Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/9-1/12 Break

[Hatfield]

The reason I think it was wrong for JSS to allow special "no cameras" and special "pseudo name" for this witness is now I think Nurmi will request that for other witnesses he has or may even get new witnesses to come on if they will get same special treatment.

It just opens the door for other witnesses to ask this same privilege. I am pretty sure that others yet to testify , will want to have that privelege if it is being handed out like candy.

 

[rose222]

The reason I think it was wrong for JSS to allow special "no cameras" and special "pseudo name" for this witness is now I think Nurmi will request that for other witnesses he has or may even get new witnesses to come on if they will get same special treatment.

It just opens the door for other witnesses to ask this same privilege. I am pretty sure that others yet to testify , will want to have that privelege if it is being handed out like candy.

That train wreck began when she allowed the convicted murderess to testify in secret. Now, of course the defense will demand that every witness be treated the same way. I dislike Nurmi and think he is morally bankrupt but he is doing his job--bending over backwards to see that Arias is not sentenced to death. This Judge, however, is not doing her job. I don't agree with the 'fear of appeals' explanation anymore. She is blatantly ignoring the higher courts' rulings. And that's just not right.

 

[SuzDuJour]

Same s&$t, different day...

 

[MeeBee]

It means that (1) the defense asked to keep out the Incinerator stuff, and (2) Juan filed some additional material responding to the ridiculous Prosecutorial Misconduct motion and had to file it under seal, probably because it contains John-Sue's real name or something lol.

BTW if the Incinerator was only on a work drive, it is absolutely proper for the Court to keep it out. No one is testifying about *advertiser censored* that was only found on BN's work drive, so therefore it's irrelevant what was deleted from the work drive. If *advertiser censored* was added to the work drive and the tracks deleted, who cares? The *advertiser censored* that John-Sue is discussing (i.e., the one single click to YouPorn and the supposed word searches that sound virus-y to me) is from the 2008 image and was there long before BN ever created any work drive.



Jan. 16 is the date for supplemental briefs to be filed with the AZ Supreme Court on the "secret trial" issue.



The clerk and social media person say that they were both just out of town when the ruling came down so this was the fastest way to let everyone know.

Fair enough, fair enough.

 

[Hope4More]

Yup I completely agree this is what started the.big fight. Jodi had harassed, intimidated and scared of e 2 previous serious potential love matches for Travis and here she was, doing it again. It set him off. In his mind, she knew how important being sealed in temple was for him and she sabotaging any chance for him of having that

I wish we could see the entire May 26th exchange. Even with the extra portions released this time around, we've seen only a small fraction of it. I'd especially be interested in whether or not JA added fuel to the fire by bringing in the "stolen" phone or whatever else.

What Travis accuses her of doing, early in exchange, is erasing emails. It's unclear if he's referring to emails sent on FB or on his computer. In his journal he says he's sent emails to his new cutie-pie. Again, unclear if on FB or on his computer.

Travis also accuses her of making up a story so untrue as to insult his intelligence, which definitely involved someone he thinks JA invented.

He sent JA an email the night of May 25 (which we have not seen, as far as I know) accusing her of making up the story...and whatever else. The May 26th fight starts off with his anger and contempt that she hadn't replied to that email.

IMO it is unclear if the story being referred to relates to the erased emails, though it probably was. It would have had to have been one twisted whopper, to explain how she knew someone who hacked into TA's FB or computer just to erase emails he was presumably sending to a love interest.

I think that his initial anger wasn't about her interfering with this particular new girl per se, but an accumulated unexpressed anger about all the harm she had done to him, and continued to do, even from 1,000 miles away. I think he was the one who felt powerless, not her.

There is no way JA allowed him to rage against her unchecked for 2 hours. She's incapable. I know she played the suicide card and the woe is me card. Just have to wonder what anger cards she played, and if the phone was one of them.

It still matters to me what Chris and Sky believe, because they HAVE seen that whole exchange, as well as all of the tens of thousands of emails/texts chats. They've said they're unsure what caused the fight, but think blackmail over the sex tape is most likely.

