Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/14/14

[Dmacky]

Geez I was just looking at some of JA's post interviews I am smh. At the beginning she was asked how she kept so calm. She says she was shaking, but she didn't know others noticed it, but they did, they told her...I was almost convulsing Her answers are always so frikken long with ridiculous verbs thrown in everywhere. I literally could not even listen anymore to her MOUTH. As far as I got was the convulsing part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtFk15OtuNc

 

[Hope4More]

I'm surprised at how many schizophrenics have not only been sentenced to death but have actually been executed. That's a hard one for me to digest.

And then you have Arias who is just plain evil/sociopathic trying to use the mental illness excuse. Please! Even if someone were to offer me a thousand bucks to find ONE mitigating factor, I simply couldn't do it. There are no mitigating factors. None. Send her away to death row already. She richly deserves it.

My DH agrees with you. He's vehemently anti- DP, and only listens to my trial updates because he loves me. When I asked him to imagine being a juror listening to this mitigation case and how he would be responding, his reply was that he'd be baffled why he was being subjected to all this irrelevant crap. What he would want and need to hear is, does she or does she not feel remorse? Because if she doesn't, its black and white to him that she deserves the DP. The rest doesn't matter.

I was surprised how vehemently he felt, given he doesn't care about the case and is radically anti- DP. May the jury see it so clearly as well.

 

[bsk]

Interesting Jeff Gold spreecast. Cathy of courtchatter, a friend of some members of the Alexander family, gives a lot of insight into Dan Freeman. (ETA: It's 35 minutes long.)
http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-omg-my-bf-so

She also points out it could be a problem for Juan because Melendez (or is it Menendez) testified originally that there were no viruses on Travis's computer. Jeff thinks that doesn't matter and that JSS will toss the motion.

Jeff also thinks that Juan could end up just playing back parts of cross instead of calling lots of witnesses.

He also states what we all have thought all along - Travis taking Mimi to Cancun is why she decided to kill Travis. He also thinks it's ridiculous that JSS is letting KN re-litigate the case as though he's trying to convince the jury she was really only guilty of second degree murder.

 

[Hope4More]

I hope post trial to hear why JM doesn't want Sky or Chris Hughes to rebut Dr. F's blather about their emails.

It seems like their testimony would be the simplest way to gut 90% of Dr. F's faux analysis and to demolish her credibility. There must be a very excellent reason why JM is choosing not to call them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Geez I was just looking at some of JA's post interviews I am smh. At the beginning she was asked how she kept so calm. She says she was shaking, but she didn't know others noticed it, but they did, they told her...I was almost convulsing Her answers are always so frikken long with ridiculous verbs thrown in everywhere. I literally could not even listen anymore to her MOUTH. As far as I got was the convulsing part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtFk15OtuNc

My favorite interview is where the guy ( can not remember the name) was interviewing her and he hit a nerve and she said she didn't know he was a hater.. That was awesome. She thinks she can snow anyone and win them and there he took that from her.

 

[Sweetiemom]

I agree with other posters in the last thread. As much as I dislike JA, as horrible as the crime was, I think she would have been far better off passing on putting on a defense case.

If she had just got up, stood infront of the jury and cried, begged and apologized for killing him, admitting he was a great man, who didn't deserve to die. Admitting she loved him and he didn't love her back, and it destroyed her. Admitting that she is so sorry for what she has done, to her family, to HIS family... She would have been much better off infront of this jury.

That's all well and good-but would the jury believe her? (Knowing what a consummate liar she is)

 

[MeeBee]

Interesting Jeff Gold spreecast. Cathy of courtchatter, a friend of some members of the Alexander family, gives a lot of insight into Dan Freeman. (ETA: It's 35 minutes long.)
http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-omg-my-bf-so

She also points out it could be a problem for Juan because Melendez (or is it Menendez) testified originally that there were no viruses on Travis's computer. Jeff thinks that doesn't matter and that JSS will toss the motion.

Jeff also thinks that Juan could end up just playing back parts of cross instead of calling lots of witnesses.

He also states what we all have thought all along - Travis taking Mimi to Cancun is why she decided to kill Travis. He also thinks it's ridiculous that JSS is letting KN re-litigate the case as though he's trying to convince the jury she was really only guilty of second degree murder.

I was wondering about that because I'd sworn Melendez had said there were no viruses on the computer. Why would he say that if there were viruses and malware found so early on? Why did he say there was no *advertiser censored* on the computer when there was, it was just viruses?

 

[bsk]

I agree with other posters in the last thread. As much as I dislike JA, as horrible as the crime was, I think she would have been far better off passing on putting on a defense case.

If she had just got up, stood infront of the jury and cried, begged and apologized for killing him, admitting he was a great man, who didn't deserve to die. Admitting she loved him and he didn't love her back, and it destroyed her. Admitting that she is so sorry for what she has done, to her family, to HIS family... She would have been much better off infront of this jury.

IMHO she might have been able to fake that at this point IF it looked like she had just snapped and killed him in a moment of passion/anger. (Of course if that was true she wouldn't have been convicted of first degree murder.) Given how premeditated, calculated, and brutal it was, not to mention the cover-up afterward, it would be impossible to be convincing about being remorseful.

 

[Dmacky]

My favorite interview is where the guy ( can not remember the name) was interviewing her and he hit a nerve and she said she didn't know he was a hater.. That was awesome. She thinks she can snow anyone and win them and there he took that from her.

That would be Ryan Owens :smile:


And if she gets the death penalty, well that would be less wigs for her to donate her hair to Locks of Love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg7y3NgGBhs

 

[Hope4More]

I was wondering about that because I'd sworn Melendez had said there were no viruses on the computer. Why would he say that if there were viruses and malware found so early on? Why did he say there was no *advertiser censored* on the computer when there was, it was just viruses?

It is curious. As opposed to nefarious. Hopefully the answer is a trial footnote, listed on page 2,758,942 of the trial transcript and analysis, read only by the truly hard-core trial followers such as all of us.:lookingitup:

 

[Love Never Fails]

Bringing over Curious in Indiana's post from the last thread.

For something to be relevant, it has to make some fact at issue more or less likely to be true.

So what can the jury consider in this phase? (1) The circumstances of the offense (just how premeditated and cruel was this, etc.)--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead is not relevant to the circumstances of the offense. (2) Other things that could justify a life vs. death sentence for Jodi--Travis's feeling that he might turn up dead also has nothing to do with whether Jodi's life is worth sparing.

Hi AZlawyer. I just got here. . I have to say I am shocked by the rules of the court (or the rules of the "game"). If I know someone has been stalking me, I have just had some bitter conversations with her, I am scared to death but maybe too embarrassed to go to the police, and I am with a friend and I tell that friend, "Hey if a day comes that you don't hear from me, it's likely cause I am dead or maybe murdered", and that cannot be brought up in court because it is not relevant, then what kind of court system do we have anyway? To me, this has EVERYTHING to do with whether her life is worth sparing or not. It goes to premeditation. I strongly feel she had told him in the past that if she couldn't have him, no one would.
To me, people just don't go around saying things like that for fun. He really was afraid of her. IMO.

 

[BritsKate]

Hi AZlawyer. I just got here. . I have to say I am shocked by the rules of the court (or the rules of the "game"). If I know someone has been stalking me, I have just had some bitter conversations with her, I am scared to death but maybe too embarrassed to go to the police, and I am with a friend and I tell that friend, "Hey if a day comes that you don't hear from me, it's likely cause I am dead or maybe murdered", and that cannot be brought up in court because it is not relevant, then what kind of court system do we have anyway? To me, this has EVERYTHING to do with whether her life is worth sparing or not. It goes to premeditation. I strongly feel she had told him in the past that if she couldn't have him, no one would.
To me, people just don't go around saying things like that for fun. He really was afraid of her. IMO.

