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

[MeeBee]

Since Nurmi in his opening described JA as "diagnosed with PTSD and BPD" then I imagine Geffner or yet another psych witness will explain how her "mental illness" impacted her actions. It would be bizarre to hear Geffner supporting the BPD diagnosis he totally rejected in Trial 1 imo, and iirc neither Geffner nor Fonseca have ever spoken to JA. Very, very odd.

I think they'll leave that up to Demarte, at least the BPD part.

 

[bsk]

In the first trial iirc, Dr. Geffner had 2 tasks: 1) dispute Dr. DeMarte's BPD finding of JA and 2) support the shot-came-first theory. He failed at both imo. Even so, Geffner is back - this time in support of the BPD finding and despite having admitted to JM last time that a judge had ordered his entire expert testimony be stricken in a previous case. What was Geffner doing when last on the stand, because iirc it seemed like Dr. Fonseca/Mr. Hyde-Part 2 to me? What is Geffner there to do for the DT this time?

I believe it was Samuels in the first trial who disputed BPD - he argued PTSD from all the abuse.

But you're right - the defense IIRC said DeMarte was full of carp about BPD (if that was even allowed in - I know she was limited in how far she could go).

The odd thing is, I don't think they had Fonseca or Geffner saying she has BPD did they? Just of a lot of KN talking vaguely about her being mentally ill.

 

[Kensie]

DebinGA, I had the feeling he was there to testify about what Travis' addiction to *advertiser censored* did to JA and how it "caused" her to do what she did or at least mitigated it. But with the *advertiser censored* where it is (no where) I'm not so sure anymore. But, I could see LKN/JW continuing to go down that path despite everything that has happened so far to the extent the judge doesn't stop them.

I agree. I don't think the *advertiser censored* topic is dead. They seem to be relying on it.

 

[MeeBee]

DebinGA, I had the feeling he was there to testify about what Travis' addiction to *advertiser censored* did to JA and how it "caused" her to do what she did or at least mitigated it. But with the *advertiser censored* where it is (no where) I'm not so sure anymore. But, I could see LKN/JW continuing to go down that path despite everything that has happened so far to the extent the judge doesn't stop them.

I'm also thinking that not bringing Geffner back until the 20th was strategic since he couldn't talk about the *advertiser censored* (that's the first rule of the *advertiser censored*) until this other stuff was resolved. Now, since the findings of *advertiser censored* are so dubious will judge allow Geffner to talk about the *advertiser censored* now? I don't see how she could.

 

[bsk]

Since Nurmi in his opening described JA as "diagnosed with PTSD and BPD" then I imagine Geffner or yet another psych witness will explain how her "mental illness" impacted her actions. It would be bizarre to hear Geffner supporting the BPD diagnosis he totally rejected in Trial 1 imo, and iirc neither Geffner nor Fonseca have ever spoken to JA. Very, very odd.

The other aspect of this that's weird is neither of the "expert" psych types the defense had in this round has offered a "diagnosis" - and by law they cannot do so since they are not licensed in AZ. So unless he has somebody read back Samuels for PTSD (Juan would have a field day if that door is opened), then by the time he rests his case in chief he will be arguing that the jury should take her mental illness into account when he has not had anyone diagnose her as mentally ill.

If Juan did not call DeMarte or the defense did not use her to diagnose JA, could Juan object if the closing mentions mental illness and the judge strike that? That would be fun.

 

[MeeBee]

I believe it was Samuels in the first trial who disputed BPD - he argued PTSD from all the abuse.

But you're right - the defense IIRC said DeMarte was full of carp about BPD (if that was even allowed in - I know she was limited in how far she could go).

The odd thing is, I don't think they had Fonseca or Geffner saying she has BPD did they? Just of a lot of KN talking vaguely about her being mentally ill.

Samuels did say she has PTSD (based on faulty tests) but he never disputed the BPD diagnosis as he never got a chance. Dr. Demarte came after him. That's where Gefffner came in. He was there to dispute the BPD while pumping up PTSD and the gunshot first. Fonseca was not there to diagnose her so she didn't bring up BPD. And since Geffner is already on record as saying she doesn't have BPD he can't change his tune now (they should have just gotten a different doctor).

So I think they're going to endorse the claims of BPD through Demarte's previous diagnosis, which is weird since they keep trying to preclude her as a witness.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Well, for me that's not all of the argument. It's also the delay that I find questionable. Why didn't the judge rule on the motions as they came along?

If we are going to speak about form and style then that matters a whole lot, IMO, as to what the public sees. Not to say the judge has to be a puppet, but it does make a massive impression as evidenced here. People lose faith in the courts because stuff like this happens, stuff that did not need to happen. IMO, it's the failure of the person representing the justice system, right or wrong as that opinion might be. And, IMO, the consequences of decisions do matter. To breed disaffection on so many levels, I imagine, can't be a good thing. The letter of the law might be adhered to, but when the spirit of the law has completely been deep-sixed.....?

ESPECIALLY when there is a jury seated.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'd be asking what the hades this has to do with the trial. :waitasec:



Did Sue shake Jodi's hand in front of the jury after is testiphony?



For me it's having her put in solitary, never knowing when the axe will fall.

BBM

No, but Emmy Award-winning 'Skymeister' did.

(IIRC, the jury was not present when BN groped JA's hinky digits.)

 

[MeeBee]

The other aspect of this that's weird is neither of the "expert" psych types the defense had in this round has offered a "diagnosis" - and by law they cannot do so since they are not licensed in AZ. So unless he has somebody read back Samuels for PTSD (Juan would have a field day if that door is opened), then by the time he rests his case in chief he will be arguing that the jury should take her mental illness into account when he has not had anyone diagnose her as mentally ill.

If Juan did not call DeMarte or the defense did not use her to diagnose JA, could Juan object if the closing mentions mental illness and the judge strike that? That would be fun.

I thought that. If they made the claim of BPD in their openings but never elicited testimony of an actual diagnosis in their case, can they still bring up BPD or will they only get to talk about all the ways she was mentally ill without using the words borderline personality?

 

[bsk]

Last night on Jeff Gold's spreecast (which was excellent btw) he brought up that they're pushing crime of passion this time even though they can't outright say it. It got me thinking. Maybe she wanted the public out for her testimony because she is going to make some amendments to the murder day events as she told them before. Even Zervakos didn't believe she was telling the full truth about what really happened. Her story is completely ridiculous. I think she already kind of set it up with the story of Bobby chasing her and choking her and she will no doubt tell the story of Travis grabbing her wrist and pulling her in and hugging her after banging his head on the door.

Let's see. In the middle of his shower photo shoot Travis suddenly becomes jealous and angry over Ryan Burns and comes after her. Haunted by memories of men chasing her and grabbing her she goes into a fog and kills him. Something like that. The bones of the story will still be there. Travis will still be the aggressor. She will never admit full responsibility. But she will probably come up with a better and more convenient location for the gun. Maybe she will admit she did bring it but not to kill Travis. Idk. But it could explain her reasoning for wanting to testify in secret.

I believe that's true, and Juan should easily mop it up during closing. "The defense would have you believe that she 'snapped', but here are all the reasons that is a lie ... and beside that, she was convicted of first degree murder+ so by law you cannot accept that it happened the way they want you to believe since that was already decided against her."

 

[bsk]

Samuels did say she has PTSD (based on faulty tests) but he never disputed the BPD diagnosis as he never got a chance. Dr. Demarte came after him. That's where Gefffner came in. He was there to dispute the BPD while pumping up PTSD and the gunshot first. Fonseca was not there to diagnose her so she didn't bring up BPD. And since Geffner is already on record as saying she doesn't have BPD he can't change his tune now (they should have just gotten a different doctor).

So I think they're going to endorse the claims of BPD through Demarte's previous diagnosis, which is weird since they keep trying to preclude her as a witness.

Thanks for the reminder - I forgot about Geffner in rebuttal in the original. How could I forget the spilled water?

 

[Truth Detector]

But she gets to see her lawyers and her mitigation specialist, which I imagine she will.
Also, those tweets going out- she must talk on the phone with people. And what about her family?

BBM

Yeah, calls -- those fundraising 3-ways, courtesy of 'Cougarluscious'.

 

[jane the dood]

If we're this sick of porngate and the other slimy defense tactics, imagine how the jury must feel by now. At least we can log off and go have a snack or a nap or something. My guess is that the jurors are bored, fed up and disgusted with it by now.

Anyway, still on kind of a buzz after yesterday's ruling. Yessssh!

Oh, and GOOD MORNING! :seeya:

 

[Madeleine74]

Life Means Life, new law in AZ does not apply to Jodi Arias. Nevertheless, "The chance of her getting life with possibility of parole is so remote it approaches no real value, the possibility is nearly non existent" Mark Eiglarsh explains

http://youtu.be/wPKOwX2ByTE?t=3m4s

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.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Life Means Life, new law in AZ does not apply to Jodi Arias. Nevertheless, "The chance of her getting life with possibility of parole is so remote it approaches no real value, the possibility is nearly non existent" Mark Eiglarsh explains

http://youtu.be/wPKOwX2ByTE?t=3m4s

Remain calm. Jodi Arias will indeed die in prison. She will never walk free again. "I'm not attached to what date she gets put down. I want her to get the death penalty; because, on death row the quality of her life will be quite severe. She will be locked down 23 hours a day and have no contact with the general population, etc. THAT is what we want. We want the worst possible life for her until she dies", Chris Hughes said. I concur.

Chris and Sky http://youtu.be/W2qr05dBgsg

For me, I have always said I could never put someone to death, i.e., insert the needle. However, I do believe in locking them up on death row just for the reason Chris stated above. Serial killers, child killers and Jodi Arias should be locked away forever. It is all about how hateful she was and is, and that she has no remorse. Ok, maybe she is sick or a psychopath, either way she should never be allowed around others.

 

[bsk]

If I hadn't already picked a wooden spoon avatar because of this trial, I might make one from this: Siamese twin USBs!

 

[Madeleine74]

The judge has never ruled in favor of taking the DP off the table in what, 20 or 30 attempts by the defense? And how many claims of "prosecutorial misconduct" have they attempted? Another 15 or so? Again, none of those motions have passed muster. All the worry is for naught. I don't know why anyone would think this judge is suddenly going to decide to take death away as a consideration when she didn't do so for years. Not gonna happen here.

 

[Truth Detector]

I think JW and KN tiptoe on the line of doing things that deserve sanctions, but never truly cross it.
I'd love if someone would somehow bring sanctions/fire Maria though. Disgraceful!

New 'scholarly' look for Cougarluscious 11/4/2014​

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Obviously it won't be spa like. It's prison. But it's the difference between spending your life in solitary confinement with little human interaction and a hell of your own making and getting to come out and interact with your fellow prisoners and get along ok.

 

[geevee]

Obviously it won't be spa like. It's prison. But it's the difference between spending your life in solitary confinement with little human interaction and a hell of your own making and getting to come out and interact with your fellow prisoners and get along ok.

And that's exactly what all of this long drawn out process is about.