Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 10

[katiecoolady]

That's fine, but a statement such as this in the beginning, which complies with all the rules you cited and does not introduce anything new or contradictory, can serve to orient the jury and put them in a better position to be vigilant in their objectivity.

I'd prefer to see limits on "evidence" completely uncorroborated and born from the mind of a known pathological liar and convicted murderer which serves to just continue to revictimize their victim ever been allowed. Sorry no time to edit that as I'm running out the door in a few min.

 

[bsk]

It is wrong and unfair. The problem is that prior offenses might be irrelevant to the current charges, while made-up crap is often very relevant (why else make it up)?

Certainly the courts could not constitutionally require corroboration for these things, although if the relevance is weak it can often be kept out under R403 (prejudice outweighing probative value). But then in a DP mitigation phase, it all tends to flow back in when the rules of evidence are loosened up, which has also been found to be constitutionally required....



I was kind of unclear on what the judge would be saying. Steve was talking about hearsay, which generally isn't even allowed so no need to warn the jury about it. And when it is allowed (e.g., for an expert), the jury is very often warned that they are not to think that the things the expert quoted from other people are true without further evidence.

This isn't the kind of thing KCL is talking about, though. Victim-bashing evidence is normally not hearsay.

But isn't most of this "expert" bashing of Travis hearsay? It sounds like Juan was objecting all over the place to day that she had no foundation for what she was testifying to because she had nothing to back it up. But in the juror's minds it comes across as "expert says he is a pedophile and that she has proof of it". I think KN is trying to numb the jury into forgetting that it's all just a bunch of made-up stuff of parroting back JA's words as her expert conclusion and be left with the "expert" pedophile/sociopath diagnosis.

 

[Steve44]

I think of things like this: a known murderer's prior offenses, even things they've been convicted of, are often disallowed in their prosecution to protect their "rights" yet the very same murderer can sit there and make heinous things up out of thin air about their victim, uncorroborated, and it is allowed. I may just be a lay person and a victim's sister but I know WRONG and UNFAIR when I see it.

Exactly. How's this for a rule: If you can't do it to 'em when their alive, you most certainly can't do it to 'em when their dead.

 

[legalmania]

Haven't been on for a while what is going on with Jodi, I thought she was history. She didn't get another trial did she? I haven't seen anything about her on any of the stations. Somebody want to give me a quick rundown?

 

[katiecoolady]

Inside the mind of a psychopath where it all makes sense. Writ large. Staged and projected onto the jury through the willing defence and their willing minions, all creating the vision. The vision inside a psychopath's head. As if it had validity. That's truly creepy and suspect, that supposedly unpsychopathic people are happy producers and production designers as if this were a film and not about the abuse and cruel, sadistic, godawful and agonising murder of a good man.

Thanks. I get it now. Completely.

Yeah and We the People are paying for it and even awarding the Academy Awards for it.

 

[neesaki]

Also seem to have missed a melodramatic theme that Dr. f was weaving. .....that a sense of death hung over these star crossed lovers...death by suicide, most commonly referenced by each and by both.

Really. I'm not being snarky.

Was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I know now that I have no respect for this woman. She sold her soul, IMO.

 

[katiecoolady]

Exactly. How's this for a rule: If you can't do it to 'em when their alive, you most certainly can't do it to 'em when their dead.

Now we're talking. Like at least set it up where the "accused" (the victim) has the ability to confront their accuser (in this case the person who took their life)

 

[katiecoolady]

But isn't most of this "expert" bashing of Travis hearsay? It sounds like Juan was objecting all over the place to day that she had no foundation for what she was testifying to because she had nothing to back it up. But in the juror's minds it comes across as "expert says he is a pedophile and that she has proof of it". I think KN is trying to numb the jury into forgetting that it's all just a bunch of made-up stuff of parroting back JA's words as her expert conclusion and be left with the "expert" pedophile/sociopath diagnosis.

dingdingding and this WOULD be hearsay if the roles were reversed...on the other side I mean.

