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

[LinasK]

My future ex husband,
You explained it perfectly. I have felt that way for some time. I came here just wanting to know why. I didn't know then that JA was a psychopath or sociopath. I thought she must have had a reason. I have two sons, three brothers and I mean, who thinks the way she does? I have never been for the death penalty. One thing this l-o-n-g trial has taught me is that there are mean, cruel, violent people in this world and we cannot allow them to be free in society. She will kill again. I think she is proud of her "work". If she had any remorse then I think she would have killed herself. But there is nothing there. Once the trial is over, once Jodi is gone away or dead, I will still be wondering WHY. Why did this young man have to die?

Because Jodi perceived that he slighted her, she knew he was going to marry someone else, and he would have exposed her manipulativeness to the world. She couldn't have any of that.

 

[BritsKate]

JA will refuse to acknowledge anything but PTSD because of course, that is something that was "done" to her, because she was so trusting. Per her narcissism she will never acknowledge fault or responsibility, and I think that's why so many people hate her and/or think she is the lowest of the low. imo

I hate it when people refuse to accept personal responsibility but I also hate her superiority. It just oozes off of her. You, like me, were in a real abusive relationship. You, like me, know how hard the fight is to gain any confidence back after an experience like that.

And here we have Einstein hanging her photos next to the flipping Mona Lisa after slaughtering a guy we probably would have given our eye teeth to date, compared to whom we were involved with, and telling anyone who will listen how horrible he was.

She makes it oh so easy to really, truly hate her.

 

[TexMex]

A lot of bows are made of raffia. If you make up any gift baskets at the holidays, you can find raffia bows at Cost Plus/Pier 1 Imports type stores. It's a kind of rope/viney kind of material sometimes colored, sometimes wheat/natural color.

:hills:

 

[atthelake]

“Why would you continue to sleep with Travis after you learned of his child-*advertiser censored* issues?”

“When he was able to sleep with a woman as opposed to fantasizing about a child, he felt more normal as a man.”

There were more than a few instances with the experts this go around that were the same... the person OBVIOUSLY not answering the question at hand ullhair:

Perhaps a question for AZL:

Did JSS and JM had the option to tell the person on the stand that the question was OBVIOUSLY not answered?

 

[Spycraft]

COURTROOM OBSERVATION:

A friend came to visit me recently who had been traveling and had a layover in Phoenix on each end of the trip. He remembered my interest/obsession in the Arias trial so he thought about dropping in one day if there was seating. He happened to be there when Willmott was questioning Geffner and was fortunate to get a seat. Some of his observations:
1. Unbelievable poise and dignity from the Alexander family, even during what he called the most atrocious and demoralizing testimony
2. Willmott’s voice was incredibly distracting with the whines, the “junior high school snobby girl voice”, inappropriate laughing and giggling while questioning.
(My friend is a college professor who speaks very well himself and as a former colleague I can attest to his popularity and excellent teaching style. His work in the legal field as a part of the commissions overseeing teacher standards and practices has given him courtroom experience as well.)
3. The “overtly indulgent” attitudes of the defense attorneys with repetitious and insistent interruptions, the “arrogance of entitlement” by assuming before asking/demanding a bench approach and the incredibly leniency the judge allowed them to do this.
4. Realizing this was resentencing in mitigation, he was still shocked at the number and extensively detailed accusations and assumptions made about Travis Alexander and done so without corroboration.
5. He wasn’t sure at first Nurmi’s role except as teammate to the shrill and demanding Willmott during bench approaches. He said Nurmi was so glued to his phone he was reminded of his teenage nieces who would forego listening to conversations, listening during their favorite musicians’ concerts in favor of checking social media constantly. Nurmi would read, scroll, make weird gestures, look around at the gallery, write something down, continue scrolling, totally glued! He thought at first he was the media spokesperson for the defense team whose job it was to keep up on media interpretation and reporting via tweets!! Seriously!
6. He counted Geffner replying “35 years of experience” more than a dozen times before he quit counting. He said it was the only “fact” he could decipher in Geffner’s very longwinded conversational toned answers directed to a jury who looked like they could use a stiff drink!
7. The “fancy pancy lady” (later told was MDLR) was quite concerned with her telephone as well, so much so she didn’t respond to several gestures from Nurmi to get her attention for something. He thought her physical proximity and general attention to Arias was strangely “suggestive” and was surprised how much physical touch between the two was allowed.
8. He found it very odd and alarming to see so little presence from jail officials. The one guard was not “at attention” in a physical way that suggested he could jump up and intervene should it be necessary. The environment was more like what he would expect to see in a divorce hearing than a capital murder case.
9. After an hour listening to Geffner display and explain his “colored sex chart like a 5th grader at the science fair”, he saw juror’s postures gradually slumping down farther into their chairs! He described the boredom factor as easily a 10 out of 10, and the believability factor in the negative numbers. As he told me, it was like to Geffner, “words mean whatever I want them to mean”, and “Having 35 years experience I know the motivations and meaning behind every written word, and I have the authority given 35 years experience to take words out of context, combine conversations, label conversations as being sexual if I believe it makes the victim look bad.” Again, he had to remind himself about the difference between guilt and mitigation phase, because he was alarmed how these suppositions could be made without contest.
10. He had a few chances to actually see Arias from the side. He said it was ridiculously dramatic how she stood in rapt and serious attention with posture and glasses as the jury entered and left, staring them down until they were out the door, then immediately went into smiling “princess mode” who immediately was attended to by her handmaiden MDLR.
10. There were a lot more observations and interpretations, but one last one that stood out and may be viewed controversial by folks, was the “unprofessional, undisciplined and flippant actions and attitudes” from several court watchers that appeared to know each other well. His experience and expectations of anyone attending court is to respect the court at all times, not come joking and rumbling out of the courthouse laughing and teasing each other as though they had just left a party. I thought that was a bit harsh, but he said it wasn’t everyone, not at all. But the few that seemed to be a “clique” were so goofy acting and almost playful leaving the courthouse even as family members were exiting, counsel members, even jurors and media who were not there for the entertainment as the specific group he was referring to.

I have pages of notes he took and pages I took from what he told me and will gladly share if anyone is interested. He knows much less about the details and history of this case, but is familiar enough to know what Arias is, what she did, how it was done and the defense spin. Anyway, I find his observations interesting.

 

[ZoeyW]

Spycraft, ask your friend what does he make of the reasons the judge allowed Jodi Arias to testify in secret. Thank you for you post!

 

[ZoeyW]

I'm confused.:waitasec: Help me out here. Are you saying the emails Jodi forged of Chris Hughes are the ones where the Hugheses called Travis an abusive sociopath, or other emails???

In that testimony , Kirk Nurmi asked Chris about both. He asked about the forged letters, and how and why Chris and Sky opined that the letters were faked and or forged. He also asked about the emails that were exchanged between Travis/Chris/Sky many years ago during the first four months of Travis dating Jodi long distance. In that testimony they discussed it all. Chris was on the stand possibly the ninth , for sure on the tenth day of the trial, then Sky was on the stand for a short while the following week. The judge ruled against Jodi Arias the day Sky was there. Many people are unaware that indeed there is sworn testimony on the matter of the email exchanges because it was not in front of the jury. Many folks only recorded the actual jury time. There were much earlier hearings on the pedophilia also, but I don't have those recorded. Juan mentions them, and him deposing Matt McCartney when he had Jodi on the stand and he was cold busting her with her hidden messages in the magazines. I hope that helps. The short answer is both.

Here is Chris regarding the forged e pedo letters ( Nurmi emailed Chris/Sky about this and Sky responded to Nurmi via e mail ) http://youtu.be/z4bTzT-c0DI?t=11m13s

Here is Chris regarding Exhibit 5 ( the emails between Chris/Sky/Travis ) http://youtu.be/z4bTzT-c0DI?t=30m39s

And here is Chris saying "She (Jodi) murdered my friend, IN COLD BLOOD". Truest statement from entire trial of State of AZ vs Jodi Ann Arias

http://youtu.be/z4bTzT-c0DI?t=49m36s

This reminds me to give a shout out to David Lohr. He took the time to edit out all the sidebars. I could not stand to watch in real time. I would watch at night sans side bars. Love, love, love to David Lohr!

Here it is, the entire trial, in order http://youtu.be/1Fn7WHx4TCw?list=PL_Rz53XTtnkEf4qetcdaEwSY00mKCOoYo

 

[Spycraft]

Spycraft, ask your friend what does he make of the reasons the judge allowed Jodi Arias to testify in secret. Thank you for you post!

His most succinct answer: What reasons? There were NO reasons other than placating the defense. He doesn't buy into the whole trying to avoid appeals reasons, nor does he think her reasons have anything to do with siding with or liking Arias. He said in his opinion, it was an "uninformed reactionary decision." To not understand the law or likely repercussions is ridiculous, again in his opinion. She reacted, felt bullied perhaps, was weary of the defense and their "poor us, the mean, mean media is the problem" along with "our poor bullied mentally ill manipulator, I mean client" finally got to her and she gave in. Again, in his opinion, a bad reactionary decision that does not portray or represent confidence, nor does it inspire confidence in her judgement. When he read the chamber notes it was pretty hilarious to hear his take!

 

[daisydomino]

That vile <word I can not say>! I don't support the death penalty, but this <another word I can not say> makes me
almost lust for it for this sick, evil, conniving <you-know-what>!!!!!

