Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6 - Part 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brattinella said:
That request for an apology is offensive in the extreme.
Click to expand...

It is. But please just try to ignore it. They are only trying to get people riled. Don't give them the satisfaction.
 
Steve44 said:
But I don't think they'll care about the reasons why, because it's a matter of life or death. They'll care about if the defendant was given the fullest possible opportunity to say all she had to say. Now, if JSS was ruling the court would be closed permanently, that would be a completely different matter, but she is not. This is a temporary blackout to allow the defendant her full say, and the public will have the entire trial before them in a very short amount of time.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This is exactly what I believe as well. :cheers:
 
AZ. If the media wins the appeal, and the witness refuses to testify will this cause a mistrial since the witness has already been on the stand. Let's say it ends up being someone the court cannot force to testify or even Jodi herself. TYIA
 
krkrjx said:
She would be given the fullest opportunity to say all she had to say even if the court was not closed. Your reasoning would lay open to question every case in the country--particularly death penalty cases and particularly high profile ones, but would question the "fullest opportunity" to have their say in each and every case. I do not see how closing the courtroom prevents such inquiries from occurring. At any rate, this is not enough of a reason for me to accept JSS ruling to close court. I need to know more before I accept she had cause.
Click to expand...
If not, the DT/Jodi will always go back to not getting a fair trial due to every kind of internet/TV overload; therefore the masses minds are already made up.

I mean, Lifetime even made a movie - "Dirty Little Secret". I don't ever recall any other trial having a made for TV movie during an ongoing trial.
 
Charterhouse said:
This question may have been answered.
Do Judges confer with each other regarding cases? For example would/could Judge Sherry have consulted another judge before she closed the courtroom to the media and public?
I really don't know if they do, but I think it would be nice if they had other judges to consult.

I think it would be a good idea for a judge, much like an attorney to become death qualified to have another judge helping them out. I don't know how that would work. It just might have saved some of the things that are going on in this case. They may already have such a thing.

Just my curiosity getting the best of me.
Click to expand...

Isn't this JSS first death penalty case?
 
krkrjx said:
It is. But please just try to ignore it. They are only trying to get people riled. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Her fleas are in a highly agitated state now, pushing buttons and offending as many people as they can. They want outrage, veiled (and not-so-veiled) threats or anything else the DT can point to and say "SEE? Look at what the media did. Look at the lynch mob." Sue is one of the worst. She seems to have taken to online trolling with a vengeance.

BTW, I'm sure everyone already knows, but most of the denizens of JAII and Occupy HLN have multiple FB/Twitter names, and use the multiples to further stir the pot by supporting their own threads and ganging up on anyone who's not pro-Arias. A perfect example is the account that was poking at KCL on Twitter the other day (@justice4jodiann). Every single tweet from that account was posted at exactly the same time and contained exactly the same content as the tweets from @OccupyHLN (aka Jason Weber and crew). They don't promote that they're the same people, but it's hard to miss. And it *looks* like she has more supporters than she does that way. Jodi's sick followers seem to really enjoy this online game of theirs, and they harass and troll any "hater" they can engage. It's adolescent, twisted and sad. I really don't understand the Alexander supporters who seem to enjoy sparring with them. It's like a bunch of angry middle school girls sniping at each other. :(
 
Steve44 said:
We don't absolutely have to. But then we may have to live with more successful appeals.
Click to expand...

I think that's where you're getting confused. There is no way to have a successful appeal because the defendant wasn't allowed to testify in private, because there is no legal right to testify in private.

ohreally said:
AZ. If the media wins the appeal, and the witness refuses to testify will this cause a mistrial since the witness has already been on the stand. Let's say it ends up being someone the court cannot force to testify or even Jodi herself. TYIA
Click to expand...

This is a great question. I would say it depends what the person has said, whether it is at all realistically possible to instruct the jury to disregard it, whether JM has had the opportunity to cross-examine the person yet, and whether JM objects to the testimony being considered if not. (He might not care, if he expects to rely more on rebuttal than cross-ex to deal with the testimony.) If it is JA, the court can order her to get back on the stand for cross-ex of what's already been covered.
 
Jmoose said:
Wow-it sounds to me like Nurmi's got her number! I think she is just p.o.'d that he doesn't find her charming enough to allow himself to be manipulated the way she'd like. I am not at all surprised that he doesn't like her. And what she cites as evidence that he isn't competent counsel, may only be evidence that she doesn't understand the ins and outs of trial-lawyering as well as she thinks she does.
Click to expand...
Why in the heck did she think she was getting a settlement conference??? Isn't that civil trials? She's not getting any plea deal. Shows her delusion. And... she expects him to visit her personally, even though she's twice refused his visits.
 
ElleElle said:
If not, the DT/Jodi will always go back to not getting a fair trial due to every kind of internet/TV overload; therefore the masses minds are already made up.

I mean, Lifetime even made a movie - "Dirty Little Secret". I don't ever recall any other trial having a made for TV movie during an ongoing trial.
Click to expand...

Lifetime broadcasting a fictional story where all of the facts were changed and only the names remained the same, that was viewed by perhaps eight people nationwide, did not sway anyone, let alone the masses. The movie bordered on ridiculous, and media in the court room has never been an issue for successful appeal.

As for media/internet, etc., court is a public venue! Trials are not to be held in secret. Some are even televised. I personally think the more open court is, the less chance there is of corruption or underhanded tactics that stand in the way of justice. IMO.
 
krkrjx said:
SHE prevents it. It (open court) does not prevent it. The onus is on her to take the opportunity given to her by law to testify and if she executes her right to decline, so be it. People do that in court all the time--execute their right to testify or not testify. And those may be DP cases, too, but it doesn't matter--every defendant has the right to testify, or not.

I must say, though, what I have bolded tells me a lot about why you want to continue to argue this. I will leave this argument now, with this: Your opinion is valid and is one held by many citizens including many here on WS. I agree with much of what you say, just not all of it. And that, my friend, has to be my final word on this because I have posted on this subject several times now and to continue posting on it would be in violation of WS TOS.
Click to expand...


I respect your desire to leave the conversation. I'm responding for the benefit of those who wish to continue it. I believe it's a thought-provoking conversation worth having and not at all OT.

Difficult and infuriating personalities like Arias do exist in our society, and must be dealt with in our legal system and elsewhere often. I agree with the ultimate importance of keeping our court system open to the public, and if I had my way it would be open always and at all times. But i've seen too many DP cases get overturned over crap like this and sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot more in return. JSS apparently had a similar reasoning, and I don't believe she made the decision lightly. The public will have it all before them shortly, but if this trial ends and JA didn't get to say what she'll claim she needed to say, for whatever reason, as maddening and infuriating as it is, this may not be the last JA trial we will ever see.
 
kolokolo said:
I think this is done by design, I think the aunt is the next witness to testify about the convicted murderers suppose abuse by her parents. I think she is trying to solicit negative feedback so she can tell JSS she needs to testify in secrecy as she is fearful of her life.

It's becoming clear what the DT is doing at least to me. I think the DT has created some pathetic new story (or I should say the convicted murderer created a pathetic new story) that she will try and sell to the jurors .... I guess the convicted murderer thinks her chances of selling her new pathetic story will be an easier sell without the media there.

JMHO
Click to expand...

"I need my testimony to be kept secret because I'm so afraid of the Alexanders and their supporters. They just blindly attack anyone who tries to tell the real truth in this case."

"Dear Jurors, feel sorry for me because Juan Martinez keeps yelling at me. Also, look at these angry texts from Travis."

Reminds me of one of the favorite tactics of a particularly manipulative person I used to have to deal with. He'd set about being a complete jerk for a period of time, alienating everyone, then whine and complain about how mean and cold we were for not wanting to spend time with him. He was also fond of the "don't blame me for getting angry when you're the person who made me angry" game.

Lol.. I actually just had an image flash through my head of smacking an old TV to get it to work better. (Kids: back in the olden days, we used to smack TV's. I don't think it ever helped, but we did it anyway.) Some people you just want to smack to get them to work better. (I've never smacked anyone, not that the thought hasn't crossed my mind.)

Jodi & Co. are of course waaaaay beyond being jerks. They are shameless, cruel and utterly reprehensible. They are so good at group evil, I can't believe that this is their first go-round. I wonder how many skeletons are in that family's closets.
 
AZlawyer said:
I think that's where you're getting confused. There is no way to have a successful appeal because the defendant wasn't allowed to testify in private, because there is no legal right to testify in private.
Click to expand...

Then what valid reason could JSS have had to rule the way she did? my arguments have been based on the belief that she did what she did for a good reason, and the only good reason I can come up with is to prevent a successful appeal in the case of a DP verdict.
 
daisydomino said:
Immediately after the M1 verdict during those ridiculous interviews, JA claimed that she did not get a fair trial in part because of the media circus.

Ironic and stupid, but that's what JA said and it might be one of the things JSS is considering now as she tries to make the
retrial bulletproof going forward.
Click to expand...

The manner in which she murdered Travis; a petite "pretty" young woman and Jodi herself contacting the media was the
beginning of this crazy circus. She caused All of this.
 
ElleElle said:
Juan could of easily taken her down for perjury.

I forgot what she lied about, but i'm there was a lie in there. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what happened and if all the gazillion documents are unsealed we may learn what it was exactly.

But it was serious whatever it was. I remember Juan said something about it when he was trying and trying and trying to get her to answer the simple question he asked her about Travis telling someone he feared JA and knew she was stalking him.

I cant remember did she come back on the stand after then?

IMO
 
I watched it. I remember when it came out and many on here watched it because I remember posting on it. I thought the movie did well in the ratings.

krkrjx said:
Lifetime broadcasting a fictional story where all of the facts were changed and only the names remained the same, that was viewed by perhaps eight people nationwide, did not sway anyone, let alone the masses. The movie bordered on ridiculous, and media in the court room has never been an issue for successful appeal.

As for media/internet, etc., court is a public venue! Trials are not to be held in secret. Some are even televised. I personally think the more open court is, the less chance there is of corruption or underhanded tactics that stand in the way of justice. IMO.
Click to expand...
 
krkrjx said:
Lifetime broadcasting a fictional story where all of the facts were changed and only the names remained the same, that was viewed by perhaps eight people nationwide, did not sway anyone, let alone the masses. The movie bordered on ridiculous, and media in the court room has never been an issue for successful appeal.

As for media/internet, etc., court is a public venue! Trials are not to be held in secret. Some are even televised. I personally think the more open court is, the less chance there is of corruption or underhanded tactics that stand in the way of justice. IMO.
Click to expand...

Eight people nationwide. Now that is funny. You may be overestimating.
 
RR0004 said:
I think you're right. IIRC, it had something to do with her CV.
Click to expand...

She also made the mistake of referring to herself as a "keynote speaker" when her actual role was not exactly what most people would associate with that term.

There may at times be only a subtle difference between optimizing your cv and padding it, but it can cause a lot of trouble and embarrassment -- and professional destruction -- if you step over the line. Especially if Juan Martinez is the person making it public.
 
Curious Kittie said:
The manner in which she murdered Travis; a petite "pretty" young woman and Jodi herself contacting the media was the
beginning of this crazy circus. She caused All of this.
Click to expand...

JA is not petite. She is about average height and weight for a female her age. I say this not to be picky but because sometimes people think she is tiny and that Travis was huge, which is just not the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 267 (members: 91, guests: 176)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
176
Total visitors
267
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,642
Messages
18,242,867
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top