IANAL but I think premeditation is irrelevant because of the aggravating factor the State is using. Her planning to murder Travis doesn't make his murder any more or less 'heinous, cruel, or depraved'. The extreme overkill, and her manipulation in covering up the crime and continuing to disparage her victim, which may not have been premeditated go a long way in proving the State's aggravating factor imo.

I totally believe what you believe - and I think she went there with every intention to kill him - but I also believe she planned on him dying a lot cleaner and more quickly. The fact his murder was so vicious, so tormenting, is the very reason the DP is on the table afaik. That's what Juan must emphasize to the jury.

 

[Tiger09]

The Ryan Owens interview needs to be seen by the jury. That is very close to the real Jodi Arias. The one that Travis Alexander called "the worst thing that ever happened to me".

 

[daisydomino]

Good Morning All

Could someone give a short synopsis of what happened at end of day yesterday?
I had to work, but I know they were supposed to end early.
Is that woman still on the stand? Will she be back next week?
When do they start next week...Mon? Tues?
Thanks so much!

After each court day, I'm going to keep posting Tweets from court in my blog here on WS, organized by Tweep and date and time stamps, going forward. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/blog.php?115109-daisydomino . I formatted them so that it should be pretty easy to read and find the time stamp you're looking for. The end of the day is at the bottom of the post.

I don't know about everybody else, but Twitter is hard on my ADHD and I have a hard time finding things on Twitter— ooh shiny...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think in the Owens interview you see the real her. The combative, controlling easy to anger JA. I think that is what the jury needs to see. She is a complete manipulation. I want to believe there is good in everyone, But this one, Has me stumped.

 

[Tiger09]

Exactly. That's a huge reason why I love JM. He stripped the act and showed everyone who she was.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I hope post trial to hear why JM doesn't want Sky or Chris Hughes to rebut Dr. F's blather about their emails.

It seems like their testimony would be the simplest way to gut 90% of Dr. F's faux analysis and to demolish her credibility. There must be a very excellent reason why JM is choosing not to call them.

My guess is because they are writing a book and will profit from TA's death and JM knows KN will bring this up. Timing of book is still irritating to me. They could have waited but timing is always about selling the most copies.

 

[MeeBee]

My guess is because they are writing a book and will profit from TA's death and JM knows KN will bring this up. Timing of book is still irritating to me. They could have waited but timing is always about selling the most copies.

I think it's strategic but I doubt that's the reason. They were never called before either and it had nothing to do with the book because they weren't writing one then.

 

[Love Never Fails]

IANAL but I think premeditation is irrelevant because of the aggravating factor the State is using. Her planning to murder Travis doesn't make his murder any more or less 'heinous, cruel, or depraved'. The extreme overkill, and her manipulation in covering up the crime and continuing to disparage her victim, which may not have been premeditated go a long way in proving the State's aggravating factor imo.

I totally believe what you believe - and I think she went there with every intention to kill him - but I also believe she planned on him dying a lot cleaner and more quickly. The fact his murder was so vicious, so tormenting, is the very reason the DP is on the table afaik. That's what Juan must emphasize to the jury.[/QU


Thanks and I agree with all you said. During the guilt phase, JM proved premeditation as well as aggravation. So I do wish Travis's fear of her could be brought up. For all we know, she may have held the gun on him to force him to have sex with her that day. She may have forced him to take the gross pictures of her. None of us were there so we will never know. But her visit that day was likely far more sinister than our minds could ever imagine. In the end, it is probably along the lines of what Beth Karas said last night, that JM has a strategy and will follow that strategy and he may not use any of what we feel is important. I am sure to him this is a no brainer and the jury should get it right this time. But we know what happened last trial and we all witnessed the Pinellas 12.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think it's strategic but I doubt that's the reason. They were never called before either and it had nothing to do with the book because they weren't writing one then.

I know MeeBee. And I know they are horrified by what KN is doing. I just have to wonder why JM didn't call them or Dave Hall? There must be soooo much we don't know about!