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

[Tuba]

My sympathies to the jury. They are charged with the duty to attend to even the minutia of the Fonseca analysis, all the while thinking "not the old wheeze of giving the guy here a black eye. He's dead! We saw him slaughtered!" Since they had to listen to every word, every repetitive, predictable word, I took it in too but it was not within my ability to retain. The memory tends to reject as an experience what it does not believe. So my question to Dr. Fonseca would be, "Would you recall for us your testimony regarding Miss Arias & Mr. Alexander?" It would take her more than a few beats to respond and even then, she would resort to her notes.

The trial goes on, the prosecutor's objective: obtaining the death penalty but how can we rehabilitate the victim, and who will take up that​ charge, for it needs doing, and swiftly.

 

[Smarty Jones]

I would be surprised if JM called any of the above. The Hughes are seemingly vulnerable as their writing a book about TA may give them the appearance of impropriety. Dave Hall has been in legal trouble for posting a video of he and 2 other men rolling boulders in a state park IIRC, that should never have been touched.

Wow, what a guy. smh

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

Premeditation is not irrelevant to this phase. The FACT of premeditation is a given, but the jury can consider the TYPE and EXTENT of premeditation in this phase. But TA implying that he was concerned about being killed just doesn't relate to Jodi's premeditation. It relates more to TA's sensitivity to the situation, which is just not relevant. Curious, you may be right that Jodi had said something that caused Travis to feel this way, but if so apparently he didn't express that as the reason for his concern.

Doesn't Jodi's stalker MO become relevant? Past history of escalating aggression against men she wants and that dated other women. Darryl seemed faithful, but she left him.

IMO it is relevant because it's inconsistent with Dr. F's tale. I'm still waiting to hear from Dr. F how Jodi's history of abusive relationships caused her to PLAN a gruesome murder (vs. the "she just snapped" scenario).

 

[bznbear]

Nicole Goodman Esq ‏@msesquirette 55s56 seconds ago
#JodiArias Nurmi says you're not diagnosing Mr. Alexander are you? No I'm explaining the relationship to provide an understanding of (cont
part of his life where he struggled with his sexual needs versus his religious proclivities

Excuse me, Dr?, isn't it? When you call someone a sociopath, I'd say that's a dx!!! This witness has contradicted herself soooooooo many times! Juan's gotta be keeping count!

 

[luvmygarden]

Weren't the Hughes involved in a hearing before the guilt phase, where they were accused by Nurmi of feeding information to Juan? I think that was the original reason they were not called to testify about the emails; not being on the list they became active on social media, and started their book. That book would present a further problem at this stage. IMO.

Dave Hall has been on HLN often, really only with the information that 'he never liked Arias' and 'Travis didn't own a gun'. Not much there to help.

Please someone correct me if I am wrong on this.

ETA: Sorry, I see MeeBee beat me to it.

This video is CHughs Interesting his answer to KN about testifying for the defense. Around 8:30 he says the defendant killed his friend in cold blood or something close to that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bTzT-c0DI

 

[Gwen6275]

Thanks for the great welcome! I am a regular trial watcher (oh how I miss Court TV)...but this trial in particular has really gotten under my skin. The audacity and clear evil of the defendant is just astonishing. I have analyzed this case and testimony to a degree that is, frankly, unhealthy. Lol. But friends will get bored with the minutiae so it's definitely great to have a place to discuss these things and get other perspectives. I have learned so much by reading here. Like the others here I am curious about the Hughes not being called to testify and explain their own emails. One thing I had heard in the past about them is that after the so-called "pedo" letters came out, the Hughes were basically tricked into thinking (by the Defense) that Travis was a proven pedophile and they proceeded to make some negative statements about him in light of that. Obviously, those letters were proven to be a fraud, but they had already made damaging statements, which would be brought to light if they were called to testify. I am not sure of the validity of this or even where I read/heard this. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have to listen to my emails being analyzed and explained without me having the chance to give my side. One thing that is clear, the Hughes definition of abusive behavior is inaccurate. It is certainly skewed by their belief system. In fundamental Christian religions dating is taken very seriously. You don't date for fun, you date with the goal of marriage. So their opinion needs to be viewed from that lens. What they consider bad and abusive behavior is not necessarily something that other people would consider to be so. I really don't understand why these emails are even being analyzed to this degree, as if they were Gospel and the Hughes are some omniscient people with a flawless perspective that had no personal bias or agenda when they wrote them. I find it bizarre.

 

[TexMex]

Jodi would rather us believe she drove 1,000 miles to see a guy she barely knew- Ryan Burns, for a little grinding for a few hours- than her real purpose, obsession with the man who told her "No". How dare he???

Well, she was "single" :gaah:

 

[bznbear]

So, I'm at the kitchen sink, cleaning my toaster, when, suddenly, I realize Nurmi's continued sullying of Travis shows ANYTHING but remorse. One mitigating factor down the tube!

 

[Dmacky]

Could someone help me here? My memory is so bad. It was at the very beginning of trial in 2013, about the same time that Gus Searcy was questioned. The Hughes both testified but jury was not seated. I think MeeBee or Hope will have better recall than I do. Thanks guys. I had forgotten about it but with the Hughes book coming out and all of their tv and online interviews, maybe JM thinks there is something KN would try to exploit.

Hi Curious,

Here is Chris Hughes testimony with KN. The Jury was not in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bTzT-c0DI

ETA Skye Hughes testimony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdWZ55w5CGs

 

[daisydomino]

Thanks for the great welcome! I am a regular trial watcher (oh how I miss Court TV)...but this trial in particular has really gotten under my skin. The audacity and clear evil of the defendant is just astonishing. I have analyzed this case and testimony to a degree that is, frankly, unhealthy. Lol. But friends will get bored with the minutiae so it's definitely great to have a place to discuss these things and get other perspectives. I have learned so much by reading here. Like the others here I am curious about the Hughes not being called to testify and explain their own emails. One thing I had heard in the past about them is that after the so-called "pedo" letters came out, the Hughes were basically tricked into thinking (by the Defense) that Travis was a proven pedophile and they proceeded to make some negative statements about him in light of that. Obviously, those letters were proven to be a fraud, but they had already made damaging statements, which would be brought to light if they were called to testify. I am not sure of the validity of this or even where I read/heard this. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have to listen to my emails being analyzed and explained without me having the chance to give my side. One thing that is clear, the Hughes definition of abusive behavior is inaccurate. It is certainly skewed by their belief system. In fundamental Christian religions dating is taken very seriously. You don't date for fun, you date with the goal of marriage. So their opinion needs to be viewed from that lens. What they consider bad and abusive behavior is not necessarily something that other people would consider to be so. I really don't understand why these emails are even being analyzed to this degree, as if they were Gospel and the Hughes are some omniscient people with a flawless perspective that had no personal bias or agenda when they wrote them. I find it bizarre.

Me too. Surely the jury is finding it as bizarre as we do.

Even if the authors of these emails believed Travis was behaving badly when they wrote these messages, they were writing what they believed at that time, with the information they had at that time. They all later wrote messages expressing different opinions, after they had more information. Emails are conversations—often highly emotionally charged conversations—not polished and finalized statements of fact.

Jurors know this as well as we do. Almost everyone has hit "send" too soon at some time or other.

 

[Moonchime]

If she goes through the factors KN listed in allocution, she should be OK (no cross). If she tries to go for a "snapped" defense inconsistent with premeditation, she might talk herself into a cross-examination.

Oh, let's hope so! We all know how much JA loves to talk! Hope she talks herself right into a cross examination.

 

[tlckgram]

Can anyone answer any of these questions

Can anyone provide a summary of what the Defense motion or objection about the Hughes is all about?

And when will that be ruled on? Will it be after this phase over?

Is it just another frivolous motion or is there substance to it?

ETA: There may not be an outstanding motion involving them. I could have sworn I had read something the other day about some outstanding motion that is old.
I may be totally wrong, so just disregard unless someone knows something about one that is outstanding.

Aren't most of the defense motions frivolous? Just saying............

 

[bznbear]

FYI, Chris Hughes is posting on karasoncrime.com. He has wonderful things to say about T-Dogg, and yes, Nurmi's casual offensive use of an endearing nickname for THE VICTIM, in order to castigate him, is abhorrent, vile and repugnant!!!!! jmho

 

[bznbear]

I'd be willing to bet good money if this witness was testifying for one of Nurmi's clients charged with SA, she'd say sex is perfectly natural, even with more than one partner! Juan outta do some digging and see if she ever made a comment like that, in court, in writing or at a public speaking event!

 

[Moonchime]

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.

I totally agree with you. During the time of the "Secret Witness" testimony, I naively thought it was JA admitting her guilt and showing remorse for what she had done.

But, after the DT's latest round of trying to destroy TA's reputation even more than they already have--Well, it made me realize that someone like JA is just not normal!

