Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/5 - 2/9 - Break

[Hope4More]

Hopefully this doesn't get me in too much trouble with BK, but because I basically said the same thing just the other day I just had to show what she reported today:

"13:18
Apart from the photos of June 4, 2008, there's no evidence they were having sex? Not true. There are the phone sex tape recording and texts."

So, other than the bedroom nudie pics that afaik do not show both TA and JA even in the same frame, a few texts and the one sex tape we've heard, there is no proof they ever did anything sexual beyond whatever their "fruitful imaginations" voiced. Yea... for someone who claims to carry her camera everywhere and documents everything, where's the beef JA?

I think they were intimate far less frequently than she's said (and said and said and said), but more than you seem to think. Travis told his friend Taylor that he knew his situation with JA was out of control and that he "hated himself" for getting intimate with her after she moved to Mesa, but that she made it very difficult for him to say no by doing things like surprising him by climbing into his bed naked while he slept and waking him up.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm here Becky. i've followed the trial since the beginning but haven't posted but a few times since my DH died. My heart goes out to Travis' family. Its heartbreaking to lose someone you care about and love. DM has made such a pleasant change from the DT experts. Yes, Martinez can become very aggressive but from what I see its been called for when he has had to deal with DT experts who are showing their bias and not being honest. So obvious too. Now Wilmott and Nurmi different story. They come out with attitudes. Wilma with her brattie mouth and Nurmi with his slimey mouth. They didn't learn their lesson in the results of the first trial and now doing it again. Almost hilarious watching them try so hard to copy the excellence of Martinez. JA might not end up getting the DP but it won't be because of her attorneys. She will be put away though much to the relief of so many.

Tsitra,
So sorry about your husband. May God bless you as you try to go forward. You are always welcome here and always welcome to talk about your DH.

As for the trial that will never end.....Martinez is quite the professional, classy and sharp.
Nurmi and Wilmott are very unprofessional.

You can go to school but you don't learn "class". You either have class or you don't. Nurmi and Wilmott do NOT.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Sanders says that the DeVault jury found DM completely credible, and they respected her. That's a valuable insight. I'm more intrigued though by what he says of the DeVault jury's discussion of mental illness as mitigator. If he's accurately describing that jury's reasoning, they concluded that she wasn't mentally ill because she premeditated killing her husband, therefore mental illness was rejected as a mitigator.

Have to say that logic, as related, is flawed. DeVault could be mentally ill AND quite capable of premeditating a murder. In JA's case (with any luck) the jury will accept that she has BPD/is mentally ill, but reject that as mitigating because of her premeditation and the brutality of the murder.

Not trying to be picky, but I find flawed logic by a jury troublesome.

I don't think Sanders was saying the jury rejected the basis that DeVault was mentally ill. Only that they would not allow it to be used as a mitigator because she premeditated his murder. Premeditation is a very strong point in this trial too. It is a very different thing if a mentally ill person just snaps, as Nurmi would like them to believe. Too much evidence is there that JA never snapped. Too much premeditation and cover up.

 

[nachomama]

Tsitra,
So sorry about your husband. May God bless you as you try to go forward. You are always welcome here and always welcome to talk about your DH.

As for the trial that will never end.....Martinez is quite the professional, classy and sharp.
Nurmi and Wilmott are very unprofessional.

You can go to school but you don't learn "class". You either have class or you don't. Nurmi and Wilmott do NOT.

Nurmi and Wilmott actually do have "Class" unfortunately for them they are "LOW CLASS" :drumroll:

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

MESSAGE FOR NURMI: While ago, I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. Mika was talking with two people about a poll or survey done by match.com. I was on my iPad looking at different websites unrelated to this case, and I wasn't paying total attention to what was on TV. I looked up when I heard Mika say that 74% of men think it is okay to date more than one woman at a time. 86% want a woman who is their equal. I didn't get the number, but I think it was over 80% who want an independent woman. I realize how Nurmi has made such a big deal out of Travis calling multiple women and dating someone else while he was dating and/or sleeping with Jodi.

