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

[east2west]

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/21875269/2013/04/03/psychotherapist
April 2013, Alyce testified about a Sam Schultz (discussing the journals of JA):
"Yes she mentions someone named Sam Schultz and that she is excited to meet him," testified Alyce LaViolette.

Great find. Kudos

 

[NashBridges2]

Ok, beyond creepy.

Jeez, unbelievable

 

[Val1]

Thanks for any add'l information you can provide.

Well so far, I found an entry in her journal Vol.4,(Bates 738) on Feb.15 where she said she had recently started an acct for the LDS Linkup and started searching for guys(she listed a bunch of prereqs..) then said this guy Sam and her had been messaging back and forth. On Feb.17/08 she'd noted that another girl had commented on his page saying he's the best single dad ever. She went on to write that it was a deal breaker for her. Last Journal, (Bates372,373) May 24/08, again talking about how Sam calls/texts consistently, now she says him having a child isn't a deal breaker, but she's not sure about wanting to live in Tucson... Anyway, unless he's one of those staying in touch with her in jail, he and his daughter are safe now.

 

[salberg7]

Regarding JSS rationale for allowong the courtroom to be closed for CMJA's testimony,I do not think the judge was 'duped'. I think she knew her decision would be overturned but due to this trial being a death penalty trial she acquiesed to avoid an appellate issue. I actually agree with her although I did not care for the delay. JSS ,IMO, had her hands tied. Many of the decisions JSS makes that we don't agree with are due to what I think is the inexperience and misunderstanding of the law by the DT. In any case,it backfired for the defense because I am sure the jury will wonder why the killer didn't get back on the stand to continue her testimony.
If I were on the jury, I would wonder why noone in her family testified to her character or on her behalf. That speaks volumes in itself.
I have read several commenters on Twitter that are concerned about why Juan has not focused on premeditation in this retrial. I am hoping he brings out the planning that went into this murder,that it was not a "snapped" moment by a woman with PTSD or any of those psychatric diagnoses. Premeditation would help to negate any juror's feelings of sympathy they may have if they are leaning toward giving her life vs death. There is plenty of evidence that the killer is a liar but minimal so far of the cold,calculating evil side of her. Stealing the gun, dozens of stab wounds, almost decapitating Travis. This is what I feel has been missing so far,although I have faith that Juan will bring back those autopsy pics in the end.
My heart bleeds for the Alexander family. Thank goodness they have each other,and I hope they know that so many of us support and pray for them.
As for the Hughes book, I have no problem with them having written it. Their lives have been changed forever from this tragedy. They knew Travis well and perhaps want to secure his legacy in a positive way to set the record straight because people may otherwise believe the trash the killer has spewed. I also agree with the poster above, Juan didn't call the Hughes because he didn't need to.
I think this trial is winding down, but don't believe it will be given to the jury by the end of this week, maybe the week after...

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/21875269/2013/04/03/psychotherapist
April 2013, Alyce testified about a Sam Schultz (discussing the journals of JA):
"Yes she mentions someone named Sam Schultz and that she is excited to meet him," testified Alyce LaViolette.

From that link: But the psychotherapist said Jodi never really left Travis. She couldn't, because Travis psychologically and physically abused her. When she told him she was thinking about leaving Arizona for California, he became violent. ..."There was discussion of her moving to Yreka. There was an argument and he was upset and slapped her across the face."

 

[katydid23]

Not really looking forward to hearing from Fonseca again. Here is a recap of her last testimony:

Defense expert, Dr. Micio Fonseca, was back on the witness stand, testifying that Arias was degraded and made to feel like a prostitute by the man she murdered, former boyfriend Travis Alexander.

Fonseca spent the morning going over text messages between Arias and Alexander.

But the real fireworks started when Fonseca was cross examined by prosecutor Juan Martinez.

"It was really intense and really heated," said court watcher Jen Wood, with Jen's Trial Diaries. "Dr. Fonseca really challenged Martinez, saying you're mischaracterizing everything I say, for every question he asked her."

Defense attorneys are trying to show that Arias was the victim of emotional abuse at the hands of her victim, ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander.



This part of the article was pretty funny though, looking back on it:


Jurors had returned Thursday after another surprise and random delay Monday.

Testimony came to an abrupt stop Monday afternoon when Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens announced there had been an emergency situation, and she was sending the jury home until Thursday.


And in another twist, prosecutor Juan Martinez has filed a motion to have sanctions against Arias' attorneys.

