Discussion of the Transcriptions of the Testimony of Jodi Arias

[ZoeyW]

"... it (slaughtering Travis) was only a few minutes out of my whole life."

That says it all about her level of remorse. I'm sure the jury heard it too.

The same could be said of any murder. How long it took to actually effectuate it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she absolutely planned it, carried it out and made great efforts to cover it up. The dismissive way she describes it shows she has no remorse and not even an idea how to feign any. I totally agree with you. Check out the expressions on the faces of the Alexander's here as she is saying that. WOW. That body language is E V E R Y T H I N G ! http://youtu.be/Ou3Hk0_wF5c

 

[bsk]

The same could be said of any murder. How long it took to actually effectuate it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she absolutely planned it, carried it out and made great efforts to cover it up. The dismissive way she describes it shows she has no remorse and not even an idea how to feign any. I totally agree with you. Check out the expressions on the faces of the Alexander's here as she is saying that. WOW. That body language is E V E R Y T H I N G ! http://youtu.be/Ou3Hk0_wF5c

She's probably trying to put "I just snapped" (2nd degree) into their minds. But the jury knows she premeditated it, carried it out, and tried to cover her tracks. "I just snapped" is definitely not the case here!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Unfortunately, the PDF is from scanned images and not generated directly, so you can't extract the text. This attachment has just the 13 pages at the end of day 2 covering the discussion after the higher court decision was received.

I'm not sure how to compress it visually (so-called breaking news or other means), so if this takes up too much room I'll delete the attachment and let someone indicate how to append I can append it without taking up a ton of screen space.

View attachment 67485

Thank you for these pages.

As I read them I was in awe that Juan seems to be the only one that understands the law and knows how to interpret it correctly. Both the DT and the Judge couldn't understand the lower court ruling, however; Juan had no problem at all.

It is as if he is having to assist the Judge and the DT on things they do not understand.

 

[Kensie]

She's probably trying to put "I just snapped" (2nd degree) into their minds. But the jury knows she premeditated it, carried it out, and tried to cover her tracks. "I just snapped" is definitely not the case here!

I hope the jury is reminded about the premeditation.

Thanks to everyone that posted snippets from the transcripts. I could not bear to read them.

 

[bsk]

Thank you for these pages.

As I read them I was in awe that Juan seems to be the only one that understands the law and knows how to interpret it correctly. Both the DT and the Judge couldn't understand the lower court ruling, however; Juan had no problem at all.

It is as if he is having to assist the Judge and the DT on things they do not understand.

I thought it was pretty funny how Lawrence seemed to be arguing it meant that the penalty phase needed to be put on hold, because he was not taking her off the stand, was not going to question her further, and was not going to call anyone else until he got his way.

 

[SuzDuJour]

I can't imagine how confused the jury must be that the courtroom was empty while Jodi went on and on. And now skipping from one witness to another, gaps of days, no cross exams. What a freaking mess.

 

[cricket49]

I'm sorry that I laugh when Jodi tells her and Travis having sex. What would you think of a woman that let you into her bedroom and took off her clothes and grinded agaisnt you a week after you met her? And of a quick meeting for *advertiser censored*, and OMG the perversion that Travis adjusted the mirror because he liked to watch, then he 's on his way. Then three weeks later you have the motel stay. Out of town where you won't be seen by and friends or family. What would a young healthy man think?

I am really kind of disappointed. There is much ado about nothing. She still has nothing to say. I want Juan to cross examine her. She will show her true self.

I agree. She likes to embellish and make sexual situations seem perverse. The thing is, she was NOT a virgin and she had many boyfriends and sexual experiences before she met Travis. Why does she try so hard to act innocent and virginal? It is not uncommon for two people to meet and have sex that day and yet she tries to make it seem like everything he did was against her will.

 

[ZoeyW]

Kirk Nurmi will file motion for mistrial, ask to withdraw from case and a stay.....you know....the usual. He will claim that the judge "reversed her position" and now he cannot go forward as his hands are tied. This is one of my favorite hearings. The judge says on the record , ever so politely, Nurmi you are full of it, I disagree with everything you have said....and confidently rules against him. What happened to her since then? http://youtu.be/v4Y8J9os_24 The judge we see when reading the transcripts is far less confident and overtly has a VERY poor understanding of her role as the decision maker. Judge Belvin Perry could rule and roll as they say and with no notes he could recite the case law he was basing his ruling on verbatim. It was inspiring watching that. He, like Mr. Martinez seems to have a near photographic memory. He could cite case law like no one I have ever seen, not just the case name, but volume, page and date of rulings. I miss his clarity and leadership from the bench.

However hesitant, in the end I DO KNOW that she will deny the defense motions, as she should. I trust that the trial will continue until the jury gets to resolve it in the jury room. Nurmi's "Mistrial by Media" will be just something law students laugh at , well into the future.

