Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 20

[NashBridges2]

I think we are missing something to do with Jan 15/16. Does this date ring a bell? The judge said this morning if the Supreme Court didn't rule Friday the 16th, she would schedule another hearing. 3 hours later, we have a ruling. Yet, she's now saying no transcript for another week, which puts us right back to Jan 15/16.

Anything? Something?

Also, no more Mr Smith until Wednesday, new witness on Monday/Tuesday. It better be Geffner. Judge can't possibly let the defense go to a 4th witness Without finishing with Arias, Geffner and now Mr Smith.

 

[Boytwnmom]

Deanna. The only reason the "church", actually the Bishop, knew is because Travis confessed what he considered a sin and felt guilt about, to the Bishp. The church doesn't go around looking in windows like Jodi Arias. No one at the church would ever see TA's computer. They don't subpoena member records and review them. The only knowlegde the church has is what TA tells them.

IMO, TA was not concerned about what the church "thought of him", but about his soul and thus he went and confessed his sins. He didn't have to tell anyone at the church anything about any of his relationships. But, because of his sincere beliefs in his religion, he went to his Bishop. It's certainly nothing I can relate to, but there is no doubt in my mind that TA was sincere in his beliefs. It seems an absurd pressure to put on oneself to a heathen like me, but he obviously cared more about his eternal life than about the church's opinion of him. I don't at all see that he had any concern about the church's opinion of him or he would simply never have told the Bishop about any of what he considered failures.

Travis certainly cared what his church thought of him.

 

[Nali87]

I think Keifer means that the petition to allow JA (and maybe others) to testify in secret is still pending. The stay motion was about the release of transcripts. Denial of the stay means the Ct App order remains in effect and the transcripts are released.

Well the Ct App granted the media's request for a stay and then granted their request.
The Supreme Court denying Laurence's request for stay means they'll be denying his request as well, I think! They can't grant his request to allow JA to testfy in secret when they've already made it possible for half of her words to be made public.

Anyways Woohoo transcripts! I wish she had finished testifying. Transcripts make it easier to catch her in her lies!!!

 

[Nali87]

You were missed today, Nali

See now just reading that made me really happy just now, thank you! :loveyou:

 

[AZlawyer]

Well the Ct App granted the media's request for a stay and then granted their request.
The Supreme Court denying Laurence's request for stay means they'll be denying his request as well, I think! They can't grant his request to allow JA to testfy in secret when they've already made it possible to half of her words to be made public.

Anyways Woohoo transcripts! I wish she had finished testifying. Transcripts make it easier to catch her in her lies!!!

It doesn't ALWAYS work that way (that losing a stay request means losing the appeal). But it's not a good sign for the defense, for sure. Certainly as to JA herself, I don't think the AZ Supreme Court will allow any further secret testimony. They will probably "punt" as to any other witnesses, because JSS has not actually ruled whether any other witness can testify in secret. The AZ Supreme Court does not generally address anything until the lower courts have ruled.

 

[LinasK]

I think we are missing something to do with Jan 15/16. Does this date ring a bell? The judge said this morning if the Supreme Court didn't rule Friday the 16th, she would schedule another hearing. 3 hours later, we have a ruling. Yet, she's now saying no transcript for another week, which puts us right back to Jan 15/16.

Anything? Something?

Also, no more Mr Smith until Wednesday, new witness on Monday/Tuesday. It better be Geffner. Judge can't possibly let the defense go to a 4th witness Without finishing with Arias, Geffner and now Mr Smith.

JSS isn't saying a week, that's the court clerk, who probably didn't have it ready like they were supposed to.

 

[MeeBee]

JSS isn't saying a week, that's the court clerk, who probably didn't have it ready like they were supposed to.

But the judge said it was ready to go.

 

[LinasK]

But the judge said it was ready to go.

She probably did think it was ready or was given bad information. I'm not ready to throw the blame on this to her.

 

[Frigga]

^^^ Yes, she did MeeBee. IIRC, she told them weeks ago to have it ready but not to release it until further order from her. Before the Christmas break- wasn't it?

 

[MeeBee]

She probably did think it was ready or was given bad information. I'm not ready to throw the blame on this to her.

The only reason I can think of for such a delay is if the defense requested it and JSS said oh alright, they've waited this long, no harm in that.

 

[Frigga]

I sure wish Tuba would weigh in here. Has anyone seen her? Maybe she's still on holiday? Good for her then!

 

[MeeBee]

Also, the $400 price tag; is that normal? I honestly don't know.

 

[bsk]

JSS isn't saying a week, that's the court clerk, who probably didn't have it ready like they were supposed to.

It could be that they have one copy printed up - that would be enough to satisfy what JSS said - and will need to print another one once somebody ponies up some cash. Who knows when it comes to gubmint - maybe some <modsnip> has to stand there for half an hour copying the thing instead of just printing a fresh one.

 

[ICit]

John Smith testified that he had worked on 5 federal Cases. He testified that he owned his own business. Then he testified that he was a co-worker of the Meister. Which was it? He testified that this was his first time testifying. Is there a big reason for the expert in Data Science who owns his own company not to be the one testifying if he is doing the work?

So ... Has the Meister been passing off John Smiths work as his own in courts of law? Has he been charging the big bucks for work he did not do while testifying that he did the work? Has he been so reluctant because he does not want his money making scheme exposed? Is this the real reason he did not want to come back? Does he fear prison for perjury? Lawsuits? WHAT?

Something stinks bad and it's coming from the defense side of the courtroom!

 

[LambChop]

I imagine it is stored electronically and paper copies take a while to make depending on how many people want copies. Also when she said ready I believe she meant it had been transcribed by the court reporter and was ready. Not that they had made copies. At $400 a copy I doubt they could have made copies in advance when there was no proof they would be needed if a stay was granted. jmo

 

[mydirtysecret]

We aren't talking about a week's worth of testimony to transcribe. It's half of a day, and sorry but JSS knew whether or not they were ready since she would've probably would have requested to see them herself

ETA- the coa and scoa had the transcript as well. The transcript is done. But sherry isn't ready to release it. It's not a matter of if, or confusion. Those transcripts have been prepared and ready for weeks

 

[tandt]

I imagine it is stored electronically and paper copies take a while to make depending on how many people want copies. jmo

Does the court reporter not type all this up as it's happening? So shouldn't it already be electronic?
(I'm asking seriously-- I know nothing about court reporting)

A week to make copies? Wow, I need to work for the g'vmt.

 

[floridagld]

Correct. The guy today is in 30's..younger end. White,Tall, skinny, bald on top with full cropped beard. (not sure if really bald or a real beard) I do question "if" this is a "friend" of JA or "Steve"??

 

[floridagld]

Correct. The guy today is in 30's..younger end. White,Tall, skinny, bald on top with full cropped beard. (not sure if really bald or a real beard) I do question "if" this is a "friend" of JA or "Steve"??

first post, therefore, I didn't do this right..but, my comment is in reply to AZLawyer and others asking about witness today...This is not Tony, IMO

 

[floridagld]

No, I think "Tony" was called "Someone Else" in JM's motion whereas Current Mystery Witness was called "Pseudonym."

Originally Posted by floridagld View Post
Correct. The guy today is in 30's..younger end. White,Tall, skinny, bald on top with full cropped beard. (not sure if really bald or a real beard) I do question "if" this is a "friend" of JA or "Steve"??
first post, therefore, I didn't do this right..but, my comment is in reply to AZLawyer and others asking about witness today...This is not Tony, IMO