Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 27, Part 2

[krkrjx]

Willmott and Nurmi seem to have no regard for the jurors. They appear to be so utterly clueless on how to treat the jurors--you know, be mindful of their time, speak politely etc. IIRC Nurmi did not even say 'thank you' after his closing arguments (penalty phase I think) last time around. He's also paranoid about them doing their own case research. No trust, no respect, no civility. That's one thing that Baez did well in the other trial. He knew how to bond with the jurors. It's part of the reason for the extraordinary outcome.

These lawyers are so arrogant, so incompetent, so uncouth that it makes me wonder whether they really have their client's best interest at heart. Being gentle and polite with everyone could potentially tug at a juror's heartstrings and lead to a hung jury. I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at their miserable performances.

Agree with all of this, except about the attorneys being incompetent. I believe they are competent but have so little in their favor to work with given who the defendant is and all the evidence against her. Add to that the fact that the judge has given these attorneys so much leeway to act the way they do and what you end up with is one long-running circus. That those attorneys look like clowns is not due to professional incompetence as much as the free reign they have been given throughout all phases of this trial. IMO.

 

[Hope4More]

The bangs reference....Can't not post my favorite spoof of the trial! WARNING!!! Very Adult and bad words and NSFW! (Not suitable for work)

[video=youtube;UTUL6P6mQAg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUL6P6mQAg[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUL6P6mQAg

My favorite too. Spot on & hysterically funny.

 

[geevee]

We'll never know. But even if she did nothing else at all , she'd already earned that designation. I think Travis had suppressed a heck of a lot of anger over the litany of abuses and betrayals she had subjected him to. Not sure anymore if it would have taken a huge nasty by her for him to finally tell her to piss off.

I think she sent him the link to YouPorn, saying she posted stuff of them together (maybe never made it clear whether audio, pics or a sneaked video) - considering aside from the virus-*advertiser censored*, there was never any user action of *advertiser censored* on his computer except that one, if he went to Youporn for 45 minutes it was to search for something specific. We'll probably never know if he found anything or she was sandbagging him, she dearly loved head games.

One thing that has surprised the heck out of me, her responses to any of his angry texts is so unusual, if someone calls you a carcass, THW, worse thing that ever happened to me, whether deserved or not, she never replies like she even read the words, no anger, no 'how could you?', no defense of whatever caused the mean words to be said. I don't buy 'flat affect' as explanation, there's just something so truly odd about her lack of direct responses to any angry thing he said to her.

 

[TexMex]

Oy, I think of doing this often, but every time I do I get exhausted just envisioning it and need to drink 3 bottles of wine.

I'm sitting on a patio on a 75 degree day having Mexican food and on my second margarita.
Back home soon to "watch" this Twial

 

[Paintr]

Since they're not online, I'll jump in and answer if you don't mind lol. AZL does appeals and doesn't deal with jurors. Boytwnmomm is not a trial attorney.

Gitana, Minor4th haven't been along for the ride this time around.

I'm sure AZL and BYTWNMOM will answer when they pop in again.. But can I recommend you do this: search on google or YouTube for Jurors Jodi Arias. A lot of them did interviews and talked about what made an impression and what didn't. The ones that voted for DP said her lack or remorse was one of the major things they considered.

And, knowing what the jury said, I am amazed that this time around the DT did not focus on REMORSE and not trashing the victim once again. I assume the DT did listen to the previous juror comments. Right? :thinking:

 

[NashBridges2]

AZL or any attorney, After a jury trial I am sure you have spoken with the jurors. What kind of things do you feel they focus on the most? I am sure there are all kinds of crazy things. Are there specific kinds of things that stand out to you. I have never been on a serious jury trial and was just wondering.

I am NOT an attorney. But I can tell you what would matter to me and that would be trust. If it was proven to me that a witness was lying, covering up, not being truthful, I wouldn't just discount that part of testimony. I would discount ALL of their testimony.

 

[tandt]

I don't think so. Some things in this sorry tale really are just bad luck. TA seeing her and choosing to pursue her at a convention of over 10,000 people was the worst luck he was ever going to have.

He even said it himself "you are the worst thing that ever happened to me". It's amazing how certain chance encounters can end that way.

MOO

I agree-- certainly a lesson in personal relationships for us all-- male or female and of all ages. There are just crazy people out there and TA just found one who unloaded her crazy on him.

I had a 'follower' (won't be as bold to say stalker) in college who would take the same classes as me, follow me/dates while we were out (confronted two diff dates just twice) and would constantly send me flowers. He seemed innocent, but reflecting I can see where that could have gone terribly wrong.

 

[daisydomino]

A fantasy scenario of Nurmi's closing:

Everything we told you for the past months is a lie. It pained us to have to do that to you, but we had no choice. The Constitution says our client is entitled to the defense of her choice, and that's what we've been forced to provide you. Its been her choice to lie to you about Travis, and her choice to lie to you about ever being in a relationship with him at all. She wasn't.

What that tells you is the only thing you need to know. Our client is batsheet crazy. DeMarte would say that's not a genuine psychological term, but I trust that you understand what I mean. And I implore you to consider how it makes you feeeeeeeeeel to know this, when you must at last decide whether she lives or dies.

( I also like imagining how many times the bailiff would have to zap JA if Nurmi went this route.)

"10 out of 10 days, I don't like Ms. Arias."

 

[Hope4More]

I think she sent him the link to YouPorn, saying she posted stuff of them together (maybe never made it clear whether audio, pics or a sneaked video) - considering aside from the virus-*advertiser censored*, there was never any user action of *advertiser censored* on his computer except that one, if he went to Youporn for 45 minutes it was to search for something specific. We'll probably never know if he found anything or she was sandbagging him, she dearly loved head games.

One thing that has surprised the heck out of me, her responses to any of his angry texts is so unusual, if someone calls you a carcass, THW, worse thing that ever happened to me, whether deserved or not, she never replies like she even read the words, no anger, no 'how could you?', no defense of whatever caused the mean words to be said. I don't buy 'flat affect' as explanation, there's just something so truly odd about her lack of direct responses to any angry thing he said to her.

Not responding is a form of manipulation. Says I'm in control and you're not, and, your anger isn't a concern of mine. She did tell him she wasn't violent (shudder) and that she hadn't slashed his tires.

The reason I don't believe the YouTube idea is that I find it impossible to believe he would have agreed to sex pics on the 4th, even on his own camera, if she had openly threatened him that way.

 

[Becky Sharp]

I'm sitting on a patio on a 75 degree day having Mexican food and on my second margarita.
Back home soon to "watch" this Twial

Unfair!! Can you order me a margarita, pretty please? Just slip it through the intertubes.

 

[daisydomino]

I am NOT an attorney. But I can tell you what would matter to me and that would be trust. If it was proven to me that a witness was lying, covering up, not being truthful, I wouldn't just discount that part of testimony. I would discount ALL of their testimony.

In this case, the defendant is especially untrustworthy because:
I wasn't there.
I lied about not being there. The truth is that Ninjas did it.
I lied about the Ninjas. The truth is that it was self defense.
I lied about the self defense. The truth is that I couldn't help it because I was a mentally ill young girl who was the real victim of abuse and he needed killing.

 

[Wizzy]

I'm sitting on a patio on a 75 degree day having Mexican food and on my second margarita.
Back home soon to "watch" this Twial

Let me guess. On the Border? Or do they have a patio, I can't remember! Lived on the Island for 8 years and loved every second.!

 

[Kadoober]

I'm sitting on a patio on a 75 degree day having Mexican food and on my second margarita.
Back home soon to "watch" this Twial

...sigh.... I'm in a cube farm in Chicago, it's 20 degrees, I have zero tasty libations, and I burn with envy.

 

[Nali87]

And, knowing what the jury said, I am amazed that this time around the DT did not focus on REMORSE and not trashing the victim once again. I assume the DT did listen to the previous juror comments. Right? :thinking:

They listened to the foreperson and are hoping there's one like him on this jury as well. That's the juror they've been talking to these last couple of months. They don't care about the ones that would find their tactics disgraceful. All they need is that one person.

 

[Charterhouse]

:seeya:

JMO ... but I only want to hear from these jurors is IF they give JA the DP.

Other than that, I don't want to hear any pathetic excuse why they could not give her the DP because she truly deserves it.

Also, it is what the Alexander Family wants !

:moo:

I want to hear everything. Personally after hearing what happens to the survivors of those killed and the criminal has received the death penalty, I would never want to go through that. I don't care which one the jury decides upon as long as she is put away. JMO

 

[Nali87]

In this case, the defendant is especially untrustworthy because:
I wasn't there.
I lied about not being there. The truth is that Ninjas did it.
I lied about the Ninjas. The truth is that it was self defense.
I lied about the self defense. The truth is that I couldn't help it because I was a mentally ill young girl who was the real victim of abuse and he needed killing.

Argh that's the one thing that I'm bummed over. I really wanted to hear how JA was going to spin this "new" explanation.

 

[Paintr]

I'm sitting on a patio on a 75 degree day having Mexican food and on my second margarita.
Back home soon to "watch" this Twial

Just for contrast...I am about to head out for work soon. Will have to scrape the frost off the windscreen wearing boots, heavy coat, scarf, toque, mitts and clutching a to go mug of hot chocolate.

LOL! Careful you don't blow out your flip flop on a pop top.

 

[NashBridges2]

And something we need to remember is that we could have a juror who is just plain against the death penalty, even though they didn't state that at the start. Just like there's probably a few who knew before the trial started, that they'd be voting death without hearing a stitch of evidence. It doesn't mean Juan failed or that he didn't plead his case enough, it's just how some people are wired. As it stands now, I don't believe that any of the jurors feel she was justified in killing him. I also don't believe they've been given any reason to save her life. It's all going to come down to luck of the draw in my opinion. The final 12.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Honestly, my opinion is, unless something MAJOR happens, I'm guessing the majority of jurors have already made their minds up on how they will vote.

All the deliberating this time, willbe to go over evidence to convince the 1 or 2 others, why they should vote death.

:seeya: I wish I could be as optimistic ... but I am not

Also, I believe that these jurors have got to be confused by the way this entire Penalty Phase Re-Trial has been handled:

- Delay after delay after delay ...

- The defendant testifying in secret -- and now she will not even finish her testimony or be cross examined by Juan ...

- The secret affiants whose testimony was allowed via Affidavits ...

- It goes on and on and on and on ... y'all know the rest :gaah:

JMO but I will not be surprised if this jury comes back hung :gaah: !

 

[netbrsr]

Today, Deanna should say, I am sorry I can't read that because I copyrighted my answers and I don't authorize the defense team to use them out of context. I do authorize JM to use them freely because he doesn't take them out of context.