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

[Marshmallow]

Atfer re-rereading the transcript of the secret meeting I think I've gotten it all straight in my head. I don't think the Judge was erring on the side of caution because she was worried about appeals. I think she chose the route she did because it effectively shut up the defense. She called their bluff so to speak. It's not for us, the observers, to understand but perhaps it was her way of saying "okay, you got your wish..now show me what you'll do with it" she knew Jodi was fibbicating, Jodi knew she knew, the defense knew she knew, Mr Martinez knew she knew. He went along with it knowing it was never going to go far and anything Ms Arias said would be on record and nonretractable. He knew it would be overturned and when it was overturned he knew he could use it and it would open the door for other things to come in.
The only ones, who matter in the big picture and who are in the dark are the jurors and it doesn't play out well for Ms Arias. I think the Judge took a mess of a situation, tried to pull it together and in the long run appease the defense knowing the defense was not going to like the outcome.
I may not be thrilled with the Judge's choice in this matter but I respect her position and would never want to have to deal with the nonstop complaining, whining and tattletaling going on. She tried to solve the problem and by doing so bore the brunt of our dissatisfaction but now, after it all settled, I think she made the right decision.

 

[Love Never Fails]

She did cave in to the defense, but not for the reasons you previously stated- I don't think she was out to violate the constitution. I think she did it to minimize their appeals.

Linas, you know I appreciate your comments, every one of them. But we just disagree about this judge.

ETA: my post was actually much longer but didn't show up. Oh well.

 

[janx]

Then why would she have been worried about an appeal?



I agree. She caved to the defense because she was worried about an appeal because her thinking about the secrecy issues had gotten muddled.

Now it seems I agree with almost everyone lol. :floorlaugh:

Excellent summation, AZL! :happydance:

 

[MeeBee]

Yes. That's the main thing she considered. But she thought that the COA would side with her. I don't think we can say that JSS was JUST being cautious...

If she was being extremely cautious, like you said, why not grant the stay? If all she wanted was "a second opinion" of sort, why not be extremely cautious again and wait for the COA ruling?

I don't think she was extremely cautious on this because (I keep repeating myself sorry lol) she would've displayed some more extremely cautious behavior and would've granted the stay. Why risk disturbing your trial otherwise?

So yeah, to me, her denying the stay makes me think JSS thought she was right on this one and made a bad ruling.

Remember the transcript of the sidebars that were made public? In which JM and JSS in essence say; "WELL we all know what the COA granting the stay means! They'll overrule me.". The same applies to JSS. We all know what her denying the media's stay meant; the COA will so support me in this, JSS thought. She was confident in that.

I think she was being cautious but also thought the COA would side with her and agree with her reasoning.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

having read the super secret meeting notes I am left with two thoughts.
1. the personnel at the jail must be lacking as no one got the name of the want to be atty lurking and skulking around.
2. the Judge got bamboozled beyond normal bamboozling. My 6 year old granddaughter would have seen through the "fog" the defense was floating. What a waste of court time, COA time and the jurors time.

Couldn't the judge have called the jail to verify this "story" about this crazy pretend attorney? I am just not buying their story. These guards have guns don't they? Camera's? I wish the judge would have said I need proof of this incident.

 

[Paintr]

I guess my whole problem with the criticism of the Hughes book writing, is that while Travis was an 'Alexander' he was also a 'Travis', a single unique individual. While the Alexanders lost a brother, they were not the only ones that suffered a loss. They have no exclusive rights to memories/opinions of Travis. Travis went out into the world and touched people and made friends. To try to gauge just who has suffered more by the hole left by Travis' death is impossible imo.

I have read a friends website on line where a lot of TA's friends/ people who knew him left stories/opinions of TA. I have heard no criticism of that page and trial is ongoing. Do different friends have to adhere to different standards?

As for the e mails from the Hughes and their being critical of him. I have no idea of the conversations, actions or discussions or the lies that JA told them, that led to those messages being sent. TA did not throw them away after those comments and he would have been the one to judge just how good friends they were to him. What if Deanna or Lisa is writing a book and what if the Alexanders in part or in total do not approve? Should they then refrain from writing about a man who loved them?

