Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #4

[Hez]

Who is Taylor Searle?

A close friend of Travis, who witnessed the effect that Jodi's obsessive behaviour had on Travis.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1210/04/ijvm.01.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Just an uneducated guess, which AZlawyer can correct, but most of what he has said would have been hearsay in the other phases. This phase doesn't have the same rules of evidence.

Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.

 

[Nali87]

Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.

If only we could see it live! :gaah:

 

[LinTX]

Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.

Was very close friend of TA's and someone he confided in. Travis told him all about what Jodi had been doing and about why he 'told her off' in his last days, IIRC. I remember he asked Travis if he shouldn't be afraid of her and Travis said something like 'no, she's crazy but harmless' (paraphrased)

 

[Tuba]

The Pedophilia Lies.___________Arias wrote in her diary that there was nothing of note to report, January 21-24, 2008. I think she chose these empty days so that contradictory, competing activities would not surface to trap her in a lie. "But Ms. Arias, weren't you at the ball park on the evening of...."? That sort of information. So, having selected this spell of nothingness, she filled it with libelous accounts. She informed her lawyers and testified that she was so horrified by what she came upon in Travis's bedroom that she fled the scene, went home and vomited. Extremely disturbed, she then drove around aimlessly for hours. This may become possible decades into the future but it was a sci-fi stunt on January 21, 2008, because she did not have a car​. That's precisely why she needed a ride from work on January 22 and why she had been scheduled to pick up the car she wanted to borrow on January 21, if not for a sick headache.

 

[YESorNO]

Sleuths have been commenting on this board for weeks & weeks that Arias is pushing with determination to re-litigate this case, even though it is baldly clear we are dealing with punishment only, The Penalty, not whether she is guilty or not. She has to be capable of understanding the distinction. A moron could. Instead, Arias cannot accept the reality in which she now finds herself living, as a convicted murderer. Simply a big mistake caused by those demon cameras, a jury that betrayed her, counsel who despised her and prosecutorial misconduct. Out come the colored pencils and a fresh piece of paper, do this over and make it right.

BBM I remember reading some thoughts on cognitive dissonance in my psychology class, way-back-when, and that's what this sounds like to me- a skewed belief that she is "not guilty" and a "convicted murderer".

--------------------------------------------------
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon

 

[bznbear]

Woohoooo Dr DeMarte is coming back!

That's gonna cause JA's head to spin like the possessed. Oh, wait, she is.

 

[janx]

Sleuths have been commenting on this board for weeks & weeks that Arias is pushing with determination to re-litigate this case, even though it is baldly clear we are dealing with punishment only, The Penalty, not whether she is guilty or not. She has to be capable of understanding the distinction. A moron could. Instead, Arias cannot accept the reality in which she now finds herself living, as a convicted murderer. Simply a big mistake caused by those demon cameras, a jury that betrayed her, counsel who despised her and prosecutorial misconduct. Out come the colored pencils and a fresh piece of paper, do this over and make it right.

I think there's a dual purpose going on here: re-litigation and preparation for an appeal.

 

[rose222]

That's gonna cause JA's head to spin like the possessed. Oh, wait, she is.

The only thing creeper than the girl's voice in the Exorcist (movie) is Arias' voice. The softer she speaks the more evil she sounds. I think it's safe to say that
being in the same room as her can be considered a traumatic event. I don't know how those in the courtroom are able to sleep after being a few feet away from evil in one of its most frightening forms. :scared:

 

[Hez]

BBM I remember reading some thoughts on cognitive dissonance in my psychology class, way-back-when, and that's what this sounds like to me- a skewed belief that she is "not guilty" and a "convicted murderer".

--------------------------------------------------
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon

That law of attraction stuff she was into appears to be at play, too, although all that positive thinking didn't prevent her from being convicted. :jail: ETA that this definition is also applicable to the convict's supporters, especially the underlined part.

 

[YESorNO]

That law of attraction stuff she was into appears to be at play, too, although all that positive thinking didn't prevent her from being convicted. :jail: ETA that this definition is also applicable to the convict's supporters, especially the underlined part.

I do believe her supporters fall under that definition- definitely.

 

[Rhozwen]

Heavy hitters all...! On what basis could these witnesses possibly be precluded? What did Nurmi dream up to put in the motion?

I imagine the motion went something like this:
"Your honor, the defense would like to file motion to preclude the following witnesses due to the fact that my client feels these people to be
*lifts glasses and squints down at paper he's reading from*
Big Fat Meanies."

:drumroll:

 

[Nali87]

I imagine the motion went something like this:
"Your honor, the defense would like to file motion to preclude the following witnesses due to the fact that my client feels these people to be
*lifts glasses and squints down at paper he's reading from*
Big Fat Meanies HATERS."

:drumroll:

That's a favorite word of hers lol.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.

AZ - please tell me that, after five years of being trashed by the killer and her team, Travis will finally have witnesses speaking in his defence.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ - please tell me that, after five years of being trashed by the killer and her team, Travis will finally have witnesses speaking in his defence.

Well, Travis's character isn't really relevant in the mitigation phase (because it isn't supposed to be worse to kill good people than bad people, although we all know it is...). But to the extent that by some tortured reasoning his character is maligned by Arias to support one of her mitigating factors (e.g. to provide context for her abuse story), JM will be able to respond with evidence of his own in rebuttal.

I can't remember exactly how JA fit the pedophilia allegation into her story, but I do seem to recall it was somehow of great importance to her explanation of why things ultimately went down the way they did.

 

[janx]

The only thing creeper than the girl's voice in the Exorcist (movie) is Arias' voice. The softer she speaks the more evil she sounds. I think it's safe to say that
being in the same room as her can be considered a traumatic event. I don't know how those in the courtroom are able to sleep after being a few feet away from evil in one of its most frightening forms. :scared:

The early media interview voice was creepy--not just the voice but the pronunciation. The woman in those interviews did not resemble the woman I saw in court at all--heavy make-up, camera angle, lighting, etc.. It simply did not resemble the defendant in terms of sight or sound. Did anyone else have this impression?

 

[janx]

Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.

What is different about these rules of evidence during mitigation? I wasn't paying much attention to that during the first mitigation phase, having paid most attention to impact statements and allocution.

 

[AZlawyer]

What is different about these rules of evidence during mitigation? I wasn't paying much attention to that during the first mitigation phase, having paid most attention to impact statements and allocution.

The difference is that they pretty much don't apply. Anything "relevant" is fair game, and relevance is a pretty low bar.

 

[bsk]

The difference is that they pretty much don't apply. Anything "relevant" is fair game, and relevance is a pretty low bar.

Jeez does that mean this could make the original trial seem like it finished in less than a week? If JA went 18 days before....

Or does it give JM more leeway to bring in people to rebut whatever nonsense JA might come up with?

Or did I completely misunderstand your point?

 

[janx]

The difference is that they pretty much don't apply. Anything "relevant" is fair game, and relevance is a pretty low bar.

Good heavens! :scared:

I was going to say, "Oh chit, this trial is definitely going into 2015 now!" but I decided to sound like a scared old lady. :floorlaugh:

Thank you as always. :seeya: