Thursday, April 18, 2013

Willmott Continues To Snipe At DeMarte's Diagnosis Of Arias

The Jodi Arias murder trial is under way, as Jennifer Willmott continues her cross examination of prosecution expert witness Dr. Janeen DeMarte. The questions this morning began with discussion about short and long term memories and how they are effected during "fight or flight".  This has been discussed in relation to Jodi Arias's alleged memory issues during the murder of Travis Alexander. The defense experts argued that Arias doesn't remember because memories were never formed. DeMarte examination of Jodi Arias found Arias didn't have "continued memory loss". They talked about what happens to the brain during fight or flight, what chemicals are released into brain etc.

The questioning became more aggressive when Willmott began asking DeMarte about the photos that were deleted from Travis Alexander's camera. DeMarte testified that Arias had continued "executive function" immediately after the killing, citing the deleting of photos and attempted clean up of the crime scene. Willmott questioned WHY DeMarte believed Jodi Arias was the person who deleted the photos on the camera. She continued to badger DeMarte about the deleted photos, and why she believed they were deleted after the murder and not before. Hmmm, let's think about this. I supposed it's possible that Travis Alexander deleted the nude photos before he was killed. But I'm absolutely certain he did not have the ability to delete the photo of himself bleeding on the floor of his bathroom. If we know Arias deleted the last few photos, it's logical to think she deleted them all knowing that she didn't want anybody to know she was ever there.

Willmott went on to discuss the fact that Jodi Arias left evidence behind at the scene of the crime, asking if this showed someone having organized thoughts. DeMarte disagreed with Willmott on the entire camera issue. Willmott asked "so leaving evidence behind at a crime scene is organized to you?" DeMarte answered "yes, because of the way in which it was done" (deleting photos and putting camera in washing machine). 


They went on to discuss Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. As hard as Willmott tried to pick the diagnosis apart piece by piece, DeMarte held her own. They covered a lot of ground, including Jodi moving to Mesa after the pair had broken up, Jodi overstepping boundaries by reading Travis's text messages and accessing his Facebook page several times - to which Willmott asked if she was aware they had exchanged passwords. DeMarte testified that she was aware of that but the unwanted behavior continued. On Jodi joining the Mormon church, Willmott asked DeMarte if she was aware that Travis sent missionaries to Jodi's house once a week until she converted. DeMarte said she was not aware of the missionaries. Willmott quipped "so you didn't get that in your 12 hours," an obvious swipe at the amount of time DeMarte spent with Arias.

On the subject of frantic efforts to avoid abandonment, Willmott asked if DeMarte was aware that Jodi left her parents home at 17 years old, stayed with a boyfriend and always worked? DeMarte said she was aware, and further Arias told her she had a minimum of 10 different restaurant jobs. Jennifer Willmott didn't seem to believe DeMarte was correct about the number of jobs. DeMarte asked if she wanted her to reference her notes, then she pulled out a nicely tabbed and organized notebook and confirmed her statement about Jodi having so many different jobs. In addition to having a minimum of 10 restaurant jobs, Arias told DeMarte she was a receptionist at a spa and caretaker of a young boy for a few months. Willmott didn't quite know how to respond to the well-prepared DeMarte, so she moved on to suicidal ideation.

Willmott asked DeMarte to cite when Jodi threatened to kill herself before June 4, 2008 ("the traumatic event"). DeMarte said that she noted suicidal references throughout Arias's diaries and journals as early as 1995. Willmott asked "but there was no specific plan", DeMarte said that writing about it was ideation which is what this characteristic is all about. Willmott asked her if she considered a teenager's depressed writing an actual threat. They went back and forth on the issue, DeMarte stating that suicide and depression often go hand and hand but were in fact different things. She further stated that one of Jodi's childhood friends (Dana or Zana?)  said Jodi talked about suicide. Willmott asked DeMarte if she interviewed Jodi's friend, she said she hadn't. Willmott to DeMarte "that didn't stop you from using that point". DeMarte answered "I was looking for a pattern". In addition Arias's parents said Arias had thoughts of suicide. 

Wow, I'm exhausted from listening to today's testimony. Jennifer Willmott began this morning using a more friendly tone and I thought perhaps she was rethinking yesterday's aggressive approach but within ten minutes her tone went back to sarcastic and accusatory. Not a pretty look, Ms. Willmott. Jodi Arias has a blank stare half the time, the other half of the time she writes or draw on the pad of paper she has in front of her. You'd never know by looking at her these days that her life is on the line, she seems strangely disconnected. Could it be that she is sensing the end of the trial is nearing and she can't face the potential consequences?

They are now discussing abuse. Jennifer Willmott is asking if she looks for patterns when looking at abuse issues. Willmott would not let DeMarte answer the question if she wasn't going to say yes or no. DeMarte wanted to explain before responding, Willmott said "I'm moving on". It was a very rude statement from Willmott, very unprofessional. By now you probably know what my sentiments are on this case. If I were a completely uninterested third party, I would find Jennifer Willmott to be very rude and bordering on badgering this witness. Just outright rude. DeMarte hasn't been sniping back thus far but everyone has their limits! Willmott keeps trying to twist her words, she just now said "you wouldn't want to mislead anybody would you"? I can barely stand to listen to this, I'm not sure why Juan Martinez isn't objecting and helping DeMarte out. 

Another defense ploy today has been to bring up a text message or e-mail, and if DeMarte doesn't know which one Willmott is referring to, she asks for clarification - Willmott then asks "you don't remember"? or "you DID read the text messages didn't you". When the defense experts were on the stand, they were provided with copies of whatever was being discussed so they didn't have to guess which one of the hundreds, if not thousands of text messages was being referred to. Willmott wants to make it look like DeMarte's review was somehow incomplete because she wants to be sure what they are talking about before she answers the question. It's making Willmott look petty at best. This has been the overall tone today, but DeMarte is being polite and actually thanked Willmott for allowing her to explain one of her responses after much resistance. Willmott sarcastically said "are you finished"? DeMarte said" yes, thank you for letting me explain". Kudos to DeMarte for not allowing herself to get sucked in to Willmott's constant challenges and bickering!

That's all I have time for today. What will tomorrow bring? Will Nurmi & Willmott file a motion for mistrial based on their own ineffective counsel? Will the defense demand a refund from LaViolette and Samuels and try to get DeMarte as THEIR witness? Anything is possible! Enjoy your evening.






52 comments:

  1. I was wondering why JM wasn't objecting more, as well. I guess he figures JD is holding her own, which she is. He probably also just wants to get this over with. This trial is absolutely unbelievable. JW should have kept it short with this witness - she is torpedoing her own case by keeping her on the stand. JD is brilliant with what she has slipped in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I so agree with you that she has shown her brilliance with so many new things that she has slipped in!!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (4/18/13 at 12:14PM),
      I think Martinez felt DeMarte could withstand the badgering and furthermore it ended up making Willmott look like a bully which doesn't further their cause at all! What DeMarte may lack in years in practice she more than made up for in her presence and her even mannered answers despite the fact that Willmott was being disrespectful! She did get some zingers in about Arias though!

      Delete
  2. JM has the opportunity to recross. I thought he played that well. Keep it short. Let JW hang herself then put the bow on his intent with this witness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last night Lenore Walker was a guest (by phone) on Nancy Grace.. She said she does use the 6 points in diagnosing BWS. And she believes Jodi was not battered. Will JM bring this up when he questions JD again.

      J Wilmott just confronted J Demarte because J Demarte didn't talk to Jodi to clarify a written statement Jodi had made something about kicking a wall). How ironic is that? Laviolette certainly drew a lot of conclusions based on written evidence.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (4/18 at 1:08PM),
      OMG so true about the hypocritical nature of Willmott's questioning. She tried to make DeMarte look bad for not following up with other people? At least she talked to other people, and didn't just take the murder defendants word for every single thing. It was so blatant that I found it laughable.

      Delete
  3. JW is being so rude and unprofessional, it's very hard to watch. I am also surprised Martinez has not objected but I guess he has something planned. Maybe the truth hahahaha. I'll be here all week

    ReplyDelete
  4. JW thought this trial would make her famous as a great lawyer. I think it's going to hurt her, especially with the way she is behaving. I wouldn't want her or The Pillsbury Dough Boy to defend me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, she is just hurting herself. She is actually looking not too bright with many of these questions and the way she is following up. Some of the badgering just makes her look dense.

      Sue

      Delete
  5. As someone who has watched both the prosecution's cross examination of the expert witness for the defense, and the defense cross examination of the prosecution's expert witness, I would note that both attorneys are equally aggressive and antagonistic towards the "expert" witnesses. Yes this is a murder trial of someone who is obviously guilty, but this site gives a blow by blow description along with strong opinions on the behavior of each of the "players" in this SHOW. However, I want to express my strong opinion that the people on this site are allowing their bias towards the prosecution sway their opinions of the attorneys (along with the expert witnesses).

    I have seen many instances of Juan Martinez trying to "trap" Alyse LaViolette into answering yes or no to questions that required elaboration for her to give an accurate response.

    Nobody faulted him for this, yet all who have opined on this site are ready to "prosecute" the defense.

    I expect that many will disagree with my take on this. As a person who admits powerlessness over the actual outcome of this trial, I, too have been sucked into the drama of the commentaries, hence my desire to comment.

    Is any objectivity possible here? Are the folks who comment on this site so "married" to their ideas that they are unable to look at opinions other than their own? I doubt it.
    This trial has certainly brought out the ugly side of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think most are reacting to Jen Wilmott this way, due to the defense's constant whining, motions for mistrial & endless sidebars. It's one thing for people on the outside to vent frustration; it's quite another thing, when the defense objects to then engages in the same behavior. You wrote of people being "married to" conclusions, which was the problem w/ defense experts. They were absolutely "married to" their diagnosis even when relying on faulty and/or incomplete evidence instead of being an "evaluator" which in medical profession (also in psychological settings) means an objective, impartial data collector; not the "treating" physician, or in this case clinician.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon @ 2:27pm

      On cross exam attorneys are not only ALLOWED but court procedures limit the majority of their testimony to ONLY yes or no answers! This was not just some arbitrary or "unfair" style or "tactic" on Juan Martinez' part! This is the rule in ALL criminal trials. Detailed responses of witnesses' are the domain of DIRECT testimony not CROSS. It was ultimately allowed to an EXCESSIVE degree in this trial because Judge Stephens is being extraordinarily permissive due to the fact that this is a death penalty case. You mentioned that you have watched both the prosecution's cross examination of the expert witness for the defense, and the defense cross examination of the prosecution's expert witness. Me too! So, let's just take today's testimony of Dr DeMarte on cross exam with JW. I'm sure that you noticed that almost entirely she answered in only yes or no's to the questions posed by JW. At one point today Dr. D stated that she could NOT answer in only a yes or no response. JW REFUSED to allow her to expound. Granted, JM did not object so we don't know if Judge Stephens would have allowed her to explain more fully her answer. ALV was an total embarrassment. I have watched many trials and I have NEVER seen an expert witness that continuously REFUSED to do her job. An expert witness' job IS to answer the attorney's questions with a yes or no. Those are the court rules and she flagrantly disrespected the court by not fulfilling her duty, in my opinion. I'm sure that My Forte has made it clear that ALL opinions are very welcome here as long as commentors are respectful. Your comment is not just expressed well but is very respectful. I have no problem with folks that don't share my point of view. It's really no big deal. Agreeing to disagree comes up in many arenas in life.

      Delete
    3. Very well said NancyB. I totally agree

      Delete
    4. Anonymous (4/18 at 2:27),
      This forum/blog isn't pro or con anything. I happen to have my personal opinions about the case and this trial, but as I've mentioned before I welcome any/all other points of view and the only comments I have deleted have been where people use inappropriate or deragatory names (most of those have been regarding defense witnesses). It's meant to be a forum. Some of us are going to agree with each other, some won't. As the writer of blog, some of my own personal views are going to come out in my summary but I am pro-justice. Just wanted to make that clear! Thank you for sharing your observations.

      Delete
    5. NancyB,
      Well written explanation of court procedures! Thank you for your contributions to this blog. You were one of my earliest contributors and I always value your input and insights. And yes this forum welcomes all points of view as long as they are respectful. I couldn't have said it better than you did! We are pro-justice. Thanks NancyB

      Delete
    6. I agree, My Forte, NancyB's response was fantastic.......thank you NancyB.

      I have been thinking about this and just wanted to add my thoughts. JM does appear aggressive at times. Especially when he is trying to get to the truth, IMO. Sometimes it may appear he is being aggressive because he is angry or mean. I don't agree that that is what is happening. He always brings it around to a brilliant point. There is a reason for the questions he asks and how he asks them. A bigger picture.

      I feel JW may have been trying some of the same tactics, but she never made a point. She never had a reason other than trying to trip up Dr. D. You can not trip up the truth. She really just made herself look like a badgering bully and not all that smart, either, IMO.

      Pro Justice! Pro Truth!
      Sue

      Delete
  6. Thank you, Anon@ 4:01 PM and NancyB@ 5:15 PM. I appreciate your respectful comments.

    I have noted your comments Nancy B, about the rules of cross examination; as I am not an attorney, I was unaware of this rule concerning cross examination.

    Still, I noticed so many times Juan Martinez trying to corner ALV with questions that were framed as (paraphrasing here), "so if not this, then that..." which would leave the testimony of the defense witness unclear.

    As an "untrained" observer, I felt that he was trying to trick ALV into stating something that she did not mean to say.

    I am willing to give ALV the benefit of the doubt that she was trying to speak "her" truth; that is the truth that she believed, and did not want her words to be misconstrued.

    That being said, after watching the expert witness for the prosecution, (Dr. DeMarte) I believe that she was better able to stand her ground with JW while maintaining her composure and not being antagonistic.

    Still,Dr. DeMarte was not being attacked in the manner that Juan Martinez attacked ALV. He (JM) certainly lived up to his reputation as a "bulldog" during his cross examination of ALV, and yes, she did respond defensively. (I personally wonder how many of us would be able to maintain composure during an attack of that proportion).

    The other thing that I wanted to mention: I think that the barrage of hatred that was heaped on ALV was excessive and unwarranted. People attacked her motives, her character, her beliefs, her sexuality, her knowledge, her core HUMANITY- her right to exist as a person.

    People blasted her on the Amazon.com site in a venue reserved for people who have read the book. It was clear that most who had posted had not read her book, but were using this site to vent their rage.

    People tried to get her removed from conferences where she was scheduled as a speaker. People started a petition against her to try to ruin her career. And finally, people made death threats. And this behavior is towards a witness, not for the person who committed the murder!!!

    This was bullying in a manner that I have never seen before. And yet, I wonder how many of these individuals who engaged in this frenzy of hatred would state that they are against "bullying" when it comes to their children. Where do they think the behavior is learned?
    From parents of course. That's what I meant when I said the "ugly" side of humanity has come out during this trial.

    Thank you for letting me state my opinion here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/18 at 6:49PM),
      To elaborate on NancyB's comments about ALV, I think most of us were outraged that she seemingly completely disregarded Travis Alexander's written words regarding fear of Jodi Arias. She believes because he continued to see her and have sex with her it proves he didn't fear her. The same could be said for Jodi's fear of Travis. She also wasn't able to admit there was a CHANCE Jodi was lying about the abuse. Not even a chance. That's quite a leap of faith to take on a woman who lied to her own attorney and Dr. Samuels. That's where the outrage comes from. Her absolute 100% certainty. Nobody can be that certain, but she seemed to use her 35 years of exp to put her stamp on Jodi's truthfulness, which was unfair and showed bias in my opinion. I know battered women don't always report abuse to law enforcement. It's one thing to believe Jodi Arias, but it's quite another to disregard the deceased victim's own words. That's where the outrage comes from on my end. I don't condone any physical threats against ALV or any other witness! That should never happen to anybody. If people don't want to buy her book that's one thing. Like the death threats against the Casey Anthony jury, that was awful and people took their outrage to the wrong channels. You are welcome to post your thoughts and comments here any time! Thank you for your post.

      Delete
  7. Why is the court not addressing the fact that Wilmott called the defense witness a Bitch, is that allowed in court? Do we need to all the Public Defenders office and ask this question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also heard a video tape which sounded like JW used the word "bitch". Since what I heard wasn't clear, I wouldn't swear to it. If she did, I say "Shame on her".

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (4/18 at 7:11PM & 7:47PM),
      I'm not sure how/if this will be addressed. I'm surprised at the many things the Judge doesn't seem to be aware of, like the tweeting! I'm willing to bet if it were the prosecutor that seemingly said that, Nurmi would have filed a motion of some kind. They may not be aware of it? I think right now they have so many issues they are dealing with they want to keep things moving forward unless it's huge. I honestly don't know! Although it sounds like she said *itch, she may deny it outright or perhaps she really did say something else that sounded like *itch. What I've heard isn't quite clear enough to say for certain.

      Delete
  8. It became apparent to me that ALV was totally biased toward JA when Martinez asked her - I don't recall the exact wording but it he basically asked her who came out on the worst end of the deal, Travis being savagely killed or Jodi being inflicted with battered woman's syndrome and she answered in no uncertain terms it was Jodi. I was taken aback by the look on her face as her venomous words spewed out of her mouth while looking directly at Martinez. I won't ever forget the hatred she obviously felt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LaViolette argued more than any other witness. She got by with a lot of out spoken words. JM had a similar tone to his voice with his own witness. Some of just have louder voices than others. Look at the videos of JA with her sweet soft spoken words and she killed a human being. So tone of voice isn't very meaningful in all situations. I generally like all people unless shown a reason not to. I do not respect Alyce LaViolette.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The public is angry and tired of manipulation of the legal system and that’s why we see some of these online statements and attacks. Most people want and expect justice for victims and society. Let’s not forget that a man who was just a regular guy, not perfect, but loved by his family and people who knew him, was brutally murdered by Jodi – she’s admitted killing him - fact. He did nothing that deserved what Jodi did to him. But, we watch day after day the nonsensical testimony on the part of the defense and there is a fear that, as in recent past cases, justice will not be done. With lawyers and paid expert witnesses, it's ‘win at any cost’. It goes beyond ethical behavior. And to top it off, Jodi is profiting from her crime from her jail cell. It's an ugly, greedy world we live in and because of that, there is no assurance of justice. That's my opinion of why people vent and are angry with Ms LaViolette and similar experts. But I am not excusing it, it just is what it is. As far as Ms. Demarte goes, I find her very credible and much more professional than any witness or lawyers so far in this case. The fact that she is young just goes more to her credit. She’s a very smart, articulate woman. Ms. Wilmott needs to be more professional in her conduct in court because I don't think she's helping her client at all. She doesn't play the hard offense card well and to me she looks like she's over-compensating for not having truth on her side. She sometimes looks like she doesn't know her facts and Ms. Demarte is getting the best of her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/18 at 7:52PM),
      Very well written comments! I agree, most people simply want justice for the victim who was murdered in his own home. It's not necessarily the trial process but the way in which this defense has chosen to completely trash the character of the man who was stabbed 27 times, shot in the face and had his throat cut. It seems the trial was more about prosecuting Travis Alexander for being abusive than it was about the real issue. Murder. In bringing "self defense" to the table, they brought domestic abuse, sexual deviancy and a host of other allegations against the victim. The defense even objected to Travis being referred to as the victim in this case! That's what is so outrageous about THIS trial.Travis was on trial. It wasn't fair, and the Judge allowed the defense so much latitude that people reached their personal limits.

      Delete
    2. Well said, My Forte. This is absolutely how I feel.

      Sue

      Delete
  11. Anon @ 6:49pm: I think JM's "bulldog" style is his way of being the voice of someone whose voice has been silenced in a vicious, brutal slaughter. My family has been where Travis' family is. 2 of my family members & a good friend where murdered & I can tell you this: the pain never goes away. Someone has to speak for these families & their murdered loved ones w/ the same intensity of prosecution as the crime suffered by the victims. If not the Juan Martinez's of the world, then who? While ALV has a constitutional right to express her opinion & does not deserve the assault on herself as a person (literally or figuratively), I do think she put her credibility as an objective & unbiased professional in jeopardy. She just flatly declared Jodi was the victim & basically spent 8 days on the stand assassinating Travis all over again to justify 29 stab wounds, near decapitation & gunshot to the head. Plenty of men have suffered at the hands of unconscionable women, yet she only alluded to the fact that women could be the perpetrators (mostly as an afterthought or when asked by jury) & always referred to "the men" in her group, as the batterers. That is inexcusable, from an expert witness; demonstrating bias/advocacy on behalf of either side. Remember the DRAGNET quote: Just the facts, m'am. Dr. Samuels did not get the same level of backlash because he didn't continually re-victimize the victim & his family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous@8:29PM I am truly sorry for your losses. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to suffer the pain of losing three people that I love and care about to murder.(or even one) I am trying to understand your perspective and appreciate that you come from a place of wanting justice for the victim.

      I want you to know that I want justice for the victim and his family also.

      I think we all would like to see the legal systemin this country actually work by appropriately punishing the perpetrator of a heinous crime.

      At the same time, I was horrified at the violence and hatred that was perpetrated against ALV.

      She may have been "wrong", had an unpopular opinion,argumentative with the prosecutor,and maybe was even "BIASED", but she did NOT deserve the character assassinations and death threats that she received.

      I know that as I write this, I will likely not change anyone's mind (nor do I need to), but once again feel strongly enough about this to state my opinion.




      Delete
    2. Well said, Anon @ 9:25!

      My heart bleeds for you, Anon @ 8:29. You have suffered what no-one should ever experience once, let along three times. There are no words to convey what all of us are feeling when we read your words.

      I also feel ALV did a huge disservice to real abuse victims, to TA's family, as well as to her own career. But that does not excuse the hatred coming to her. She is a human being, with all the imperfections that humans are are prone to. And she too is a family member to someone and has people who love her and that hatred just compounds the tragedy of the Travis Alexander murder.

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 9:25 & Anon @ 10:26: I agree & that's why I wrote ALV did not deserve the venomous comments from people on her person, via the Internet, etc. That's just misguided anger; anger that could be directed for something much more purposeful- maybe victims' rights. I do not condone people posting horrible, hurtful things, nor do I excuse those whom engage in doing so. I was truly disappointed that ALV, w/ her experience, chose to engage in the very character assassination (of the real victim, Travis) that she blamed on Travis, & now accuses those who disagree w/ her of doing. Again, I'm not excusing people's conduct for behaving this way. My family did not react like that, even when the defendant chose to represent himself. We just kept praying & hoping that the jury would see through the folly. My thoughts are still the same regarding ALV's professionalism, as she was not objective & could have made her points w/o trashing Travis- that's what the defense attorneys do, not expert witnesses. The ethical guidelines for expert witnesses can be found on www.forensic-healthcare.com/expert-role.php.

      Delete
    4. Oh, & thank-you both- Anon @ 9:25 & Anon @ 10:26, for your understanding.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous (4/18 at 8:29PM),
      I'm so sorry to hear about your own personal tragedy. Cases like these must really strike a chord for you, having lived through having family members murdered. Thank you for sharing your story and your thoughts with us.

      Delete
    6. Anon (4/19 at 12:26 AM) Thanks for the link for expert witnesses. That really helps spell this out.

      Delete
    7. So you totally truly *understand* on a visceral level and can identify with all that Travis' family has had to endure. What you and your family experienced is NOT something that you EVER get over, in my opinion. Just not impossible for it not to impact your entire life. ((((Hugs))))

      Delete
    8. Thanks My Forte & NancyB, for your kind words. I mentioned my 2 family members & friend being murdered because the victims so often get lost in the media circus. We all know who Ted Bundy, Charlie Manson & Jeffrey Dahmer were, but how many can name their victims? Very disconcerting. Unless the victims were famous, they're all but forgotten... except by their loved ones. NancyB, I agree w/ your 6 Amendment assessment. I do believe defense attorneys deliberately pick people they know they can confuse or get emotional reactions not factual deductions from. Jurors should have a modicum of intelligence, be able to evaluate information, decipher the facts & have a firm grasp of the jargon used in conjunction w/ a trial. How many people go to a dictionary to understand the meaning of a word, that may be unfamiliar? Most just skip it & hope the rest of the sentence will be a clue. That one word could change the entire context of a testimony. I'm praying for an astute jury pool, in this trial. I'm really disgusted by the infamy this maladjusted miscreant is garnering, while Travis Alexander's family suffers.

      Delete
    9. Hi All,

      I just want to say how much I appreciate this forum and everyone's well thought out posts. My Forte, I love your articles/summaries.

      Anon, I am so sorry for the loss of your family members and friend. It is devastating. A trial like this must bring bad memories. Take care.

      Sue

      Delete
    10. Anonymous (4/19 at 7:46PM),
      You are spot on - the true victims seemingly are lost in the shuffle while such great lengths are taken to protect the rights of the defendant. I understand one's right to a fair trial, but since Travis Alexander isn't here to confront his accuser, it seems so wrong to allow some of the Arias defense testimony in where there is no corroboration. No victim should ever be lost in the shuffle! I'm praying the jury will find the truth and knows the meaning of what reasonable doubt is. Thank you again for sharing such personal and private events with us.

      Delete
  12. All ALV was required to do was be objective. Answer questions that were being asked but instead tried little stunts like 'are you mad at me' and 'put you in a timeout'. She wouldn't admit that Jodi was a liar, she stated that the perpetrator was Travis and assasinated the character of a dead man. Everything she read/heard about Travis in a negative sense, she believed, anything that was in his favour she completly ignored. Does this justify what has happened to her? Of course not but she brought this on herself and fortunately or not, we live in a world where you can't get away with this BS. The 60's may have been all about peace and love and whatever, nowadays, careful what you say or do, there may be repercussions.

    Dr D was very good, she almost fell apart on a few occasions but her intelligence saved her a few times. When ever she wasn't really sure about the question or more importantly the answer she would buy some time for herself by saying things like can you repeat that, i'm confused, can you restate the question, view the documentation, brilliant. She wasn't afraid to agree with JW and even stated that she wasn't an expert but at the same time stated that she had many years of legit experience. The thing that JW couldn't get past was the testing, Dr D was exceptional when answering questions in regards to the different tests and results. The only thing that I was dissappointed with in terms of her testimony is when they had that discussion about the camera, she should have said that someone who deletes the pics and then leaves the camera in the wash is trying to destroy evidence. I think in the end she kind of said that, maybe even to the jurors questions but should have said this right from the start. Brilliant stuff by a young, novice who showed those with all the experience how it should be done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/18 at 11:11PM),
      Thank you for your well written observations! I agree that DeMarte was an excellent witness. She truly seemed to be the only one with "no dog in the race" and only wanted to provide accurate test results. Willmott questioning who deleted the photos was ridiculous. Sure, Travis could have deleted the nude photos, but I highly doubt he deleted the photo of himself bleeding on the floor. Ridiculous. DeMarte did say she believed deleting photos & putting camera through the was was an attempt to destroy evidence. Willmott argued Jodi wasn't showing signs of organized thoughts because she didn't take the camera with her. I think Jodi believed deleting the photos would do the trick but ran it through a wash cycle just to be sure. The fact that she didn't delete ALL the photos is also telling as to organized thought. Thanks for your post!

      Delete
    2. A wash cycle with BLEACH. I'm sure that she thought that would be the end of that.

      Delete
    3. NancyB,
      Did she really use bleach? I hadn't heard that. I'm sure if Arias had any inkling the software existed that could recover deleted photos she would have taken the camera and memory card with her. She thought she handled it by deleting them and destroying the camera with water. Willmott's argument that leaving the camera shows Arias had no organized thoughts was laughable.

      Delete
  13. Ms. Willmott is a (brunette) bitchy version of "Legally Blonde." Dr. DeMarte presented well because she is well-educated and professional.

    Mr. Martinez was much more aggressive with the defense witnesses (and quite more effective) than Ms. Willmott's catty and pointless line of questioning of Dr. DeMarte. With their biased testimony and refusal to answer questions, Alyce and Dick BEGGED for Mr. Martinez to be (what some characterize as) abusive. They frustrated me and I understood and welcomed his approach to them.

    Peace,
    Doe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZvegan,
      I couldn't agree with you more - Willmott's aggressive/rude style did not come across well. She seemed hell bent on "catching" DeMarte in some type of error or omission. She ridiculed her if she didn't have every text message memorized and had to refer to her notes. It was just rude. DeMarte was trying to be accurate and that seemed to be her only agenda, being accurate! Thanks for your comments!

      Delete
  14. Jennifer Willmott's cross exam of Dr. Janeen DeMarte was like an encounter between an angry chihuahua and a great Dane. The chihuahua kept jumping up for the jugular but never got past the toenails. Note to dog lovers: I am second to none in my unmitigated affection for all dogs. The aberrant chihuahua in my hypothetical was having a bad migraine day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great analogy! My little guy has borderline personality disorder. :)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (4/19/13 at 4:46AM),
      Too funny! I'm an animal lover too...great analogy.

      Delete
  15. This is O.T. but this is the stuff that I've been thinking about all week.

    In our United States of America if you are accused of a crime and taken to court, you are told you have the Constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Yes, you would be tried by a jury of your peers, but what the Constitution actually says is this: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. . .” (Amendment 6)

    Note that nothing at all is said or implied about a jury of “peers.” The kind of “impartial” jury the Founding Fathers had in mind was to be judiciously selected from the better-informed, if not educated, and fair-minded members of the community, an English Common Law practice harking back to the 12th century. In modern-day America, that tradition has taken a different twist. Jurors sometimes selected for criminal trials nowadays are not just our peers in the common sense of the word, but also, by design, the most gullible, swayable, undiscerning, unintelligent jurors possible. (think OJ & Casey Anthony)

    Jurors are sought out, by the defense, as those unsure of their own reasoning skills so that they can be easily manipulated, convinced “lurid” demonstration of innocence includes the notion of “reasoned” innocence. In that respect, our justice system fails those on trial and all of us. Defense attorneys want jurors bereft of any skills of cognitive reasoning or logic, and in the above mentioned cases they got them. Never have a lawyer and client been better matched then Baez & CA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NancyB,
      Very interesting points you posted about how defense attorneys view the ideal juror! I agree that when the defense has a weak case and all else fails, confuse them and hope it results in reasonable doubt.

      Delete
  16. Here's the rest of my comment:

    During voir dire defense atty’s seek to exclude people with college degrees, situational awareness, and especially military personnel for a purpose. Maricopa County arguably has one of the largest concentrations of retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, military officers) in the country and when this trial is over it will be interesting to see how many of them made the jury. Often if you read the voir dire questions that are used and the peremptory dismissals (those kept out) you will see how the jury was stacked. I hope to do that after this trial ends

    Unless we get back in line with the tradition of jury selection as understood by the Founding Fathers, travesties like the Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Al Capone and other hyped-up murder trials—the list is long—will continue to make a mockery of American criminal law. All of which confirm my thoughts that we need to begin a national dialogue about potential jury reforms that are reasonable and realistic.

    To my way of thinking, working to improve the jury process is one positive step to reducing the probability that dysfunctional juries will make absurd decisions. The OJ & CA verdicts have acted to undermine our criminal justice system; when a verdict is not consistent with the facts presented during trial our criminal justice system suffers. I personally am offended when a hollow platitude is offered, such as “this is the system we have and we must respect the juror’s decisions.” I do not respect decisions that are arrived at with flawed logic, bias, and ignorance of the legal instructions. To me, that indicates a system problem that can be explored and worked on.

    Maybe a professional jury pool of trained and willing individuals who are paid a respectable daily rate for their work on a trial is the answer. I’ve heard others that believe the remedy is to place legally educated experts in the deliberation room to guide the jurors through any misunderstanding of the law or lack of comprehension of their responsibility. Another idea floated as a remedy involves interaction from the judge—after the jury reaches the verdict, the judge would meet with them to determine if they used proper criteria and objective reasoning to make their decision. If they have, the verdict is then announced in the courtroom. If not, they go back to work or the judge declares a mistrial. Justice must never mirror Evil; Justice must always be a mirror for Evil so that all may see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow!! There have been some truly amazing insights posted in the comments of My Forte's fantastic blog. I thank you most especially NancyB!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (4/19 at 10:52PM),
      There have been some exceptional comments, insights and theories brought forth by readers following the trial. NancyB and Sue come to the forefront of my mind as two people who have contributed some great commentary! I'm always surprised at the number of comments and the quality of some of them is just exceptional! My hope was to create a forum where people could discuss the issues regardless of which side of the case they believed. Thanks!

      Delete
  17. I think JM was letting Wilmott "hang" herself by showing the jury how petty and disrespectful she was. DeMarte is a class act.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting!