Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/20 thru 2/23 - Break

[AZlawyer]

Ah, thank you.

She may have felt it was a "safe" decision?

Safe in the sense that erring on the side of the defense is always the safest route in a DP case, yes.

 

[Hope4More]

I think JA was actually misunderstood by others in that room and was trying to clarify. She was saying that the people who hated her were threatening her--and also that the people who hated the Alexanders (i.e., the JA-supporters) were threatening her. It seemed that she was trying to explain that, no matter what she said, one group would want to kill her. If she said Travis was an abusive pedophile, the JA-haters would be out to get her, but if she said what her attorneys were telling her she HAD to say--that she was so sorry and remorseful and Travis didn't deserve it, then her SUPPORTERS would be out to get her! IMO she wanted her testimony to be secret so that she could say the things her attorneys were making her say without losing her fan club.

Reread that portion. I see your point.

I've no doubt she's worried about keeping her fan club intact...it's all she has left, and they're the only handful of people in the world who believe her lies about Travis.

 

[Amster]

So, she used the COA to get the defense off her back.....and, she's being applauded for that? She knew what she was doing was unconstitutional but went ahead and did it anyway. Seems to me a competent judge would rather risk an appeal than to do something against the law! But, then, to me this isn't a game. I have a feeling the Alexander family feel the same way.

 

[MeeBee]

I am not sure how anyone here can know Chris Hughes' thoughts and after this many years he is still on the media circuit. He is a businessman...his online profile indicates speaker....trainer at Legal Shield (PPL reincarnated) and a million other ventures...this is keeping his name out there and he likes that. He may in fact just be the friend of Travis that some think he is but is it just as valid to question his motives. Again as no one here is on the inside to really know what the Alexanders think it is enough for me when he himself says they are not all on board then don't do it. And honestly the ones that are in the best position to talk about Travis is the family.

If their issue really is about timing and not the book itself, and the Alexanders only found out about it when he announced it, then it may have been too late for them to go back since the announcement was already out there.

 

[AZlawyer]

JSS knew the decision would be overturned by the COA. So did JM--he said so.

Then why bother making the decision at all? If JSS was sure the COA would make the right decision, then she should have known they would make it whether it was brought up to them right away or a year down the line.

 

[MeeBee]

Safe in the sense that erring on the side of the defense is always the safest route in a DP case, yes.

Yes exactly.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Zoey, the key word here is that you are "guessing" why some family members seem to have objected to the Hughes' book. If an earlier poster accurately related what happened on Tricia's show, Chris Hughes refused to name dissenting family members. If they were all on board, the question would have been easy to answer.

I've defended the Hughes many times for many things here. I don't believe that they are greedy. I do think Travis loved them, which is good enough for me.

But....the Hughes don't "own"Travis. His story is NOT theirs, and not theirs to tell without the full permission of T's family, IMO.


ETA. The grossest injustice that has been done throughout both trials, IMO, is that the Alexanders have had to sit in silence as others defined Travis. I have no doubt that the Hughes genuinely believe they are doing a good thing by presenting the "real" Travis to counterbalance what's been said. If the Alexanders aren't fully supportive because of timing, I wish the Hughes had honored that concern and not spoken of the book until the trial was over.

If timing is not the issue, I'd like to know why the Alexanders aren't fully supportive. They've more than earned the right, as far as I'm concerned, to define Travis as they see him, if they so choose, or to give their blessings to someone else who wants to do so.

Hope, I love the way you have just expressed what most of us feel about this book. Many people loved Travis but it should be the family, all of them, who decides who should tell the story of Travis. Well said.

 

[pacnwgal]

Reread that portion. I see your point.

I've no doubt she's worried about keeping her fan club intact...it's all she has left, and they're the only handful of people in the world who believe her lies about Travis.

BBM And the only people who might fund her commissary account....

 

[Hope4More]

I think she was only open to kicking everyone out to the overflow room and was trying the whole to prevent having to seal the proceedings. She was only open to the idea of shutting the cameras off and sending everyone to another room. It sounds like she did not want to do it but did. She seemed pretty reluctant.

She said flat out -at first-- that she thought the overflow room would suffice. It just went downhill from there.

I do think mindset matters, and I do think she was and still is worn down by the constant, incessant, unsubtle beating of the anti-media drum by the DT, from the last days of the first sentencing phase on through this week. They've been relentless.

 

[Wing Ding]

The request , though, gradually morphed from closed court to secret testimony by JA that was NEVER to be released.

Or at least not declassified until after 25 years, at which time she would have hopefully already been put to sleep so she wouldn't care what people thought of her.

 

[MeeBee]

She said flat out -at first-- that she thought the overflow room would suffice. It just went downhill from there.

I do think mindset matters, and I do think she was and still is worn down by the constant, incessant, unsubtle beating of the anti-media drum by the DT, from the last days of the first sentencing phase on through this week. They've been relentless.

BBM: that's what I said. She seemed open from the beginning to placing everyone in the overflow room, making accomodations, etc. but sealing the proceeding altogether was another matter. She seemed quite reluctant to do it and seemed to think it drastic. It wasn't until the end that she made the decision after applying the test she applied and making note that she didn't know how the appeals court would view this.

Sending everyone to overflow seems a reasonable solution, btw. She could have done that no problem.

 

[wing560]

How very odd though, that a judge would recognise, on record, that the defendant was being manipulative and then proceed to overturn the Constitution on their behalf. It will never make sense to me - fear of appeal or not.

Yes, JSS said she thought JA was trying to manipulate the court AND that she suspected Jodi was not giving the real reason why she wanted to no one to hear her.
JSS also knew that Mr. Moeser was already on his way to the courthouse to get a transcript (needed) for appeal. JSS was afraid that if she did not allow the clearance of court and JA did not testify, she would win an appeal. I think JSS said yes knowing that it would be appealed immediately to COA. JMO MOO After the next few sentences, I will start running to avoid the tomatoes that will surely be thrown. LOL

Did the Hughes find a publisher for their book? I thought it was one of those self pay vanity publishers which I have heard charge a fortune. I agree, though, for whatever reason one or more of the family was against it, the Hughes should have dropped the idea. Haven't they been put through enough?

 

[pacnwgal]

So, she used the COA to get the defense off her back.....and, she's being applauded for that? She knew what she was doing was unconstitutional but went ahead and did it anyway. Seems to me a competent judge would rather risk an appeal than to do something against the law! But, then, to me this isn't a game. I have a feeling the Alexander family feel the same way.

I don't think the judge is being applauded, or should be applauded, but I don't think she has a crystal ball that would tell her exactly how the COA would view this, especially in a case that has featured many issues of first impression. The judge made an (awful IMHO) decision, parties used the available channel to seek potential relief and they achieved it. It's the system, not a game.

 

[Paintr]

I totally agree. If ANYONE wanted to write a book about Travis it should be a family member. And since they said that some of the family are not happy about it, but they are doing it anyway? Why? Just because they can? And considering how judgemental they were and how they were duped by JA initially, would I think that all of a sudden they have become less judgemental? I suspect that the reason that some of the family are not behind the book is because the Hughes's hearts are not in the right place. The people that knew Travis already know he was a wonderful person with faults. The people, like us, that didn't know him in real life have also learned that he was a normal guy that had come thru a lot of things as a child and was moving in a good direction in his life. And that he was pretty normal other than that, and mostly that he was too compassionate because otherwise he might still be here. My opinion is that if they REALLY cared about Travis, they would care what his family thinks and scrap the whole book. It's not like they are writing about Tiger Woods or some other semi celebrity. Travis was not famous. There just is no logic in them writing a book. JMHO

I have heard of 3 books already 'out there' (one written/co written) by a member here at WS. Did those authors obtain approval by every member of the A family? Are those books not written for profit?

I am sorry that the Hughes could not take the stand but I do not know the reason any side did not call them. Did either side state that they were not called because they had a book in the works? :dunno:

 

[daisydomino]

But she did know, that's just it, at the very least because Juan told her. I happen to think it was a brilliant strategy. Give 'em what they want knowing full well it will be overturned and they can't complain any further!

I agree with you, LinasK.

JSS is giving JA enough rope. JA is such a controlling fool she's going to hang herself with it.

It's obvious JA is her own worst enemy. The more she lies, manipulates and tries desperately to control the proceedings, the more likely she is to get the DP.

 

[MeeBee]

I have heard of 3 books already 'out there' (one written/co written) by a member here at WS. Did those authors obtain approval by every member of the A family? Are those books not written for profit?

I am sorry that the Hughes could not take the stand but I do not know the reason any side did not call them. Did either side state that they were not called because they had a book in the works? :dunno:

And we do have people pennying up to buy JVM's and Shanna Hogen's book but will be boycotting the Hughes' book? I probably won't buy it either but I don't get it.

 

[Nali87]

And I think it was the basis of her decision, once Juan informed her of it.

I don't think so LinasK. If she was so sure that the COA would overturn her ruling on banning the media, why DENY the media's request for a stay? If all she wanted was a ruling to stop a succesful appeal, she would have granted the stay and not confuse the jury with testimony she knew she'd eventually have to strike (or deny cross on), potential jury questions etc. Granting a stay wouldn't have given JA any grounds for appeal.

JSS was convinced she was right.

 

[netbrsr]

If the Alexander's put out a simple book with only a few pages, I would buy it to support them. I know they have been thru way too much. How many days and hours and wasted trips to the courthouse have they gone thru, lies they have had to sit thru, and this entire circus of a trial.

 

[LinasK]

I don't think the judge is being applauded, or should be applauded, but I don't think she has a crystal ball that would tell her exactly how the COA would view this, especially in a case that has featured many issues of first impression. The judge made an (awful IMHO) decision, parties used the available channel to seek potential relief and they achieved it. It's the system, not a game.

Very true, it's not a game to anybody but Jodi and her defense team.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM: that's what I said. She seemed open from the beginning to placing everyone in the overflow room, making accomodations, etc. but sealing the proceeding altogether was another matter. She seemed quite reluctant to do it and seemed to think it drastic. It wasn't until the end that she made the decision after applying the test she applied and making note that she didn't know how the appeals court would view this.

Sending everyone to overflow seems a reasonable solution, btw. She could have done that no problem.

We're agreeing on her reasoning up to that point. Maybe not so much on why she opted to second guess that first and best decision. In opting to seal the court she disregarded her own good judgment, JM's arguments that sealing was unwarranted, too drastic, based on false premises, a bad precedent to set,and one that concerned him as a State prosecutor, and her own thinking through the First Amendment implications.

Personally I don't believe her decision was based solely on fear of appeals. Guess that's where we differ. It's all good.