So I have no problems with the Hughes book. But maybe that is just me.

 

[Nali87]

I think she was being cautious but also thought the COA would side with her and agree with her reasoning.

Way to make me look long winded lol.

Yes. Exactly. She actually thought this was an issue that if not granted would have a serious effect on appeal... She didn't just grant it to call the DT's bluff or to be just cautious. She thought she was right!

 

[ElleElle]

BBM. This is exactly what I think. It's the only explanation that makes sense. Just wish the bashers could see it this way.

Just wait LinasK, once JA gets sentenced to death, everyone will thank JSS.

 

[Nali87]

I guess my whole problem with the criticism of the Hughes book writing, is that while Travis was an 'Alexander' he was also a 'Travis', a single unique individual. While the Alexanders lost a brother, they were not the only ones that suffered a loss. They have no exclusive rights to memories/opinions of Travis. Travis went out into the world and touched people and made friends. To try to gauge just who has suffered more by the hole left by Travis' death is impossible imo.

I have read a friends website on line where a lot of TA's friends/ people who knew him left stories/opinions of TA. I have heard no criticism of that page and trial is ongoing. Do different friends have to adhere to different standards?

As for the e mails from the Hughes and their being critical of him. I have no idea of the conversations, actions or discussions or the lies that JA told them, that led to those messages being sent. TA did not throw them away after those comments and he would have been the one to judge just how good friends they were to him. What if Deanna or Lisa is writing a book and what if the Alexanders in part or in total do not approve? Should they then refrain from writing about a man who loved them?

So I have no problems with the Hughes book. But maybe that is just me.

I personally just don't think it's smart to be writing/publicizing a book during the trial, while there's still a possibility that you might be called as witnesses.

Before sentencing, all of TA's friends and family will get another chance to talk about him. To the media and the public.

Plus if the Hughes just want people to know how great TA was, why not start a blog and write about him? Or publish the book for free?

I don't know. The whole thing doesn't vibe well with me, personally.

 

[LinasK]

I guess my whole problem with the criticism of the Hughes book writing, is that while Travis was an 'Alexander' he was also a 'Travis', a single unique individual. While the Alexanders lost a brother, they were not the only ones that suffered a loss. They have no exclusive rights to memories/opinions of Travis. Travis went out into the world and touched people and made friends. To try to gauge just who has suffered more by the hole left by Travis' death is impossible imo.

I have read a friends website on line where a lot of TA's friends/ people who knew him left stories/opinions of TA. I have heard no criticism of that page and trial is ongoing. Do different friends have to adhere to different standards?

As for the e mails from the Hughes and their being critical of him. I have no idea of the conversations, actions or discussions or the lies that JA told them, that led to those messages being sent. TA did not throw them away after those comments and he would have been the one to judge just how good friends they were to him. What if Deanna or Lisa is writing a book and what if the Alexanders in part or in total do not approve? Should they then refrain from writing about a man who loved them?

So I have no problems with the Hughes book. But maybe that is just me.

If I was the Hughes's, I don't care what Jodi was telling me. Why should I believe a girl I'd just barely met over my long-term friend? They had no right to trash him, guilt-trip him, no right to tell him how to run his life, and certainly NOT to put it in writing, even if it was a year prior to the murder. You just don't do those things to your friends, IMO!!! It's not a matter of who has the right to write a book about him, they disgust me, I have no desire to read how they'll backpedal now.
And even though I also think PPL is a pyramid scheme, my feelings about the Hughes's are independent of PPL.

 

[My-Future-Ex-Husband]

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.

BBM I totally disagree with you on this but getting back to Juan, I agree with you on the rope.

 

[LinasK]

Just wait LinasK, once JA gets sentenced to death, everyone will thank JSS.

I will be, and I mean that!!

 

[Nali87]

Just wait LinasK, once JA gets sentenced to death, everyone will thank JSS.

Hey hey. No sheep mentality for me over here.

I will be giving the compliments to JM, the detectives etc. JSS just there to keep order. (Which she doesn't do very well. :sigh

P.S Snark. I know JSS works very hard.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM: I don't think that was true at that time. Travis still liked Jodi and wanted to be with her and was mad at them for potentially sabotaging the budding relationship with her.

Can't remember which recent testimony delved into the differing responses Travis gave Sky and Chris during their email exchanges. T told Sky that he "adored" JA, thought she was sweet, and that he was trying harder with her than he normally did. But he also wrote Chris the very faint praise that she was "good looking, that's for sure," and nice enough, but that he didn't think JA was the one, and wasn't sure why.

There was nothing manipulative or deceptive in replying differently. The poor man was trying his best to be honest with himself and to his friends after JA had done her best to drive a wedge between them all, this after he'd only known her for a few months.

 

[ElleElle]

So, I guess according to Geff, most of us have PTSD if we were disciplined as a child. When the trial videos come out, I don't know if I will be able to stand listening/watching this testimony. :facepalm:

I think I have Norovirus. :sick: In bed for the next couple of days.

 

[5bigfish5]

I believe JA refused to answer them in open court. There was a minute entry that said they would not be asked and would be filed with the clerk. Not sure if they would be available to the public until after the verdict, though.

Thanks!

Hmm,

The jurors that did put in questions are probably going to be confused. Lord knows I am.

 

[Love Never Fails]

About Judge Stephens....I do believe she caved to the defense for no good reason I can come up with....but I would never call her names or make fun of her appearance, or put her down personally. I don't know her. And if AZlawyer says she is respected in her community, that is good enough for me. And if I was in her courtroom, I would give her all due respect, I believe in our laws and the U.S. Constitution. Just because I may disagree with someone doesn't make me their judge or jury.

From all the posts I have agreed with, and those I take issue with, I still believe we are all victim friendly. And I think it's a good thing that most of us have very strong opinions and are not afraid to voice them. God bless each of you.

 

[Paintr]

If I was the Hughes's, I don't care what Jodi was telling me. Why should I believe a girl I'd just barely met over my long-term friend? They had no right to trash him, guilt-trip him, no right to tell him how to run his life, and certainly NOT to put it in writing, even if it was a year prior to the murder. You just don't do those things to your friends, IMO!!! It's not a matter of who has the right to write a book about him, they disgust me, I have no desire to read how they'll backpedal now.
And even though I also think PPL is a pyramid scheme, my feelings about the Hughes's are independent of PPL.

OK! I think I will bow out of this discussion. Not knowing the parties involved personally, I feel I have no right to judge their friendship/or lack thereof.

Have a great day all!

 

[AZlawyer]

Well, I thought it was because Jodi hasn't waived her right to testify and was refusing to do so with them present and was worried about appeals court would find she wasn't able to present full mitigation and did every to accommodate her. I do think she has gotten sucked into the defense's thinking with regard to the media presence (perhaps more on her own after she herself grew ucomfortable with how big the trial has become) which is why she is the one who calls the morning sidebars and such. But I didn't think it wen I I this decision.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I think she was being cautious but also thought the COA would side with her and agree with her reasoning.

Right! She (incorrectly) thought the Ct App would agree with her because she (incorrectly) thought JA hadn't voluntarily waived her right to testify. Which means her thinking in this area of law was muddled because she had bought into the idea that secrecy was OK and therefore was an OK thing for a defendant to demand before waiving her right to testify.

Right?

 

[Hez]

Does anyone believe this killer has actually received "thousands and thousands and thousands of pieces of mail" (her words) in the 16 months between the first trial and this sentencing phase? I mean, they would have to add another wing to the jail and hire more staff to handle that volume if it were true. :facepalm: As abhorrent as I find her and her entire defense team, I know I wouldn't waste the postage to send her anything, ever. I'm sure she has received mail, but no where near the amount she claims. But of course she has to exaggerate to make it appear that she is just sooooo important, which she is not.