Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/3 -12/04 In recess w/hearing

[ICit]

Right? You can tell she was coached by the words she used. Debasing? that's Jodi's word. That ain't no coinky dink. And also her telling Juan "we will go at it" and all her comments to the jurors about Juan only has one game play, and to ignore his distractions. There is no way any witness would ordinarily act like that. NO WAY! We all know Jodi doesn't like Juan cuz he makes her brain scramble and she can't sexitize (my made up word) him and Nurmi doesn't like him either because Nurmi wishes he WAS Juan but he will never be. It's so comical to read the tweets about Nurmi copying Juan's style hahaha. And Jennifer has not mastered lawyer 101 regarding never ask a question you don't know the answer to. She NEVER knows the answer and gets upset when she doesn't get the answer she wanted, but if she deposed her witnesses correctly she would already know what they are going to say. Truly the Dr. had an agenda to take Juan down. Did she succeed? Not by a long shot.
BUT Jodi's team seems to think she did because on "Jodi's" twitter it states that Juan's attempts to "bamboozle" Dr. F was ineffective. It goes on to say how can someone manipulate an expert in psychology (she's an expert in psychology? I thought she was an expert in deviant sexual behaviors) and that Dr F has Juan figured out. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is all I have to say about that!

No coincidence on the wording choices made by the defense. "Quick on the slime" which was used by Juan has now become the slime highway. JA's blog used the word closeted and shortly thereafter, almost by magical thinking, Fonseca starts to use the word closeted in her testimony, over and over again. The petty plays by Nurmi remind me of a big school bully trying to taunt the smallest kid on the playground. Nurmi's only problem is, Juan ain't playing!

 

[garthmax]

Both Travis and Deanna Reid went to their respective bishops, if memory serves me correctly, following regret over straying from the teachings of LDS. I'm not sure of the exact year, it must have been during the span of the relationship. Both did as the church required and moved forward.

I remember that, but it seems there must have been another time because he lost his Temple privileges and the family didn't know about this. I didn't either until MF mentioned it. And she probably got this from CMJA. So if MF did indeed get this much information from CMJA I wonder just how much more info she did get possibly concerning the rant. Or was MF talking about DR, but I don't think so because they didn't lose their privileges.

 

[potboiler]

:

Sigh. I know there has to be a "first" but boy, do I wish it wasn't this one. An easier/simpler case should have been her first DP case.

I feel silly criticizing judges because man she's a JUDGE and I'm sure she has tons of experience snd is tremendously capable but from the outside looking in it seems like she's lost control. If she ever had it.

I think This should have been a easier/simpler case. I remember going "huh?" quite a bit the first time around. One of the biggies for me was when she allowed
the sex tape to be played cutting out Arias' part. That was in no way an appellate issue.

coa: "so the tape or transcript were not allowed?"

nurmi: "we were not allowed to play just Travis out of context with his words up on a huge black screen. She would never have been found guilty. It's really creepy on its own."

In her unwillingness to be firm, I feel (jmo) that the defense is running the show.


People keep saying Juan is happy for the witness to be contemptous. I don't think so when BN was so rude on the stand. Why did she allow that? She tells them to stand when objecting and nurmi continues to recline! Go ahead nurmi and take your time writing a reply to the coa when you should have seen that decision coming before.

ok, rant over :gaah:

 

[garthmax]

I was wondering about the dismissed Juror No. 3. I wonder if she said something or made a comment to another juror and was overheard and/or another juror reported it.

 

[Tuba]

Dmacky, I agree. Judge Stephens must be repelled by Arias. One day before trial was to begin, on Monday October 20, Arias came forward in the courtroom with a motion seeking to represent herself again. The judge had already warned her that she would not be permitted to opt for propria persona again if she took it on in August & changed her mind. She did change her mind, gave it up and here she was again. Defying the order. That in itself is contemptuous of the court's authority and insulting personally.

Arias was wed to Nurmi, on the eve of trial, despite her outrageous demand. What the script was for this theatrical, we do not know but my money is on a tantrum about her secrecy rights. Before long, the judge had to deal with just that disaster, in an embarrassing flap that found the press playing hide & seek in various spaces of the court. It was obvious that was Arias again, saying NO to a dwindling sequence of options. The cries of the banshee ended in a higher court reversal and Arias had plucked hard Stephens' last nerve.

I believe the judge has not an atom of fellow feeling left for this creature from perdition. As runningwaters said, everyone in her range is damaged by her, feels it and knows it.