 

[RickshawFan]

I know it is late night, and I do not want to make anyone crazy.

Is Geffner's graph available?

Looking for the DATES for those 12 women that Travis contacted.

My husband thinks he was at his wit's end,...begging for advice...hoping to find a sensible solution with his F. friends, without actually calling the police.

TIA!

RIP Travis...We WILL get there

Almost certainly, he was trying to get advice from women about what to do with JA or how to think about the situation. Think of all the women in his life who knew JA had a virulent obsession. They were the ones, right off the bat, who were able to direct the police to Jodi.

TA seems to have had many female friends, even old ex's like Lisa and Deanna he'd managed keep in his life. Notice how wonderful—apart from Jodi—these women all seem to be as well: steady and forthright. Some people may find the sexting stuff immature or not quite moral, but for these days it's just playful! [Heck, now I have new ideas for potential awesomeness that I never thought to engage in before, and I'm in my 60's!!!! Disclaimer: I am not Mormon, however.] It certainly doesn't mean there was anything real going on.

I find the overall quality of TA's friendships with women to be remarkable, and a quest to understand JA by going to his women friends a sign of great maturity.

I'm guessing Fatal Attraction is not on the list of movies approved for young Mormons to watch. Perhaps if even one of all these lovely young people had seen it they would have gone for help, either to a Mormon elder for guidance or directly to the police themselves.

 

[RickshawFan]

He's a fellow Maricopa County attorney. He prosecuted Marissa Devault.

How does Erik Basta fit into the Arias case?

 

[RickshawFan]

I believe he was the one who prosecuted Marissa Devault. That's IIRC. Possibly Assistant DA?? Two things I think the Arias and Devault trials have had in common is Dr. JD is/was an expert witness for prosecution, and Dr. Cheryl Karp was used for defense in both cases.

The two defense cases have been almost echoes of each other, and Arias and Devault were BFF's in jail. They had to be separated by the authorities. They undoubtedly concocted the defense strategy they both had as a team.

Incidentally, Devault did not get the DP, and Dr. Demarte on the stand diagnosed her as a psychopath (or whatever the technical term is for "psychopathic" behavior).

 

[Hope4More]

Who even knows? Lol. Because she's testified in four death penalty cases in penalty phase? It's stupid. Iirc, she also said she's testified for the defense too.

I don't know what's up with Nurmi these days. He's been throwing in three little jabs and inappropriate phrases and accusations. He did that the last trial a little too, but he's doing it a lot more now. He must feel like a real power player.

About what Nurmi might be feeling. I'm going to invalidate him by referring to him as a position rather than Nurmi the person.

So, no wonder JA's defense atty is feeling plenty pizzy right about now. He's spent years defending a client who not only doesn't listen to his advise, but who insists upon a strategy he knows for a fact will blow up in his face every step of the way. He's pretty sure if not entirely confident that had she dropped her ridiculous claim of self defense he would have had a good shot at persuading the jury she snapped. No first degree conviction, and certainly not the PITA of having to continue representing her in a retrial.


His client during the first trial was near impossible to bear, now she's a flat out nightmare. Pushing mental illness is his best and maybe only chance to not lose this round, but she just won't go there.

Enter DeMarte. By all rights it should be HIS expert on the stand plying BPD. Instead he has to try to undermine the very testimony he not only knows to be true but also helpful to his client.

Forget it's Nurmi. Wouldn't anyone feel kinda grumpy too?

 

[geevee]

BK talked with Paul Sanders, juror on Devault case. He told her that jury deliberated FIVE WEEKS

I had to go breeze through DeVault's threads for a refresher because I 'watched' that trial, it wasn't a "5 week deliberation", their deliberation schedule was Mon - Thurs. 10:30 - 4:15, they deliberated:
3-31-14 through 4-08-14 on the guilt phase
4-09 through 4-14 (3 days not including the long weekend) for aggravation phase
4-23 through 4-30 for sentencing

I appreciate Paul's lengthy and detailed court day posts but sometimes he exaggerates or gets entire facts incorrect (and how he and that jury didn't find financial gain as part of her aggravation factor I'll never understand).