Judge Stephens telling Nurmi to have several seats http://youtu.be/v4Y8J9os_24

 

[Nosey Parker]

I agree. She likes to embellish and make sexual situations seem perverse. The thing is, she was NOT a virgin and she had many boyfriends and sexual experiences before she met Travis. Why does she try so hard to act innocent and virginal? It is not uncommon for two people to meet and have sex that day and yet she tries to make it seem like everything he did was against her will.

I do not believe Travis even went near Arias' bedroom in the Hughes' home. He obviously respected and admired The Hughes far too much to insult them in such a way. She may well have snuck in to his, but if she did I'm sure there was no sexual activity. He would have hustled her out asap.

 

[Nali87]

I agree. She likes to embellish and make sexual situations seem perverse. The thing is, she was NOT a virgin and she had many boyfriends and sexual experiences before she met Travis. Why does she try so hard to act innocent and virginal? It is not uncommon for two people to meet and have sex that day and yet she tries to make it seem like everything he did was against her will.

Isn't it funny how she tried to seduce him with sex into a serious relationship and ultimate marriage when she basically shot herself in the foot by "giving the milk away for free" from the very beginning? I doubt her sexual behavior would have been considered a negative for non-religious people and it screams double standards but in my experience, that's how religious guys operate. They'll have sex with you alright, you'll become ****-buddies alright, but that immediately disqualifies you from being "wife" worthy. Sadly, that was the one thing she had to offer.

*MOO based on a strict religious upbringing

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I do not believe Travis even went near Arias' bedroom in the Hughes' home. He obviously respected and admired The Hughes far too much to insult them in such a way. She may well have snuck in to his, but if she did I'm sure there was no sexual activity. He would have hustled her out asap.

I have always believed that Arias makes up certain lies in order to hurt living targets who loved and admired Travis.

She knows how much he respected and loved the Hughes' so in order to hurt them she wants to paint a picture showing Travis really didn't love and respect them like they thought.

It is nothing more than a diabolical plan to cause as much pain and suffering as she can to those who loved him.

In truth she knows Travis didn't do these things but she also knows how much the Hughes detest her too. A psychopath has an underlying need to banish and punish anyone who does not put them in a good light. This is Arias' way of doing it.

 

[ParrotGal]

I hope the jury fully realizes the absolute truth of JA and that is that she, above all, is a prolific liar. Anything that comes out of her mouth is suspect. She lies with the ease that most of us breathe. She is a lazy liar because she assumes her audience is not clever enough to recognize her deceit. She heaps lie upon lie with no care if the stories mesh with reality or her previous lies. The jury (and all us) should constantly remember that NOTHING she says can be accepted as 100% truth. At the very least she spins and contorts everything to fit into her distorted and ever-changing version of reality.

 

[janx]

What the heck did I just read? 144 pages of childhood memories where she seemed to move across the state every 18 months or so. And then another 105 pages of "TA asked me to go to church with him, and then asked me to perform oral sex on him." Umm what?? And every single encounter she has him pulling her into cars and behind trees in the park to have sex?? I don't believe one word of it. And she was such a wilted flower that she had sex with him multiple times in these instances ( If, and a big "if" they were even true) and didn't think to say "gee I don't even know this guy, I should tell him "no"?? Or think to herself "does a supposedly devout religious person act this way?"

And I saw absolutely nothing that was any sort of bombshell. Why was this testimony secret again??

It was secret primarily because of the things she said about her parents, who would have been in the courtroom. Cocaine, smoking dope while pregnant, serious beatings, etc.. Also, previous lies were embellished even more--like the situation with Daryl and the house in Palm Desert.

 

[Dmacky]

I do not believe Travis even went near Arias' bedroom in the Hughes' home. He obviously respected and admired The Hughes far too much to insult them in such a way. She may well have snuck in to his, but if she did I'm sure there was no sexual activity. He would have hustled her out asap.

I absolutely agree Nosey. She can just say ANYTHING, and it becomes a fact.

 

[cricket49]

So the secret transcripts show JA would love to have a do over. That she was stupid she was not able to kill Travis without leaving evidence. That she was horrified watching the Flores interview tapes and the lies she told. On and on and on. However, she quickly moves past and does not address what she did to him. She minimizes the fact that she brutally murdered him. Even many women who are "really abused" and kill their abuser show remorse since there was a time they loved them. She keeps saying she loved Travis but her non-remorse says it all. What she is saying without saying it out loud "He deserved everything I did to him". I hope the jury is really listening to her words.

 

[Dmacky]

I hope the jury fully realizes the absolute truth of JA and that is that she above all a prolific liar. Anything that comes out of her mouth is suspect. She lies with the ease that most of us breathe. She is a lazy liar because she assumes her audience is not clever enough to recognize her deceit. She heaps lie upon lie with no care if the stories mesh with reality or her previous lies. The jury (and all us) need to constantly remember that NOTHING she says can be accepted as 100% truth. At the very least she spins and contorts everything it to fit into her distorted and ever-changing version of reality.

Wow, great post PG ~

 

[krkrjx]

I understand AZlawyer said this secret testimony could be converted into being Killer's allocution and thus not subject to cross. OK with that since she gets an allocution opportunity (though those do not usually entail questions by counsel leading the defendant on what to say) but I wonder if she gets another chance at allocution (on her own with no questioning/leading) in addition to this being labeled her allocution.

IOW, might Arias be given a chance to say more to the court/jury that is not subject to cross examination? Are there laws governing this or is it basically up to the court's discretion?

I have no problem with her doing an allocution or three, but do have a problem with the fact that changes in this trial from what was said first trial might not be evident to jurors who never heard what was said first trial.

ETA: The following was posted over on the Sidebar thread:

Quote Originally Posted by YESorNO View Post
As to being cross-examined by JM on her secret testimony:


"...¶ 32 In Arizona, a defendant has a right to allocute before sentencing.   Ariz. R.Crim. P. 19.1(d)(7), 26.10(b)(1).   This right, however, is “not absolute.”  Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 100, 111 P.3d at 392.   Defendants may not “shift a mitigating circumstance ․ [into] allocution and thereby insulate that mitigating circumstance from rebuttal evidence.”  State v. Armstrong, 218 Ariz. 451, 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d 378, 390 (2008).   We have repeatedly upheld trial courts' admonitions that defendants may be subject to cross-examination if they exceed the scope of permissible allocution.   See, e.g., State v. Womble, _ P.3d _, 2010 WL 2720408, *7-8 ¶¶ 42-45 (Ariz. July 12, 2010);  Armstrong, 218 Ariz. at 463 ¶ 59, 189 P.3d at 390.   The judge did not abuse his discretion in so warning Chappell.

¶ 33 We find similarly unpersuasive Chappell's argument that placing limits on his allocution violated due process. The cases Chappell cites address a complete denial of a defendant's right to speak before sentencing, rather than the effect of limiting such speech.   See, e.g., Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962);  McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 217-20 (1971);  Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir.1992).   Here, in contrast, Chappell was permitted to speak to the jury before sentencing.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-suprem....dEnLDiKp.dpuf

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-suprem...t/1533676.html

 

[LaLaw2000]

And they're not even palatable lies. They're hard to swallow. :drumroll:

I agree about her lies, Becky Sharp. She may have delivered pizza to a college campus one time and that morphs into she attended college!
Seriously though, how does she take college courses when she didn't even graduate high school? Lies.

I was nauseated after reading both transcripts!

 

[bsk]

I understand AZlawyer said this secret testimony could be converted into being Killer's allocution and thus not subject to cross. OK with that since she gets an allocution opportunity (though those do not usually entail questions by counsel leading the defendant on what to say) but I wonder if she gets another chance at allocution (on her own with no questioning/leading) in addition to this being labeled her allocution.

IOW, might Arias be given a chance to say more to the court/jury that is not subject to cross examination? Are there laws governing this or is it basically up to the court's disretion?

I have no problem with her doing an allocution or three, but do have a problem with the fact that changes in this trial from what was said last time might not be evident to jurors who never heard what was said last time.

From what AZL answered in other places, the judge could deem this the first part of her allocution. If so, she would remind the jury that none of what she said those two days can be considered to be under oath and could restrict her to not repeating anything she already covered in that part when she continues with the rest of her allocution.

 

[AZlawyer]

Unfortunately, the PDF is from scanned images and not generated directly, so you can't extract the text. This attachment has just the 13 pages at the end of day 2 covering the discussion after the higher court decision was received.

I'm not sure how to compress it visually (so-called breaking news or other means), so if this takes up too much room I'll delete the attachment and let someone indicate how to append I can append it without taking up a ton of screen space.

View attachment 67485

Thank you for these pages.

As I read them I was in awe that Juan seems to be the only one that understands the law and knows how to interpret it correctly. Both the DT and the Judge couldn't understand the lower court ruling, however; Juan had no problem at all.

It is as if he is having to assist the Judge and the DT on things they do not understand.

Here are the incorrect things said during that sidebar:

JM says that the COA order staying JSS's order closing the courtroom means that the witness's name and testimony are no longer sealed. That is incorrect. That didn't happen until the COA's second order in which they named JA and said her transcript must be released.

Nurmi says that the COA order means the proceedings are stayed. This is also incorrect. Just the closed courtroom proceedings were stayed. JA was free to get back on the stand in open court.

Everything JSS said was exactly correct.