Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 23

[Ricki]

I cant' wait for Juan's turn. If we thought he was fiery before with others, he will be blazing when he is up.

 

[AngelWings444]

Since the defense was able to bring it this garbage, I do believe Juan might able to bring up the squeezing of the cat. He didn't say that for nothing.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

Pure Evil.

The only comfort,
the rotting, corpulent soul of this human,
will be locked in isolation,
her inner demons will torture her mind.
For endless years.
Till she is dead.
Her god will judge her, and turn his back to her as she is dragged to her eternal punishment..

I will most respectfully be giving her a double bird on that fateful day.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, first, I hope you'll be feeling better soon! Back to the trial, will the judge mention anything in the jury instructions that would allow the jury to weigh the fact that these affidavits were not subject to cross examination?

They will be told that they should consider all the ordinary reasons to believe or not believe what someone says. JM can point out in closing that if you will only say something in secret without giving your name and won't answer any questions about it, you should not be believed.

 

[MeeBee]

Since the defense was able to bring it this garbage, I do believe might able to bring up the squeezing of the cat. He didn't say that for nothing.

I think he will that in via Demarte.

 

[LinasK]

Ummm . . . whose affidavit is this? Who could know this except for Jodi? (After sex?)

Marc McGee in New Zealand.

 

[bsk]

So yeah, as disappointing as today was, I'm not worrying too much yet. The jury is probably thinking right now but once Juan brings in Deanna to state that none of the things McGee says happened ever happened and Travis never yelled or laid a finger on her, the jury really will be thinking. These are random statements from people who will not give their name or even say how they know Jodi or Travis. They could be anybody! The defense can bring in any old body to lie and how would you know? I wouldn't really consider the statement in light of what's about to come out.

Also, the Dr. Clearly preempted Deanna's testimony by saying these women didn't even know they were being abused. Deanna will say not only was I not abused but these incidences never happened.

Good call, defense. You're really working hard to make sure Jodi gets the death penalty.

Yeah but with all this carp thrown out there it's like the spaghetti defense on steroids. You just need one person on the jury thinking, "Well golly gee willickers - if only 2% of this stuff is true, then I can't vote for death."

 

[garthmax]

My perfect dream tomorrow would be for JM to ask this *&)* expert if he interviewed Deanna. When he says "NO" JM could point to her in the gallery and say she is right here why not ask her? I so wish she would show up tomorrow.

 

[Bravo]

I wonder how many of the super scared witnesses are hoping to negotiate book deals.

 

[garthmax]

I hope JM is able to start cross tomorrow....

 

[LambChop]

Now my question is: if someone swears on an affidavit that what they are stating is true and it is proved to be false is the State free to go after them and press charges against them for submitting a false document to the court?

 

[wenwe4]

I watched this trial from the beginning, just like I followed the Drew Peterson case long before he was arrested, and every second of the Casey Anthony case. I have been reading this forum forever. Never commented. But gotten to know the posters pretty well. At this stage, even I may have to walk away, I have never seen anything the likes of this. I have so much more I want to say. How this poor jury is even going to get the gist of this retrial and the truth about JA is beyond me.

Welcome LAcres! Don't leave - you just got here! Stick around since you already know many of the posters - we are a pretty good group of folks with (respectful) opinions on this trial.

 

[ElleElle]

Zealous New Zealander Marc MaGee? His lies get bigger and bigger all the time!

And, the masturbating to a boy is BS. There is no way he would be interested in sex with women AND boys. Sorry, don't buy it.

 

[Hatfield]

I watched this trial from the beginning, just like I followed the Drew Peterson case long before he was arrested, and every second of the Casey Anthony case. I have been reading this forum forever. Never commented. But gotten to know the posters pretty well. At this stage, even I may have to walk away, I have never seen anything the likes of this. I have so much more I want to say. How this poor jury is even going to get the gist of this retrial and the truth about JA is beyond me.

Hello and Welcome !!! Feel free anytime to chime in.

:welcome:

 

[AZlawyer]

Now my question is: if someone swears on an affidavit that what they are stating is true and it is proved to be false is the State free to go after them and press charges against them for submitting a false document to the court?

Yes, but they never do, because they have bigger crimes to prosecute.

 

[Hope4More]

So yeah, as disappointing as today was, I'm not worrying too much yet. The jury is probably thinking right now but once Juan brings in Deanna to state that none of the things McGee says happened ever happened and Travis never yelled or laid a finger on her, the jury really will be thinking. These are random statements from people who will not give their name or even say how they know Jodi or Travis. They could be anybody! The defense can bring in any old body to lie and how would you know? I wouldn't really consider the statement in light of what's about to come out.

Also, the Dr. Clearly preempted Deanna's testimony by saying these women didn't even know they were being abused. Deanna will say not only was I not abused but these incidences never happened.

Good call, defense. You're really working hard to make sure Jodi gets the death penalty.

I'm positive that at least a few and probably more of the jurors see right through all this crap. And anyone who does isn't going to stay quiet when they finally get to deliberate.

The DT's whole mitigation case is based on the gamble that the jurors will condemn Travis more than they condemn JA for killing him. Demonstrate that the DT is lying about Travis and they have less than squat. They have a jury who knows they've been lied to, and a murderer who's idea of pleading for mercy is to trash her victim. No mercy.

 

[LambChop]

I have a thread for the night and up until court tomorrow afternoon so post away. This thread will close in 10 minutes.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...or-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-1-20-Sizzle-Break

 

[5bigfish5]

Re: Affidavit #1
This person said he saw Travis' folder on the Bishop's computer while he himself was using it. He states he opened Travis' folder on the Bishop's computer and then it downloaded a bunch of child *advertiser censored* and crashed the computer.

1) Who in the he!! would store child *advertiser censored* on the Bishop's computer?
2) This is the Bishop's computer (not Travis' as the DT suggested)
3) Multiple people had access to this computer including the mystery affidavit writer, the Bish, and Travis to name a few.
4) Why and how did Travis download this picture(s) or link to child *advertiser censored* without setting off the computer crash to begin with?
5) Why did it only crash when this person opened a folder?
6) The folder that was not his and he didn't have permission to open.

Re: Deanna and getting beaten and Travis told her would not marry her
1) If the dates are off - just bring Deanna back to testify it never happened
2) If Deanna's previous testimony was there was no abuse then play that clip
3) Pattern of behavior was was evident only in 2001 and then again in 2007-08? Not much of a pattern if hadn't happened in 6 years with others.

Easily discounted...

Unless, Unless, UNLESS, the good Bishop is willing to blame the *advertiser censored* found on his computer on Travis.

 

[Kamille]

Okay, then clearly this is the BS from Marc McGee. No more need for paper bags or pseudonyms.

Exactly. How do you prevent "cyber bullying" by not testifying in person when your name is all over the internet already associated with this case and you've said the same things online? Of all people, Mark McGee's "testimony" should never have been allowed to be given in an affidavit IMO.

Same goes for anyone else who's "testimony" can automatically out them online because they've said it before, either online or on television. How are they being protected by not testifying in person since everyone knows who they are and that it's their affidavit anyway. They are only being protected from cross by JM, not the cyber bullying public. And I can't imagine in any realm of reality that being afraid of the prosecutor is a legit excuse for not having to testify in person and being allowed to testify via affidavit through a paid shill.

MOO

 

[5bigfish5]

Clearly it's Marc McGee, the nut in New Zealand.

Wonder what this 15 minutes will afford him? Time? Travel? Eats?

I truthfully would like to see pink bracelets on him.