I feel the same way! In general, I am anti-DP and I certainly would never be seated on the jury of a capital case. But this one—oy vey. I want to hold her down on the gurney myself.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I don't think JSS was duped. I think she gave the defense what they wanted knowing full well she'd be overturned.

I know, LinasK, and I respect your theory of why, and your support of JSS. :winkkiss:

 

[TxJan1971]

Question:
Does anyone know who "SAM" is that Jodi refers to?
Yes, I'm very aware that "Sam" may just be a figment of Jodi's ever evolving imagination.

She does, however, refer to a "Sam" twice in her journals.

She says that when she lost her Helio phone on 5/18, she notified Ryan, Steve, "SAM" and "Gus."

On 5/24 she makes a journal entry that "Sam" has been texting her almost every day as of late...

Thoughts?

 

[bznbear]

I agree with everything you say, although my own experience with PTSD has different idiosyncracies.

I believe it could be said in general that PTSD is maladaptive. But Jodi is nothing if not adaptive; she's a veritable chameleon. She's even, by all accounts, happy as a clam in jail (I'll bet she is, too, since it fosters her sneakiness.).

There's no evidence in Jodi of intrusive thoughts, creepy feelings, hallucinations, inexplicable fears, avoidance, acting as if at a prior trauma. She hasn't to my knowledge even spun lies that would indicate she was experiencing these features of PTSD, like: What exactly does she avoid? What shows up in her dreams? What aromas bother her? What is going on when she is startled? What kinds of things has she imagined that were not there?.....

I don't believe Jodi dissociates, either. It's more like she's not on the ball, and this happened because she spent her days obsessed with men who did not (or no longer) want to be with her. Plus, she's never been a focused kind of a gal, fixated on men, maybe, but not focused. The messy crime scene is testimony to her lack of focus: not lack of planning, but disorganized follow-through. That the crime scene happened is, of course, a sign of her fixation. None of this at all qualifies as "dissociation."

And, to use an example from today's testimony, if Travis truly had his hands around Jodi's neck, that would have been a typical spot to dissociate. For instance, I might not even be able to process what was happening, I might not notice pain, and I might be in a stupor. But what does Jodi do? The opposite! She galvanizes her no-doubt-newly-manicured fingernails into action, contemplates whether or not to scratch him in the eyeballs, and decides not to as a matter of selflessness. This one sentence amounts to about 5 examples of being fully present.

If Jodi were really a PTSDer who once experienced a man's hands trying to strangle her, she should by rights, these days, be having all kinds of nightmares about hangmen's nooses around her neck....

And I don't believe you could get PTSD if you're the aggressor; you get PTSD from a feeling of helplessness. It's not even possible, in other words, to get it during a murder you are committing. No way, I'm thinking. In Jodi's case, she was doing fight and flight, the opposite of helplessness: she stabbed, shot, galvanized herself into action on the cleanup, and fled.


As an aside, the whole "I am in a fog about the murder" echoes the excuse of another murderer Juan prosecuted (put on death row?) successfully: the guy who claimed he was sleep-walking when he killed his wife. Yes, Juan has been through this schtick before......

I'm just now trying to get caught up. Your post is great, so powerful, so true.

 

[ZoeyW]

His most succinct answer: What reasons? There were NO reasons other than placating the defense. He doesn't buy into the whole trying to avoid appeals reasons, nor does he think her reasons have anything to do with siding with or liking Arias. He said in his opinion, it was an "uninformed reactionary decision." To not understand the law or likely repercussions is ridiculous, again in his opinion. She reacted, felt bullied perhaps, was weary of the defense and their "poor us, the mean, mean media is the problem" along with "our poor bullied mentally ill manipulator, I mean client" finally got to her and she gave in. Again, in his opinion, a bad reactionary decision that does not portray or represent confidence, nor does it inspire confidence in her judgement. When he read the chamber notes it was pretty hilarious to hear his take!

This is the perfect example of how not everyone is a born leader. Not every great lawyer will make a great judge. The person that sells the most this week in a store or dealership cannot necessarily lead the team and should not necessarily be promoted to manager. She lacked confidence. It isn't that she couldn't rule and roll on the spot that bothered me. My concern is what did she do over that hour break to come to this conclusion. I doubt very much that she consulted the Chief Justice. Surely they would have guided her with confidence to a firm denial of Jodi Arias demands/requests. I need to look up her track record to opine on her as a whole. ON THIS MATTER, she was misguided from jump.

May 20, 2013 Judge Stephens said she'd seal #JodiArias penalty phase witnesses
Listen very closely to what Judge Sherry Stephens says in this clip.

http://youtu.be/RzS_cE09XH8?t=12m26s

"This court has indicated to defense counsel that ANY WITNESS THEY WISH TO CALL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SENTENCING PHASE COULD BE CALLED IN A SEALED PROCEEDING AND THIS COURT WOULD SEAL THOSE PROCEEDINGS. THAT SHOULD ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT INTIMIDATION OR THREATS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION." That is a direct quote It scared me then. It scares me now that she doesn't realize the chit storm it created. The debacle with the phantom 14 Affiants, and the lies from Marc McGee in his Affidavit that Jodi's experts relied upon as gospel......all of that came from the judge offering to seal. I have NEVER seen anything like this. EVER.

 

[GigiG]

Spycraft - your friend's observations are fascinating. Please share any more that you can. It would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[ICit]

BBM. This is the biggest joke to me. Teaching Spanish to a population in a state that's largely Hispanic.

The biggest joke to me is teaching sign language. Just think about it for a minute. HOW MANY DEAF PEOPLE ARE IN THE PRISON?

I was watching an old Nancy Grace where she interviewed six inmates. One of them showed Nancy something in sign language. Could this be a talk behind the guards back con game? Or do I really have to worry about a bunch of deaf people being locked up in prison?

 

[bznbear]

Geff inserted the argument from religion as a matter of convenience. It was so incomprehensible, I don't believe it's fruitful to try to analyze what he said or figure out what all it meant. What he said is offensive whether one is an observant Mormon or whether one is an upstanding human being. There is no way to "flavor" this so it's tenable. It's a shame if we feel compelled to make arguments over religion because of Geff. His testimony has nothing to do with personal values: it is Machiavellian and amoral.

BBM Great post thank you! I try very hard to keep this trial from overwhelming me, but like many of us here I don't always succeed. Thursday was one of those days. It occurred to me how Arias' evil act of butchering Travis has been compounded innumerably by the actions of the DT and their witnesses. The lies, unsubstantiated innuendos, character assassinations, unethical and unprofessional behavior allow the crime against Travis to be repeated ad infinitum. To add to that, they have managed to cast aspersions on a large number of very good people who knew and loved Travis. They are deplorable, imo. They have done nothing to bring any truth or justice to light in this case; instead they perpetuate falsehoods and murder. They have seriously lost their way.

 

[TxJan1971]

The biggest joke to me is teaching sign language. Just think about it for a minute. HOW MANY DEAF PEOPLE ARE IN THE PRISON?

I was watching an old Nancy Grace where she interviewed six inmates. One of them showed Nancy something in sign language. Could this be a talk behind the guards back con game? Or do I really have to worry about a bunch of deaf people being locked up in prison?

Other than inmates wanting to learn sign language out of curiosity or perhaps just out of sheer boredom, speaking sign is a very good way to be able to communicate if you are either not permitted to do so or if you would just like to hide what you are saying to another person.

A few years ago when I was still a spring chicken and dating my DH :chicken:, I taught DH some very specific and select sign language. I remember a few times when we were at a party or social function, one or the other of us wanted to leave so we would just sign inconspicuously to let the other know it's time to go, or he or I would sign something "suggestive" to one another flirtatiously that we didn't want to say out loud or let others know what we were saying. :blowkiss:

 

[DebinGA]

On Thursday JSS denied JM's attempt to introduce evidence of Geffner's part in a Texas case: Clark v. Collins 1992 ... in which Geffner showed the same intentional ignorance/avoidance of case facts 30 yrs. ago as now:

"The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner's affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark's conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark's childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark's attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner's affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue."

If Geffner's allowed to repeatedly cite his 35 years of "experience" to the jury, why isn't JM allowed to cite negative judicial reaction to his "experience"? I'd like to see a list of all the evidence JM has tried to admit but that JSS has disallowed and/or deemed "too prejudicial" in this case ... especially in light of the provable pedophile-sexual deviant-*advertiser censored* addict DT lies that JSS apparently decided were more probative than prejudicial.

 

[RickshawFan]

Prosecuted by Juan Martinez (Wendi Andriano)


Here is Juan regarding that trial http://youtu.be/ZxA4E_D0U7A

She too came up with claims that she had been abused. The victim's family, like Travis' were SHOCKED by these wild allegations. Guess what friends, the jury called bullchit.

Unrelated...here is a much younger Juan Martinez "Most excuses should simply not be accepted". http://youtu.be/KnuHNtGogYw?t=6m15s

That's Flores in the Snapped video, right? It's interesting how his interrogation style has developed over the years. He paces much better in the Jodi interrogation and he sits further away, with a table between him and the criminal.

 

[Val1]

“Travis stated on the phone sex conversation he did not like Spiderman. Why did he buy you Spiderman underwear if he didn’t like that character?”

“The year prior, there’s a child he was close with who really liked Spiderman…”

The only child that comes to mind for me in relation to JA, is DB's son, and if she's talking about just the year prior to the murder, didn't she claim to care for Varney's child/ren about that time and how much she hated it? I'd be looking closely at that situation if I were the Varney's, after the stories about how JA treated her brother and pets... :thinking: