse, which may have included being whipped or forced to eat from the floor, can create "significant neurological and physiological problems" as well as confusing the difference between right and wrong in the child's mind.

"Children experience what's called learned helplessness, that there's nothing that can be done. They suffer internal feelings of hopelessness, helplessness," Geffner said. "There's an unwritten message that there doesn't seem to be any consequences to these types of behaviors. It teaches children this is acceptable behavior.... "

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-05/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crime-neonazibre8a41m7-20121105_1_neo-nazi-california-boy-sexual-abuse

Unquoted source:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/08/local/la-me-neo-nazi-murder-trial-20130108

On FB someone asked what's JA's ethnic background? I remember a co-worker asking her why she dyes her hair blonde and she said something like she doesn't want people to know she's part Mexican...

Someone responded that they read and i heard this before too that her dad was mexican and mom of german decent... I caught it at first but if that's true that makes JM's comment about the eye guy soooo much more funnier...

He sees a dog with a stick in the enlarged/enhanced pupil... it could be a mexican chihuahua or a german shepherd.... ah hahahahaha

Bmore wrote:I don't understand how the Dt can throw a last minute hail mary and think it should be approved. They've had Dr. D's reports and info for a long time now, they knew what she was going to say and should have had AL counter it before it happened. So now that they see how bad Dr. D actually hurt their case they want to bring in another DV expert(the rumor is colleague and editor of one of her books)? You had your chance, you knew the info and you chose not to work with it. Isn't this the 2nd bite of the apple we learned about before? If the Dt hasn't proven their point yet they're not going too....

I agree. The defense rested their case. If they wanted us to hear more, you can bet they would have kept us all tortured with more testi-baloney! But they rested. I am of the feeling that this surrebuttal is Jodi's handiwork - she was jealous of Dr D and pizzed off of being called immature and BPD. And Dr D is cuter and more intelligent to boot! JA wants the last word. So let's give it to her...last meal request???

I don't think any of this applies to JA, she wasn't abused by anybody... Her parents disciplined her and she didn't like it so it was abuse... Boyfriends tried to get her to go away but she wouldn't so any 'bad' behavior from them was abuse... I see a pattern in a pattern here.... No abuse and no proof of it...

Prior case:
post 14792


" ... Last minute hired hand $
http://www.ndcourts.gov/Court/Briefs/20110197.atb.htm
Sandra Martire hired experts from California (Dr. Robert Geffner) and Georgia (Dr. Phillip Kaplan) to come in at the last second, with little to no objective / substantive knowledge of the case, to critique Dr. Hein Kolo's findings and to comment that Sandra was psychologically stable and was not alienating the children. ..."

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page592

Geffner:
Prior cases
Post 14793

"Geffner not credible

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...urr&SizeDisp=7
O'ROURKE v. O'ROURKE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
November 3, 2009 Session.

The trial court found the testimony of Drs. Bernet, Walker and LaBarbera to be persuasive, but it did not find Dr. Geffner's testimony credible

Despite the trial court's announced sanction, it gave Dr. Geffner a great deal of latitude in his testimony at trial, even in the face of continued objections by Father's attorney. During almost a full day of testimony, the witness was able to fully express his criticisms of the purported defects in the evaluations performed by the other psychiatrists and psychologists in this case, and his opinions of the relative fitness of the parties for parental responsibilities, even though he never met Father.


The trial court ultimately found that Dr. Geffner was simply a "hired gun" and that his testimony was completely without merit. In light of the deference that the appellate court is required to give to the credibility determinations of the trial court, it appears unlikely to us that any additional testimony that Dr. Geffner might have been allowed to give would have had any effect on the ultimate outcome of this case. We find that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a discovery sanction on his testimony and that, in any event, Mother has not demonstrated how his testimony was in fact limited in a way that affected the outcome. "

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?26892-Jodi-Ann-Arias-shot-and-stabbed-her-ex-boyfriend-Travis-Alexander-to-death-%28Part-II%29/page592

you also have to wonder if since his girl AL was testifying in the case if he watched it.... If so then how can he come in this late in the game and say Dr. D is wrong? Also, wasn't it KN that said the jurors would be lying if they said they haven't seen anything about the case since it started? Couldn't Dr. G be lying if he said he didn't either???
Poor Dave Hall has been banished from the court room, watching the trial on TV, supporting his bro's family and being there for TA because the Dt wanted his gun video and was going to call him, that didn't happen. They(JA) did it for control to keep DH out from supporting the all of the Alexanders because he was very tight with TA... If the state doesn't use him then that's all it was about...

Freckles wrote:

Bmore wrote:how does the Dt get to decide other possible charges, isn't that the states job? I'm guess this is a motion that can be denied, let's hope so...

Try to mitigate down as the state won't plea bargarin.
All or nothing... she has admitted to the murder.
Go, Martinez!

BTW, I would not want her out and about in... 20 years or less!
Fry her! I got extra marshmellows!

We have a few electric supply companys as tenents in our buildings! JCP&L, PSE&G & HESS! I know one of them, heck all of them, will have no problem suppying the electric needed for free!

I understand it's only to be on the jury instructions but I just don't see how the Dt can throw in this manslaughter/quarrel/passion bullsh!t... that should have been done prior to trial not when you think your case is lost grasping for some last hope... And I'd hope JSS says no since that isn't their defense and there isn't any evidence or testimony so far to support it, they've rested their case and this isn't part of it. It would be just something to confuse the jury this late in the game....

these are from the FB site... She has a habit of making pics of TA's family...

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis#!/photo.php?fbid=417426105000204&set=pb.160510210691796.-2207520000.1366724326.&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis#!/photo.php?fbid=464014867007994&set=pb.160510210691796.-2207520000.1366724146.&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis#!/photo.php?fbid=463881533687994&set=pb.160510210691796.-2207520000.1366724146.&type=3&theater

thought from FB... after leaving TA's house how much gas did JA have? When did she fill it up? Did she use the gas cans from the trunk? this could of been discussed already but wouldn't she of needed to gas up her car before getting out of AZ? Wouldn't she of ran out prior to getting to Utah? So if she was in this fog for hours and still some what in it when she was with Ryan Burns then how did she use her gas cans to fill up the car? If you can function while in a fog to do things that are a habit how did she do the gas? My scenario might not even pertain to JA but incase it does just asking...

from fb... i think this sums up the men in her life perfectly...

James Mary - Arias thought she hit the jackpot. A young man like none other she'd ever known. If not a virgin, one with very limited sexual experience. She had been through wild Bobby Juarez, who was very young, and whom she couldn't ever control and moved on after he got some maturity under his belt. Matt McCartney, who's wandering eye proved he couldn't be controlled for long. Daryl Brewer, who was older and already had one bite of a bitter apple in that he was divorced and wasn't some kid she could push into marriage. Then comes Travis, the proverbial jackpot, in her eyes. Good looking, good future, unattached and malleable, or so she thought. She would give him what he never had, a total 3 holes bared freak in the bedroom and pretend to be a good Mormon girl on all other fronts. Problem was Travis didn't fall for it/her. All that time and trouble she had invested in him came up a big fat zero. The more he disengaged, the harder she fought to get him, until she became beyond enraged. Not only was he not marrying her, he was outplaying her at her own game. I'm sure she did end up feeling like "used toilet paper", but only because, in reality, that is what she acted like.

Bmore wrote:thought from FB... after leaving TA's house how much gas did JA have? When did she fill it up? Did she use the gas cans from the trunk? this could of been discussed already but wouldn't she of needed to gas up her car before getting out of AZ? Wouldn't she of ran out prior to getting to Utah? So if she was in this fog for hours and still some what in it when she was with Ryan Burns then how did she use her gas cans to fill up the car? If you can function while in a fog to do things that are a habit how did she do the gas? My scenario might not even pertain to JA but incase it does just asking...

She gassed up in Pasadena, Desert Hot Springs and Buckeye, AZ.
She had plenty of gas in cans to get to Utah without gasing but IMO, she pulled over to gas, get rid of evidence late the night of June 4, and she placed the phone calls at or near same location.

Next gas stop: Salt Lake City on her trip to Yreka.
She was booking it then as she had to go to work.
She did, however, stop at Sparks, NV (outside Reno) to grab more gas.

Question:
Why rent the car when, according to JA, everyone in her family had multiple cars except for Angela? (Interview with Flores.)
Why borrow gas cans when her father probably had plenty of them? IMO, did she want someone else' prints on the cans IF it went wrong? Did she plan on burning down his house, too? I could see her doing that... she is so evil!

ok??? if she bought gas in Buckeye, AZ then she wasn't a ghost in AZ she was there, an hour away...

Not to be rude to anyone who lives or loves AZ but looking at google maps I have to ask this... Are there only like 4 cities (Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale & Tucson) in AZ to live? Everything looks like it's either state parks, mountains, or uninhabitable desert... there are a couple patches of green that have streets...

Bmore wrote:ok??? if she bought gas in Buckeye, AZ then she wasn't a ghost in AZ she was there, an hour away...

She didn't use her credit card there, so no record. Her phone was off so she was kinda a ghost in AZ.
IMO- the gas cans was not just to be a ghost- she could buy gas with cash - may be there was a plan C like arson

i thought the cas gans was so she wouldn't have a trail either by credit card or video camera's at the gas station...

Bmore wrote:I don't understand how the Dt can throw a last minute hail mary and think it should be approved. They've had Dr. D's reports and info for a long time now, they knew what she was going to say and should have had AL counter it before it happened. So now that they see how bad Dr. D actually hurt their case they want to bring in another DV expert(the rumor is colleague and editor of one of her books)? You had your chance, you knew the info and you chose not to work with it. Isn't this the 2nd bite of the apple we learned about before? If the Dt hasn't proven their point yet they're not going too....

I agree. Nothing more should hold up mthis case any longer. They all had their time to prepare, and to change from "self defense" to crime in the "heat of passion" will change the entire setting. This should not be allowed. These poor jurors have to get back to their own lives. Enough with this Jodi Arias shifting stories.

I think Dr. G is to rebutt Dr. D about the non-abuse... but the jury instruction BS.... c'mon seriously?

Bmore wrote:from fb... i think this sums up the men in her life perfectly...

James Mary - Arias thought she hit the jackpot. A young man like none other she'd ever known. If not a virgin, one with very limited sexual experience. She had been through wild Bobby Juarez, who was very young, and whom she couldn't ever control and moved on after he got some maturity under his belt. Matt McCartney, who's wandering eye proved he couldn't be controlled for long. Daryl Brewer, who was older and already had one bite of a bitter apple in that he was divorced and wasn't some kid she could push into marriage. Then comes Travis, the proverbial jackpot, in her eyes. Good looking, good future, unattached and malleable, or so she thought. She would give him what he never had, a total 3 holes bared freak in the bedroom and pretend to be a good Mormon girl on all other fronts. Problem was Travis didn't fall for it/her. All that time and trouble she had invested in him came up a big fat zero. The more he disengaged, the harder she fought to get him, until she became beyond enraged. Not only was he not marrying her, he was outplaying her at her own game. I'm sure she did end up feeling like "used toilet paper", but only because, in reality, that is what she acted like.

You wrote that perfectly. Fits Jodi to a tee. Great post.

Gizmo I didn't write it, just reposted from facebook... James Mary takes the credit for that one but it was spot on for the men... Had to share... :)

Hello all, new here to posting, have been following along as a reader.

about had it with the "fb", a bunch of regurgitated, emotion filled non-sense.

my personal take on the request for jury instructions.. When it applies to a case, defendants do not have a duty to offer up any explanation, but may. It's up to the pro to prove "BYD" for the charges they brought upon the defendant. However, if I understand things correctly, if a defendant does choose to offer up an explanation, they have a constitutional right to have their "theory" offered up in the jury instructions, for typically a lesser charge than brought on by the state. Of course, the pro would have to disprove the defendants theory "BYD" for those charges also. The problem I'm seeing with this, in this case, is that the defendant did not offer up a theory of "heat of passion"/quarrel", so I'm not exactly understanding how their request would apply and be approved by the judge.

welcome sassy. that's what i was saying, this quarrel/passion has NOTHING to do with their case in chief so how is it relavant to put in the jury instructions? There hasn't been anything in this trial to support such a motion.

Bmore wrote:Not to be rude to anyone who lives or loves AZ but looking at google maps I have to ask this... Are there only like 4 cities (Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale & Tucson) in AZ to live? Everything looks like it's either state parks, mountains, or uninhabitable desert... there are a couple patches of green that have streets...

No offense taken, it is a legitimate question. Phoenix is home to about 3.5 million people. The Phoenix metropolitan area (Valley of the Sun) is made up of many cities that simply flow into each other. There really isn't any open area between the cities. I took a list of the cities (below) from a Wiki page. You mention "green". Consider that the Valley is actually desert terrain. Greenery, in the sense that those of you up north think of it, is not indiginous to this area. The greenery you see in the cities is transplanted here and maintained by man made water systems. The greenery you see on maps of outlying areas is obviously farm land. Within the cities there is plenty of trees and lawn; so, it really doesn't seem like we are without greenery here. However, every time I travel to northern states, I find myself in awe of the lush, green landscapes.


Common name: Phoenix Metropolitan Area
Valley of the Sun
Metro Phoenix

Largest city
Phoenix
Other cities
- Apache Junction
- Avondale
- Buckeye
- Carefree
- Cave Creek
- Chandler
- El Mirage
- Fountain Hills
- Gilbert
- Glendale
- Goodyear
- Guadalupe
- Litchfield Park
- Mesa
- Paradise Valley
- Peoria
- Queen Creek
- Scottsdale
- Sun City
- Sun City West
- Sun Lakes
- Surprise
- Tempe
- Tolleson
- Youngtown

Population

Ranked 14th in the U.S.
– Total
4,192,887 (Census 2010)
– Density

252.9 /sq. mi.
111.08 /km2

Area
16,573 sq. mi.
37,744 km2
Country
United States
State(s)
Arizona

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

So I'm not out in left field? As in, the state said you premeditated a murder but you, as a defendant, try to argue that you walked in on your lover in bed and you are claiming heat of passion, you have the constitutional right to have "heat of passion" included in the jury instructions, because the jury may believe that to be accurate, that it was heat of passion and not premed.

Part 2 of my mini rant this AM~

I don't think the judge should allow the defense to present a surrebuttal. There is no earth shattering "new" evidence, and as for this Dr. Geffner, this whole thing smacks of the fact that all their former witnesses bit the big one and totally tanked, and now they want a 'do over'!

In the first place, this new witness is not qualified to 'rebut' Dr. D.
I am sure he has not had time to do in depth interviews with Jodi or give her all the tests that Dr. D did, as well as evaluate them all---more than once.
It's ridiculous!

Another thing---In my opinion there should be a cap or ceiling if you will, on what a court appointed attorney and tax payer funded defense can spend on one person's defense. Jodi's defense has already surpassed well over a million dollars---JUST THE DEFENSE, NOT THE PROSCUTION COSTS, and I feel this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jodi Arias has had WAY MORE than a fair trial in my estimation, and I don't think the taxpayers of Arizona owe her any more. There should be some kind of a determination of a fair cost for a proper defense and the DT told that X amount is all that they will have---Use it wisely.

How dare this ugly, deviant, sick woman now feel that she is entitled to a 'do over' or more, more, more, because she doesn't like the way the tide in this trial is going.
(Guess what, sweetie---It's never going to go your way. The facts just don't support you!)
According to law, she isn't even entitled to a 'surrebutal', and by all accounts the lack of one WILL NOT AFFECT AN APPEAL.
I am losing respect for the judge in this case, and I think she would be very wrong to grant a defense request for this new Dr. as a witness when he has not done the necessary work with regard to Jodi TO REFUTE ANYTHING!

I figured you'd be the one to jump on that! lol... I realize your climate has everything to do with it but i zoomed in and flew around the state and there weren't really any streets in a 'town' type set ups in the 'desert' colored areas, saw that the the cities were clustered and green... Where I am there isn't much area that isn't built up, we also have coastal water access so everything is green here...

-------

http://www.realitychatter.com/viewtopic.forum?t=4304