Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[MeeBee]

I really don't think KN and JW need to be hearing what the jury members who drop off the case for their own personal reasons were thinking and how the trial is going so far for JA, their thoughts, opinions etc. This just gives the defence more information to change things up, tweak some problem areas and prolong this trial. I really wish the jurors wouldn't be speaking with anyone once they leave.

The whole thing is ridiculous IMO. They are re-trying the guilt phase, looking for appellate issues and maybe will be throwing a lame mitigator or two in the process. The plan for this phase is obviously to drag it out until a mistrial is declared, but use the time to work on appellate issues. And if the jurors have the stamina to stick it out, well then try to make them see that the first trial was corrupt, those jurors got it wrong, and JA should only have been charged with second degree at best. It's so blatantly obvious to everyone following this. It's out of control and no one is doing anything to stop it, while the taxpayers just keep making KN and JW rich and JA gets to stay where she's comfortable and in contact with her family and "friends/fans".

MOO

If the defense got anything from her interview of value, it would be to stop moving so slowly and stop keeping your witnesses on the stand for days, repeating the same thing over and over again, which would be a good thing. The juror said Fonseca was repetitive. She really gave them nothing else that would help them at all other than that.

 

[MeeBee]

This! If she isn't allowed to talk then she should not have been talking. The fact that she did give an interview only opens the door for the defense to complain and in this instance, they'd have good reason.

No they wouldn't. There's nothing to stop her from talking to the media now. Trust me, she revealed nothing. She didn't even reveal who the secret witness(es) are/were even after she was pressed. She was incredibly professional.

 

[mydirtysecret]

This! If she isn't allowed to talk then she should not have been talking. The fact that she did give an interview only opens the door for the defense to complain and in this instance, they'd have good reason.

It is apparent, based on that her boyfriend being an attorney and still chose to speak (albeit very discretely) tells me she is under no seal, or order telling her she cannot publicly speak. I assume she asked her attorney boyfriend for legal advice BEFORE going on that interview id even be surprised if her boyfriend wasnt sitting there with her the entire time. JMO

 

[atthelake]

FYI to those above asking - Beth Karas site that has court schedule... for today it says "DARK DAY"... no court today

 

[cavvy]

Just out of curiosity, is that blogger in the courtroom or is this blog written by putting together what info can be gleaned from Twitter? I'm not criticizing, it's nicely done either way. Just wondering.

I wasn't sure myself.... somebody on here had once posted this link and I enjoyed reading the recaps.

I just went back and read some of this bloggers older posts and found that no, they are not in the courtroom - they are just doing summaries and quick rundowns from twitter posts. It makes for an easy way to get the gist of what happened in court for anyone that finds it hard to follow twitter (like me).

 

[Love Never Fails]

Respectfully,
Dr. DeMarte is needed to paint a psychological picture of CMJA. IMO, his friends could paint a nice, real picture of Travis, but the DT would ask them a simple question of whether or not TA confided in them about CMJA. The fact that he didn't substantiates the DT claim that TA kept his relationship with CMJA a secret, thus diminishing her and give the appearance she just "snapped". Then no DP verdict. IMO

I am not against DeMarte testifying. All I am saying is she is hired by prosecution same way ALV and others hired by defense. Is she a bright, no nonsense pro? Sure. Actually, Travis DID confide in his friends. And what Danny said brings Travis to life and prosecution has proven that TA did NOT keep relationship secret. He just didn't go out and trash Jodi talking about their sex lives. The jury gets that most people don't. Especially decent people. They know defense is blowing smoke.

As for the DP, Juan has proven his point there also. If there is one stealth juror who votes for life, it will not matter what Juan does or does not prove. So we can agree to disagree.

ETA: I just want to be clear that Dr. DeMarte was in fact a great witness and very educated and no comparison to those babbling for Jodi. But I would like to see Travis's friends be able to tell the jury what he was like. He wasn't supposed to be on trial. He is the victim and yet defense got away with trashing him. Grossly unfair.

 

[mydirtysecret]

Back to the issue at hand. I am TERRIBLE at math, is there a fellow sleuth-er who can compile the data of the *advertiser censored* hits the DT is alleging and put that into context during that timeline they are alleging. Like, if travis were to have looked at the *advertiser censored* as they alleged who would have had to of spent 9 hours of every single day watching/searching for *advertiser censored* without a break. Does that make sense? I think if we put it into that context, we will all see what hyperbole this entire allegation is.

 

[Marshmallow]

No they wouldn't. There's nothing to stop her from talking to the media now. Trust me, she revealed nothing. She didn't even reveal who the secret witness(es) are/were even after she was pressed. She was incredibly professional.

It is apparent, based on that her boyfriend being an attorney and still chose to speak (albeit very discretely) tells me she is under no seal, or order telling her she cannot publicly speak. I assume she asked her attorney boyfriend for legal advice BEFORE going on that interview id even be surprised if her boyfriend wasnt sitting there with her the entire time. JMO

My only point was that giving the defense anything to complain about seems rather unwise to me. It won't be the content of her interview they complain about, it will be that she gave an interview at all. With the track record of filings by this defense duo, anything they can grasp at will be thrown into a motion. Motions = delays, delays are what this juror had to drop out over. Too many delays = longer trial, longer trial = more jurors dropping.

 

[mydirtysecret]

My only point was that giving the defense anything to complain about seems rather unwise to me. It won't be the content of her interview they complain about, it will be that she gave an interview at all. With the track record of filings by this defense duo, anything they can grasp at will be thrown into a motion. Motions = delays, delays are what this juror had to drop out over. Too many delays = longer trial, longer trial = more jurors dropping.

Of course they will, if the juror would have taken a left instead of a right while leaving the court room. Or coughed at the incorrect time the DT would find a reason to file a motion to dismiss. However, they can file motions all they want that does not mean the court has to have a hearing that last's weeks on end to entertain said motion. That is WHY we have a judge to control the court room, to control the length and breadth of motions filed all loosey-goosey by defense attorneys. JSS could shoot the motion down in writing without ever hearing oral arguements on the merits. Its not a requirement, nor is it a constitutional right to have every single argument heard in front of the judge in closed chambers. Shes just afraid of saying, NO.

 

[katiecoolady]

I'm completely confused too and checking out of the computer business mentally which is I think exactly where the defense is going here: hoping the jurors have the same reaction and check out on a feeling of "reasonable doubt".

 

[Hope4More]

I think her not being open was just a choice. She could have revealed more of her opinions without incident but simply chose not to, for now.

I mostly think she wanted to clear up why she was excused since there was a lot of speculating and misreporting. In particular, she took issue with the way Monica Lindstrom tweeted about her dismissal. It was a little misleading. I thought the same after I read Mon's tweet. I thought she was giving a reason for her dismissal but she was just giving an overview on her.

I understand that it was her choice. I wish her choice was to understand that clearing up why she left is selfish. Why would she care what the public thinks? We didn't even know her name.

An insane trial is still ongoing. I wish she would understand that the chance she'll contribute to the chaos by speaking up trumps anything she has to say right now.

 

[Kamille]

If the defense got anything from her interview of value, it would be to stop moving so slowly and stop keeping your witnesses on the stand for days, repeating the same thing over and over again, which would be a good thing. The juror said Fonseca was repetitive. She really gave them nothing else that would help them at all other than that.

Well she didn't really reveal why she left other than it was her choice and "something came up", which could have been done in a one or two sentence release to the press. By saying that the jury had "bonded" and that were "united" (sorry can't remember exactly what she said) and that she believes they will come to a unanimous verdict, that just gets the wheels spinning in the defence's minds that there is a possibility that they won't reach one or two. They won't have a lone "refuse to deliberate" juror to work with. There may not be a stealth anti death penalty person there. So it gives them incentive to drag it out even more. Look for more reasons to do so. And if she was not impressed with Dr. F, then maybe the others weren't either. So maybe they need another "expert" to re-iterate what she said. In a more concise fashion. Seriously, these two will try ANYTHING to keep this going IMO. I really think this is their retirement fund. Does KN even have any other cases? How is his private practice going? Because if his client gets the death penalty, he's not going to be in demand much. Neither will JW. Which is the only thing they are fighting for at this point IMO.

Anyway, I just would prefer if the released jurors didn't speak at all. Don't give the defence any ammunition. Release a short statement as to why they are no longer on the jury and leave it at that.

MOO

 

[Tiki]

Well she didn't really reveal why she left other than it was her choice and "something came up", which could have been done in a one or two sentence release to the press. By saying that the jury had "bonded" and that were "united" (sorry can't remember exactly what she said) and that she believes they will come to a unanimous verdict, that just gets the wheels spinning in the defence's minds that there is a possibility that they won't reach one or two. They won't have a lone "refuse to deliberate" juror to work with. There may not be a stealth anti death penalty person there. So it gives them incentive to drag it out even more. Look for more reasons to do so. And if she was not impressed with Dr. F, then maybe the others weren't either. So maybe they need another "expert" to re-iterate what she said. In a more concise fashion. Seriously, these two will try ANYTHING to keep this going IMO. I really think this is their retirement fund. Does KN even have any other cases? How is his private practice going? Because if his client gets the death penalty, he's not going to be in demand much. Neither will JW. Which is the only thing they are fighting for at this point IMO.

Anyway, I just would prefer if the released jurors didn't speak at all. Don't give the defence any ammunition. Release a short statement as to why they are no longer on the jury and leave it at that.

MOO

BBM
I can see the DT saying this means they must be discussing the case already...moo

 

[MeeBee]

I am not against DeMarte testifying. All I am saying is she is hired by prosecution same way ALV and others hired by defense. Is she a beight, no nonsense pro? Sure. Actually, Travis DID confide in his friends. And what Danny said brings Travis to life and prosecution has proven that TA did NOT keep relationship secret. He just didn't go out and trash Jodi talking about their sex lives. The jury gets that most people don't. Especially decent people. They know defense is blowing smoke.

As for the DP, Juan has proven his point there also. If there is one stealth juror who votes for life, it will not matters what Juan does or does not prove. So we can agree to disagree.

Taylor Searle is already on the prosecution's list. He was a confidante and Travis did talk to him about Jodi. Anymore than that would be overkill. Juan is not trying to prove Travis was a good person. He is trying to show that Jodi is deserving of the death penalty. This is about Jodi, not Travis. Yes, he will need to dispute the abuse since it is a mitigator. But his main goal is to bring it back around to her. And this is why Demarte is essential. She needs to show Jodi's true self, her true character, and her true psychology. Demarte will also be important when it comes to disputing the abuse and the claims about Travis. If Travis needed a character witness, sounds like Danny would be great. But that's not what Juan needs at this juncture.

 

[daisydomino]

Dear Arizona,

$2.7 million. There has to be a better way.

All of my sympathy,
Daisydomino

 

[mydirtysecret]

I can completely understand the state's and families fight for the ultimate punishment for their brothers murderess, that being said. At this point, I would personally think in the pursuit of justice and fairness for the victim taking the DP off the table right now and putting cmja in front of the judge for her sentence would be justice best served. I do not believe jodi arias is fighting for her life, nor do I believe that's what this is even about for her. She has an audience, and stage to proclaim despicable lies about her victim, all on the taxpayers dime! We should remove this avenue from her, she thoroughly is enjoying killing travis over and over and over. The real punishment for her, is her being moved quietly and having her avenue to speak removed.

 

[Kamille]

Back to the issue at hand. I am TERRIBLE at math, is there a fellow sleuth-er who can compile the data of the *advertiser censored* hits the DT is alleging and put that into context during that timeline they are alleging. Like, if travis were to have looked at the *advertiser censored* as they alleged who would have had to of spent 9 hours of every single day watching/searching for *advertiser censored* without a break. Does that make sense? I think if we put it into that context, we will all see what hyperbole this entire allegation is.

I've never seen a trial where a computer that was not password protected, was kept in the common area of a house with multiple people living in it, multiple roommates, friends and friends with benefits who had access to it, be admitted into evidence as proof the VICTIM, let alone the perpetrator did something on it. How is it even possible they are arguing this? It CANNOT be proven that if any *advertiser censored* sites were visited on that computer, child or otherwise, that TA was the person who was using it at the time. And I mean actual sites that were searched and accessed, not sites that a computer full of viruses was hitting on.

How has the judge not made that determination already? No KN, you cannot tell this jury that TA was looking at *advertiser censored* on that computer. There is no absolute proof of WHO may have been looking at it, if it is even there...so it doesn't matter. People get off on child *advertiser censored* charges all the time for this exact reason. A computer that is in a home where others have access to it. Think Cindy Anthony taking claim for the searches that Casey did. Happens all the time. And in that case they did prove she couldn't have been there at the time. I think the "misconduct" allegations were well proven to be absurd yesterday, which was the actual reason for the hearing. That whole thing should have been over by lunch. And you could tell that JM was frustrated beyond belief that he got all this evidence together to exonerate himself and LE and no one was even bothering to listen to it. It just kept going back to *advertiser censored* on the computer.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

Well she didn't really reveal why she left other than it was her choice and "something came up", which could have been done in a one or two sentence release to the press. By saying that the jury had "bonded" and that were "united" (sorry can't remember exactly what she said) and that she believes they will come to a unanimous verdict, that just gets the wheels spinning in the defence's minds that there is a possibility that they won't reach one or two. They won't have a lone "refuse to deliberate" juror to work with. There may not be a stealth anti death penalty person there. So it gives them incentive to drag it out even more. Look for more reasons to do so. And if she was not impressed with Dr. F, then maybe the others weren't either. So maybe they need another "expert" to re-iterate what she said. In a more concise fashion. Seriously, these two will try ANYTHING to keep this going IMO. I really think this is their retirement fund. Does KN even have any other cases? How is his private practice going? Because if his client gets the death penalty, he's not going to be in demand much. Neither will JW. Which is the only thing they are fighting for at this point IMO.

Anyway, I just would prefer if the released jurors didn't speak at all. Don't give the defence any ammunition. Release a short statement as to why they are no longer on the jury and leave it at that.

MOO

She didn't leave out the possibility that the the vote would be for life, just that she thought it would be unanimous.

I fail to see how she hurt anything with regard to the trial. She is free to speak to the media now. She was probably told this.

To call someone to back up MF would be disasterous and unnecessary. They don't need it.

I think people just look for things sometimes. She did nothing wrong, she was professional, unbiased, fair, and secretive. Really, with all that's going on, I don't think it's going to be an innocent juror interview that will derail things, nor will this be a main concern for Nurmi. Again, she offered nothing in the way of strategy. MF has already testified. The damage is done. If Nurmi wants to drag this out, that's his call. He was going to do it anyway. I think 12 people will make it.

Also, BK reported Nurmi said his case was winding down.

 

[MeeBee]

I've never seen a trial where a computer that was not password protected, was kept in the common area of a house with multiple people living in it, multiple roommates, friends and friends with benefits who had access to it, be admitted into evidence as proof the VICTIM, let alone the perpetrator did something on it. How is it even possible they are arguing this? It CANNOT be proven that if any *advertiser censored* sites were visited on that computer, child or otherwise, that TA was the person who was using it at the time. And I mean actual sites that were searched and accessed, not sites that a computer full of viruses was hitting on.

How has the judge not made that determination already? No KN, you cannot tell this jury that TA was looking at *advertiser censored* on that computer. There is no absolute proof of WHO may have been looking at it, if it is even there...so it doesn't matter. People get off on child *advertiser censored* charges all the time for this exact reason. A computer that is in a home where others have access to it. Think Cindy Anthony taking claim for the searches that Casey did. Happens all the time. And in that case they did prove she couldn't have been there at the time. I think the "misconduct" allegations were well proven to be absurd yesterday, which was the actual reason for the hearing. That whole thing should have been over by lunch. And you could tell that JM was frustrated beyond belief that he got all this evidence together to exonerate himself and LE and no one was even bothering to listen to it. It just kept going back to *advertiser censored* on the computer.

MOO

Jodi also did make mention of a roommate Travis kicked out for looking at too much *advertiser censored*. She could have been lying to set him up. But there's your reasonable doubt, right there.

I think there's a reason the defense is going back to the *advertiser censored*, though. They will not prove intentional destruction of evidence, and they know that, but they will definitely argue that the unfound *advertiser censored* would have helped her case and WILL help her plea for her life. If I was a juror I wouldn't care if Travis watched BDSM. But, it's their call.

So their goal is two-fold.

 

[Hope4More]

Dear Arizona,

$2.7 million. There has to be a better way.

All of my sympathy,
Daisydomino

There must be. For me it isn't about the money. I don't think we should care how much money a just verdict and sentence costs. The problem is all that money has bought is a perversion of the trial process, a tortured family of the victim, a parade of rude and unqualified DT experts, and extra time for a convicted murderer to play games.