Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[MeeBee]

For the record, I've seen the testimony a couple times.

I like and believe Dr. Horn and did not implicate he was lying, so please don't accuse and just ask.

All I am trying to be here is devils advocate, and can see how that testimony could have confused jurors, and myself in some ways because thinking logically I think gunshot was first. (Easiest way to incapacitate).

However, some of you mentionned Jodi wanted Travis to suffer, therefore, it makes sense the rage of the stabbing came first.

I wasn't accusing. But to be fair you did link to a website/article that holds the opinion that Dr. Horn lied about the dura mater. And you did have "error" in quotes when referring to Flores and Horn, with the, seemingly to me, obvious implication that they deliberately misled the court as part of an agenda. If that's not what you were trying to say I'm sorry. You just really made it seem that way.

 

[Dmacky]

Tom Tingle @TomTingle2 · 7h

#JodiArias smiles at her attorney during hearing in court Mon to decide if TV cameras will be allowed in sent retrial

 

[Z&BsMommy]

:bdsurprise: artyguy2: arty: :Happybirthday: artyguy: :gift: :cake4u: :confetti:

Awww thank you!!![emoji8]

 

[LinTX]

For the record, I've seen the testimony a couple times.

I like and believe Dr. Horn and did not implicate he was lying, so please don't accuse and just ask.

All I am trying to be here is devils advocate, and can see how that testimony could have confused jurors, and myself in some ways because thinking logically I think gunshot was first. (Easiest way to incapacitate).

However, some of you mentionned Jodi wanted Travis to suffer, therefore, it makes sense the rage of the stabbing came first.

Accuse? Lying? I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were confused by that site. If you have in fact read testimony, and understood it, then why talk about the bullet maybe passing through the face, missing the brain, etc. repeating several times that you think the gunshot came first? I tried to show you there was no way that was possible, but I never 'accused' you of anything. If you were playing devils advocate, then you got a response - which is the whole purpose of taking that role, right?

 

[T-4-2]

I'm thinking Sheriff Joe made her cut it because it was getting too long and she could have used it to hang herself.

Or one of her fellow Estrellettes might try to strangle her with it? (Actually someone mentioned that there's probably an in-house rule about max. length. I agree.)

 

[Love Never Fails]

Curious in Indiana, you make a very good point about the Arias parents' interview six years ago. It was so telling.

About that strange message you got in the text block, sometimes it has a mind of its own. You can often get round it by going advanced, even though you began as "post quick reply". Sure is annoying when you have finished four paragraphs!

Tuba, I think my IPad just has a mind of its own tonight. Not only do I keep getting a message that my posts are too short, I type two or three lines before a word ever shows up. Like there is a ghost in my keyboard. Strange. I will try the advance feature next time. And someone mentioned copying and pasting. I tried that and it would not work. I think it might just be something at my end. Oh well.

Yes, we all know how it will go for Jodi's family if they testify. It won't be pretty. I am sure JM will have to tread softly but he can do it. The sad thing is, her parents were just telling Det Flores the truth. They could not understand the mind of their own daughter. Nurmi was surely doing Jodi a favor by not allowing her parents to testify.

How does a person get to be thirty years old and not have a friend? No one who can be honest and say what a good person she was. That says volumes about Jodi.

And it sounds as if things are heating up for Maria de la Rosa. Is she as nutty as Jodi? I am beginning to wonder what kind of'person becomes a mitigation specialist. There is a good article about her input in this trial at the examiner. (On the other thread.)

 

[Love Never Fails]

Accuse? Lying? I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were confused by that site. If you have in fact read testimony, and understood it, then why talk about the bullet maybe passing through the face, missing the brain, etc. repeating several times that you think the gunshot came first? I tried to show you there was no way that was possible, but I never 'accused' you of anything. If you were playing devils advocate, then you got a response - which is the whole purpose of taking that role, right?

ITA. Thanks.

 

[NERN]

Someone said that her new haircut made her look younger - NOT! I think jail life is starting to take its toll on her.
I also think that it is an abomination that she is allowed to auction of her eye glasses - even if it is for charity.

Glad the judge denied the ex parte meeting after accepting Arias' motion to relinquish her right to represent herself.

 

[T-4-2]

Yes, we all know how it will go for Jodi's family if they testify. It won't be pretty. I am sure JM will have to tread softly but he can do it. The sad thing is, her parents were just telling Det Flores the truth. They could not understand the mind of their own daughter. Nurmi was surely doing Jodi a favor by not allowing her parents to testify.

And during the trial, what the heck was Jodi's mother on? She and her sister were just having way too much fun. Ix-nay on the iggling-gay, ladies.

 

[UESwifey]

LOL. I really think she asked to have it cut and maybe given away to someone. Too close to trial for JM to verify what she did with it or if she turned it over to someone on the outside. So she could say she donated it at the last minute. No one will argue with her at that point. jmo

I feel like she definitely wants everyone to know she donated it, but when it comes down to it... Who cares??! If you were on a jury and you were faced with sending a cruel convicted murderer to death, would a hair donation really sway your decision? I wouldn't even think twice about it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LinTX]

Tuba, I think my IPad just has a mind of its own tonight. Not only do I keep getting a message that my posts are too short, I type two or three lines before a word ever shows up. Like there is a ghost in my keyboard. Strange. I will try the advance feature next time. And someone mentioned copying and pasting. I tried that and it would not work. I think it might just be something at my end. Oh well.

Yes, we all know how it will go for Jodi's family if they testify. It won't be pretty. I am sure JM will have to tread softly but he can do it. The sad thing is, her parents were just telling Det Flores the truth. They could not understand the mind of their own daughter. Nurmi was surely doing Jodi a favor by not allowing her parents to testify.

How does a person get to be thirty years old and not have a friend? No one who can be honest and say what a good person she was. That says volumes about Jodi.

And it sounds as if things are heating up for Maria de la Rosa. Is she as nutty as Jodi? I am beginning to wonder what kind of'person becomes a mitigation specialist. There is a good article about her input in this trial at the examiner. (On the other thread.)

While I think MDR may be a prime example of what not to do, I see the role she's supposed to play differently. Mitigation can add to justice, and I can understand why someone trained in uncovering and presenting those factors is used. But not everyone has real issues, and not every specialist presents real mitigation - or at least what it's supposed to be about. There are cases where a person's background or other factors not of his own making may have affected a defendant in ways that may not rise to innocence of the crime, but could justify mercy. But just as our original lawmakers never intended defense to be what it's now become, mitigation has been abused to the point that any person found guilty is supposed to be seen as something other than just plain deserving of the sentence the crime calls for. Most of the time, IMO, that is not the case.

 

[T-4-2]

Cue wtf face...She also had similar gaffe later on, something directed at Dr. Demarte about not being able to interview the dead.

And then there was that time (sorry, can't quote it) when Dr. D. was on the stand and Wilmott read the copyright info for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, then tried to get Dr. D. to acknowledge that citing test results in court somehow constituted copyright infringement...? Or that other time (different test I think) when despite Dr. Demarte saying about a dozen different times in different ways including hand gestures and interpretive dance that CERTAIN SCALES are NOT USED and so she DID NOT INCLUDE THEM in her RESULTS. Wilmott was like a dog with a bone (sorry to all my canine friends out there) trying to somehow make this look like incompetence on Demarte's part and going so far as to have Demarte explain the inapplicable scales, inapplicable or not. Oh, then there was the nonsense about Wilmott not knowing licensure requirements for AZ psychologists. Or her attempt to get Demarte to concede that AV is a better "therapist" because she has way more experience than Demarte, even though AV may not have a snooty-pants "doctoral" degree.

The prosecution witnesses must have gone home shaking their heads and looking forward to a long, hot bath. Wilmott must have gone home grinding her teeth and looking forward to a long, tall drink.

 

[T-4-2]

I also think that it is an abomination that she is allowed to auction of her eye glasses - even if it is for charity.

Plus it makes her look like she's saying "As long as we all know I don't need these anyway, I might as well try to make a little money with them."

No shame. At all. Whatsoever.

