Jodi Arias Defense - Going, Going, GONE!

You know the defense is in trouble when they have to count on the testimony of "expert witnesses" who have had ethics complaints lodged against them, former cell mates and ex-boyfriends (who are still alive). I suppose Arias defense attorneys Jennifer Willmott and L. Kirk Nurmi are doing the best they can, given their client is a proven liar and having little to work with to mount any type of effective defense against a murder that was so savage and brutal that it's difficult to believe the defendant has no memory of shooting, stabbing and slashing the life out of another person.  Those are the type of memories that people pray will go away.

As with the earlier testimony about Arias and Alexander's sexcapades, much has been made about Jodi Arias and her memory issues - the infamous fog that seems to roll in at the most opportune times for Arias. The memory issues are really a non-issue.  She knows what she did, I have no doubt that she remembers it all. The jury knows it too - judging by the 200+ questions asked of Arias by the jurors. Arias was aware, alert and had enough composure to attempt to clean up the crime scene and remove articles that could be linked back to her. The defense theories have been transparent.

For example - on redirect, Nurmi asked Jodi Arias if she had access to other guns that were not her grandfathers, and she named off several people who she believes would have loaned her a gun. What did that prove? Was Nurmi stating that Arias didn't need to steal a gun from grandpa? Given that he didn't ask further questions other than "did you have access to firearms", it would seem his point was just that - access = no need for theft.  Did Nurmi think the jurors would miss the point, Arias needed access to a gun that could not be linked back to her? Let's take a look at Nurmi's scenario. Arias asks Darryl or Matt, "hey, can I borrow your handgun for my road trip to Utah, just in case my car breaks down and/or I need it for protection because I'm traveling alone"?

A gun is used to shoot Travis Alexander, and the police question the friends and family of Arias and Alexander - do you think Darryl or Matt would be willing to lie and get involved as an accessory in a murder case?  If Arias had borrowed a gun, would she have returned it to the lender of said gun? If she did return the gun, a ballistics check would reveal the borrowed gun was used in the commission of a murder.  If the gun was used but not returned, Darryl or Matt would have to account for where their guns were during the time of Alexander's murder.  Arias may believe these men would not betray her, but I don't believe either men would be willing to take the rap for a murder they did not commit. Arias had to steal a gun. Nobody could know she brought a gun with her on her road trip. That was one of the weaker line of questioning from L. Kirk Nurmi during redirect, and it did little to bolster her story about the origin of the gun. If the jury doesn't believe that Travis Alexander owned a .25 caliber gun and kept it in that closet, Arias is all but done.

The expert witness the defense brought in to testify that Arias suffered/suffers from PTSD and amnesia ended up blowing up in their faces.  Juan Martinez wasted no time in revealing Dr. Richard Samuels dirty laundry for the jury.  It seems that back in the year 2000, Dr. Samuels was sanctioned by the New Jersey State Board of Psychological Examiners after two people lodged complaints against him. In one of the cases, Samuels actually made a recommendation on a child custody issue without ever examining the child's mother! In addition, Samuels was caught in a "bartering" scheme in which treatment was traded for dental work. I don't have additional details on these individual issues but I do know that he was fined $2,500.00 and ordered to undergo special training on ethics and boundary issues. He as also ordered to "cease crossing boundaries" with patients/clients or entering into relationships that could create conflicts of interest.

This is the best expert they could get?  It would be interesting to know how many experts they approached about testifying and how many turned them down - and the reasons why they took a pass on this case.  Juan Martinez questioned Dr. Samuels on the actual PTSD test he administered to Jodi Arias. In a dramatic moment, Martinez got Samuels to admit in open court that the test results he used for his diagnosis were based on Arias's 2nd story of two armed intruders killing Travis!  Although the test and the results should have been nullified because the answers were based on a story he knows to be false, and another test should have been administered based on her third/current story of self defense, but it wasn't.

When Martinez asked him why he hadn't re-tested Arias, Samuels looked like a deer in headlights. He said "that probably would have been prudent to do". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Based on these facts, his testimony isn't worth the paper it's printed on.  Scratch another witness for the defense. Who's left? A convicted felon who used to share a cell with Arias, and Alyce Laviolette, who has some expertise on domestic violence issues.  Will the defense call any other witnesses or is this their case?  Arias should be afraid, be very afraid....her lies have finally caught up with her, and nobody can save her now.  She may have signed her own death warrant by choosing to shoot dirty pool with the allegations of pedophilia against Travis. The jury may find this so distasteful and disgusting that any sympathy/empathy they may have otherwise felt for her has been wiped out with the smear campaign on the murder victim.

What will today's court day bring? Will today's forecast include fog and/or clouds?  Tune in later for an update.  Enjoy your morning and your day!