JA is someone who isn't content with the fact that she murdered Travis in such a cruel manner. JA continues to come up with even more ways to try to sully the very thought of Travis ever having lived in this world. She seems to want to make his very name synonymous with any and all things ugly and vile. It's almost beyond comprehension.

When we are seeing JA, we are surely looking at someone who is pure EVIL! MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I have been reading here since the first trial but rarely comment. I have to say that I am thoroughly confused by the DT version, or interpretation of this relationship. According to them now, all Jodi was to Travis was a "booty call". Yet, there are many photos of them spending time together in the light of day, with friends, going on trips, etc. How is this the behavior of a man using a woman for sex? According to this expert, Jodi was in true love with Travis but he rejected her. But didn't Jodi herself testify that Travis proposed marriage to her and she said No? I don't believe for a second that Travis did that, but still there is so much inconsistency in the Defense's version of the relationship. I think that Jodi's pathological ego wouldn't allow her during testimony to aknowledge that she wanted more from Travis and he rejected HER. Yet, isn't that what this expert is saying? Jodi insisted that she wanted to move on and that Travis wouldn't let her go. Now the expert is saying that Jodi wanted marriage and Travis didn't.

Another thing that has me scratching my head...why do Nurmi and their experts keep acting like Travis keeping his sexual relationship with Jodi a secret is so horrible? Wouldn't it have been far more abusive for him to tell all his friends exactly what they were getting up to in the bedroom? I mean, I prefer to keep my love life private. It is called discretion. Should he have shouted from the rooftops that he was having anal sex with Jodi Arias? Would that have been preferable to his keeping it a private matter between the two of them? They were BOTH Mormon, too. So, in my mind, his keeping those intimate details private protected her as well as him. If he would have told everyone then they could both be in trouble, and their reputations may have been tarnished. It may have even effected her chance of finding a proper Mormon husband in the future. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and that religion has a similar strict moral code to Mormonism. A girl with a tarnished reputation might have a harder time finding a spouse in the religion. Sex outside of marriage was more detrimental on a girl than on a guy when it came to marriage prospects.

Sorry to be so wordy! After my first post I was sort of ridiculed for writing too much so I stopped commenting. But Jodi Arias and her band of twisted liars make me angry. I didn't think it was possible for me to hate a person I have never met. And I am person who can usually see something redeeming in everyone.

Excellent post. And trust us, all any of us have been doing during this sentencing phase is scratching our heads. I do hope JM will bring out all the contradictions. The truth is really quite simple. Jodi is a cold blooded murderer and was on her way to becoming a serial killer.

ETA: I will never understand the judge allowing all this to go on with all the contradictions. She has seen it all and yet allowed it to continue. Scratching my head and pulling my hair out!

 

[Nosey Parker]

I can't believe we are halfway through a Friday with no Nurmi motion. Is he out of ideas - or energy?

 

[Lissa]

In either trial have the 82,000 text-emails-calls between JA and TA been broken down to show how many originated with JA and how many with TA? I'm guessing the vast majority, especially after their short officially-dating stint, were JA 24/7 determinedly trying to reach TA, and TA hounded into eventually responding. I'd also like to see a visual charting her jobs and housing while in Mesa, because it would likely prove her instability and rootlessness apart from the tentacles she'd wound around TA. JA was the parasite, and TA was the unwilling host.

Seriously! I'd like JM to point out that there are 80,000+ exchanges between them, and only a handful are "mean," plus the DT has taken them totally out of context! I hope the jury hears about what caused TA to say those things in anger.

Yes and there was also a very emo journal entry from that day and Jodi makes no mention of it. She just talks about how sad and depressed she is. My guess is she was expecting something from Travis and got upset when she didn't receive anything. She's fabricated this story to make up for it.

Good point! Do you think she's lying about them officially being a couple in Feb 2007? It's odd that there's no record of him at least calling her on V-Day.

 

[Hope4More]

So, I'm at the kitchen sink, cleaning my toaster, when, suddenly, I realize Nurmi's continued sullying of Travis shows ANYTHING but remorse. One mitigating factor down the tube!

Cleaning your toaster? That does it. I'm either going to give mine away and swear off toast, or start attending a 10 step program for toaster neglectors. .:shame:

 

[katydid23]

I don't think that JM needs to call the Hughes because so far, nothing that has been 'revealed' by this line of witness testimony has been damaging. Big freakin deal, Travis 'dated 2 girls at once, hurt their feelings.' I am pretty sure all of the jurors dated in their 20's and have little problem with this 'bad behavior.' It is common and something we all live through and move on. I think JM has more fertile ground to pursue than this hogwash.