Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/29 thru 2/2 - Break

[Prime Mover]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=777377245671753

Just saw this on state vs JA page. It appears her supporters are trying to dig up info on Deanna Reid.

Along with Jake, who was responsible for the pop ups on the computer, and his cousin Tommy, who he confessed to. Conspiracy theories galore over there at that site. Some of them are positive it was DR who slashed TA's tires. Wow! If I was a shady salesmen of any kind, I'd be peddling my wares on that site. Talk about gullible.

 

[bsk]

It had to do with the computer "mini trial" that happened. She was agreeing with Nurmi that JM screwed up over the 2008 hard drive issue. That Nurmi said JA would never be executed and BK agreed because Nurmi did such a good job making a strong appeal issue.....
To be honest....in the minority for sure....I don't care for BK. Have watched her from the old Court TV days and always saw her as I see most other media. Say and do anything to get an exclusive. The pic of her and MK together the other day didn't surprise me. I'll take the opinion of any WS poster in the courtroom over a media persons always!

I'd be willing to give her some benefit of the doubt and say that the defense team is probably doing about as good a job as can be done given they have a terrible client who has forced them to adopt a ridiculous strategy. Their job is to try to get her off, and they are doing everything humanly possible to do that. I'd say many of their methods are unethical to say the least, but how could JA have gotten any better representation unless it was a lawyer who could convince her she was out of her ever-loving mind?

 

[samspace070]

I agree. Someone had wondered about a Mormon juror possibly feeling negative about Travis's transgressions whatever they might have been. But it seems clear to me that the defense has gone out of its way to try to be negative about the LDS. Introducing all these vile lies of LDS-hating MM was the final straw in that regard for me. You see a real flavor of that at the pro-Arias site as well.

Sorry if I wasn't clear that I was blaming the defense for being the ones slinging all the mud just out of spite and hate.

I did misunderstand. I knew I had read the post wrong. I am so caught up in this awful trial and those monsters hurting regular people to get her off, I over react without re reading the posts. Thanks:happydance:

 

[ElleElle]

Just think they stopped communicating as CMJA knew the gig was up. If JA had walked away,never to be heard from again, Travis probably would have dropped what he had on JA.

Sadly I wish he had documented it & placed safely or given it to someone for safe keeping. Maybe he did & CMJA found & destroyed. Don't know. There are several things that only JA knows & will go with her to the grave so some questions will never be answered.

BBM~ Hopefully Jodi had/will write the secret letters and leave them behind before she gets the needle.

 

[~Lyric~]

FYI re: Supreme Court action on secret testimony
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/asccalendar.htm

I was just coming over to post this:

Feb. 10th, it is listed toward the end of the day under addendum:

CV-15-0005-PR KPNX TV et al v HON. STEPHENS/STATE/ARIAS

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/asccalendar.htm

 

[atthelake]

The questions to DR also bothered me because they had nothing to do with the lying statement giving by that MM creep. they were about the religious aspects of her faith and sex questions. So I believe someone on that jury is a stealth juror and is trying to get information to use at deliberation. One of the former jurors on the first trial said one of them submitted a lot of questions and a lot of them didn't submit any. They cant talk to each other so these bad questions could be coming from only one juror. The former juror said you can submit as many as you want, no limit per juror.

Respectfully disagree, see my previous post. We all see through our biases and I don't see what is bad. I really don't. I love other's views. I will ask you and others, what answer to a question would help if you were pro not DP to influence another, and for what point? (Other than getting sucked into discussing something that isn't even relevant to mitigation)

 

[atthelake]

Right AZL. But, did he lose it again in 2008? Or is that just rumour?

Only was a question by the DT, which Deanna said "I don't know" (paraphrase)

ETA: I see in scrolling up that AZLayer in #223 post said the she definitely heard that before. I had not, but refer to AZL now as she is more in the know on this than I. Perhaps someone can pull up a link for us?

ETA#2- I found that AZL was correct as Chris says " in 2007 and 2008" he lost his temple recommend (see Chris Hughes book review) which has this stated at https://books.google.com/books?id=lYYCkFHyUh4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=chris+hughes+did+travis+lose+his+temple+recommend&source=bl&ots=HkBkQSoN2P&sig=lowKoDzfKoK3zVlQ-Ey8bI3U_js&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_aTKVKfWCsqyggTXxoK4CQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chris%20hughes%20did%20travis%20lose%20his%20temple%20recommend&f=false



^^^^Why AZL is so good, her brain is a sponge for information and recollection :grouphug:

 

[RickshawFan]

There was one part I wasn't quite clear on. W1 met his future wife on-line. Some of us were wondering if he had done some wife-searching from the bishop's computer and maybe that had triggered the problem as opposed to Jake doing it. But the bishop was convinced it was Jake because Tommy and the bishop's son I believe it was both told him that Jake told them it was his fault.

I'll bet W1 told Jake how to do it, since that's evidently how W1 met his internet wife.

 

[Hope4More]

Only was a question by the DT, which Deanna said "I don't know" (paraphrase)

ETA: I see in scrolling up that AZLayer in #223 post said the she definitely heard that before. I had not, but refer to AZL now as she is more in the know on this than I. Perhaps someone can pull up a link for us?

ETA#2- I found that AZL was correct as Chris says "rumors are in 2007 and 2008" he lost his temple recommend (see Chris Hughes book review) which has this stated at https://books.google.com/books?id=lYYCkFHyUh4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=chris+hughes+did+travis+lose+his+temple+recommend&source=bl&ots=HkBkQSoN2P&sig=lowKoDzfKoK3zVlQ-Ey8bI3U_js&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_aTKVKfWCsqyggTXxoK4CQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chris%20hughes%20did%20travis%20lose%20his%20temple%20recommend&f=false

^^^^Why AZL is so good, her brain is a sponge for information and recollection :grouphug:

I answered this upthread, from Shannon Hogan's book. (eta or something....which is the link you just added, lol.)


Note that Taylor Searle is quoted on this question. He's on JM's list of witnesses.

 

[Wing Ding]

If hearsay against Travis was allowed in at this particular stage of the game, is hearsay against Jodi also allowed in? Considering how Judge Sherry limited Abe as to what he could and could not testify to what he knew to be true about Jodi, I wouldn't think Sherry would allow hearsay in against her. But what I'm getting at is will the jury ever hear that Jodi is suspected of slashing Travis's tires twice, and if so how does Juan that get in if not as hearsay evidence?

I think that's a compound question ~ Jodi Arias

 

[atthelake]

I was just spit ballin'. Bouncing ideas off people and trying to get other people's opinion on the questions. It helps to hear others' interpretations of things. It really does. It's why I asked. Maybe I'm wrong about the questions. Maybe I'm right. Doesn't matter. Just trying to have a discussion.

MeeBee... heck, just write on the wall and you are good teacher says :giggle: :blowkiss:

 

[TexMex]

IMO Beth has always been a prosecution leaning but fair reporter. I don't care if she speaks with a colleague (MK) who she sees daily in the courtroom.
She also had dinner with Katiecool and took pics with the Hughes and Deanna

 

[LambChop]

Name calling or negative name variations are not permitted.

Thanks, Lambchop

 

[AZlawyer]

Quick AZL question: JA said she wants to testify but is unable to for reasons given in chambers (or something to that effect).

Does this mean she is STILL not relinquishing her constitutional right to testify? If so, what are the ramifications of that, given the appeal to the AZ Supreme Court?

If the Supremes say, “We’re not taking up this appeal;” or if they decide to hear it, then rule against JA/DT, can the DT file another appeal on the Federal level, maintaining their client’s constitutional rights were violated?

Sorry. This little nugget still bothers me.

She is still pretending that she is being forced not to testify, yes. The ramifications are zero IMO unless the AZ Supreme Court collectively suffers a head injury.

If she gets the DP, the AZ Supreme Court is required to hear her appeal. There will no doubt also be a federal habeas petition down the line, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point is that it does not violate her constitutional rights to have a public trial, so yes it will be an appeal issue but no it will not be a successful appeal issue.

If hearsay against Travis was allowed in at this particular stage of the game, is hearsay against Jodi also allowed in? Considering how Judge Sherry limited Abe as to what he could and could not testify to what he knew to be true about Jodi, I wouldn't think Sherry would allow hearsay in against her. But what I'm getting at is will the jury ever hear that Jodi is suspected of slashing Travis's tires twice, and if so how does Juan that get in if not as hearsay evidence?

I think that's a compound question ~ Jodi Arias

Hearsay on both ends is allowed, which is why the Bishop was allowed to say that his family members told him they never saw Travis on that computer, and nephew Tommy told him that cousin Jake told him that Jake did something that caused the pop-up naked ladies on the computer.

I don't think there's any hearsay evidence that Jodi slashed Travis's tires. The problem with the tire-slashing is that there's no evidence at all against Jodi--just suspicion.

 

[RickshawFan]

I contacted BK because I had a small problem with my registration and PayPal. I think it is taken care of. But FYI, she told me that JSS has another death penalty case immediately after the Arias case. Can you imagine?? JSS is so far in the weeds with this one. Wow. I imagine the attorneys are learning how to use JSS to their advantage by watching JA/KN/JW/MDLR making a mockery of this courtroom.

What is the name of JSS's next DP case? I hope KN and JW are not the attorneys. JM might need a break as well. I actually think JSS is a very smart cookie. She will have learnt a lot from presiding over the Arias trial. No doubt she will do some things differently the second time around: smart people sometimes just have to plough into things so they can figure it out for next time. JSS has had to do this without creating grounds for appeal. These cases must be a lot for a judge to handle. They must be physically and emotionally draining. (Before this is over, JSS will almost certainly get carpal tunnel syndrome from hitting the white noise button in her court castle.) JSS rarely seems to get sick: that's impressive. And did someone say JSS doesn't even have a clerk? Does she have paralegals? Assistants? I feel so sorry for her sometimes: it's easy to be critical while forgetting that she is privy to a whole lot more about JA than we are.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree, but that's because we know the truth! JA maintained (as per the appeal to the AZ SC) she feels a clear and present danger from the public reaction to media reports about her testimony (or some such nonsense); this fear keeps her from speaking freely if the media is present.

For an appeal to be successful it would have to show that her rights were denied or that the lower court erred in a way that could have changed the outcome had the error not occurred.

Killer had the right to testify. She chose not to with media present. But media cannot be excluded so killer has no right to that concession, so it is not an issue for successful appeal.

Does not mean an appeal will not be filed. One certainly will. Or two...three...or more.

ETA: I see now that AZl has already answered the question. I really should read ALL posts before clicking on REPLY. :blushing:

 

[Sedona722]

My thoughts on why Travis was living in AZ is based on my own experience when I lived in Tucson. I worked with a nurse who was LDS. One night she came to work in the late '80's with this great new idea called PPL. She presented to me this great deal to buy legal insurance, that it was new and just starting up. I purchased a policy, was not asked to be a rep, just try out having legal insurance. She was very excited about this and said it will grow. So, I think Travis being in AZ may have been because PPL had become a really big thing and since he was high up, he was needed to be a leader in an area that was productive.

Anyway, I moved back to Pa. and when I needed some legal advice I went to an attorney and presented my PPL card. She said she never heard of it but took my card anyway instead of payment up front. A week later she called me to say PPL paid her fees right away and she was impressed and thought it was a great thing to have. The monthly fees for PPL were cheap back then and I kept it up for a year. Eventually I just let is slide, as I really didn't have any great need for legal advice.

So, this is just my :twocents: and JMO.

PS My sig is my tribute to my AZ living, I loved it there!!

 

[samspace070]

Respectfully disagree, see my previous post. We all see through our biases and I don't see what is bad. I really don't. I love other's views. I will ask you and others, what answer to a question would help if you were pro not DP to influence another, and for what point? (Other than getting sucked into discussing something that isn't even relevant to mitigation)

Upon reflection and reading other posters on this I have to agree with you. Nothing really bad about the questions just not having anything to do with mitigation. The sex life of DR and TA have nothing to do with JA killing him in such a brutal way. Also the religious questions don't seem to have anything to do with her mitigation either. It just confused me.:thinking:

 

[DebinGA]

We know TA's May 26, 2008, dx of the killer:

View attachment 68424

Travis of JA on May 26th: "That's the sociopath I know so well."

JA on May 28th: "Okay (checking list), now I can mark off "steal grandpa's gun"

 

[Val1]

I agree, but that's because we know the truth! JA maintained (as per the appeal to the AZ SC) she feels a clear and present danger from the public reaction to media reports about her testimony (or some such nonsense); this fear keeps her from speaking freely if the media is present.

Too bad it doesn't keep her from attending open court every chance she gets. Perhaps she should be sitting in that room where the Alexander family was put during AA's "interview", then we wouldn't have to watch her flirting with jurors or threatening witnesses with her hand gestures, let alone doing stare downs with anyone she feels is a threat to her "life".