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

[Caylee Advocate]

Naw....She just has a lazy eye which gets more dominant when tired ...LOL...Isnt she just a s'wonderful example of a swarthy manipulator?? :scared::drumroll:

Thanks. Regardless, she is a pig.

 

[katydid23]

I had asked a question in the previous thread: Did Mark McGee even know Travis? Does anyone know or is this part of the whole lie?

I dont know for sure but I would imagine they did know of each other, at the very least. They seemed to have friends in common and were in the same church and social circles.

 

[katydid23]

I agree with you. However, MDLR is a relatively young woman. Unless she won the lottery...at some point she is going to be FORCED to justify her behavior to her next employer. Gonna take some doing, she has rendered herself almost useless to a real Law Firm. MOO

A lot will come down to whether their mitigation case is successful, or not. If the killer walks away from the DP for the 2nd time, ChaCha will get more work, imo.

 

[Zuri]

I did not get a chance to post today. So, I am going to leave you with my opinion regarding the tweets that came from JAs Twitter today regarding Deanna lying and not being credible and the Bishop. I won't repeat them I am sure most of you saw them. Cha Cha Cha or whoever tweets for her, and it seems to be Cha Cha Cha, has to keep the minions stoked. Heaven forbid they get a clue. JA and Cha Cha Cha do not want the minions to even remotely think that JA could be guilty. They would start dropping off like flies, if they were smart. So, Cha Cha Cha acts like the cheer leader, who says JA is winning. Those minions are important. They are there to do the dirty work, like walk up and try to talk to jurors or maybe even steel a computer, get messages out for the killer, sneak out her drawing. What would JA do if they began to think for themselves? Cha Cha Cha would be left with the bulk of the dirty work.

Something I noticed when I read the few posts there from last night: There seem to be a lot of posters there who are victims of DV. Perhaps they are sorting their truth through this lie that is CMJA. It is kinda like a mutual DV survivorship blog.

Here at WS, I think we come here because of our own passion for justice, whatever the driving force or interest was. No one in my normal every day life is a homicide survivor nor understands it. I don't speak about it and most have no clue. I can come here and write about my perspective and know that some of you are members of this horrible club, others have the compassion to understand loss and grief and desire to see whatever wrongs can be righted.

I feel sorry for them as they have attached to a heinous felon, but hopefully have found others to share their experiences with. IMO, JMV

 

[Dr. Know?]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq · 9m9 minutes ago
Forgot a #JodiArias Q tonight: Nurmi wanted to recall Deanna because she said she spoke to the Bishop. Juan said supbpeona 2 make it harder.

https://twitter.com/jeffgoldesq/status/560644469750792194

I need to add, actually because Deanna was asked by Wilmart all her little tales to the Bishop and that didn't fly, that's why she is supposedly subject to testify again...fgs, put a lid on it already!

 

[LyndyLoo]

I had asked a question in the previous thread: Did Mark McGee even know Travis? Does anyone know or is this part of the whole lie?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong..But didn't I read( versus heard) It's only per McGee's affidavit he knew him...and since this mystery witness#1 has never been cross examined let alone interviewed by State (Juan)..then it really comes down to an unknown,unsubstantiated allegation...Yet, somehow THIS Judge is allowing DT to present it a some sort of fact????????? The appellate courts could have a coronary reviewing the rulings on allowing such evidence to even enter a court case...But I will admit..I am a purist when it comes to evidence being properly vetted long before being allowed...:tantrum:

 

[Truth Detector]

Is she *advertiser censored*-eyed? Cross-eyed? Astigmatism?

At times she appears esotropic. I've assumed strabismus. Congenital?

Amblyopia with underlying strabismus?

Disclaimer: I'm not an ophthalmologist, and I eschewed the Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Myvice]

Go light your candle for Travis

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=TVA

Asked and answered!!

Thanks NashBridges2

 

[5bigfish5]

A lot will come down to whether their mitigation case is successful, or not. If the killer walks away from the DP for the 2nd time, ChaCha will get more work, imo.

Doubt that, a loose cannon is a loose cannon. MOO

 

[geevee]

I dont know for sure but I would imagine they did know of each other, at the very least. They seemed to have friends in common and were in the same church and social circles.

This is a tweet from yesterday:

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 14s14 seconds ago
Reid says she never met the person who swore the affidavit but knows his name.
---

If Deanna never met Wit#1 I also wonder if Travis knew him.

 

[daisydomino]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong..But didn't I read( versus heard) It's only per McGee's affidavit he knew him...and since this mystery witness#1 has never been cross examined let alone interviewed by State (Juan)..then it really comes down to an unknown,unsubstantiated allegation...Yet, somehow THIS Judge is allowing DT to present it a some sort of fact????????? The appellate courts could have a coronary reviewing the rulings on allowing such evidence to even enter a court case...But I will admit..I am a purist when it comes to evidence being properly vetted long before being allowed...:tantrum:

But this is what the jury is for.

 

[katydid23]

This is a tweet from yesterday:

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 14s14 seconds ago
Reid says she never met the person who swore the affidavit but knows his name.
---

If Deanna never met Wit#1 I also wonder if Travis knew him.

Reid doesnt know him, but does not mean that TA never met him. I don't know for sure, but think it is a possibility. I wish TA's friends would say one way or the other.

 

[Princess of Oz]

Is she *advertiser censored*-eyed? Cross-eyed? Astigmatism?

No, I think one of them just wanders around on it's own.

 

[katydid23]

Doubt that, a loose cannon is a loose cannon. MOO

Having worked for a defense attorney, I have to say that being a 'loose cannon' is not always considered a bad thing. Not if you succeed at your job.

JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong..But didn't I read( versus heard) It's only per McGee's affidavit he knew him...and since this mystery witness#1 has never been cross examined let alone interviewed by State (Juan)..then it really comes down to an unknown,unsubstantiated allegation...Yet, somehow THIS Judge is allowing DT to present it a some sort of fact????????? The appellate courts could have a coronary reviewing the rulings on allowing such evidence to even enter a court case...But I will admit..I am a purist when it comes to evidence being properly vetted long before being allowed...:tantrum:

Judges are not authorized to "vet" evidence for truthfulness before it is allowed. Juries get to decide what to believe, even if it is obviously a lie. JSS is not allowing the defense to present Witness #1's testimony "as fact"--she is allowing them to present it as testimony, which is what it is.

 

[NashBridges2]

At times she appears esotropic. I've assumed strabismus. Congenital?

Amblyopia with underlying strabismus?

Disclaimer: I'm not an ophthalmologist, and I eschewed the Holiday Inn Express last night.

Something is just wrong with her whole face. Her jaw/mouth/lips. I don't know what it is but I really don't find her attractive at all, then or now.

 

[Truth Detector]

Something is just wrong with her whole face. Her jaw/mouth/lips. I don't know what it is but I really don't find her attractive at all, then or now.

Well, if the "before" pics didn't hook you, surely this "after" pose:

Is that feigned 'authentic' emotion?​

 

[Princess of Oz]

Hope it's ok to post this here. If y'all haven't seen the video in my signature, you should.

 

[Mindmatters]

But this is what the jury is for.

Daisy, just wanted to tell you that I really like your avi.

 

[Shadowboy]

Judges are not authorized to "vet" evidence for truthfulness before it is allowed. Juries get to decide what to believe, even if it is obviously a lie. JSS is not allowing the defense to present Witness #1's testimony "as fact"--she is allowing them to present it as testimony, which is what it is.

Sorry for responding to comments in the previous thread and responding without quotes. Somewhere, in the previous thread, there was a discussion as to JA’s culpability re: her defense. There was speculation (as has been ongoing) that JA’s long, freaky “creature” hands have guided her defense/mitigation arguments. ITA with those in the previous thread who believe JA is in charge of her defense.

This current jury knows that JA is guilty of premeditated murder with cruelty. Did I say that right? THAT verdict is not in question. Premeditated. Cruelty. Here is what this jury knows: JA stabbed, chased, cut through a windpipe; dragged a lifeless body across a blood soaked tile floor; shot “it” in the head; arranged/kicked “it” into a shower; attempted a cleanup; and (likely) rinsed herself off, as “its” lifeless body bled out in the shower.

That said …

IIRC, earlier in this sentencing phase, the DT filed a motion saying the Defense for JA would be “scrutinized” in years to come if JA was not allowed to testify in “secret.”

Allow my non-legal take: The DT has known, from the beginning, JA’s insistence for “self-defense” was bogus. They have known, from the beginning of this sentencing phase, that “TA was a bad boyfriend/TA viewed chorn/I was abused” are all poor/non-existent mitigating factors. Yet, give the DT credit: JA testified without cross. Seriously slimy; but the DT got her “I was abused” chit in the record and in front of the jury, without JM’s “wha?” The Geff’s testimony was disrupted. And the Alexanders’ VIS are a thing of the past. The DT also presented “innuendoes,” in front of the jury, that the Victim sought out *advertiser censored*; the Prosecutor tried to hide the Victim’s proclivities for *advertiser censored*.

DT also got the Court to admit testimony out of order, further confusing the “truth landscape” (as opposed to the “slime highway.”

I don’t agree with the DT’s strategy, but ….? I think they did what they had to do, given “puppeteering” by their client.

AZL: Is there any precedent for a Defense Team filing an appeal based on, “Our Client insisted *advertiser censored* defense, in spite of our advice?” Does an Appeals Court consider such an argument?