Tag Archives: juan martinez

Arias Trial 4/25

Rebuttal- Martinez

  1. Dr. Horn, the Medical Examiner is up. If the gunshot was first it would have been immediately incapacitating. Travis could have gone a step or two and then lost consciousness in seconds. JM shows many of the autopsy pics including the throat slash. The Dr. says after the shot there would be no holding onto someone, no attempt to defend, no grabbing at the knife or raising of his hands (his hands have defensive wounds), no crawling away, no walking to the sink, and no walking down the hallway.
  2. Willmott establishes the Dr. has done over 6000 autopsies, many gun shot wounds. A 25 caliber gun is not that powerful, the bullet didn’t exit as it was stopped by bone. Also he was shot from a few feet away- so even less force. She gets him to say it wasn’t immediately fatal- but was immediately incapacitating. A shot to the face can make you bleed through the nose. She tries to get the Dr. to say he told Detective Flores that the bullet would not have been immediately incapacitating. He doesn’t recall saying that. She points out he did say something to that effect in testimony- he admits he did but immediately corrected in the very next statement. Willmott tries to get him to say there was no injury to the brain and he says that you can’t see it because of decomp but that it is ‘simple geometry’ the path the bullet took. The knife wound to the vena cava is from below- Willmott points out- so from someone shorter.


Jury Questions: (paraphrased)

1.  If shot and bleeding from the nose and mouth wouldn’t there be blood on the bathroom floor?    Yes.

2.  Could you be mistaken that Travis could still ambulate (after the shot)?   No.

3.  Is there any way Travis could have still moved well?     If the bullet had not passed through his brain.

4.  How do you know he was still alive when his throat was cut?    The amount of hemorrhage requires a beating heart.

5.  How many cases have you had with a 25 caliber gun?   At least 100-200.



1.  If the bullet was the first wound would it be immediately incapacitating?   Yes.

2.  Is there any situation where a bullet goes through the frontal lobe and you are ambulatory for several minutes?    Only if you were already walking and took a step or two.

3.  If you are shot and already on the ground could you get up and walk around?   No.



1.  If still alive when the knife wound was made there would be quite a bit of blood in the hallway?   Yes, an injury of some kind happened there.

2.  The gunshot went from right downwards to the cheek?   It could be deflected.

3.  With the neck wound within seconds he would not be able to hold up his head?   Yes.

4.  After the neck wound he would have been lying flat?  Depends on where they are (he gives example of if in a chair they might stay up).


***According to Chris Stark on Twitter the judge has excused juror #8.  He is described as the ‘Dad’ type with a goatee who took lots of notes. Jurors are asked to be back on Wednesday, May 1 at 9.  We expect the Defense surrebuttal witness Dr. Robert Geffner that day. He is an editor for Alyce DeLaviolette and works in domestic violence. Vinnie Politan just tweeted they brought a bomb sniffing dog in today! 

Finished- 4/18 summary (with juror questions)

(#18 continued)

-Identity: JA changes the way she looks; implants, hair color, to fit in. Changed religion in 2 months after meeting Travis.

-Suicidal Ideation-In her journals.

-Instability: She has quick changes in emotions-all her men saw this.

-Emptiness: She told JD she often felt this way.

-Intense anger: Breaking door and windows, In journal she says she has hate inside of her. Though 1 anger score was los 2 others were high.

       19.  Travis was angry in the e-mail because she had invaded his boundaries and       lied.

      20.  JM asks if JA was a victim of abuse. JD says there was no pattern of abuse.


Juror Questions:

1.  How many forensic cases have you worked on?   I’ve been working on them for several years.
2.  How many times have you testified ?   3 times.
3.  How many cases involved abuse?     In my general practice it’s common to have abuse involved. For forensic cases I’ll need a second to think…
4.  Hypothetically if a person suffered PTSD from a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?     Yes- those would be different events. A lot of time with PTSD is there are triggering events that remind them of the trauma so a bear and a tiger would look different, smell different, act different. The subsequent symptoms would be associated with those variables.
5.  Would the person be answering the question the same whether they called the animal a bear or a tiger?     They would be answering it very different.
6.  Do you believe absolutely that it is possible to remain purely unbiased in an evaluation once compassion creeps in?    I do think it’s possible to remain unbiased.
7.  What types of people are at risk for having Borderline Personality Disorder?    Anyone’s at risk but there’s a higher rate in individuals who have been exposed to trauma and neglect in their lifetime. One of the things that’s often talked about is this idea of constantly being invalidated by family members. For example if a child gets hurt and is crying, an example of invalidation is a parent saying: “you’re not hurt, you’re fine” They’re invalidating their feelings. That increases the chances of developing BPD if it happens frequently throughout their childhood.
8.  Do you feel ‘mark my words no jury will convict me’ is part of borderline personality disorder especially since she is smiling when she says it?     That’s a sign of immaturity that I talked about before. These kinds of immature statements are often seen in people with BPD.
9.  Wouldn’t taking the camera rather than leaving it show more organizational thinking capability?    Both are an example of organizational thinking, just different types of organization with the goal being to hide the evidence.
10.   When asked by the defense about efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment you stated you had other examples for this category that did not involve Travis. Can you share those examples?
Throughout her diary she used the word abandon ‘I feel abandoned’ She made that comment at least a couple times with other boyfriends. They would cheat on her and she would continue in that relationship and subsequently befriend them despite being treated in that kind of way.
11.   Do you think trying to delete photos and washing the camera as an attempt to destroy evidence?   Yes, it gives the impressions that she was trying to destroy evidence.
12.   If you had not seen pictures proving the evidence was recovered from the camera, would you have viewed this as an effective attempt to destroy evidence?
Yes, my knowledge of cameras is that it would be destroyed if you put it in water.
13.  In your opinion is it normal for a person who is incarcerated to be depressed and have anxiety?    Yes, I’ve worked with many individuals who have been incarcerated. It’s not something unusual.
14.  Do you consider Arias shooting; stabbing and slitting Alexander’s throat a traumatic event?    It depends on how Jodi reacted it to it. If she had this horror and fear associated with it then yes, I would consider it being associated with PTSD.
15.  Why didn’t you re-administer all the tests that the previous experts had given?    I felt like the tests that I gave answered the questions I needed.
16.  Do you know what the differences are between the TSI1 vs TSI2?   There’s a slight difference but I’m not that familiar with it
17.  Regarding the PDS answer sheet, do you know whose handwriting is on it?     No, I would have to assume…
18.  Do you see any issues with Dr. Samuels filling out the answer sheet and possibly summarizing?     Yes, the only time that should happen is if there’s an impairment  (physical handicap) that prevents the person from filling it out themselves. .
19.  Does it cause concern that the written answers appear to be answered by someone who is familiar with psychological verbiage and not layman’s verbiage?
Yes, that’s very concerning.


JM is up:

  1. He asks how many forensic cases she has worked on- JD: around 75.

JW is up:

  1. JW says staying in relationships with cheaters could just be low self esteem.
  2. Anxiety and depression could be jail is not uncommon. JA still scored high on those when she did the TSI for before jail.
  3. They go over why JD didn’t use the newer version of the TSI- her workplace had not purchased it. She has only done the TSI one other time since.
  4. JW gets JD to admit if the data is transferred correctly it may be okay to hand write the answers and transfer them to the answer sheet.

Arias Trial Summary 4/15

Hearing Motions (no jury present)