 

[Magdalyn]

JSS: "My concern is that if I release the transcripts, potential damage cannot be undone."

What possible damage is she referring to? What possible other damage can be done? Travis has been dragged through the mud over and over again. WTH

Quote from BK Site.

Agreed. Additionally, the jury has already heard all of what's in the transcripts. This sentence is for the jury to decide.

What damage will befall whom if the general public knows (as they should according to the constitution and the state Supreme Court) exactly what JA said on the stand?

 

[Reagan]

This retrial is the biggest mess I've ever witnessed. I think JA deserves the death penalty, but this should have been dealt with within a week...2 weeks at the most.

I can't imagine what the jury is thinking right now. Disjointed testimony, super secret witnesses, a 30 yr old having *advertiser censored* on his computer (which has what to do exactly with sparing Jodis life?!), delay upon delay. It's freaking insanity.

What a waste.

 

[Hope4More]

Smoke and Mirrors. Folks!

I think we are all going to be disappointed.

This "pizzing contest, didn't accomplish anything...EXCEPT what it was orchestrated to do. STALL!

Trust me. Jodi didn't reveal anything, Nurmi wanted under wraps.

Congrats to the Choreographer tho.

sherry...you can waste money and time with the VERY best.

I don't think there's anything of great interest there either. Maybe some embellishments about abuse or a woe is me soliloquy, but that's about it.

I think all the drama about testifying in secret is just standard JA. It's about control and feeling entitled and getting off on the drama and fun of playing diva. She was upset yesterday because she was told she didn't get her way, that's all.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I'm patient, I'll wait for the transcripts to be released, then wait for them to be posted. Then, I'll read my brains out.

There are (apparently), 400 pages at $1/per. That's the same cost as documents Muzikman had to pay for in the CA trial. I and many WS'ers here chipped in to defray his costs, but the docs were priceless.

I don't think that should happen here because we will have them all posted online, sooner or later.

In this case, however, I don't believe that the Court should charge for these. There would have been no need for them IF this particular witness had been required to testify within earshot of the media. Why should the media pay for JSS' unlawful closing of the courtroom?

AZ, you may be able to answer this question. In many jurisdictions, the majority of a court reporter's income comes from transcribing and selling the transcriptions. This work is done on the court reporter's own time. I'd hate to see Mike shorted financially because of this. Is this how in works in your state?

 

[Nosey Parker]

I don't think there's anything of great interest there either. Maybe some embellishments about abuse or a woe is me soliloquy, but that's about it.

I think all the drama about testifying in secret is just standard JA. It's about control and feeling entitled and getting off on the drama and fun of playing diva. She was upset yesterday because she was told she didn't get her way, that's all.

I agree it's standard Arias, but there was sufficient reason, rightly or wrongly, for JSS to allow the secrecy. There has to be something at least semi-dramatic about her testimony, although obviously not enough to impress the higher courts. I'm anxious to read it, not so much to learn of Arias' latest lies, but to determine whatever could have possessed JSS to make such a ruling.

 

[ICit]

I am going to go on the record and say that IF and WHEN the transcripts are released they will show that JA testified to something far worse than just incest. She simply must outdo any other high profile defendant in the history of time. After all, she is the Queen of Pitiful victims! No one, ever, since the beginning of time, has led a life as full of suffering that she has.
Get your hankie ready. And go ahead and get out the hard liquer. Those will be required for all good people who have to read the bullchit she put before the jury

 

[Kamille]

In this day and age, how is it possible that a computer program is not recording a transcript as people speak, or as a court reporter types? I thought we saw that in the CA trial?

 

[Kamille]

I agree it's standard Arias, but there was sufficient reason, rightly or wrongly, for JSS to allow the secrecy. There has to be something at least semi-dramatic about her testimony, although obviously not enough to impress the higher courts. I'm anxious to read it, not so much to learn of Arias' latest lies, but to determine whatever could have possessed JSS to make such a ruling.