 

[RickshawFan]

I know that we all agree that Dr JD has been intelligent, professional, objective and very credible. In comparison, she makes the defense "experts" look like hired guns who fit the label.

But she did point out today that she was hired to assess JA only, and couldn't (wouldn't) answer KN's questions about TA's actions or history that didn't directly involve her role in assessing JA.

Apparently, this is no different than what the defense experts were hired for. They were asked to assess a particular area--ALV-domestic violence; Samuels-PTSD; Dr. Fonseca-analysis of TA and JA's relationship; Geffner-sorry, I blocked it out it was so lame.

Dr. JD's statement today has helped me put their roles in perspective. We have had many discussions on how the defense experts ignored the full picture, and wouldn't bend from their opinion even when JM presented them with powerful, negating factors that they didn't consider in their assessment. Well they had "never heard that" info--but "no, it wouldn't change" their expert opinion, even when it made them look like idiots.

The difference with Dr. JM is that she remains credible in her expert assessment of JA, despite any evidence that the DT tries to bring in to discredit it. KN brought up TA texting other women, and not telling people he was having sex--the rest is based on JA's word, which Dr. JM made clear, that JA's allegations have never been corroborated by anyone. (And she said it is normal not to tell people you are having sex).

The defense had no ammunition to discredit her professional opinion. We all saw the defense experts' opinions blown to smithereens yesterday. KN wants a few more days to discredit Dr. JM? I hope he reconsiders that. Today should have been his best shot. Epic fail.

What kind of man TA was is not a mitigator in this case. The penalty phase is not really about JA's behavior regarding the muder act. It's about who JA is. Nonetheless, Dr. G and Dr. F put all their personal muscle behind commenting on TA's "bad" behavior. Dr. Demarte has kept the case where it is supposed to be: on evaluating Jodi and whether the mitigators fit the facts.

 

[RickshawFan]

Over in Jodiland they think Jodi looked beautiful today and that her mom must be so proud that the photographer keeps snapping beautiful pics of Jodi smiling at her. There was also great jubilation at the fact that Dr. D had to admit that Jodi had no criminal record, therefore proving mitigation factor #2. Also, the jurors weren't taking notes because Nurmi thoroughly discredited the witness. It had nothing to do with them being bored out of their skulls.

They too were surprised to hear Jodi had been sexually assaulted at age 5 or 6. It is of course Juan Martinez' fault they didn't know this because he kept it from being disclosed during the first trial.

JA fan chit chat notwithstanding evidently JD was quite clear that JA didn't have a criminal record that she "knew of", not that she didn't have one.

 

[MeeBee]

How does Erik Basta fit into the Arias case?

Beats me. But that's who he is.

 

[RickshawFan]

Over in Jodiland they think Jodi looked beautiful today and that her mom must be so proud that the photographer keeps snapping beautiful pics of Jodi smiling at her.

Does anyone else think JA had a nose job at some point?

 

[Hope4More]

I had to go breeze through DeVault's threads for a refresher because I 'watched' that trial, it wasn't a "5 week deliberation", their deliberation schedule was Mon - Thurs. 10:30 - 4:15, they deliberated:
3-31-14 through 4-08-14 on the guilt phase
4-09 through 4-14 (3 days not including the long weekend) for aggravation phase
4-23 through 4-30 for sentencing

I appreciate Paul's lengthy and detailed court day posts but sometimes he exaggerates or gets entire facts incorrect (and how he and that jury didn't find financial gain as part of her aggravation factor I'll never understand).

I see the errors and exaggerations too. That doesn't mean I don't find value in his articles, it just means I know better than to rely upon them as an accurate account of the trial. He makes it perfectly clear that he writes with a perspective/slant, not as a reporter/note taker; that perspective is his whole gig.

 

[MeeBee]

I had to go breeze through DeVault's threads for a refresher because I 'watched' that trial, it wasn't a "5 week deliberation", their deliberation schedule was Mon - Thurs. 10:30 - 4:15, they deliberated:
3-31-14 through 4-08-14 on the guilt phase
4-09 through 4-14 (3 days not including the long weekend) for aggravation phase
4-23 through 4-30 for sentencing

I appreciate Paul's lengthy and detailed court day posts but sometimes he exaggerates or gets entire facts incorrect (and how he and that jury didn't find financial gain as part of her aggravation factor I'll never understand).

I will never understand that eithet geevee! She CLEARLY killed him for the money.

I also don't buy his reasoning for giving her life. He said she was molested as a child and that was mitigating. But didn't Demarte say she doesn't find that believable?

I think, truthfully, they spared her life for her daughters and he's just not saying it.

 

[daisydomino]

I had to go breeze through DeVault's threads for a refresher because I 'watched' that trial, it wasn't a "5 week deliberation", their deliberation schedule was Mon - Thurs. 10:30 - 4:15, they deliberated:
3-31-14 through 4-08-14 on the guilt phase
4-09 through 4-14 (3 days not including the long weekend) for aggravation phase
4-23 through 4-30 for sentencing

I appreciate Paul's lengthy and detailed court day posts but sometimes he exaggerates or gets entire facts incorrect (and how he and that jury didn't find financial gain as part of her aggravation factor I'll never understand).

Thanks for this! I didn't follow closely, but kept up with the msm news about that trial. I didn't think 5 weeks sounded exactly right, but I didn't have the resources to check it out.

 

[MeeBee]

I see the errors and exaggerations too. That doesn't mean I don't find value in his articles, it just means I know better than to rely upon them as an accurate account of the trial. He makes it perfectly clear that he writes with a perspective/slant, not as a reporter/note taker; that perspective is his whole gig.

I find his errors somewhat minor. I find his perspective valuable and most importantly he brings us what's happening in the courtroom in better detail. Who cares if he mistook when Travis' grandmother received that letter? The idea was there, a grieiving family reading a detailed account of how loved one was killed from the killer herself. Again, it's a minor mistake.

 

[geevee]

I will never understand that eithet geevee! She CLEARLY killed him for the money.

I also don't buy his reasoning for giving her life. He said she was molested as a child and that was mitigating. But didn't Demarte say she doesn't find that believable?

I think, truthfully, they spared her life for her daughters and he's just not saying it.

I too think that was the sole reason they spared her life, and even though she was all about the money (and lying, like her cell friend JA, and most likely where JA got the idea for a DV defense), I tend to doubt even had they found that as an aggravation factor they still would have voted for life.

 

[bettybaby00]

Sanders says that the DeVault jury found DM completely credible, and they respected her. That's a valuable insight. I'm more intrigued though by what he says of the DeVault jury's discussion of mental illness as mitigator. If he's accurately describing that jury's reasoning, they concluded that she wasn't mentally ill because she premeditated killing her husband, therefore mental illness was rejected as a mitigator.

Have to say that logic, as related, is flawed. DeVault could be mentally ill AND quite capable of premeditating a murder. In JA's case (with any luck) the jury will accept that she has BPD/is mentally ill, but reject that as mitigating because of her premeditation and the brutality of the murder.

Not trying to be picky, but I find flawed logic by a jury troublesome.

I don't find it flawed as I think this murderess's brand of premeditation to be very indicatative of someone in complete control of their faculties. I strongly believe there is a huge difference between someone who buys a gun, and then kills someone (premeditated) and someone like JA who methodically planned for weeks, for both pre- and post murder behaviors. Add in the stalking, and hacking behaviors and it becomes apparent that every aspect of her relationship with Travis was "premeditated." Everything from singling him out at PPL, converting to his faith, harassing "rivals," hacking into his personal affairs, and making sex tapes which she more than likely tried to use against him.

If I were a juror, the only way I could see "mental illness" being a strong mitagator--b/c it has to outweigh the aggrivator(s)--would be someone who has multiple disorders, a low IQ AND someone who suffered documented abuse.

But that's just me!