  1. Grace Wong from In Session takes the stand. She is asked about whether she recognizes the faces of the jurors – she does. They show the story with JM taking pics and signing one autograph. She did not see any jurors present.
  2. Next up is Bryan Neumeister- a video/audio expert. Nurmi goes through his credentials. They bring up the picture of Travis’ face in the shower. He has enlarged it so that he claims he can see JA standing with both hands on the camera a few feet away (and no knife). The picture has lines drawn in by Neumeister to make the image clearer. He says it looks better in his lab. JM says he sees a dog and the picture is subjective. Nurmi claims it proves JA was telling the truth. JM doesn’t want the pic with the lines drawn in – let the jurors figure it out. He says it is unreliable. Judge will rule on later.
  3. Next issue- Nurmi brings up Prosecutorial Misconduct. Claims JM has bullied witnesses and deprived JA of a fair trial. He says it’s a cumulative issue, including the Fan Club. He refers to JM as: “The Great one.” JM says it was 1 incident out of view of jury. He says Nurmi wants to connect that with the social media. JM points out Wong saw nothing and they are just wasting the courts time, everyone except the defense who gets more money (implied). Judge rejects the motion as it didn’t affect the jury.
  4. Next issue- Nurmi claims that JM attacked LaViolette and bullied Dr. Samuels (also called Dr. Samuels ‘Mr. Samuels’ – degrading him). He plays a tape from closed proceedings where JM and Samuels go at it over the new exhibits- the Power Point, the Instrumental vs. Expressive (pre-med vs. not pre-med), the Time magazine article and the Brain pic. Things heat up when Dr. S. says: “… even a blind person can run the bases.” You can hear the attornies and Dr. Samuels arguing loudly. Nurmi asserts JM was intimidating the witness. JM states the proceedings were not in front of the jury and the judge was present at these proceedings. He also says LaViolette had a reason to be upset because of what was revealed. He points to the fact the Defense brought all this new evidence in the eve of the trial- no disclosure, a clear violation. He says the defense was arguing the loudest in the tape. There was no impact on their testimony. JM states the attempt to make the state responsible for the media (which they have no control of) is ridiculous when JA is actually ‘fanning the flames’ by being on Twitter through Donovan B. She is breaking the courts rule and discussing the case- even putting down the Prosecutor (his height). He wants her to desist. Nurmi says JM is trying to take the focus off himself by pointing the finger at the defendant. Twitter ‘doesn’t change the game.’ The Judge says: “There is a fine line between zealous advocacy and unethical conduct.” She says both were outside of the presence of the jury and no evidence was affected. There is no basis for a mistrial. She states: “The prosecutor was not in any way outside the bounds of proper behavior.” Regarding the Tweets from jail- Nurmi wants proof, a motion in writing and sites freedom of speech. JM doesn’t want to investigate this as he might be called intimidating again. The judge says it is a matter for the Sheriff.

Afternoon Session:

  1. There is a closed-door hearing being held with Alyce LaViolette. I am guessing it has to do with her approaching Samantha, Travis’ sister. Apparently after trashing Travis, Alyce went up to Sam and said something like: “It’s not personal.”  I am now getting rumors that this could also be about perjury. Also- Chris Stark tweets that: “Alyce to testify about discussing her testimony – rule break –in chamber today 1:15.” That is news to me. It is 2:25 as I write this.
  2. 3:14- The jury comes in. The Judge tells them that there is a stipulation: That when the picture of Travis that was taken in the shower at 5:29:20 (his face) JA was not holding a knife or gun. The jury is then dismissed and court recessed for the day.

Arias Trial Summary 4/9

Martinez vs. LaViolette

  1. JM gets AL to admit that she based her opinion ‘in part’ on the 44 hrs of talking to JA and that she found her to be “believable.” AL says she did not rule out secondary gain as a motive for JA to lie but that she focused on Domestic Violence (DV).
  2. AL only spoke to one party (JA) and didn’t speak to Travis. JM points out that because she said: “communication is 90% non-verbal” that would mean her assessment is 45% wrong.  AL says: ”No.”
  3. AL admits JA lied after the killing but maintains she was not a liar before that. JM asks who she interviewed to confirm that (no one). JM asks if she ever talked to JA’s Dad. AL: “No.”
  4. Jury is sent out.  JM brings out JA’s Dad on tape saying: “…she’s never been honest with us since then and she was 14.” AL states that this was ‘not something she knew’ and that she wouldn’t use a sound bite as part of her assessment.
  5. Jury in. JM brings up that JA told her that the cuts on her hands right after the murder were from cutting apples. (WOW) Asked if she believed it she says: “I didn’t believe that,” then backtracks and says: “I don’t recall that I focused on that.” JM points out she never checked about this with any other source and mentions this is JA’s  FOURTH story about cutting her finger. Asked if that was a problem for her AL said: “I can’t answer yes or no.”
  6. AL has in her notes: “JA told Derryl she was taking a long trip to Mesa.” She also wrote on her notes: “I thought this was a last minute decision.” AL admits she wasn’t concerned about this after talking to JA and reading other evidence.
  7. JM gets AL to admit (after a long pause to think about the criminal cases she’s been on, and because it’s apparently been a while) she bases her opinions primarily on paperwork. (Not interviews).
  8. Apparently a Manager at ‘The Purple Plum’ called JA a manipulator in particular with men. But because no one said that about her at Casa Ramos AL says that is not a characteristic of JA’s. JM says she was manipulative with Ryan right after the murder. AL did say she could be manipulative at times but when JM then says:  Then it stands to reason she was manipulative 2 weeks earlier-the day of the murder.” She responds: “It doesn’t stand to reason.”
  9. JM gets in that a friend of JA’s from High School said she was not abused and she liked to play the victim. AL say’s that’s one person’s opinion.

10. JM asks if she thinks the Text she made up was used to ‘get a rise out of Mr. Alexander.’ She says it’s possible.

11. Apparently AL believes that making out with Ryan was to ‘make JA feel normal.’

12. AL admits she didn’t ask JA certain questions because she was ‘old fashioned.’ She points out she did listen to the sex tape. JM brings out the Tape recording of his interview with her where she says she didn’t ask who initiated the anal sex (with Matt or Bobby) because she’s ‘old fashioned.’


Afternoon Session

  1. Jury is out. Hearing on the recording of JA’s Dad and Det. Flores. JM asks if knowing about her lying to her parents changes her opinion. AL: “No it doesn’t.” JM says AL’s work on this case is ‘shoddy’ and her opinion ‘flawed.’ JA saw herself as the victim. The Judge rules the state may ask if her opinion is altered by this evidence.
  2. Jury in. JM asks AL if it’s a problem re: JA’s truthfulness. AL: “Correct.” JM says she was playing the victim even though she wasn’t abused <Sidebar> as a teen. AL thought she was younger.
  3. Because AL is old fashioned she didn’t really go into questions about the anal sex- JM asks about who initiated it. She doesn’t know, just that it was uncomfortable. AL says it’s not relevant. JM points out that if it doesn’t feel relevant to her than it’s not relevant?
  4. In her interview with JM, AL misspoke and said Travis requested that it be recorded. They get off on a tangent about how she had this interview in November and then she looked at more data later. JM had a problem with this as she had already come to her conclusion in November that JA was a victim of DV. Back to the sex tape. They argue over whether it’s better to actually hear Travis than just read his texts. AL says: “No.” They fight over secondary gain. When faking the orgasms comes up she drops “Have you seen When Harry Met Sally?” JM points out there is no real way to know if they were faking. JM goes back to how she just jumped to the conclusion that Travis requested the recording showing her bias again. (my feed is cutting out)
  5. Regarding the first sexual contact; oral- JA told AL she was uncomfortable. JM says she seemed comfortable on the tape. AL points out it was 7 months later.
  6. JM says JA has nothing negative in her journals partly due to the Law of Attraction. AL says there are some negatives. JM clarifies there is nothing about any physical abuse. AL agrees. He says : “Nothing about Mr. Alexander ever laying a finger on her-correct?” AL: “Correct.” JM “Nothing about masturbating to pictures of boys?” AL “No.” JM: “But you still believe the defendant?” AL: “Based on other things…”
  7. JM asks about when Travis supposedly hit her the day she was leaving. AL admits she took JA’s word for it. JM goes into Dan Freeman’s testimony where he had a conversation with Travis about how he wanted her to leave and told her to leave. AL says it’s important but there’s no evidence and JM says: “Assume he came into court and said it.” AL admits that if that’s true it would have been important to her but it doesn’t mean there was no DV.
  8. JM goes into the fight before the trip to Havasu (sp) and Alyce does not know who started it. JM compares the journal entry which says the trip ‘didn’t start out very well’ to what Dan Freeman testified to. AL admits (after arguing) she took the journal entry as truthful. JM goes through Freeman’s testimony point by point saying “assume that” after several points proving JA’s journal entry is at the very least, incomplete. It takes a while but AL finally concedes the entry is incomplete.
  9. Regarding AL’s contention that JA has never been jealous. JM gets AL to agree (after arguing again) JA may have left her jealousy out of her journal because it was negative.

10. JM goes through what he refers to as a pattern of jealous behavior with JA’s previous boyfriends- from the phone calls to the leaving food at the door to going to see Bobby on weekends (even though he moved to Oregon) and sleeping in his bed uninvited. AL says she just has a hard time letting go. AL does admit it ‘could be the beginning of a pattern.’ JM brings up her confronting Bianca. AL says they just ‘had a talk’ and that this is not controlling or jealousy.

11. JM brings out an exhibit (I believe the ‘continuum’ she made up). He says that it’s not a pattern of jealousy but it IS A PATTERN OF STALKING!

12. JM mentions the text where Travis says he is ‘exceedingly afraid of her stalking behavior.”

Alyce in Jodi-land

Points made by the prosecution:

1.  After spending an hour building up AL’s (Alyce LaViolette’s) credentials JM (Juan Martinez) tore them down in minutes. Under cross she became an out-dated (no formal education in more than 3 decades), out of touch (she now lectures about Snow White being battered), under-qualified (because she has no PhD she cannot administer or score tests and is not qualified to diagnose anyone) joke.

2.  AL based her opinions on a 44 hour interview with JA (Jodi Arias) and her Journals. She never spoke to anyone else (just read some other things and watched the 48hrs interview). JM pointed out that despite being paid $250 and hour to read JA’s journals she could not come up with a direct answer without wanting to refer to said journals. He simply asked her if there was anything negative in the Journals about JA and she requested that he show her the journals. She had no problem with questions about the journals with the defense because she was reading directly from them as spoon fed by the defense attorney. In fact the judge actually busted her for reading from the journals directly. Not to mention these journals are just like “Snow White”: fairy tales and this is basically what this expert regurgitated on the stand for 6 days.

3. JM got AL to admit the ‘continuum’ she based her ‘expert’ opinions on was made up BY HER! She even admitted to him that she could alter it at will. When asked if there was any diagnosis for “battered Women’s Syndrome” in the DSM (the ‘Bible” of psychological disease according to the last defense witness) she admitted there is no such thing. (Oh, and if there was she is not a Doctor and not qualified to diagnose anyone).

5. Remember when AL went into great detail to point out that because Travis had come from an abusive family that he would grow up to be an abuser? (And according to her everyone else in that circumstance would unless they received some kind of therapy). Well here is how JM used the Fairy Tale “Snow White” to prove the exact same point about JA:

     -Snow White was abused by her Step-Mom and her Dad did nothing to protect her. JA was abused by both her Mom and Dad and neither protected her.

     -Snow White fled into the woods to get away from the abuse. JA fled to Bobby’s house to get away from her parent’s abuse and control.

     -Snow White ended up in a shack taking care of people. JA moved into one room of a hoarder’s house and she was the only one working and bring the food in.

     -Something bad happened to Snow White (the apple). Something bad happened to JA (Bobby choked her).

 -Snow White becomes unconscious and waits for her Prince. JA starts looking for her Prince. Unfortunately I think her Prince was Travis.

-Doesn’t this then mean JA would grow up to be the abuser according to this expert?

**Mr. Martinez accomplished all this in about 30 minutes.

IMHO: In this version of Snow White the witch was Jodi and the apple she lured Travis with was SEX!




Arias Trial summary 3/25/13

Dr. Samuels vs. Juan Martinez

  1. JM brought up the different scores the Dr. had on his PDS. Test. He says he re-did the scoring while he was in Palm Springs and he did not have the original score sheet with him and this was not intended for publishing. (The scores were different). JM calls him ‘sloppy’ the Dr. syas the criteria was met either way.
  2. JM asks if he re-scored the MCMI also- he says: “No”.  Then JM brings out another test and the Dr. has to agree there was a second scoring.
  3. JM brings up the criteria for PTSD, the D section.  He points out PTSD means Post or after the event.  D1 is about difficulty sleeping. D2 is about anger/outbursts.  JM points out JA (Jodi Arias) has had these before the event, and the Dr. is basing this upon a few phone calls to her Mom also based on just her word.  However JM gets in that she was very angry with her mom in her teens and hit and kicked her Mom for no reason. The Dr.says it got worse after the event (again based on JA’s word, JM points out she is a proven liar).
  4.  D3- difficulty concentrating- apparently reading was one example- but JM points out she read the Book of Mormon cover to cover the Dr. says he wasn’t privy to that testimony. Again JM points out this is based on her word. JM points out she also re-read her Journals beginning to end…and does that call this into doubt- Dr. says No. The second example from the Dr. is her trouble with staying on images when she is trying to relax. He does say something about it being difficult because she is in (a loud) jail and JM jumps on this, as it would not then be related to the trauma. JM points out that she had no trouble sleeping though. (Plays a recording with the Dr. actually saying this).
  5. D4-hypervigilance-Dr. says she had trouble sleeping. He does say something about it being difficult because she is in (a loud) jail and JM jumps on this, as it would not then be related to the trauma. JM points out that she had no trouble sleeping though. (Plays a recording with the Dr. actually saying this). Also she felt her personal space was invaded and the sounds and lights were intensified. JM pointed out that could be because it’s her first time in jail. The Dr. admits she had no startle response, but based on his opinion she still meets the criteria.
  6. C7- foreshortened future.  Dr. bases this on her talking to him about suicidal thoughts, though he adds she never had a plan. JM points out according to her Journals she was suicidal three other times- in High School, with Matt and in 2007, all before June 4th.JM also gets the Dr. to admit she has never been on suicide watch and this is all based on her word.
  7. C6- flat affect. Dr. based this on his conversations with her, that when talking about emotional charged events she lacked the corresponding emotions.JM points out in many of her interview- like with the detective and 48hrs she was smiling, laughing and giggling.  The Dr. said it was when describing the crime she had a flat affect. He brings up she made up an alternate universe during the interviews and JM pointed out an ‘alternate universe’ is just another lie. The Dr. said: “in your words”.  The Dr. maintains this universe was a psychological way to dis-associate from the truth.
  8. C5- detachment from others. The Dr. says she is not tuned in to to what’s around her. JM asks about personal relationships. He says she was detached from other cellmates and people in the jail. JM points out this could be as it is her first time in jail. The Dr. says that is ‘your conclusion.’
  9. JM brings up the original report submitted that did not have enough criteria to establish PTSD.  The Dr. claims the omissions are just a typo.

10. C3- inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma.  The Dr. points to the amnesia. JM asks if the fog restricts her recall and the Dr. says yes. JM brings up the Dr.’s meteorite/crater explanation (the meteorite being the stressor and the crater being the PTSD) and points out Jodi has no ‘crater’ that can be measured- no way to see inside her brain to find something wrong. The Dr. argues a bit and finally admits it can’t be measured.

Afternoon Session:

  1. C2- JA did not have.
  2. C1- persistent avoidance of anything associated with the trauma.

JM asks what efforts she took to avoid.  The Dr. says her story (ninjas) was an avoidance technique. JM points out that it was a lie.  The Dr. says it’s a defense mechanism. JM asks: “It is a story?” Dr. “Yes.” JM list the following a as things which show she did not avoid the trauma: The 20 irises to the Grandma, went on 48 hrs twice to discuss the crime, talked with Leslie about her and Travis’s kids playing together, sent a letter to the family, e-m’s to Travis right after the death writing about Travis over and over in her Journal up til the arrest, attending the memorial, driving by the crime scene (I can’t believe he got that in!).  The Dr. fought him on every point saying she was in denial that she did it so she was acting like she didn’t do it.

  1. JM went over the idea that the trauma wasn’t different according to the Dr.  between a Cop, a war vet and JA.
  2. JM gets in that JA was trying to stage the scene ‘is what she told us.’ The Dr. says that is not what she told me.
  3. JM points out that in the e-mail with the ‘3 salacious words’ Travis also said to her he was just a ‘dildo with a heartbeat.’  JM gets the Dr. to agree this sounds like Travis was used for sex.
  4. JM gets the Dr. to admit in ‘flight or fight’ after the winner is determined it is over.  (Unlike this case).
  5. JM straight out accuses the Dr. of not being objective.  The Dr. says he is trained in empathy. They go back and forth.
  6. JM points out that he is supposed to also be trained in accuracy. The Dr. said: “Well absolutely.” But JM brought up all his errors on the test scores- The Dr. still says it was typos.
  7. JM ends by saying the Dr. has ‘lost objectivity’ and the Dr. (loudly) states back : “Absolutely not!”

JW (defense) /the Dr.:

  1. Goes back to the ‘dildo with a heartbeat’ comment and asks the Dr. after hearing the sex tape if he felt Travis was being abused and he said no.
  2. JW goes over the avoidance of things regarding the trauma, like the irises, the Memorial and the nice Journal entries about Travis and the Dr. syas it’s all about avoidance.
  3. She goes into the suicides and tries to get in the letters again, and has the Dr. explain at length what happens to someone under a suicide watch in jail. (As a reason JA never told the Dr. about her actual attempts).
  4. JW talks about the clip JM played about her ability to fall asleep and now points out she had to take tranquilizers for 6-8 months first.
  5. Back to the PDS scoring again…Dr. says despite the different numbers the criteria is still met.

Jury questions: (paraphrased)

  1. In your practice do you offer patients books for free?  Yes.
  2. Have you viewed any media re: this case? I have avoided any contact.
  3. Did JA tell you about buying a gun? No.
  4. A plan with a razor? No.
  5. What’s the difference between covering up and an alternate universe? Covering up is creating an alibi and an alternate universe is a defense mechanism.

JW (defense)/The Dr:

  1. Defense mech. is part of alt universe- yes. Helps with dealing with acute stress. When JA finally told the real story how did she feel? …a weight was lifted.”
  2. JW goes into why JA wouldn’t have mentioned the suicide attempts- due to the harsh actions at the jail under suicide watch.
  3. Has he given books to patients? Yes…

JM /The Dr:

  1. JM takes him to task for all of a sudden knowing so much about what the jail does re-suicides.  He actually corrects the Dr. at one point for having the name of the jail JA is in wrong. He also h=goes back into the Dr. previously saying he gave her the book because she was ‘suicidal’.  The Dr. denies it.
  2. They go back and forth over the self help books being therapy or evaluation. JM says: They’re not for assessment?  Dr: “No.”
  3. JM says: “Covering up involves not telling the truth?” Dr.…”Yes.”

NEW WITNESS: Dr. Alyce LaViolette (and JW-defense)

Basically going over education and Credentials.  Some ‘highlights’:

  1. School in NJ, then AZ, the Ca.  Has a Masters.
  2. Worked in a battered women’s shelter and soon started a men’s group (for the batterers)- a new concept at that time.
  3. Other work: Volunteer work, training, churches, child custody, Domestic Violence, lawyers, speaking engagements from high school to representing the State Department in several countries.
  4. Has her own practice in Ca since 1984 where she counsels singles, couples and groups.
  5. Has been a key note speaker many times.
  6. Has won several awards, including Lifetime Achievement Award.
  7. Published the book: It Could Happen to Anyone” about why women go back to abusers.  This is used as a text in many schools.  She has also written many articles.
  8. She has also done a lot of forensic work (in the courts as consultant and as expert witness). She has worked for both the Defense and the Prosecution.
  9. She has been involved in legislation.

Court begins again tomorrow at 10:30.

Jodi Arias Trial 3/19 summary

Morning Session:

Dr. Samuels (S) is on cross

  1. JM (Juan Martinez) is pointing out all the lies JA (Jodi Arias) told him: she said she only had Anal sex with Travis (we know she had it at age 17 with Bobby and also with Derald later), she told the doc she was uncomfortable with Oral sex but started having it at age 15 and had it through her relationships over many years, she said Travis had many pictures of women’s breasts on his computer but no such images were ever found. The Doc implies these lies were not important to the case.  JM points out the fact she’s lying to him should be important in his assessment.  The Doctor even wrote an addendum to his original report where he could have corrected these mis-statements but he did not- he said he just answered what he was asked for on the addendum (by the Defense). JM also mentioned the lie about Travis being the one who wanted pictures in the shower. She also told the Doc that Travis grabbed her (sweater) in the closet then she grabbed the gun (that was on a recording).  The Doc also admitted she implied Travis was shot in or around the closet.
  2. THE TESTS:  JM goes through all the test answers and points out they were all based on her lie about the intruders killing Travis.  The Doc says it is still based on trauma.  JM asks if he is speculating and he says (eventually) that he is. The test the Doc gave is the MCMI which is supposed to be used for psych patients in therapy, not the general population.  Still her rating on the test was 69 and the cut off for determining any diagnosis is 75 points, implicating she does not score high enough for PTSD on this test.  The Doc says you cannot base it on one number but JM points out that that is the number indicated on her test. (JM implies he should have given her the MMPI test which is used for the diagnosis of the general population as well as others). JM reads from something stating the MCMI test should not be used as an assessment in a court case.  The Doc asks what JM is reading from and JM answers something like: “You understand I ask the questions ?” Doc: “Yes.”

Afternoon Session:

Dr. Samuels cross cont.

  1. JM agues with S over the use of the MCMI test as it is for psyc patients, not general population.  S disagrees.
  2. JM goes into a hypothetical about a cop and a knife/shooting and the chart S drew regarding amnesia.  They argue about whether the cop (with amnesia) would remember anything at the time of the amnesia.  S is not concrete on this.
  3. They argue about whether she is assertive. JM reminds the Doc that he never spoke to her friends or family.  What he says is based on JA and her Journals. JM also brings up in her Journal about how when she says she is not sure about ‘that boy’ she was referring to what she says directly after about his feelings towards families.
  4. S can’t recall what events (pedo and broken finger) happened before she        wrote ‘nothing worth writing about’ in her journal.
  5. The Doc’s original report on her qualifications for PTSD in the DSM are actually missing some requirements. JM asks him if this does not fit the diagnosis for PTSD and he says: “Correct.”

JW (defense) & Dr. S:

  1. She basically is trying to clear up the “Typos” from the report just mentioned.  He now has a new worksheet which adds several more of the requirements to qualify JA for PTSD.
  2. They go over the amnesia including his drawing.
  3. She tries to qualify his use of the MCMI.
  4. JW asks why he does not use a recording.  S explains that patients are more forthright without it.
  5. The Doc says Anal sex has nothing to do with his diagnosis.
  6. JM implies the pictures of breasts could have been on another computer.
  7. S explains that he often gives out self help books.
  8. S repeats JA is not assertive.
  9. They go over the day of the murder.  JW has the Doc repeat 3 times the scenario according to JA and his notes.  There are 2 new things- Travis pulling on a sweater and her running down the hall after shooting him.

Trial begins tomorrow at 1.

Jodi Arias Trial 3/14 summary

Session 1:

JM (Juan Martinez) is objecting to the addition of a Power Point including slides of the brain.  He also objects to some articles and what he deems new information regarding Instrumental vs. Reactive Homicide which is another way of saying not premeditated vs. premeditated (which the judge has not allowed). The argument goes back and forth between the prosecutor and the defense.  We will hear some testimony from the expert today and rule on other aspects later.


Session 2:

Dr. Richard Samuels:

He gives his credentials.  He goes on to his experience with JA (Jodi Arias) including at least 12 meetings, reading her journal and giving her 2 tests.  He says she has PTSD due to the crime she committed. This explains her memory loss, denial of the crime and flat affect.