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

[Marshmallow]

The DT may have asked them to leave to avoid making it obvious that JA was the witness on the stand.

or the DT was worried about their reactions to obvious story telling by Ms Arias and didn't want the jury to see their reactions.

 

[LinasK]

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:

The Hughes discredited Travis in their judgmental emails towards him telling him he abused Jodi by not committing to marrying her and called him the abusive sociopath for doing so! There is no way Juan would use them after doing that. They were interviewed by the DT and I think they refused to testify for the DT. Their credibility is shot as far as I'm concerned. They've done themselves no favors, and now trying to release a book before the trial is over???
I have no interest in buying a book by the Hughes, I don't see them as good friends. I would however be interested in what the Alexanders have to say post-trial.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

Because neither of those 2 books were billed as telling the true story of Travis Alexander the person, not the murder victim. The first two were about the whole enchilada, from back-story about both TA and JA through the first trial. In the true crime genre. Different. (Neither are particularly good, imo, but that's another story).

 

[daisydomino]

JA is not a good liar. She's a terrible liar. Her lies don't even make sense. She lies so much that nothing she says anymore is credible.

JA is not a master manipulator. JA is a compulsively controlling narcissist who tries to play head games that are so transparent they fail. A master manipulator gets you to think it's your own brilliant idea to walk into a trap.

JA did not nearly get away with this murder. She left more evidence than the police needed to arrest her. Her plan was so full of holes the first jury, even with the sympathetic foreman, convicted her of first degree murder with the aggravating factors of premeditation and cruelty.

Nobody believes Travis deserved to die. Nobody believes he was a pedophile. Nobody cares whether he looked at *advertiser censored* on his computer. Nobody believes the police tampered with the evidence. Juan Martinez might yell, but nobody believes he's guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

We spend so much time looking at the details in this retrial, we forget the big picture.

 

[Shadowboy]

Also, she has such a good track record on appeal that I can't imagine she'd want to mess that up. When I clerked for the AZ Supreme Court, there was one trial court judge who had a terrible reputation. When her name appeared on a decision, the judges would laugh and say "here comes another Judge X reversal." No one wants to be that judge lol.

AZL, I know you were/are gobsmacked by JSS's initial decision. I was, too. But given the subsequent COA ruling, I now support the closure of the courtroom, even though JSS knew COA would never buy it.

Let’s face it, LKN started trotting out the “JA can’t present complete mitigation due to threats against witnesses” during the first trial. He called zero mitigation witnesses.

JSS is fully aware of his strategy. By closing the courtroom; sealing JA’s testimony; and allowing testimony from un-named or pseudo-named witnesses, JSS has countered every move by Larry and his team.

I know some of you see that as weak-kneed and/or a gross miscarriage of justice; but I’m with LinasK and others: JSS doesn’t want to be the judge who flushed 3-plus million in taxpayer dollars down the toilet by leaving a hole for a successful appeal.

 

[Paintr]

Well, the Hughes were Travis' friends, their emails and messages are being used in this trial and they seem to be in touch with Travis' siblings. They should respect the wishes of the family. At least wait for the trial to be completed. Different standards for those who personally knew Travis? Yes.

Has the book been published? I thought they WERE waiting? Now I am confused.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Yes I suppose it is. I don't believe that, at all.

She knew it was a manipulation but was concerned that the COA would see it differently and that her refusal to testify even though she hadn't waived her right to would be seen as having prevented her from presenting mitigation. I didn't see anything in her words to suggest she had any other reason. She expressly said that was her reasoning. She was being cautious.

 

[wisewolves]

Exactly. While her defense team are relying on the online postings to find things to write up motions for and to try to derail the whole penalty phase, it doesn't occur to her that Juan Martinez has a steel trap mind and doesn't need to comb through daily online postings to find the discrepancies and lies in her various versions of her "story" to help him "catch her out". Which is why he has always been willing to accommodate the carp that keeps getting thrown at him. She was never going to be at an advantage by concealing what she had to say from the public. JM knows more about this case and Jodi's lies than anyone. He is not easily confused or manipulated. A quality JA must really hate in him.

Sometimes I wish she had been left alone to finish off her testiphony so that JM could have decimated her on cross, using her own testimony from the guilt phase, once again and to get her riled up and angry to show this jury her true self.

MOO

I love this statement, and its so obvious that its the case. You watch JM and he just sits back, taking it in, he objects when it goes to far, but mostly he just sits jots a few notes here and there to remind him of a point to make, he isnt scribbling notes the entire time a DT witness is on the stand, he isnt going nuts, he just always looks so calm and collected, he knows this case, the facts, the laws inside and out. I will also say this. Nurmi.. i cant stand him, he makes me ill, however, watching an attorney who as recently as 4 months ago was trying to get off this case, defend her.. he is doing a bang up job of making CERTAIN there are no appealable issues, especially on the effectiveness of counsel. He has filed for every small thing he can, in spite of that BB person who believes she is an expert on JAII, this case is not going to be successfully appealed. There have been no brady violations, no misconduct, and for the most part the Appeals court have been over this all before.
This ridiculous argument to testify in private is the biggest mess i have ever seen. I have written ppl in jail, nooo, not in AZ, but in TX and in FL, and as recently as 2 weeks ago. I met an abused woman who had to serve a few months at a local jail, she wanted me to send her some information about a technical school, she is allowed letters, i copied and pasted from the site the words, into a word doc. She got the letter, with that section cut out. they can not receive pictures, or even a copy of one in a word doc. only words. Any mail i have gotten from jail from her has advised me it was not censored on the way out, but it is marked as censored on the way in. and these are letters. Jodi is only allowed postcards, period. I know one of the JAII ppl was saying the other day her V day postcard to jodi was returned, because she had written in black ink and had drawn little hearts (gag) in blue ink and the note from the jail said you can only use black OR blue ink. (extreme i think) BUT it shows a point.. no letter went through except maybe that one from the LDS that we all know Jodi sent herself. The simple fact is Jodi wanted a free for all on that stand. She asked for her testimony to NEVER be released, ever, she is NOT the President of the United States for petes sake, she has nothing to say that any judge or court would ever deem top secret. SHE wanted to put out a whole new version, and per Nurmis many statements in that hearing that she is BPD and PTSD, she was going to play up the entire abuse from childhood, abuse from Travis, and her mental illness (laughable) She was going to elaborate and make the story about what happened with Travis that day into a sludge fest. SHE knew if she did that, everyone in the real world would instantly see her lies, and yes it would blogged, tweeted, talked about on the news... but? who cares? no one is going to "kill" jodi, unless its an inmate no one has access. No one can visit Jodi without being on the approved list. so while i can see a hesitation about testifying with everyone in the room, the option offered to have everyone moved out of the court into the overflow room was the only solution that should have ever moved forward. The Judge, who has made big mistakes is ALSO trying to make certain that this case has no appeal issues. So between Nurmi and JSS there really is nothing left that will succeed in an appeal.
OH, i have been here for a LOOONG time, back during Trenton Duckett who was from my home town. I just havent posted much.. not since then, but i do read and i do respect all of you here for how vigilant you always are.

 

[janx]

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.

I should have been clearer, AZL--not sure that I was. I was referring to her decision to close the court room. She seemed to err on the side of caution to an extreme degree because she didn't want to give JA a reason for appeal later on. I find this part of the transcript interesting (pp.29-30):

"Well, I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic: and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don't close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse: and I'm not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I'm going to close the proceedings..."

 

[MeeBee]

Well, the Hughes were Travis' friends, their emails and messages are being used in this trial and they seem to be in touch with Travis' siblings. They should respect the wishes of the family. At least wait for the trial to be completed. Different standards for those who personally knew Travis? Yes.

But they are waiting for the trial to be completed. Perhaps that was their compromise after they announced it and the family expressed concerns. Perhaps they were going to release it sooner but considered the Alexanders' concerns. They'd already written it and they probably will have to release it at some point. They are waiting.

Also, I keep seeing people saying Travis' story is his family's to tell only. Why? It's Travis' story and if anyone wants to tell it then why not? If I'm not mistaken, Travis saw the Hughes' more than Travis saw his family in his final years and once he moved to AZ and was very close with them.

 

[rose222]

Has the book been published? I thought the WERE waiting? Now I am confused.

I don't think so. They plan to release it post-verdict. My concern is that even bringing up the idea of a book while the trial is still going on is not good for the State. Also, given the nasty emails that they sent to Travis and their exchanges with Nurmi regarding the pedophilia they should have maintained low profiles until the end of the trial. IMO.

 

[LinasK]

I should have been clearer, AZL--not sure that I was. I was referring to her decision to close the court room. She seemed to err on the side of caution to an extreme degree because she didn't want to give JA a reason for appeal later on. I find this part of the transcript interesting (pp.29-30):

"Well, I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic: and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don't close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse: and I'm not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I'm going to close the proceedings..."

RBBM. I've thought so all along.

 

[Paintr]

The Hughes discredited Travis in their judgmental emails towards him telling him he abused Jodi by not committing to marrying her and called him the abusive sociopath for doing so! There is no way Juan would use them after doing that. They were interviewed by the DT and I think they refused to testify for the DT. Their credibility is shot as far as I'm concerned. They've done themselves no favors, and now trying to release a book before the trial is over???
I have no interest in buying a book by the Hughes, I don't see them as good friends. I would however be interested in what the Alexanders have to say post-trial.

The Hughes e mails were private. They were written BEFORE TA was murdered and they had absolutely no way of knowing that private correspondence between friends would ever, in their wildest dreams, feature in a death penalty case. How does that damage their credibility? :dunno:

I don't know the Hughes and did not know Travis Alexander. I have no idea who would want what now.

 

[Nali87]

All this time I thought we were going to get a transcript of the chamber meeting that took place AFTER the ruling of the COA when Jodi said she wasn't going to testify.

And - by the way - if the media's presence and the death threats make her so nervous, then she wouldn't be able to do her allocation either. Wouldn't she? Or is it only when there's the possibility to be cross examined, that the media makes her nervous?

 

[LambChop]

It is fine to get into a discussion regarding the judge but it is not okay to bash her so let's refrain from doing so. Discuss away but please do so responsibly. Thanks, Lambchop

 

[Hope4More]

Yes I suppose it is. I don't believe that, at all.

She knew it was a manipulation but was concerned that the COA would see it differently and that her refusal to testify even though she hadn't waived her right to would be seen as having prevented her from presenting mitigation. I didn't see anything in her words to suggest she had any other reason. She expressly said that was her reasoning. She was being cautious.

But....as everyone from AZL to the COA has said, that reasoning was seriously flawed and entirely unfounded legally. JSS is a judge, and by all local accounts and standards, way better than average at understanding and interpreting the law. Given that, I give her more credit than to think she was "just" worried about an appeal on the issue. I think she misread the situation, which led to making a bad legal ruling.

I think she misread the situation because of the unrelenting anti-media pressure put on her by the DT, which had already caused her to cede ground to them, inch by inch over many of their media-related demands. Had she called BS from the very beginning I believe her thinking would have been clearer that day.

 

[krkrjx]

This may be perceived as "off topic" but just curious if anyone has an opinion on The Hughes and their writing a book to be released soon after the end of the "retrial"?? I heard Chris Hughes last night on Tricia's True Crime and he said that clearly not all of Travis' family members were happy with the book. I know he has a right to publish this but without full family support not so sure I see it as appropriate . Chris also mentioned that he and his family (kids) are living in the Scottsdale area during this entire trial. why? I understand they were friends but this seems like too much and frankly unfair to his kids. The Hughes seem to always be available to media and may I ask ///all books make money...who is getting the profits from this book? I know they are highly regarded by many but frankly I can't help but think they are now exploiting the death of Travis.

I personally have decided to let up a bit on judging Chris and Sky Hughes. They are publishing a book and maybe the timing of that announcement was not the greatest--but I have had to consider the fact that they were just ordinary citizens who ended up involved in some really ugly circumstances not of their choosing. Their friend was savagely murdered--an occurrence which will not be deemed average by most standards--followed by his killer being given carte blanche to kill him again and again over several years' time in and out of a courtroom.

I do not know the reasons for Chris and Sky publishing a book about their friend, Travis Alexander. I like to think their intentions are honorable even if their judgment (in making this information public at the time that they did) may be lacking. The lack of judgment is not sufficient for me to jump to the conclusion that these people are only looking for monetary gain. They may be, yes, but until I know that to be fact, I cannot condemn them. It is possible that Chris and Sky were just average people of average intelligence living average lives who just did not know how to act once their lives took a flying leap outside of average. One thing I am sure of is that they have better insight into everyone involved in this case than I do and that is why I want to read their book.

For the time being, I will lay off criticizing Chris and Sky, partly because I do not know for sure what is in their minds and their hearts, but mostly because there are so many others involved in this legal fiasco who deserve deeper scrutiny. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

For now.

 

[janx]

RBBM. I've thought so all along.

And before that, JM said (pg. 8):

"It is not an issue of the media here. It is an issue of the public.

Certainly if the request is made and you make that determination, you can certainly indicate to the media that they cannot take pictures or do that sort of thing, but this is more broad than that. This is excluding the public: and that if we do that, I think—well, it is my belief that if we do that just because the Defendant is nervous, that this would be overturned on appeal."

 

[sumbunny]

For all the posters complaining that this trial will be lost because of JSS let me mention- you don't see Juan filing judicial complaints against her do you??? Juan's got this, even when the defense witnesses get nasty against him. He's giving them enough rope to hang themselves and make themselves dislikeable to the jury. I highly doubt the jury likes their snarkiness on the stand.
OJ, Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake all got off because of bad juries.

I'm not so sure it was just bad juries...i'd believe a combination of everything.

CA- had a jury that was ridiculous..although the judge allowed a lady that said she can and would never judge anyone!
Also allowed Baez to fabricate complete lies with no testimony to back it up.

 

[MeeBee]

But....as everyone from AZL to the COA has said, that reasoning was seriously flawed and entirely unfounded legally. JSS is a judge, and by all local accounts and standards, way better than average at understanding and interpreting the law. Given that, I give her more credit than to think she was "just" worried about an appeal on the issue. I think she misread the situation, which led to making a bad legal ruling.

I think she misread the situation because of the unrelenting anti-media pressure put on her by the DT, which had already caused her to cede ground to them, inch by inch over many of their media-related demands. Had she called BS from the very beginning I believe her thinking would have been clearer that day.

It was obviously flawed and she was pressured and bullied into it but I still think that was her sole reason.