*Updated to include information on the mysterious dismissal of Juror #8. Radaronline.com is reporting that 52 year old Daniel Gibbs was arrested for "an extreme DUI" on April 20. Gibbs apparently told the arresting officer that he was a member of the Arias jury panel. The arresting officer met with Judge Stephens on Tuesday in a closed-door meeting and Juror #8 was dismissed on Friday.
In an abbreviated court session today, medical examiner Kevin Horn returned to the witness stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Prosecutor Juan Martinez guided the jury through Travis Alexander's wounds, with Horn describing the effect each of the major injuries would have likely had on him. The defense has insisted that Arias shot Alexander as he was preparing to attack her. She testified that the gunshot came as somewhat of a surprise as she believed the gun, which she claims was Travis' to be unloaded. Does it make a whole lot of sense to point a person's unloaded gun at them? Hmmm. (blunder #1 of many).
Martinez and Horn discussed the effect a .25 caliber gunshot would have to a person's head at great lengths. Horn said the gunshot, while not fatal would have incapacitated him "within seconds", rendering him unable to perform "purposeful actions". Arias testified that after she shot Travis, he became more angry and aggressive towards her - (blunder #2). Then the fog rolled in and Arias doesn't have any memory of slashing him 29 times and cutting his throat from ear to ear. Mr. Martinez asked Dr. Horn if it would be possible for a person who had been shot in the head to continue to advance towards a person, and Horn said "no". If the person were walking forward, their momentum may take them another few steps before falling.
They showed the graphic crime scene and autopsy photos, it never gets easier for the family to see. It's heart wrenching to see their agony as these photos are displayed. Arias appeared to be crying, or dabbing her eyes and nose with a tissue while keeping her head down - but again the camera caught her staring at one of those graphic photos. Off the charts on the creepy scale. The photos of deep slash wounds to his hands were shown. Horn testified they were consistent with a person raising their hands in a defensive posture. "Would he have been able to raise his hands to protect himself if the gunshot came first?," Martinez asked. "No", Horn answered. They went through the major injuries including what the state believes was the first injury, the deep stab wound to his chest. Martinez went through any possible scenario in which the defensive wounds could have occurred if he had been shot first as Arias claims. Jennifer Willmott handled the cross examination, and quickly pounced on that inconsistency early on in the investigation where Detective Flores stated that Dr. Horn believed the gunshot had been the first wound.
She poured it on thick, challenging Dr. Horn's memory of his testimony given in court in early January. He didn't recall his exact testimony and she was quick to point out each and every inconsistency or misstatement. "Didn't you testify originally that the gunshot wouldn't have immediately incapacitated Travis?", Horn clarified that the gunshot wouldn't have been immediately fatal, but it would incapacitate him within seconds. Willmott did her job in pointing these issues out, but it doesn't change the facts. She questioned if the bullet's entry into his head could have caused him to bleed into his nasal cavity, which would then cause the blood to aspirate out as seen on the bathroom mirrors and sink? Horn didn't believe he would have been able to stand at the sink!
It was like a tennis match, back and forth. They discussed the decomposition of the brain at autopsy and how that may have effected his findings about exactly how much damage that gunshot did to his brain. I took the following away from this testimony: it seems highly improbable that Travis was shot first, although to me it doesn't make much difference because it was so violent and horrendous that "overkill" seems to be an understatement. Travis would not have had the capacity or ability to raise his hands to try to thwart the knife attack he was under if he had been shot in the head first. That really is the crux of the issue. Which makes Arias' story all the more ludicrous, that the gunshot only made Travis more angry and he actually was able to speak in her scenario, allegedly threatening to kill her.
It's just been reported that another juror has been dismissed for unknown reasons. Juror #8 is said to be the latest of the three jurors to be dismissed from the 4 1/2 month long trial. That's actually not bad, considering the length of this trial. Thankfully with only a week until closing arguments, it seems likely they will still have jurors plus a few alternates. The woman Travis Alexander reportedly bought that engagement ring for has broken her silence, appearing on Nancy Grace this evening to talk about Travis. I missed a good portion of this as I was not aware she was a guest. Her name is Linda Ballard Boss and she is somebody that Travis planned on proposing to at one point. He even purchased that ring, and held on to it for years after the two had parted ways. She told Nancy Grace that Travis is not at all what the defense is making him out to be. "He was funny, he never showed anger with me" and she called him a happy-go-lucky guy who loved to make people laugh. She was in love with Travis and vice versa. She reportedly saw Travis for the last time in October of 2006 when the two went to the Arizona State Fair together. "Travis loved roller coasters", Ballard Boss said. During that outing, Travis told her about a woman he had began to date - Jodi Arias. He told her that Arias was a pathological liar, and that he had caught her in several lies relating to stories she told him of her ex-boyfriends. Hmmm...anybody seeing a pattern here?
So that's it folks. Jury, you are being asked to take the word of a pathological liar. She's lied to you, under oath. At the very least, please scrutinize every story she's told. Look at the evidence. What makes sense and what does not make sense? How many coincidences do you believe there could be over such a brief period of time? If she lied about taking a gas can back to WalMart, what else is she lying about? Do you believe that gun was not her grandfather's stolen gun? Is it likely that Travis Alexander kept a gun in his house that nobody knew about, with no ammo, no holster or gun cleaning kit? And why would he keep it loose up on the top shelf of his closet instead of somewhere more logical? Why did Arias try so hard to fly under the radar on her "detour" to Mesa? Do you really think a dropped camera could provoke such an angry response from a man who took somebody trashing his BMW in stride? Is their a history of these types of allegations from the other women in Travis' life? What about his friends and room mates? There is so much for them to consider.
The surrebuttal case begins on Wednesday, expected to be a mini-marathon court session that will last "until we are finished" according to Judge Stephens. Enjoy your weekends everybody! Justice is around the corner. Can you see it?
MY CRIMETIME BY MY FORTE. A DISCUSSION OF MURDERS IN THE NEWS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most popular posts
-
Dr. Janeen DeMarte is expected to take the stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial as a key witness for the prosecution. Think of DeMarte as th... -
As the defense finishes questioning their star witness, domestic abuse expert Alyce LaViolette, many are disillusioned by her choice to take...
-
Marie "Mimi" Hall was the first prosecution witness to take the stand in the Jodi Arias Murder trial. She took the stand on Janua...
-
Yesterday, as Dr. Richard Samuels finished up his testimony the Jodi Arias defense team called their next expert witness to the stand, Alyce...
-
Episode 3 of TNT's Cold Justice uncovered a 31 year old blunder, or a mystery - depending on how you look at it. In last night's e...
http://www.leagle.com/xmlcitation.aspx?Page=0&Page1=1
ReplyDeleteFound at Leagle.com — O’ROURKE v. O’ROURKE
CYDNIE B. O’ROURKE,
v.
JAMES P. O’ROURKE.
No. M2007-01833-COA-R3-CV.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.
November 3, 2009 Session.
Filed November 10, 2010.
(This was a very protracted divorce/custody case. Father eventually prevailed. Mother hired Geffner and court found him to be nothing more than a “hired gun”)
This is directly quoted from the above website and offers insight into Geffners testimony regarding the use of the MMPI on the mother (whom other psychologists had found to have “”maladaptive personality traits” that caused her moderate difficulty in functioning, including difficulty getting along with other people and dealing with family members.”.
“In his affidavits, as well as during nearly a full day of trial testimony, Dr. Geffner challenged the use of the MMPI and other psychological tests by Drs. Bernet and Walker. He stated that questions of domestic abuse and family violence implicated a specialized area of psychological practice which required a totally different testing regimen. He testified that he himself was an expert in the area of family violence and abuse, as shown by numerous publications he had authored and by his participation in professional societies that focus on those areas. These included the Natural Resource Center on Family Violence and Sexual Assault, an organization he had founded and in which served as president.
Dr. Geffner testified that none of the other psychiatrists or psychologists involved in this case possessed credentials similar to his, and he declared that the lack of such credentials rendered any opinions they might have as to the relative fitness of Father and Mother for parenting responsibilities suspect at best.9 He also stated that when a mental health professional conducts an evaluation outside that professional’s expertise, it raises serious ethical issues. He accordingly recommended that Mother file ethics complaints with Vanderbilt and the State Licensing Boards against the other mental health professionals involved in the case.
Dr. Geffner testified on cross-examination that he no longer treats patients, but devotes all his time to consulting work related to his specialty. Father’s attorney questioned Dr. Geffner about his participation as an expert witness in a number of cases in different jurisdictions. These included Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992), a criminal case from Texas in which the court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendant’s attorney, with no independent verification of the information.
The court likewise excluded Dr. Geffner’s testimony in Hawaii v. French, 129 P.3d 581 (Hawaii 2006), which involved allegations of child sexual abuse. In State v. Supulvado, 655 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1995), the court limited Dr. Geffner’s testimony because he mostly relied upon information supplied by the defendant and because although he is not a medical doctor, he tried to testify about the effects of brain damage on emotional functioning. Dr. Geffner acknowledged that he has testified in a great number of cases, but stated that he did not remember very much about the facts of those particular cases.”
Linda read the most beautiful poem that Travis wrote for her on the Nancy Grace show. It made me very sad. And yes, I can justice coming.
ReplyDeleteOh, I missed it! I hope they re-run that episode over the weekend.
DeleteI am just praying that justice actually does prevail in this case. I'm worried about the fact that juror #8 was dismissed after "Wurmi" returned from judge's chambers. I think the defense attorneys are trying to eliminate jurors they feel or know are not buying their case.
ReplyDeleteI just hope this doesn't end up like OJ and CA! Travis' family needs and deserves the peace of mind of knowing this psychopath is locked up for a long time.
Especially worrisome to find out about juror 8 being dismissed after hearing that he was one of the jurors who submitted a lot of questions... And we all know the general "flavor" of most of the questions. No wonder why Wilmott had a huge grin on her face!
ReplyDeleteDo any of you wear glasses as part of your normal daily routine? I do. And I know, therefore, that Jodi is not crying tears from her eyes! When one actually weeps from ones eyes there are two obvious things that happen; first of all, you want to wipe your eyes, and thus remove the eyeglasses. Secondly, and more importantly, tears immediately stain (salt water drops) the lenses and usually cause a REAL fog to form on the lenses. the eyeglass wearer will ALWAYS wipe their glasses off on a cloth, their shirt, or some other item. And a real glasses wearer won't use a paper cloth or paper tissue to do that unless there is nothing else available as paper easily leaves little scratches on the lenses. As prescription lenses are rather expensive, you want to treat them with care.
Has anyone ever seen Jodi wipe hers lenses after she has "cried"?
You are right about the glasses. I have not seen her not one time wiping her eyes only her nose. She wasn't crying at all. Why should she? She wants to get rid of him and she did what she planned and she is happy. All her activities after she killed him show that she is glad that he is gone.
DeleteOff Topic... My Forte, this blog has been a great
ReplyDeleteplace for information. I hope you continue with
the next trials coming up. Andrea Sneideman
& Travon Martin.
According to ABC news in Arizona, juror # 8
ReplyDeletewas charged with a DUI over the weekend.
That is why he was dismissed from the jury.
I read each of your blogs! I don't know what you do "in real life", but I am sure whatever it is, you approach it with fairness, intelligence and integrity! PLEASE keep up the good work, and keep commenting on current trials!
ReplyDeleteTheVocalVaper
ReplyDeleteIs this is juror #8 ???
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/Jodi-Arias-trial-Valley-man-arrested-for-DUI-tells-officer-hes-on-jury-5-days-later-hes-excused#ixzz2R
NancyB,
DeleteNothing gets past you! Yes, radaronline just posted a story about Juror #8 getting "an extreme DUI."
Dr. Horn said, with definite tone of voice, "the gun shot while not fatal would incapacitated him within seconds" and at another time when he was asked the same quetion again he said "probably." Can anybody make comments why his statement is not consistent? Could this statement creats doubt in the jury's mind?
ReplyDeleteME's can only give their "opinion" of how a patient died. When it's a criminal case, they may have a medical opinion of how the victim died but, I imagine that can change after crime scene info becomes available. I don't see it as inconsistency so much as blending the ME's opinion together with LE's crime scene info. When the ME examined him, he may not have known about the aspirated blood in the sink etc. That surely plays in with his final opinion of how the victim died. The bottom line is, he can't say "Yes, that is exactly what happened" since it's based on his opinion, so "most likely" or "probably" is his opinion of what was the most probably scenario. Only Jodi and Travis really know how it played out.
DeleteThe ME can and did definitively state on Jan 10th and yesterday in his testimony that the GSW did penetrate through Travis' frontal lobe of the brain. When JW was trying to put words in his mouth he told did not equivocate on this and told her that "it is simple geometry."