The motion claims that one of the defense team's expert witnesses damaged a laptop computer that could be a key piece of evidence in the case.

The defense witness was expected to testify that he found thousands of pornographic images on Alexander's computer.

However, the prosecution's motion alleges that the computer was damaged so that the state's computer expert could not re-examine it.

The motion also claims that Arias' attorneys handed over computer files that belonged, "to an individual named Tony," that had nothing to do with the case.



Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/27436641/...jurors-return-after-2-day-delay#ixzz3STP6etXq

 

[katydid23]

So since he is bringing in 2 computer guys back in, I guess that Nurmi is still going to try that angle, about the "thousands of pornographic images on Alexander's computer." :no:

 

[DebinGA]

"It was really intense and really heated," said court watcher Jen Wood, with Jen's Trial Diaries. "Dr. Fonseca really challenged Martinez, saying you're mischaracterizing everything I say, for every question he asked her."

Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/27436641/...jurors-return-after-2-day-delay#ixzz3STP6etXq

I think Zervakos and perhaps more of the 4 holdouts against the DP in the first trial were older and faulted JM for his aggressive, combative style with older defense witnesses ALV and Samuels. Fonseca is older too, but she was as combative as JM, if not more so. I can't imagine any jurors feeling sorry for her.

 

[Steve44]

I don't buy that JSS closed the courtroom knowing that the COA would then re-open it, which would be what she really wanted in the first place. That kind of schizophrenic split-identity, where she secretly sides with the COA who will hopefully oppose her actual decision so that in the end she gets what she really wants, which is the opposite of what she actually ruled, doesn't seem to me to be a rational decision. I have to assume that she was sincere in putting aside the constitution for the sake of giving the defendant a 'fair' trial. That was clearly just a wrong decision. They happen, and thankfully in this case the mechanisms within the system were able to effectively correct this error in 'judgement' with minimal damage.

As to why she arrived at that decision, I think she had a previous bias towards secrecy, as well as one toward giving the defense as wide a latitude as possible in order to prevent successful appeal. The defense had taken full advantage of this, pushing it to the edge, so all they had to do was push a little further to go over the edge, which they did, and JSS was not able to hold the line, due to stress and her already existing bias.

 

[Steve44]

double post deleted

 

[DebinGA]

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.

~rsbm

I'd like to hear a defense for JSS saying/doing that long before the secret testimony hearing, i.e. JA's secret testimony didn't arrive out of left field. JSS had granted this option for JA and "any witness they wish to call" during the sentencing phase.

 

[Spellbound]

I think Zervakos and perhaps more of the 4 holdouts against the DP in the first trial were older and faulted JM for his aggressive, combative style with older defense witnesses ALV and Samuels. Fonseca is older too, but she was as combative as JM, if not more so. I can't imagine any jurors feeling sorry for her.

What do you consider "older", peeps? I am 65, so I consider myself "older", and was never particularly pro-DP until this trial. I have never felt sorry for JA, for these defense experts, or anything to do with the D team. None of the "older ladies" on the Sidebar have the least sympathy for JA.

So honestly, my curiosity is peaked. Why do some of y'all believe "older people" would be more inclined to feel sorry for JA and not vote for DP? If I we're a juror, the only reason I can think for not giving DP is if I believed she would suffer more by LWOP.

eta: I misread your post, (Dmacky) oops, not Dmacky and I don't know how to do a line through it) DebinGA. I thought you were meaning we oldsters were likely to be sympathetic with JA. I still don't agree personally that we would be more apt to not like Juan's aggressive style. Of course, I have been following trials a long time and most jurors don't. That could make a difference. When I see someone wronged, I appreciate that someone can be forceful in standing up for them. Juan definitely does that, despite the obvious-from-the-beginning stage of the DT in this trial. I always felt JA was to sickly sweet to be real.

Not sure how well I worded anything. Hope you all understand and can give a bit more insight as to why oldsters would be sympathetic to any of this nonsense. I thnk we are less tolerant of lies and twisting words to escape punishment. JMO, of course....I could be wrong on the majority.

 

[DebinGA]

Not sure how well I worded anything. Hope you all understand and can give a bit more insight as to why oldsters would be sympathetic to any of this nonsense. I thnk we are less tolerant of lies and twisting words to escape punishment. JMO, of course....I could be wrong on the majority.

