Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/20 Sizzle Break

[AZlawyer]

AZL, I asked yesterday it didn't see a reply. Are you sick!? If so, hope you're feeling better today.

Yes, I have the flu. But started Tamiflu right away and am moving around better today.

:seeya:

Just jumping off your post here, NP:

1st BBM: Is the 'mitigation specialist' a Notary ?

I read her so-called "credentials" a while back when all her shenanigans as "Cougarlicious" were exposed, but I do NOT remember seeing Notary on there, but maybe I missed it ?


2nd BBM: Jumping off above as to whether or not she is a "notary" and IF she is, then I would assume she could testify as these Affidavits were taken under oath ... :waitasec: oh wait -- this is the JA DT we're talking about here :gaah:

I'm certain AZLawyer will have the answer to that one.


3rd BBM: I don't understand that either ... I would think Juan would want to put "Cougarlicious" on the stand to expose all her unethical shenanigans ...

But Juan knows best !

:moo:

She wouldn't be required to be a notary but probably is.

Either way, she could testify about the affidavits. But Juan's objections to certain parts of the affidavits had nothing to do with who was testifying about them.

 

[DebinGA]

Just stating the obvious ... There's a giant chasm between what JM could/would do in court, and what JSS has allowed him to do. The posts along the lines of "Just wait. JM will annihilate him/her" are making me even sadder and madder about this trial, knowing JSS holds the reins.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE,
I love your posts, your passion and I really hate to ask, but is this any chance you can make your font a bit bigger? I have horrible eye sight and I'm on a tablet and I struggle to read your posts and I hate to miss them because I always love what you have to say. I hope I haven't insulted you, just asking nicely.

Thank you. I will increase it one size up, ok?

Some complain if the font is too large so that is why I didn't increase it.

Is this enough or do I need to increase it some more?

Oops let me increase it a little more.

 

[Hope4More]

Get ready with the rotten tomatoes to throw at me..

Stating the obvious, perhaps, but here's reality.


1. This is the sentencing phase and the rules of evidence are different. Much broader. This is in service to the notion that the jury deserves to hear every conceivable bit of information out there to help them decide which penalty is most just.

2. The DT is legally, morally, and ethically required to present a full and vigorous case as to why their client should not receive the DP.

3. JA has only 3 real mitigators- her age, lack of criminal history, and the State's assessment that she has BPD.

4. The DT is required to diligently search and to present anything about their client, her life, or the circumstances of her crime that can be considered mitigating.

5. JA'S BPD does not mean she's legally insane, but it does indicate she is mentally ill. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not her mental illness explains -not excuses- the fact she killed Travis and/or the cruelty with which she killed him.

6. The DT and their client don't agree on defense strategy. Imo Nurmi clearly wanted to go all out on mental illness as mitigator. JA hasn't allowed him free reign. JA has the constitutional right to the defense of her choice. JA's choice is demonizing Travis in the belief that at least one juror will be swayed that Travis deserved to die.

7. Putting Travis on trial is necessary for each and for both of these defenses. JA's reasons for doing so speak for themselves. Nurmi's story of a vulnerable mentally ill young woman needs a Travis who triggered, stoked, and fed JA's mental illness. Enter Travis the villain.

8. JSS is the judge. It is her job, not the DT's , to determine how far the DT can go, how many lines the DT can tiptoe up to and stand on, and which side to give the benefit of the doubt to if a given law isn't spelled out in black and white.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Hey everyone, Good morning I have a few questions, first what time does court start today, and when this trial is over, which side has the final words to the jury, Juan Martinez or nurmi? Thanks God bless Travis and Travis' family.

OH wait, one more question, what does Temple recommend mean? Thanks!

Court starts at 12:30. No idea who goes last.

I am not Mormon, but my general understanding of a Temple recommend is that it allows you to physically step foot in a Mormon temple. You need to be a Mormon in good standing to have one (I am not sure what that entails). I know when our Mormon friend's daughter got married in the Mormon temple, my family was not allowed to attend the actual religious ceremony because we do not have Temple recommends. We could only attend the reception.

 

[DebinGA]

After reading JSS's motion responses last week, I've decided she is one who, if given enough time, makes well-written, legally sound decisions. But I think she's incapable of reliably making sound decisions on the fly, as we saw yesterday. In such hectic situations, JSS defaults to the defense position whenever reasonably possible. Better to err on the side of the person facing death than the person no longer around to be affected by her decision. ... just my opinion.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes, I have the flu. But started Tamiflu right away and am moving around better today.



She wouldn't be required to be a notary but probably is.

Either way, she could testify about the affidavits. But Juan's objections to certain parts of the affidavits had nothing to do with who was testifying about them.

AZL...I think JW and JM sparred during that epic sidebar about whether or not to attribute the interviews to MDLR.

JM wanted 3 paragraphs stricken which stated MDLR's role. JW agreed at first, then changed her position and asked that the 3 paragraphs relating to MDLR remain.

It was an issue, for whatever reason. Since we didn't hear about MDLR, I assume JSS ruled in his favor .

 

[MarVa]

Geff USED the date Feb, 2 2007 in his testimony yesterday describing when JA and TA became a "official" couple.


Feb 18, 2007


Hi Abe I'm writing you for a few reasons. Let me get the more trivial ones out of the way first. I tried reaching you by phone during the week without any luck. Probably because I've been calling at ridiculous hours of the night after I'm off work.

Sounds like she was hounding him by phone and he didn't answer her calls.

I don't call people late at night unless it's a dire emergency. Maybe they're trying to SLEEP! Says a lot about her.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thank you. I will increase it one size up, ok?

Some complain if the font is too large so that is why I didn't increase it.

Is this enough or do I need to increase it some more?

Oops let me increase it a little more.

I love your posts but the font size is really tiny. I have never seen one so tiny in fact. Can you increase some more? Thanks.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Nash,
You can enlarge the type view by hitting Ctrl and the + sign on your keypad.

some of us have iPads and tablets and do not have the ability to use a Ctrl sign and increase. Thanks.

 

[DebinGA]

I wish we knew more about JA's work history in Mesa. Ditto where and with whom she lived while there. Ditto whether she attended her LDS ward's Monday evening singles events, and, if so, what those folks thought of her. Seems likely JM could find many Mesa witnesses who could attest to JA's strange behavior there.

 

[MsJosie]

Nash,
You can enlarge the type view by hitting Ctrl and the + sign on your keypad.

I have enlarged the type on the iPad as much as I can in the settings, but I read some of the issues are with the site, if they allow enlargements, and if not then they are as we see them. I cannot enlarge like you said on the iPad., only on lap top or desk top. I have tried to bold the print too, that does not work either. ����

 

[MsJosie]

I love your posts but the font size is really tiny. I have never seen one so tiny in fact. Can you increase some more? Thanks.

Ocean blue eyes, sorry I had to use three words, iPad kept changing the spelling when I went to one word. Anyway, the last time you said you increased the letter size, it actually made it smaller on the iPad.

 

[kaRN]

Get ready with the rotten tomatoes to throw at me..

Stating the obvious, perhaps, but here's reality.


1. This is the sentencing phase and the rules of evidence are different. Much broader. This is in service to the notion that the jury deserves to hear every conceivable bit of information out there to help them decide which penalty is most just.

2. The DT is legally, morally, and ethically required to present a full and vigorous case as to why their client should not receive the DP.

3. JA has only 3 real mitigators- her age, lack of criminal history, and the State's assessment that she has BPD.

4. The DT is required to diligently search and to present anything about their client, her life, or the circumstances of her crime that can be considered mitigating.

5. JA'S BPD does not mean she's legally insane, but it does indicate she is mentally ill. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not her mental illness explains -not excuses- the fact she killed Travis and/or the cruelty with which she killed him.

6. The DT and their client don't agree on defense strategy. Imo Nurmi clearly wanted to go all out on mental illness as mitigator. JA hasn't allowed him free reign. JA has the constitutional right to the defense of her choice. JA's choice is demonizing Travis in the belief that at least one juror will be swayed that Travis deserved to die.

7. Putting Travis on trial is necessary for each and for both of these defenses. JA's reasons for doing so speak for themselves. Nurmi's story of a vulnerable mentally ill young woman needs a Travis who triggered, stoked, and fed JA's mental illness. Enter Travis the villain.

8. JSS is the judge. It is her job, not the DT's , to determine how far the DT can go, how many lines the DT can tiptoe up to and stand on, and which side to give the benefit of the doubt to if a given law isn't spelled out in black and white.

If only Borderline personality disorder was a mental illness....but it's not. Too bad so sad. 28 isn't young either. Try again

 

[Katharine]

Deanna testified Travis wrote her the breakup letter in June 2001 because he wanted to be honest and not cheat on her

Ballard Boss says they began dating in June 2001. She broke up with him in January 2002. She knew he planned to propose

“I knew he was planning on proposing to me. We were talking very seriously about marriage. I actually started to have doubts about whether I wanted to continue the relationship,” Ballard Boss told Grace.

When asked why she ended the relationship, Boss said, “I was very in love with Travis. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. I didn’t feel like he was the right man for me.”

Alexander’s ex-girlfriend also recalled an eerie conversation she had with Alexander during the last visit she had with him at the Arizona State Fair in October of 2006.

“He said he had been dating a girl named Jodi and he mentioned to me that she is a pathological liar,” Boss said.

“I want people to know that the real Travis was not abusive. He was kind, he was a shoulder to cry on, he was passionate about life, he had more goals than most people would ever dream about trying to accomplish. He inspired people to be better,” Boss told HLN.

Did you say October of 2006 that Travis told someone Jodi is a "pathological liar"?? But Travis and Jodi only met mid September of 2006. Unreal that in such a short time and by all accounts mostly a long distance relationship by social media, that one of Jodi's anti-social personality disorder traits was already rearing its ugly head. Thank you for your post. (JMO)

 

[bsk]

Sounds like she was hounding him by phone and he didn't answer her calls.

I don't call people late at night unless it's a dire emergency. Maybe they're trying to SLEEP! Says a lot about her.

As long as she wasn't texting him after 11pm then maybe it was considered normal behavior.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Get ready with the rotten tomatoes to throw at me..

Stating the obvious, perhaps, but here's reality.


1. This is the sentencing phase and the rules of evidence are different. Much broader. This is in service to the notion that the jury deserves to hear every conceivable bit of information out there to help them decide which penalty is most just.

2. The DT is legally, morally, and ethically required to present a full and vigorous case as to why their client should not receive the DP.

3. JA has only 3 real mitigators- her age, lack of criminal history, and the State's assessment that she has BPD.

4. The DT is required to diligently search and to present anything about their client, her life, or the circumstances of her crime that can be considered mitigating.

5. JA'S BPD does not mean she's legally insane, but it does indicate she is mentally ill. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not her mental illness explains -not excuses- the fact she killed Travis and/or the cruelty with which she killed him.

6. The DT and their client don't agree on defense strategy. Imo Nurmi clearly wanted to go all out on mental illness as mitigator. JA hasn't allowed him free reign. JA has the constitutional right to the defense of her choice. JA's choice is demonizing Travis in the belief that at least one juror will be swayed that Travis deserved to die.

7. Putting Travis on trial is necessary for each and for both of these defenses. JA's reasons for doing so speak for themselves. Nurmi's story of a vulnerable mentally ill young woman needs a Travis who triggered, stoked, and fed JA's mental illness. Enter Travis the villain.

8. JSS is the judge. It is her job, not the DT's , to determine how far the DT can go, how many lines the DT can tiptoe up to and stand on, and which side to give the benefit of the doubt to if a given law isn't spelled out in black and white.

Argree completely. My iPad doesn't allow me to emphasize number 6 and 8. But Jodi's defense is now stuck with a guilty verdict and trying to save her life. During her trial she claimed self defense. She wants the jury to believe Travis deserved to die. She would love nothing more than to stand and give an allocution stating that she gave him what he "deserved". She is a monster. Nurmi would have loved to give a mental illness defense and she wasn't going to allow that. So she got convicted.

The defense is giving these jurors any and every excuse of why they might spare her life and that is the job of the defense. Though it makes me sick, they are doing their job (as dirty as it may be). My sole problem lies with JSS and her inability to make sound decisions quickly, thus leaning so heavily in favor of this monster. JM is a great prosecutor. He is however hampered by the judge in many areas. MOO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Question:

Will these Affidavits or "Laughidavits" be made public ?

:hilarious: I forgot who posted "Laughidavits" yesterday, and my sincere apologies for not remembering who it was, but that name totally fits !

I want to read each and every one them in its entirety !

 

[Nosey Parker]

Just stating the obvious ... There's a giant chasm between what JM could/would do in court, and what JSS has allowed him to do. The posts along the lines of "Just wait. JM will annihilate him/her" are making me even sadder and madder about this trial, knowing JSS holds the reins.

On a more optimistic note, could it be that JSS has infinite faith in Juan`s ability to overcome all this stuff. One can dream.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I wanted to ask if anyone here would care to list the affidavits by number and what their testimony is briefly? I could not make much since of the media tweets and didn't know who was giving what testimony. I know some of it came from Marc McGee, the guy in New Zealand who appears to be a nutcase online. But cannot make sense of most of it. I can't even tell how many affidavits have been read so far. I am certain there won't be 14. Maybe at the end of the testimony someone could compile a list? That would be awesome. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to try!