 

[katiecoolady]

Shoot gotta run...more on this interesting discussion later. :seeya:

 

[elementary]

You just can't make this stuff up. This is WEEK 4 for Nurmi, and what have we had? 1.5 days of super secret testi-baloney and 2.5 days of this expert. In 4 weeks. unreal.

And the judge is cool with it.

 

[Ricki]

Mass email explained. Standard PPl stuff, but multiple mailings o'er week. Daughter accidentally on list. The dad was joking with Travis about this mistake .

I saw that. Didn't the sex lady say they did not know the content of the letter, but she thought it needed addressing. Why bring it up then, because the word pudding was in it and she tries to imply it was dirty. Yea, sure they didn't know. Wait till she is on cross. I can't wait even though she looks like my deceased grandmother I still can't wait her turn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[legalmania]

Let's say he was a pedophile. What does that have to do with her going over there having sex with him two seconds before he is found stabbed to death she is snapping a picture of him. She was found guilty of killing him, they can trash talk Travis all they want that doesn't stop the facts.

 

[Hope4More]

An aside about JM and the trading of cars on boy photo day line of questions .

In think 99% of us were confused about the significance of all that. The jury must have been baffled too. Hope he explains it better this time around, because it matters. Says a lot about the game she was playing and explains a lot about why her story is impossible.

 

[elementary]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Nurmi didn't even realize he was turning over the wrong hard drive. I think this expert was hired by Jodi and this latest stunt has been directed by his and her findings. When asked for the hard drive, Nurmi ran to this guy and was like, I need this! And the "expert" was all, ummmmmmmmm...ok, here you go. And Nurmi ran to Juan with it without making sure it was what it was supposed to be.

I only know about chain of custody from TV. Yet I would imagine that this was a no brainer- you just have to check to make sure it's the right HD. This seems like identification 101 to me.

 

[krkrjx]

OK, so there is some kind of emergency that means court is off for the next two days. Why not tell us what that emergency is! If it is highly personal there is no need to get into details but come on Judge Stephens...why is it so important to keep citizens in the dark every step of the way?

I swear, I am moving to AZ just so I can vote this judge out. Delays are annoying but the delays in this trial are not what usually have me the most riled--it's the secrecy!

 

[elementary]

ahhhhh, yes, JSS is once again keeping her secrets! So unfair to Travis' family that this trial was handed to her! :facepalm:

This is the part that gets to me- what is SO secret that the judge can't even give a reason to the public at large? Her contempt for due process and citizens is starting to glare back at me. Until now i never thought this.

 

[krkrjx]

I only know about chain of custody from TV. Yet I would imagine that this was a no brainer- you just have to check to make sure it's the right HD. This seems like identification 101 to me.

I agree. Especially because we know that if the state made an error like this Nurmi would be up in the judge's face demanding a mistrial or at least the DP off the table.

 

[Steve44]

Now we're talking. Like at least set it up where the "accused" (the victim) has the ability to confront their accuser (in this case the person who took their life)

Alright. So the dead can't speak for themselves, so the court can assign 'proxies', persons who knew them well for some minimum period of time and had a known, defined relationship with them, as character witnesses. They would in effect be the voice of the deceased in court to refute any false allegations and character assassinations with direct experience of the deceased to the contrary. These proxies would be vetted independently by court appointed investigators.

 

[neesaki]

I wonder how often the strategy actually works? In my experience, defense lawyers will drop a strategy pretty quickly if a study comes out showing that it backfires.

Hi AZL, thanks so much for being here. I love research, do you know who conducts these studies? And, do you know who might sponsor one? And, can I help ?

 

[kjt300]

I've often wondered where in her murderous road trip timeline did she dye her hair (pre Walmart, post Walmart, WaMu, Starbucks......)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I think she changed her hair color in Salinas. I live in Salinas and know that there are quite a number of salons that take walk-in's that take cash, are high volume and speak English as the second language. I mention the language thing because I doubt Spanish or Korean only speaking folks are paying much attention to this trial. As I said, I live in Salinas and not many people around here have every heard of Jodi Arias.

BTW....Salinas is 15 miles from Monterey where Darryl Brewer was living and about 30 miles from Big Sur where she worked at Ventana.j

And BTW again. My mom went to school with JA's grandparents.