 

[wenwe4]

Does anyone know when TA went to his Bishop? When was TA expelled from the Temple? Is this same Bishop scheduled to testify? I am thinking (not a good thing) that TA went to his Bishop before CMJA could give the Bishop TA nude photo's, CMJA nude photos, his journal entries, possible phone sex tape, or her writing a letter describing TA calling CMJA the three hole wonder, etc. or CMJA sent the Bishop letters describing the relationship, the Bishop called TA and held a meeting and he was expelled from the Temple. Now that would send me on a rant for sure.

Travis & Deanna went to their own Bishops and confessed their sex stuff. Both were given whatever sanctions, but Travis lost his Temple Recommend. He was still working on getting his priviledges back so he could do Temple work at the time of his death. The blackmailing Jodi could do with this info would be very concerning IMO. If she went "public" with this info (ie: his friends, family, church members, co-workers, prospective clients) knew of this - it would have a significant impact on his life. I do not know if he would be excommunicated (my dear friend who is an active LDS says yes) because this would be a second "transgression" while he was still working on the first one. It most certainly could have an impact on every aspect of Travis life if she alleged pedophile stuff. Either way, she threatened to smear Travis if the death penalty wasn't taken off the table. I think she used this tactic on Travis threatening to smear his "30 yr old virgin" image if he didn't give her credit for the book, take her to cancun, (take your pick)

since your client has already been convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances. Does the DT think they are such magicians the jury will forget about all that "unpleasantness" if they distract & delay sufficiently? Cause that's a pretty tough thing to forget-being an especially heinous murder and all.

I've got to think that, to most normal people, these messages would be more illustrative of how much she tormented him while he was alive, prior to viciously murdering him. Not seeing how this is mitigation. I've never heard of DP mitigation being approached in this rather novel way. Not even sure what the point is-seems to veer between he deserved to die because he used her for sex, was mean to her, wouldn't emotionally commit to her, liked little boys, no, little girls and between him allegedly wanting to commit suicide which I guess means she somehow helped him or just sped his death up as he was going to die soon anyway so it's not THAT bad. But never about Jodi and how she realizes she made poor choices and is remorseful about killing and lying and lying and lying. No, nothing about Jodi, the actual convicted killer. Novel. Really.

This question has been nagging me - Any Atty's who want to chime in I would love to hear!

Could this whole defense strategy be some of the following:

1) Jodi demands this defense be presented and nothing else
2) Nurmi knows that this defense will not fly but is forced to proceed with JA's wishes - he has tried multiple times to get off this case.
3) Nurmi set up this defense with the aspect of not providing any mitigation factors so that it could be overturned on appeal for "ineffective counsel".
4) Jodi demanded the closed courtoom - Atty's patched together a way to buy a little time to get her on the stand in secret
5) Jodi alleges child *advertiser censored* - (blackmail, means to close courtroom, diminish & trash Travis to make her look better)
6) There are no other witnesses willing to stand up and talk about how she could be a benefit to society in some way (other than tshirts, reading & recycling hair)
7) there is a "daisy chain" that leads to Jodi's innocence (ha)

*ETA - please don't throw stones - JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Thank you! And was the trial canceled today because the defense had no witnesses, as I suspect?

Maybe CMJA had a waxing scheduled.... who knows, they delay for any reason.:gaah:

 

[MsJosie]

U

I think this is pure BS. Nothing is preventing KN from calling his witnesses to testify. I don’t believe these witnesses are in any danger or received threats (unless they wrote them themselves). That said, if they really felt they were in physical danger, why can’t they testify remotely via video? JM could still cross examine them via video.

Or testify behind a screen with a voice changer.

 

[kaRN]

I have hated all the secrecy in this re-do, but if that would happen, I would hope it would be done in secret. LMAO. I can only imagine how WAT would tweet about it.

Adorned in salmon colour.......................................

 

[tveyeonyou]

in perspective. This is not about mean words, messages, sex habits, *advertiser censored* or any of the other distractions they're throwing off the back of the turnip truck. That's why Juan is not going over each line of minutia like the DT is-he's not going to get the jury lost in the weeds. They will be reminded of what this is about-murder with special circumstances and whether the convicted first degree murderer gets to spend the rest of her life in prison or whether she gets sentenced to death. Faced with yet another kooky defense "expert" he quickly exposed her to the jury and sat down. The defense can keep anyone they want on the stand for the next 365 days and Juan will still bring it back to the murder and murderer. Let's remember their brilliant plan to have Jodi on the stand for 18 days and how much that helped her. In the end the jury remembered the murder and we have the same prosecutor reminding this jury.

Clicking 'thanks' isn't enough for this post, your words made me feel better about this fiasco of a trial while reminding me of the importance of words, how powerful words can be. Thank you for reminding me that yeah, Juan's got this. raying:

 

[Val1]

Arrested Development, yes, Thank You !!! I started to post something like this yesterday but the jury questions came in. That's exactly what I think of this Dr. F. and ALV as well. They are both developmentally delayed / developmentally arrested. There's no doubt in my mind, because they behave like hateful, snotty, obnoxious, defiant, antisocial juveniles. These two women are just not normal, mature human beings. They are missing something, adult Oppositional Defiant Disorder comes to mind, except there is no such thing. From there IIRC it progresses to Antisocial Personality Disorder. JMO

Actually, regardless of whether they have sons or other male friends or family, the only the word that comes to mind when these people are mentioned is misandry.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

One other thing is bothering me about her credentials. Where did she get her Bachelor and Masters degrees? The only one listed is that un-certified place. Where did she do an internship?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[khaki]

Dmacky, I agree. Judge Stephens must be repelled by Arias. One day before trial was to begin, on Monday October 20, Arias came forward in the courtroom with a motion seeking to represent herself again. The judge had already warned her that she would not be permitted to opt for propria persona again if she took it on in August & changed her mind. She did change her mind, gave it up and here she was again. Defying the order. That in itself is contemptuous of the court's authority and insulting personally.

Arias was wed to Nurmi, on the eve of trial, despite her outrageous demand. What the script was for this theatrical, we do not know but my money is on a tantrum about her secrecy rights. Before long, the judge had to deal with just that disaster, in an embarrassing flap that found the press playing hide & seek in various spaces of the court. It was obvious that was Arias again, saying NO to a dwindling sequence of options. The cries of the banshee ended in a higher court reversal and Arias had plucked hard Stephens' last nerve.

I believe the judge has not an atom of fellow feeling left for this creature from perdition. As runningwaters said, everyone in her range is damaged by her, feels it and knows it.

This is one of the very best posts I have ever read! (And so very, very, very many posts here are so awesome)....but this is precision Tuba...Many have said you have a way with words. So very true!

 

[ShadyLady]

One other thing is bothering me about her credentials. Where did she get her Bachelor and Masters degrees? The only one listed is that un-certified place. Where did she do an internship?

Inquiring minds want to know!

I wonder why Juan did not question her credentials.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

BBM- this is what I don't understand. At the time of Travis' death, he wasn't JA's boyfriend. I hope someone makes that very clear to the jury. JA was convicted of pre-meditated murder. It wasn't a crime of passion..or that his behavior was intolerable, so much so that she just "snapped"...she planned and executed a brutal killing. She wanted him, she couldn't get him, she killed. IMO, end of story. I don't see how she doesn't deserve the DP.

And the moment she started to attack Travis she was an wanted visitor, and was trespassing.

 

[MeeBee]

expert to begin with.

http://www.experts.com/Expert-Witnesses/Audio-Video-Forensics-Expert-Witness-Bryan-Neumeister

So, how is it that the one non-computer expert finds what the actual experts didn't? It's just a little too convenient for me. He has a lot of interest in "tempering". That's all I know. And there's many ways to hedge and mince words. I've no doubt the drive copy he reviewed had *advertiser censored* and that's what he testified to. Beyond that I can't say.

But no way do I believe JM was in on some plot to remove *advertiser censored* from a victim's computer. in fact, I don't think I've ever heard of police or prosecutors being accused of anything this stupid. They don't care about what the victim did or had or was. They care about the suspect. I've heard of LE being accused and found uilty of PLANTING evidence about the suspect. But there is really no value in deleting stuff from a murder victim's computer. I'd say it's pretty darn absurd.

Yes, exactly! I have an interest in following cases of wrongful incarceration, there's a show on CNN called Death Row Stories about men wrongfully placed on death row. Most of those cases involve Brady violations, discovery violations and hiding of evidence. Never does it involve hiding evidence so insignificant as this. It's usually alternate confessions, conflicting witness testimony that's hidden, DNA evidence. Things that could actually get these men exonerated. Things directly related to guilt or innocence. What exactly would be the point of deleting the *advertiser censored* off of Travis' computer when they knew they had their man? And so early in their case when *advertiser censored* was generally irrelevant at that point. Why would they be so spectacularly stupid to sabotage their own case by deleting something that really doesn't matter? And leave things that hurt them more like the text messages and pictures of them having sex on the day of the murder? In such a strong case as this, no less. It makes absolutely no sense. They wouldn't do it.

The real issue left, I feel, is whether or not all that *advertiser censored* would have helped Jodi. I guess it's a crap shoot, and AZL says probably not. I have to agree with that. It's such a small thing. This case was about premeditated murder. Even if it was revealed Travis was into the kinkiest, nastiest *advertiser censored*, I don't think it would have mattered to the jury. It would not have mattered to me. I think they got to that jury room and blocked out all the noise and lies and victim bashing and got to the bones of the case: was this a premeditated murder. I believe they focused on the evidence of that and on Jodi's lies related to the actual crime and came to the most logical conclusion.

I think the only way it would have helped her was possibly if it was child *advertiser censored* because that's the only kind Jodi ever talked about. And it clearly wasn't. Like I've said before, if you're going to try and convince me that someone was a pedophile you better have some damn evidence. And usually with pedophiles there is no shortage of evidence. They leave tracks. Either Travis was some mastermind at hiding things or it's just not there. Not on his computer, not in his past. It's just a vicious lie that Jodi just has to "prove." It's almost like it's more important to her than fighting for her own life.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

For the lawyers please...I did ask on the side bar but not many people there right now.

The jail and prison inmates are allowed reading material. As I remember in the Caylee Anthony case when FCA was caught passing a note in a 'library' book, there was a comment made that only certain reading materials were allowed. Is this the case in Arizona? Is the rule the same for prison and jail? Would material such as a book written by Jose Baez, about the case be allowed? I know the inmates can read cases to help with their case, I am talking about fiction, non fiction, sciences, mysteries etc.

thank you in advance

She did have those magazines she put her secret cipher codes in for Ann Campbell to sneak out of the county jail.

 

[daisydomino]

:


I think This should have been a easier/simpler case. I remember going "huh?" quite a bit the first time around. One of the biggies for me was when she allowed
the sex tape to be played cutting out Arias' part. That was in no way an appellate issue.

coa: "so the tape or transcript were not allowed?"

nurmi: "we were not allowed to play just Travis out of context with his words up on a huge black screen. She would never have been found guilty. It's really creepy on its own."

In her unwillingness to be firm, I feel (jmo) that the defense is running the show.


People keep saying Juan is happy for the witness to be contemptous. I don't think so when BN was so rude on the stand. Why did she allow that? She tells them to stand when objecting and nurmi continues to recline! Go ahead nurmi and take your time writing a reply to the coa when you should have seen that decision coming before.

ok, rant over :gaah:

I don't remember the tape being played in only part. We heard it in its entirety. The transcript from the hearing was released after the trial last year http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf Have I forgotten? My brain gets kind of scrambled.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't remember the tape being played in only part. We heard it in its entirety. The transcript from the hearing was released after the trial last year http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf Have I forgotten? My brain gets kind of scrambled.

It was played in full on direct questioning of Jodi. But on re-direct, Nurmi was able to play a redacted version with mostly Travis' voice only and subtitles of his words and not Jodi's. After each sentence, Nurmi asked, "and how did that make you feeeel?" It was pretty unnecessary and dumb actually.

 

[AZlawyer]

<respectfully snipped>

This question has been nagging me - Any Atty's who want to chime in I would love to hear!

Could this whole defense strategy be some of the following:

1) Jodi demands this defense be presented and nothing else
2) Nurmi knows that this defense will not fly but is forced to proceed with JA's wishes - he has tried multiple times to get off this case.
3) Nurmi set up this defense with the aspect of not providing any mitigation factors so that it could be overturned on appeal for "ineffective counsel".
4) Jodi demanded the closed courtoom - Atty's patched together a way to buy a little time to get her on the stand in secret
5) Jodi alleges child *advertiser censored* - (blackmail, means to close courtroom, diminish & trash Travis to make her look better)
6) There are no other witnesses willing to stand up and talk about how she could be a benefit to society in some way (other than tshirts, reading & recycling hair)
7) there is a "daisy chain" that leads to Jodi's innocence (ha)

*ETA - please don't throw stones - JMO

Preliminary observation: No defense is being presented. This is mitigation, although I acknowledge that it takes a law degree and a creative mind to figure out exactly how. :floorlaugh:

Now on to your thoughts:

1) Following such a demand would be ineffective assistance of counsel. See #3.
2) He absolutely is not forced to proceed with her wishes except to the extent of (a) presenting the FACTS as she claims they happened and (b) seeking the legal outcome she wants (LWP, I assume).
3) It's starting to look that way, but I don't think that's really the plan. For example, pretending to have important mitigation witnesses who "refuse" to show up and then failing to subpoena them would be a good IAC plan, but then why have one of them be from New Zealand and not subject to the court's subpoena power (or interstate subpoena procedures)?
4) Yes.
5) Yes.
6) Yes.
7) No haha.

Unfortunately, I have to add: 8) There appears to be some defense team tone-deafness as far as how this strategy might backfire. OTOH, maybe it's defense team brilliance because they've identified the one person on the jury who is strong enough to stand their ground in deliberations yet credulous enough to buy this load of...bananas.