DeleteAnon @ 11:37 - you are mostly right but there ARE certain things that he said that are a medical certainty. No one shot through the frontal lobe can still get to the sink, curse at her, try to grab her or any of that crapola. Just scientifically impossible! The velocity of the bullet alone causes such major shock waves to the brain that results in immediate neurogenic shock and unconsciousness. That is fact and Dr Horn was crystal clear on those points. After working as a RN for 15 yrs in NeuroIntensive Care and another decade in Trauma Centers ER's I can assure you that the GSW could not in a million years have come first. The horrific defensive wounds on his hands prove this.
This slutty (sorry) defense team has not chosen to put their OWN ME on the stand. Interesting. Is that because they were unable to find one to dispute such basic medical facts as Dr Horn has testified too? Was even Dr.Werner Spitz refusing to lie this time for gobs of money?? Maybe I am wrong as we really do not know how many witnesses the defense intends to call during their sur-rebuttal next Wed. I do hope they haven't located a hired gun ME because then I WILL worry that Anon@ 9:47's comment may prove to be accurate and confuse the jury. Though, I pray that this jury is too smart for those shenanigans.
NancyB, thank you for your response and, knowing you're a trauma nurse you've seen some crazy stuff!
DeleteI keep hearing "talk" online about people being shot in the head and still being able to walk or run but, when you look deeper, there's usually some weird thing like a hair weave that blocked the bullet or a plastic hair barrette etc.
I guess I've just always believed she shot him first, the gun jammed so she resorted to stabbing him but, since that coincided with HER Ninja story, it's probably the opposite and, like you said, she stabbed him first.
Poor Travis:( I really wanted to believe he was shot first just for the lack of suffering but the mere fact that she said she would have shot him first to be "more humane" is probably proof enough that she did indeed stab him first. RIP Travis.
No. His statements were consistent and any attempt to try and say they were is coming from the smoke and mirrors style of the defense or the 4 jodiariasisinnocent bloggers posing as 100 different people. Desperate times require desperate measures.This jury SEES everything. But denial (the defense's perspective) is a wondrous powerful thing. She will be convicted of M1 and J Arias will appeal the case based on grounds of ineffective counsel which will be summarily DENIED DENIED DENIED.
ReplyDeleteFrom your mouth to God's ears.
DeleteThank you for your answer. I am not by any means her supporter or the defense. I just asked the question because I heard it on HLN when some people expressing why he, the doctor, said it at one time definitely and at another probably. Now I understand the reason why when I read the comment of the person who respond to my question.
DeleteNeedles & Pins and NancyB,
DeleteI think Willmott's attempt to downplay the potential damage that "small caliber" bullet would have done was ineffective. The ME may have forgotten his exact testimony from almost 5 months ago, but he seemed crystal clear on the fact a person would be rendered incapacitated within seconds. Arias has him getting more mad and even speaking, after being shot in the head. Ridiculous and the jury will see right through this. I pray they make a list of lies she's told UNDER OATH, and then decide if her stories make sense, and if they believe she's lying about one thing her entire story falls apart. JM needs to hammer home premeditation now! Thanks for your comments
I haven't watched the entire trial so I'm wondering, does anyone know if the BMW being trashed and Travis not being upset by it, was brought up?
ReplyDeleteYep …. out of JA’s mouth herself. I think she went so far as to say “he was nice about it”. For some reason I really love that story …. smart as Einstein!
DeleteThen Juan brought it up when cross examining JA. He said, “When you wrecked his BMW, he didn’t get angry at you, did he?” She said no. Martinez said he even helped you file a claim with the insurance company and she said she did it herself. She even lied about that.
ReplyDeleteDisgusting that this has to be tolerated until CONVICTION!
https://twitter.com/stark3923/status/327820221245173763/photo/1
Chris Stark @stark3923 2h
Paypal PROOF – Jodi Arias BROTHER Carl is collecting money for #JodiArias ART sold in Feb 2013 = EXCLUSIVE pic.twitter.com/MdsfRV5N24
NancyB,
DeleteThis is the most sickening display of greed I just want it to stop! I would love the taxpayers who are footing the bill for her trial to know she has 100 Limited Edition pieces "coming soon"! Apparently her art is selling well. This is gone well beyond her helping her family with travel expenses. What can we do? This just pisses me off!
NancyB,
DeleteChange.org has a petition set up to ask Wordpress to stop these online art sales.