Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/15 thru 1/20 Break

[cindymac]

I don't think anyone has to have heard her testimony, in advance, for her to be toast. The moment they heard her explain things in front of them on that witness stand, with her flat affect and hollow emotions, would be enough. What she claims does not match her demeanor- ever. IMO

Exactly. All anyone needs to have seen is how normal people react when recalling traumatic situations. They relive them. We feel their pain. Of course, this is just not going to happen with Arias because she never lived them in the first place. Moreover, she doesn't process things the same way normal people do, so her demeanor's out of sync for things real as well as imagined.

However, she's obviously giving it her best. There are several complaints in the secret-testimony transcript that she can barely be heard - presumably bringing on her poor me, teeny-tiny victim voice, head hanging, and all.

Her lack of genuine emotion also speaks clearly against PTSD. Even laypeople know that a key indicator of PTSD is an overload of emotion, not a complete deficit.

 

[Amster]

http://t.co/8fVGM17rGf Attorney Jeff Gold discussing the ruling.

Amazing the pretzel he has to contort himself in to explain why any of the computer and *advertiser censored* is before this jury.....he does say she, Sherry, is far afield in allowing this stuff....the rest is just nonsensical. And, of course, the standard excuse for Sherry.....she is afraid and worried about appeals. :facepalm:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

If she ever makes it into the general population in a prison, I predict that Jodi will eventually end up to be the "belle of the prison", kind of in the mode of baby killer Susan Smith. She will of course adapt immediately to female-female sex and, as always, will use her manipulative personality to have her needs fulfilled. It will however, likely be the first time she is exposed to others who are every bit as much as manipulative as she is. She's wily though, and will undoubtedly manage to adapt to whatever situation presents itself. I would expect to see her become a "model prisoner".

 

[TorisMom003]

In my opinion, the big issue will be: "Was Jodi Arias emotionally abused by Travis Alexander?" I think that is the big thing that will be discussed by the jurors and the big thing that JW will talk about in her closing arguments. I will be waiting to hear the "Hughes" name again.

If this were the guilt phase I would agree with you. However, JA has been found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder that was especially cruel/heinous. This is the penalty phase and I doubt that the jury is going to believe that "emotional abuse" by Travis means life instead of death for JA. Now I do agree that the defense will bring this up in closing of course. The defense is truly grasping at straws at this point. But I do not believe that the jury will give it a second thought before making their decision.

MOO

 

[DebinGA]

You mean did he say Dr Jekyll stepped into the shower but Mr Hyde jumped out? :crazy:

Exactly.

 

[MeeBee]

Amazing the pretzel he has to contort himself in to explain why any of the computer and *advertiser censored* is before this jury.....he does say she, Sherry, is far afield in allowing this stuff....the rest is just nonsensical. And, of course, the standard excuse for Sherry.....she is afraid and worried about appeals. :facepalm:

Actually the reason he gave is the exact reason AZL gave and it makes complete legal and logical sense. Juan is going to say there was no child *advertiser censored* on this computer. Because of the weirdness of erased files and new found *advertiser censored*, the defense are going to and should get to argue that just because it's not there now doesn't mean there never was. The state's negligence caused files to be overwritten. Who knows what was there? It's a stretch, for sure. But it is legally proper and if the judge didn't allow it you better bet Jodi would have won an appeal somewhere down the road. The judge can't prevent things from coming in just because it makes the victim look bad. .

 

[rose222]

In my opinion, the big issue will be: "Was Jodi Arias emotionally abused by Travis Alexander?" I think that is the big thing that will be discussed by the jurors and the big thing that JW will talk about in her closing arguments. I will be waiting to hear the "Hughes" name again.

Ah, you're right. I was only thinking of the factors that I myself would consider. I do hope that Juan makes it clear that those angry text messages were in response to years of Arias snooping, stalking and being a terror. I love Juan but he didn't do a very good job of emphasizing that point last time around.

 

[LindaFaye]

I only know what's going on with the JA retrial here NancyGrace as said nothing on her show about the retrial
but I bet at the end of it she will have it on weeks at know end...Thanks everyone for the updates.

 

[MeeBee]

If this were the guilt phase I would agree with you. However, JA has been found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder that was especially cruel/heinous. This is the penalty phase and I doubt that the jury is going to believe that "emotional abuse" by Travis means life instead of death for JA. Now I do agree that the defense will bring this up in closing of course. The defense is truly grasping at straws at this point. But I do not believe that the jury will give it a second thought before making their decision.

MOO

But emotional abuse IS mitigation. It's arguably more relevant now than it was in the guilt phase. It's the reason the jury agreed it was premeditated murder but couldn't agree to kill her. It's their best shot.

 

[Nali87]

If this were the guilt phase I would agree with you. However, JA has been found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder that was especially cruel/heinous. This is the penalty phase and I doubt that the jury is going to believe that "emotional abuse" by Travis means life instead of death for JA. Now I do agree that the defense will bring this up in closing of course. The defense is truly grasping at straws at this point. But I do not believe that the jury will give it a second thought before making their decision.

MOO

I think it's different somehow because it's a different jury. They will be told that they will have to accept the verdict and that the murder was cruel, but really even though they don't say it, any of the things they've heard during this re-trial will influence their decision. They're not supposed to, but it could happen that one or two goes "You know that guy was so abusive to her, it's no surprise she went crazy and murdered him like that." That person can then and turn that feeling into: "You know, she is awfully young. And she hasn't killed before." something like the Foreman from the first trial.

 

[ZoeyW]

I pity Dr. Geffner and I am looking forward to Dr. De Marte. I do not believe Jodi Arias is getting back on the stand. Let's get on with it. Many things in life begin and end. For the trial watchers this case will come and go and fade from the headlines. For the family, the inevitable appeals will be perpetual and this will never ever end. I pray for God to help them. Jodi Arias did so much more than kill Travis that day. MumMum died of a broken heart, literally. The entire family has severe PTSD. The damage is of biblical proportions, effecting marriages, jobs, children....generations of damage. I hope this jury gets it right. I'm so grateful to Juan Martinez for his zeal. He told them this will NOT stand, not on my watch. You want to fight on, fight on we will. In the absence of a father to wrap his arms around them, I imagine the steady resolve of Juan has been a guiding light of hope. Some situations in life just cry out for a hero.

Rest in peace Travis and MumMum

 

[bsk]

If they read back Samuels on PTSD, I hope JM brings back the delightful Dr. Jill Hayes to demolish Samuels and Willmott again:
http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-dr-jill-hayes-last-witness-for-the-prosecution/

I'm so glad you posted this for several reasons!

I'd kind of forgotten about Dr Hayes. I guess ALV, Samuels, and DeMarte were on so long I kind of "fogged" the rest.

One of the comments in this article reminded me that Samuels used the PTSD argument more to explain "the fog" than the murder.

Lastly, this morning I was rewatching some of Dr Demarte's testimony that you or someone else had linked to. It struck me how believable she comes across. The defense experts always tried to excuse/explain away JA's words when they didn't fit their script. DeMarte on the other hand called them as she saw them. Her believability came though so clearly even on little things that made Jen look stupid to me (not that she is, but it's how it made her look). For example, Jen kept trying to twist DeMarte's words about patterns of meanness. Dr DeMarte corrected herself from saying they were "rare" to they were "infrequent." Jen got all snide and all but said, "Boy are you stupid. They mean the same thing." But that clarification made perfect sense. They were not "rare" in that they almost never happened; they were "infrequent" in that they were a small percentage of their voluminous correspondence. I think a jury would see it the same way.

One of the commenters captured the spirit of my paragraph above perfectly: "I enjoyed watching the differences in how the professionals reacted to the different legal sides. Dr Samuels and ALV, when being asked questions by the defense team seemed to be at home, old friends, laughter, joy oh what fun. As soon as big bad or is that tiny Juan got up to try and discredit them, it was like Jodi’s lies and manipulation had somehow made it’s way into the pores of these ‘professionals’. Dr S at least gave in slightly in the end. Dr DeMarte (who I believe was the best witness) and Dr Hayes were fantastic. Cool, calm answered all questions asked by JW and not always to the benefit of the prosecution. This is what a juror likes to see. Honesty and common sense please. We all understand that these professionals to a certain extent are there as hired guns but when you are asked a question like ‘Do you think Jodi is a liar’ and you say no, next witness please."

 

[DebinGA]

People Tell On Themselves, Their experts do too! #JodiArias
.....

With lipstick to put on a pig, for 15 minutes in the media spotlight to cap off your long career,jump start your new book, and for $250.00 an hour.......sure, everybody knows, a hired gun can see her as a victim. All day long. The only trouble is, if you keep them on the stand too long..... it is inevitable. People tell on themselves

Fantastic link-laden post, ZoeyW. I hope all your points make into JM's rebuttal/closing, especially this bit:
.....................................................................................................................................................
"In their misguided attempt to run out the clock so Juan Martinez could not cross examination their witness they accidentally had their expert read two vital entries that will help the jury KNOW she lied saying it took her two years to accept she had killed him. Their own expert proved for THIS jury, her premeditation. You just can't make this stuff up!

a) Trying to illustrate that Travis was suicidal, she said " He said he felt like going out and getting a gun and putting it to his head" This was in early June OF 2008, mere days before the murder. Clearly he had no gun or he would have said something like I feel like putting MY GUN to my head. Notes were taken by jury at this moment.

b) Trying to illustrate she was not the one who slashed all four of his expensive BMW tires, two days in a row by the way, AND LISA'S tires,and instead how loving she was towards #TravisAlexander, the expert read an expert where #Jodi Arias claims, out of concern, she offered him the use of her stun gun. If an adult man has a real gun, what on earth would a stun gun do to help him feel safe? This is not lost on the common sense of the jury.

Travis Alexander did not have a gun. First jury knew it. Now this jury hears it from Jodi Arias herself, above and beyond her "Travis only had his own two fists" reply she gave Detective Flores when she told him originally that he had no weapons.

http://youtu.be/EYNcbYVpEPU
....................................................................................................................................................
Kudos, ZoeyW.

 

[LinTX]

Someone caught something in the ruling that I didn't notice and don't think it's been mentioned here. On page 3, re: mitigation witnesses it states (BBM):

"Defendant claims possible mitigation witnesses will not speak with defense counsel"

They won't even take the DT's calls, but Nurmi counts them as potential witnesses? :thinking:

 

[Amster]

Her life inside Perryville will be harsh regardless of what sentence she receives. And the public will not be privy to her day-to-day existence either. Conditions there are not spa-like as some fantasize. She will not be getting mani/pedis or sipping cocktails. Fantasy vs Reality.

I guess I missed it....someone here described conditions as spa-like?

 

[Madeleine74]

If she ever makes it into the general population in a prison, I predict that Jodi will eventually end up to be the "belle of the prison", kind of in the mode of baby killer Susan Smith. She will of course adapt immediately to female-female sex and, as always, will use her manipulative personality to have her needs fulfilled. It will however, likely be the first time she is exposed to others who are every bit as much as manipulative as she is. She's wily though, and will undoubtedly manage to adapt to whatever situation presents itself. I would expect to see her become a "model prisoner".

Maybe you'll be shocked at what happens to her... errr... AlwaysShocked!

 

[Madeleine74]

I guess I missed it....someone here described conditions as spa-like?

There has been conjecture over the many months about how JA would be special in prison, how she would be treated like a princess (paraphrasing) and any number of fantasy scenarios. I summed it up in as few words as I could, so "spa-like" is how I described the fantasy.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think it's different somehow because it's a different jury. They will be told that they will have to accept the verdict and that the murder was cruel, but really even though they don't say it, any of the things they've heard during this re-trial will influence their decision. They're not supposed to, but it could happen that one or two goes "You know that guy was so abusive to her, it's no surprise she went crazy and murdered him like that." That person can then and turn that feeling into: "You know, she is awfully young. And she hasn't killed before." something like the Foreman from the first trial.

BBM

This is actually exactly the kind of thing the jury is supposed to consider in mitigation.

IMO it's not enough even if the type of "abuse" alleged here actually happened. But some (or one) juror(s) could disagree.

 

[Madeleine74]

One possible? mitigator is there was one victim, adult. No idea if that would be on the list, but when compared to killers who murder several people or murder children, a juror might see a distinction there (or they might not). It is a consideration in my area as to the DA deciding to go for the DP or not. It also depends on what other felonies were committed at the same time (like rape and murder and theft, as one example).

 

[ShadyLady]

I don't know if this has already been linked. If so, I apologize.

Juror #3 breaks her silence.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153595364389546&fref=nf

Surprise surprise!

She saw no evidence of remorse and thinks she should be given the DP.

Reminds me of when Flores told her she did not act like an innocent person. And Jodi got all coquettish like and in her best Lolita voice she questions Flores on how an innocent person would act....