I thought the issue was that if she did not get to testify in secret she would not testify but she would also not be agreeing to give up her right to testify. So that could be an appeal issue. Not so much about what she was going to say, but that she wouldn't say it unless it was in secret. And perhaps she has not really said all that she wants to yet and won't if she has to say it in open court to keep that appeal route open.

So she knows now either she says it in open court or drops the whole testimony. Maybe she's mad that she wasn't able to tell her "full story" yet?

MOO

 

[geevee]

So was JSS talking out of her butt when she said that she had it transcribed and it was ready for release if necessary?

She ordered the court reporter to prepare the written transcript back on 12/02/14, he's had more than a month to make ready about 3 hours worth of testimony.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Good Morning, Y'all !

:happydance: Happy Friday !


lease:lease:lease:lease:lease: Please let this be Transcript Release Day !

 

[Nosey Parker]

In this day and age, how is it possible that a computer program is not recording a transcript as people speak, or as a court reporter types? I thought we saw that in the CA trial?

I'm sure there is, which is why these transcripts are full of Spell Check type errors. I'm afraid JSS is hoodwinking us about the delay, as she did the jury when she told them Geffner was 'not available'.

 

[rose222]

I am going to go on the record and say that IF and WHEN the transcripts are released they will show that JA testified to something far worse than just incest. She simply must outdo any other high profile defendant in the history of time. After all, she is the Queen of Pitiful victims! No one, ever, since the beginning of time, has led a life as full of suffering that she has.
Get your hankie ready. And go ahead and get out the hard liquer. Those will be required for all good people who have to read the bullchit she put before the jury

She has never experienced poverty, never been a victim of war/genocide, has never fought for her country, never experienced the death of a child, never had a crippling physical disease...The only stories she can come up with involve abuse and mental illness.

 

[elementary]

So was JSS talking out of her butt when she said that she had it transcribed and it was ready for release if necessary?

You mean, did she lie in court about transcriptions, and lie in court about releasing the transcripts immediately? Is she getting her minions to stonewall?

 

[MeeBee]

I thought the issue was that if she did not get to testify in secret she would not testify but she would also not be agreeing to give up her right to testify. So that could be an appeal issue. Not so much about what she was going to say, but that she wouldn't say it unless it was in secret. And perhaps she has not really said all that she wants to yet and won't if she has to say it in open court to keep that appeal route open.

So she knows now either she says it in open court or drops the whole testimony. Maybe she's mad that she wasn't able to tell her "full story" yet?

MOO

Yeah she had crafted a story about how she couldn't tell the full truth in the first trial because of fear of threats and the media's presence. This also served to hide whatever ridiculous embellishments she's come up with. This kind of craps all over that narrative and now she either must continue her testilying in open court, or she has to stop it, which sucks for her because she was just getting started. It also tells her that a higher court will not decide that she has a right or ever had a right to testify in secret.

 

[Mindmatters]

I agree it's standard Arias, but there was sufficient reason, rightly or wrongly, for JSS to allow the secrecy. There has to be something at least semi-dramatic about her testimony, although obviously not enough to impress the higher courts. I'm anxious to read it, not so much to learn of Arias' latest lies, but to determine whatever could have possessed JSS to make such a ruling.

Hi Nosey, I think your guess is as good as anyone's with JA the driver of this train wreck of a trial. You would think that what JA was testifying to would be the relevant/deciding factor in the Judges decision to close the courtroom but with this upside-down trial you never know-- afterall a criminal does have the right to NOT testify on their own behalf. Perhaps it is that JSS bought into the "mental instability" and JA's right to present mitigation aspect of the DT's argument--i.e., that it wasn't what was being said but the environment/conditions that it is being said--essentially that JA's brain "scrambles" under pressure so she removed the "pressure" of the public scrutiny.

FWIW--I wonder if anyone else thought it interesting that JA was reported to be visibly agitated and upset (presumably upon hearing the AZSC denied her stay) left the courtroom with baliff only to return a while later calm and "drawing". Does anyone else think when she left was medicated to avoid what happened after the verdict?