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

[rose222]

So I'm just wondering, is juror #3's boyfriend a defense lawyer?

Yes, grammieto5.

 

[ohiogirl]

I agree. Hopefully during closing juan reminds them that they can consider victim impact statements

Perhaps she meant that they were instructed that VIS's were not "evidence"? If that is the case, even the jurors are having problems processing the same information in the same way. Just like that other trial, the guy thinks the judge tells them that they have to come to a unanimous decision, so he caves. People just hear things in their own way, and you can't seem to do anything about it. jmo

 

[Frigga]

She was careful to say- every time she was asked what she thought of Juan Martinez or his style- that he was consistent.

I didn't take it like it was a good thing, or that she likes his style. I took it like she doesn't, actually.

However, with that being said, she also said that he is consistent with the witnesses- weather they are prosecution or defense and I did sense that she feels that was a good thing.

 

[Frigga]

She was careful to say- every time she was asked what she thought of Juan Martinez or his style- that he was consistent.

I didn't take it like it was a good thing, or that she likes his style. I took it like she doesn't, actually.

However, with that being said, she also said that he is consistent with the witnesses- weather they are prosecution or defense and I did sense that she feels that was a good thing.

 

[LinTX]

It is sobering to think of what the jury faces if the die hard, perceptive, attentive trial watchers found here can find such different meanings in what juror 3 said....just saying.

Hmm, I don't see that we're all that far apart on our basic feelings about her. I'm the first person to admit I'm not always right and definitely admit to bias in this case. Sometimes I have to revisit something several times before I'm even sure of what I think, LOL! I actually learn more from reading other's thoughts than I probably get from what I see or hear, and if nothing else it gives me alternatives to consider. How boring it would be if we all came away with exactly the same information or feelings?
In any case, I understand Jenn will be posting the interview for everyone to hear sometime today - hopefully even more will pipe in after hearing her?

 

[LinasK]

I think she feared the tape would expose her too. But for a different reason. Up until the tape jurors had a completely one sided picture of Travis as the kinky and demeaning sex predator, and her as the reluctant little woman just trying to please him.

Weeks of Nurm 's slime were blown out of the water by that tape. Travis became more real...hearing his voice brought him into the Court, and she was exposed as an initiating , eager, willing, equal in the sex stuff.

Yep! That's why the Defense wanted only Travis's side of the tape played. Taken out of context he sounds bad, like he wants to initiate these things, not like Jodi's enjoying it/encouraging him or anything...

 

[LinasK]

I have been searching all day to find where JM was crossing JA about the pic of the little boy. I specifically remember JA saying it was one picture on a piece of paper. She was adamantly denying about ANYTHING of that nature being on the computer!!! I remember ALV saying she just assumed it was on the computer? Juan kind of made a big deal about the computer vs paper !
So what's going on now, all of the sudden ??? Why is JA so determined to get evidence off of TA's computer now a year later, after testifying in the trial last year nothing was on there, it was on paper, you know the way paper sails off the bed and falls in that chaotic pattern ...and lands straight up on JA' feet.

On my phone so if this is hard to read or words misspelled , I'm sorry

Because she planted *advertiser censored*/viruses on it and she knew if they looked hard enough they'd find it???

 

[dog.gone.cute]

So I'm just wondering, is juror #3's boyfriend a defense lawyer?

:seeya: I thought I read that somewhere -- that he is a defense lawyer -- but is he "civil" or "criminal" ?

Anyone know ?

TIA!

 

[Nosey Parker]

How is his case "winding down" with his recent 14 witness list? How can that be considered winding down? He hasn't even gotten started yet. And no matter what...Nurmi and Wilmott WILL be scrutinized for ...well hopefully for the rest of their lives IMO because no matter if they win or lose, they are terrible lawyers and they are just as bad as the clients they represent IMO. I cannot believe that I read on the other thread that the Manson trial was the longest and most expensive trial back then and it only (only lol) 9 months! Here we have YEARS between just guilty and sentencing let alone the whole span of time that has elapsed since it's inception.

I hear a lot on here about how if they lived here they would be upset and in an uproar about this trial and this judge, and I AM! If I knew of something that could be done I would do it but I don't even know who to call, or write to inquire about the state of this trial and this judge. I surely will be voting her out in 2016 but that doesn't help us now. I wish I could find out if anyone above her is even monitoring any of this trial. Surely I would think eyes would be on me if I just got reversed from COA but I don't know if that's really true or not. I want more information, I just don't know how to get it. If you know, let me know because I DO live here and I AM outraged but beyond that I don't know what to do.

This is where the press aka newspapers came in handy. So much reform was started by one 'letter to the editor', back in the good old days.

 

[JSR]

You know, if this is the case and he has NO witnesses ready for the week, the judge should punish him. He's had 5 days to get people lined up.

Actually I think it's longer than 5 days

 

[gcharlie]

I'll throw out a different spin on Juror #3.

My understanding is that she considers this should not be an emotional decision. She prides herself on her analytical skills.

She believes in that she could vote for the death penalty, otherwise she would not have been selected as a juror. Unless she has some preconceived notions about limiting circumstances for the death penalty (i.e., multiple victims, child victims), then in my mind, this is the kind of juror Arias should want off her jury. The woman does not want to make an emotional decision. She will be instructed that unless she finds that the mitigators outweigh the aggravators, she should vote for death.

IMO, she most likely would have followed the jury instructions and found for death, because all the testimony towards mitigation is emotionally driven.

 

[MeeBee]

So they were just shooting the breeze about coming up with a unanimous verdict? She really should have just not said anything. I can't remember, did the other jurors speak to the media?

NO.

She said the jury is friendly now and they are serious and intelligent and she is confident that they will come to a unanimous verdict. They do not discuss the case at all.

 

[elementary]

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.

What about the 14 witnesses we just heard about? So confusing.

 

[Nali87]

,

I'll throw out a different spin on Juror #3.

My understanding is that she considers this should not be an emotional decision. She prides herself on her analytical skills.

She believes in that she could vote for the death penalty, otherwise she would not have been selected as a juror. Unless she has some preconceived notions about limiting circumstances for the death penalty (i.e., multiple victims, child victims), then in my mind, this is the kind of juror Arias should want off her jury. The woman does not want to make an emotional decision. She will be instructed that unless she finds that the mitigators outweigh the aggravators, she should vote for death.

IMO, she most likely would have followed the jury instructions and found for death, because all the testimony towards mitigation is emotionally driven.

That is a very good spin. I didn't think about it like that. Thank you. :thinking:

 

[ShadyLady]

How is his case "winding down" with his recent 14 witness list? How can that be considered winding down? He hasn't even gotten started yet. And no matter what...Nurmi and Wilmott WILL be scrutinized for ...well hopefully for the rest of their lives IMO because no matter if they win or lose, they are terrible lawyers and they are just as bad as the clients they represent IMO. I cannot believe that I read on the other thread that the Manson trial was the longest and most expensive trial back then and it only (only lol) 9 months! Here we have YEARS between just guilty and sentencing let alone the whole span of time that has elapsed since it's inception.

I hear a lot on here about how if they lived here they would be upset and in an uproar about this trial and this judge, and I AM! If I knew of something that could be done I would do it but I don't even know who to call, or write to inquire about the state of this trial and this judge. I surely will be voting her out in 2016 but that doesn't help us now. I wish I could find out if anyone above her is even monitoring any of this trial. Surely I would think eyes would be on me if I just got reversed from COA but I don't know if that's really true or not. I want more information, I just don't know how to get it. If you know, let me know because I DO live here and I AM outraged but beyond that I don't know what to do.

What client would want to spend 3 million on a defense to get pre-meditation and DP????

They will be laughing stocks.

 

[MeeBee]

She was careful to say- every time she was asked what she thought of Juan Martinez or his style- that he was consistent.

I didn't take it like it was a good thing, or that she likes his style. I took it like she doesn't, actually.

However, with that being said, she also said that he is consistent with the witnesses- weather they are prosecution or defense and I did sense that she feels that was a good thing.

I don't know that she was particularly positive or negative about him. I thought she felt his style could grate at times but his pace is also beneficial because it makes it easier for her to take notes and it gets information out quickly and efficiently. And yeah, she did make note that he treats all witnesses the same, whether his own or the defense.

On the flip, I don't think the liked Nurmi's slow paced style much. I didn't hear her say anything positive about it. She said while that is his style, the pace he moves at and the way he questions people makes it hard to stay focused. Basically, she got bored with him lol.

IMO.

 

[Frigga]

^^^ I agree wholeheartedly, LinTX, very well said.

 

[JSR]

It is sobering to think of what the jury faces if the die hard, perceptive, attentive trial watchers found here can find such different meanings in what juror 3 said....just saying.

But in juror 3's defense she wasn't privy to all that we were in the first proceedings. If Jodi does actually testify I have a feeling much of what juror 3 thought would COMPLETELY change. If she saw the sociopath in action it would be hard for her to keep her current thoughts. Jodi is her own worst enemy and I hope and pray she does get on the stand.

 

[MeeBee]

What about the 14 witnesses we just heard about? So confusing.

I misunderstood what hope4more said yesterday.

But my understanding was 11 witnesses will be affidavits, just statements and the remaining three are the ones who refuse to testify that he's working on.

 

[MeeBee]

I'll throw out a different spin on Juror #3.

My understanding is that she considers this should not be an emotional decision. She prides herself on her analytical skills.

She believes in that she could vote for the death penalty, otherwise she would not have been selected as a juror. Unless she has some preconceived notions about limiting circumstances for the death penalty (i.e., multiple victims, child victims), then in my mind, this is the kind of juror Arias should want off her jury. The woman does not want to make an emotional decision. She will be instructed that unless she finds that the mitigators outweigh the aggravators, she should vote for death.

IMO, she most likely would have followed the jury instructions and found for death, because all the testimony towards mitigation is emotionally driven.

Good post.