 

[MrsBoomer]

And during the trial, what the heck was Jodi's mother on? She and her sister were just having way too much fun. Ix-nay on the iggling-gay, ladies.

That really was weird, the big grins & giggling. All they were missing was popcorn.

 

[MeeBee]

And then there was that time (sorry, can't quote it) when Dr. D. was on the stand and Wilmott read the copyright info for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, then tried to get Dr. D. to acknowledge that citing test results in court somehow constituted copyright infringement...? Or that other time (different test I think) when despite Dr. Demarte saying about a dozen different times in different ways including hand gestures and interpretive dance that CERTAIN SCALES are NOT USED and so she DID NOT INCLUDE THEM in her RESULTS. Wilmott was like a dog with a bone (sorry to all my canine friends out there) trying to somehow make this look like incompetence on Demarte's part and going so far as to have Demarte explain the inapplicable scales, inapplicable or not. Oh, then there was the nonsense about Wilmott not knowing licensure requirements for AZ psychologists. Or her attempt to get Demarte to concede that AV is a better "therapist" because she has way more experience than Demarte, even though AV may not have a snooty-pants "doctoral" degree.

The prosecution witnesses must have gone home shaking their heads and looking forward to a long, hot bath. Wilmott must have gone home grinding her teeth and looking forward to a long, tall drink.

See as a layman I cannot figure out if Wilmott is a bad lawyer or if this is just par. Yes, she had a raw deal with her defendant, but I've seen better lawyers with worse circumstances make better arguments than her without making a fool of themselves. That copyright thing was rich. The posters here were floored at what was happening, Wilmott arguing this as if she'd made a huge discovery.

I think my favorite moment with Demarte was when Wilmott was questioning her and the scores and acting like Demarte didn't know what she was saying, the usual. In her indignant tone she pointed to a score with the initials 'PD' that Demarte had not talked about that was off the charts high and asked her, "and what does this stand for?" And with a glint in her eye Demarte said, "psychopathic deviance." The look on her face seemed to say, yes, please, let's talk about that. Wilmott, without acknowledging it, quickly moved on.

 

[T-4-2]

The extent of my legal knowledge, such as it is, comes entirely from TV shows. And we know how reliable they are. But according to TV, don't all law firms, big ones anyway, have researchers/investigators? Was poor Jen flying solo on this?

 

[T-4-2]

Cue wtf face...

Lordy. The more I think about it, the more wtf moments keep coming back. Willmott asks DeMarte about some specific document or something, DeMarte says (something along the lines of) "May I reference my notes?" Willmott says "Sure," and then DeMarte, giving every impression of being an actual grown-up professional person, leans over, gets the document she needs from her professional-looking attaché, looks expectantly at Willmott, whose completely lame response is something like "Oh, you have it right there?"

I guess she was thinking about Dr. "Let Me Hunt Through My Pile Of Sh**" Samuels, who seems to think a stack of books on a trolley makes him look like hotter stuff than DeMarte and her one little business-like brief case.

 

[LinasK]

Plus it makes her look like she's saying "As long as we all know I don't need these anyway, I might as well try to make a little money with them."

No shame. At all. Whatsoever.

Same thing with her hair. It's a free comodity to her.

 

[cindymac]

Too close to trial for JM to verify what she did with it or if she turned it over to someone on the outside.

This is supposed to be her fourth hair donation, and JM could (I hope) easily debunk this nonsense by pointing out how very odd it is that, until last month, her hair's been almost exactly the same length, month in, month out, for the last past six years.

As he's presumably seen her in court at various points in time, he could probably testify to that himself.

 

[cindymac]

I'm reviewing her mitigators and thinking of how JM might counter them differently this time.

Her incessant and (it seems) aggressive fundraising for appeal monies might be an option. I'm sure the jury would not take it lightly that on the one hand she's pleading for their mercy, and on the other, colluding with groups who think she's innocent to fight whatever sentence they might impose.

Obviously she has a right to appeals, including automatic appeals, but this virulent campaigning on her own behalf, at this time - before she's even been sentenced - speaks "lack of remorse" loud and clear. Or at least, it would to me.