Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 23

[5bigfish5]

Re 1st BBM
So? Nothing to do with Travis? Is this suppose to confuse the jury into thinking Travis did that to her?

Re 2nd BBM
How is this allowed? It had nothing to do with Travis or Jodi? So what if the Dad beat her brother? Thats another trial where the Dad gets sued by the brother. Nothing to do with this case thats for sure. If it is supposed to prove that the Dad was mean to Jodi, it is an epic fail because the boy may have sucker punched Dad in the stomach right before that happened.

Exactly! Did Sherry drop her last brain cell, or are "tweets" as bad as I suspect?

 

[Stripehaven]

OK, let's say I'm on the jury and these affadavits manage to convince me that Travis was a and Jodi, due to her horrible past, was a sitting duck. And not even Juan Martinez can change my mind. I am going to say, "Well, heck, she finally wised up and got away from the SOB...so why the h*ll did she go back to visit him after her getaway?" That alone puts some personal responsibility on her. Then factor in that she CLEARLY premeditated sneaking into and out of Arizona, set up alibis, had weapons, etc....NONE of these new "facts" from the affidavits would matter whatsoever to me. SHE PREMEDITATED A MURDER. There is no excuse. NONE.

It's the DT's job to try to save her life and it really is astonishing to what lengths they have gone and, no doubt, will continue to do. It's very odd that NO ONE is willing to brave the o so dangerous on-line bullies on her behalf. Not even her own mother. Can any of you who are parents imagine weaseling out of testifying in public to try to save your child? It's just unreal.

(Unrelated: today I was fetching some purchased images I had downloaded to my work computer. With my setup, the "Dowloads" folder is inside a folder that has my name on it. That's where anything downloaded to my computer will end up. I suppose something similar could have happened on Travis's computer - but anyone and not just Travis could have downloaded to that folder. Or was Cheesy Witness saying this folder was on the BISHOP's computer? Anyway...just a thought.)

 

[Hope4More]

I was here every inch of the way for Trial 1. Came back for this. Had to step away for my own sanity. Kudos to all who hung in. I will see this phase thru. I'm so desensitized now. I thought the CA Trial was bad this goes above and beyond. My heart goes out to the Alexander Family and Friends. She needs to fry!!!!! Either way I cant wait until Jodi and cohorts are a faded memory. Travis I will remember. Get em Juan!!!!!

Hi Bravo!!! Sorry for you that you got sucked back here, but your loss is our gain.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Exactly! Did Sherry drop her last brain cell, or are "tweets" as bad as I suspect?

I vote for both:

JMO but JSS should have never agreed with JA and the DT on the NO cameras.

The Trial was televised, the 1st Penalty Phase was televised, therefore, this Re-Trial should have been televised.

Trial by Twitter just doesn't cut it -- but -- it's better than nothing !

:moo:

 

[wenwe4]

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.

 

[Bravo]

Hi Bravo!!! Sorry for you that you got sucked back here, but your loss is our gain.

LOL Thanks so much. I missed posting with you fine folks soooo much. I did lurk here from time to time.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

 

[Bravo]

I vote for both:

JMO but JSS should have never agreed with JA and the DT on the NO cameras.

The Trial was televised, the 1st Penalty Phase was televised, therefore, this Re-Trial should have been televised.

Trial by Twitter just doesn't cut it -- but -- it's better than nothing !

:moo:

Agree. Then when it went super duper secret I couldn't wrap my head around that.

 

[LinasK]

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 9s10 seconds ago
Witness says in affidavit he took Alexander out to car to talk to him about the child *advertiser censored* and Alexander said he had been abused at age 12.

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

 

[ElleElle]

Right and on the way there he pulled up at the local cop station drunk as drunk could be to be arrested and give the cops the Book Of Mormon. I think the defense has made their biggest blunder yet with this nonsense. It insults the judge. It insults the jury. The very people who will have her life in their hands they mocked today in a very big way. If Nurmi thinks Juan cannot subpoena these folks he is sadly mistaken, but I don't think he will waste much time on it. Once he proves Deanna was out of the country on her mission, the rest will fall to the wayside like quicksand.

BBM ~ Right, but "Witness #1" has already said in the affidavits hat he may have the dates wrong of this supposed incident. I guess it really up to each individual juror on who they believe.

 

[Koshka]

I think he did say he would accept affidavits. Obviously the irrelevant bits shouldn't be read to the jury but I can't tell if they were from the tweets.

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?

 

[Becky Sharp]

Can I be the first? Jss is just letting the dt enough rope to hang themselves, and appeals.

I sure hope so. I keep reminding myself that we don't have the full picture and that she knows what she's doing.

 

[LambChop]

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 11s 11 seconds ago
Bishop Parker took wedding photos of this witnesses and when witness tried to open the folder child *advertiser censored* popped up on the screen. #jodiarias

oh heck naw,she didn't let this BS in.
JSS is finished

And, of course, he would be looking for his wedding pictures in a file name Travis Alexander. He claims he could be mistaken about the timeframe but really how is that possible when he states a very specific reason for being at the Bishop's home. That would be a big red flag. jmo

 

[LinasK]

They find no *advertiser censored* on his computer but they find the child *advertiser censored* on the bishop's computer? Get the hell out of here. And who is this witness?

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

 

[Bravo]

Thankfully we have been spared a search of the Bishops computer :tantrum:

 

[AZlawyer]

I believe, and we can ask AZL about this, that because JA is claiming abuse by family and bf's that the judge has to allow these affidavits in when they are addressing these issues. Affidavits are sworn statements.

She has to allow the relevant parts if they are "reliable." I wouldn't blame her for erring on the side of caution there since "reliable" includes hearsay according to the case law.

 

[LAcres]

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.

 

[ICit]

Hearsay is allowed. So JA tore little paper dolls out (no sharp objects for her, PLEASE) and drew faces and even clothes on some of them (some were nude, as in all the men). Then the court paid Cha Cha $55 per hour while JA used the paper dolls to tell Cha Cha what each one of them said. The always helpful JA put numbers on their backsides and acted out their emotions for Cha Cha. Cha Cha dutifully wrote down each horrifying story, Er, I mean statement from each Testi-liar and then walked it via the long route to Nurmi so she could keep earning her Lexus payments.

 

[Bravo]

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.

:Welcome1: I hear ya. If u can muster it I look forward to your posts

 

[Hope4More]

Thankfully we have been spared a search of the Bishops computer :tantrum:

Amen to that.