Yikes! It's wasn't Dmacky, but me with the "oldsters" comment. And I wasn't referencing oldsters as a group, but the intransigent Zervakos, the jury foreman, who I believe by force of his strong personality influenced 1 or more of the other 3 DP holdouts in the first trial. Among the many alarming things Zervakos said in his media tour following the mistrial was that JA was a "normal young lady" until she met Travis, who he believed abused her. I hope this jury chooses their foreperson wisely. In my jury experience the foreperson often nominates him/herself, and the other jurors ratify him/her rather than create unpleasantness. The current juror reported to be taking copious, non-stop notes would raise a red flag with me if volunteering to be the foreperson. Ditto the "loner" guy who keeps to himself. A foreperson needs to be someone all the rest like imo and who seems to like the other jurors too. No oddballs or my-way-or-the-highway peeps.

ETA: I'm an oldster, so no disrespect intended toward my tribe.

 

[Hope4More]

From that link: But the psychotherapist said Jodi never really left Travis. She couldn't, because Travis psychologically and physically abused her. When she told him she was thinking about leaving Arizona for California, he became violent. ..."There was discussion of her moving to Yreka. There was an argument and he was upset and slapped her across the face."

Translation: Travis told her he couldn't and wouldn't help her anymore financially, she told him that meant she'd have to return to Yreka, Travis told her(with a relieved grin he couldn't disguise) oh, shucks, hon, too bad, well, have a safe trip back, and SHE became violently angry in her own mind at his indifference.

 

[Hope4More]

Ok, beyond creepy.

EEK!!!! Are we sure MF isn't really ALV in slight disguise and a voice distorter under her blouses?

 

[Hope4More]

~rsbm

I'd like to hear a defense for JSS saying/doing that long before the secret testimony hearing, i.e. JA's secret testimony didn't arrive out of left field. JSS had granted this option for JA and "any witness they wish to call" during the sentencing phase.

Remember the first sentencing phase, very beginning, when Nurmi dropped the bomb that the DT wouldn't be putting on a mitigation case because their witnesses had been intimidated from appearing in court?

JSS kept on going, but she swallowed mighty hard before she did. I think she's been overly concerned about media and overly secretive ever since....

 

[geevee]

EEK!!!! Are we sure MF isn't really ALV in slight disguise and a voice distorter under her blouses?

Well, I'm sure once the videos are released, watching her testimony will be just as excruciatingly tedious and maddening as ALV's.

That is one spooky simulation.

 

[Spellbound]

Yikes! It's wasn't Dmacky, but me with the "oldsters" comment. And I wasn't referencing oldsters as a group, but the intransigent Zervakos, the jury foreman, who I believe by force of his strong personality influenced 1 or more of the other 3 DP holdouts in the first trial. Among the many alarming things Zervakos said in his media tour following the mistrial was that JA was a "normal young lady" until she met Travis, who he believed abused her. I hope this jury chooses their foreperson wisely. In my jury experience the foreperson often nominates him/herself, and the other jurors ratify him/her rather than create unpleasantness. The current juror reported to be taking copious, non-stop notes would raise a red flag with me if volunteering to be the foreperson.

ETA: I'm an oldster, so my disrespect intended toward my tribe.

BBM:
I didn't mean to type the wrong name .... bet I was sleep-writing before morning coffee took effect. Sorry to both of you.

I know there was no disrespect! :loveyou: My question was because I have seen statements about oldsters being swayed away from voting for DP from several posters over the years. I wondered if there was a certain reason for that. Just a curiosity on my part. I tend to do that sometimes..... get a thought stuck in my head that I can't shake off. Now that I have posted, it will probably disappear for a while again.

my opinion of Zervakos? He was another pampered misfit, never told no, and wanted to be the boss. "Pick me, pick me" ... and the others easily caved.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

More, please!! Totally fascinating observations, all of them. Thanks!!

(Especially disturbing .....the sense of overall laxness in JSS' courtroom. Especially creepy- the image of JA and MDLR's intimate touching. Yuck).

 

[NashBridges2]

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.

This is a great post Spy craft. I'd love to read more of his thoughts.

As for the court observers acting up, if you want more info, look up the facebook profiles of the main character. She's something else. I wish court would ban them from the last few weeks, all their behaviour does is prove that Nurmi is right about the public interfering.

As an aside, I will never believe JSS closed court because she knew COA/SCOA Would over turn her. If she did it for that reason, to waste court time (days and days) and then wasted higher courts time, she should be removed. She did it because she's scared to stand on her own 2 feet.