Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 27

[bsk]

I think they want the jury to HEAR the way they questioned her. JMO

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think it's as much the context of the words as it is the context of how they were treating her. Now Jenny and Larry are going to have to try to figure out how to get only an audio snippet in while Juan will demand the whole thing if they are going to introduce part of it.

 

[Night-owl]

Exactly. He's pretty street smart. He knew right away Jodi was playing manipulative games and he was not on board.

More than that though, I think Travis recognized she was being manipulative. He didn't want to hurt her feelings. Or for some reason he wouldn't cut her off as he should have.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer · 20s21 seconds ago

Stephens asks Nurmi if he is going to supplement another motion for mistrial because of prosecutor misconduct. #jodiarias
---

Because she just can't get enough of his motions.

OMG ... Did JSS really do this ?

OMG ... I better :silenced:

:gaah: and :moo:

 

[GigiG]

JA probably gave TA some rubbish about AA like he assaulted her or something?

The master manipulator at her finest. Pulling the date w/Abe out of her *advertiser censored** over a year later, with only one intention: to make Travis jealous. Thanks goodness Abe had already seen JA for what she was.

 

[MeeBee]

They already know it because the defense had a in hiding lie in his affidavit as exposed by Juan and Deanna during direct. Anyone on the jury who does realize what a bunch of liars the defense and their witnesses are by now is blind, deaf, and DUMB.

I hope they realize how crazy it is that they expect people to believe nameless, faceless words on a sheet of paper from someone who apparently can't keep his ish straight over a real life person who is sitting on the stand testifying to her own experiences. It's hilarious.

 

[FinallyRegistered]

Wilma definitely gets rattled by the "show me" female witnesses! Remember when she called DeMarte a $&t@h?
http://youtu.be/iL00wJ7zEbA

OMG, I never saw this. JA and KN both caught it and smiled. I'm so grossed out with these people.

 

[Hope4More]

LOL. The inner circle has recovered from their gloom. They are all chirping that today was a GOOD day for JA! That Deanna looked eaten alive by guilt! That she probably is too scared to show up tomorrow! That she killed Travis, not JA! Or if she didn't, she knows who did! Exclamations all theirs.

This is what's it come to for JA. Her own hatred coming back to bite her in the butt, not one person in the world willing to testify on her behalf in open court, a few weeks away from being handed the DP, and a handful of folks in serious need of meds sucking up to her while backstabbing each other, both in service of piggybacking off her infamy.

Oh how the low has gotten lower still.

 

[AZlawyer]

Here are the tweets from that time when Willmott was reading from the transcript herself even though Deanna did not want to answer questions based on the transcript.

Like I said...according to this, Deanna's answer was "I don't know" on what question? Did the transcript say...

JW- "Would it surprise you Jodi wasn't the only one TA had sex with"

DR- "I don't know"

Is that how they came to the conclusion that Deanna did not admit to having sex with TA in that first interview? And was Deanna cut off in her answer so the transcriber only typed "I don't know" because that's all she said before getting cut off and moving on to another question?

If that is what happened, I don't blame Deanna for requesting the audio to put some context into the questioning and her answer.

MOO

Exactly. It needs context and tone to make sense.

Yeah, what if she said, "I don't--no--"? As in "what are you talking about?"

And tomorrow, Juan will make everything very clear that Deanna is not hiding a thing and in fact the defense is.

I hope he brings the audio lol.

I think both sides are allowed to prep their witnesses.

Yes, of course they are.

 

[MeeBee]

Who is this Detective Smith? I have never heard of him before.

Detective Smith is the computer expert.

 

[Val1]

I think also as someone else said IIRC it's that women can see through people easier than men can. So she fooled some for a short time, but she fooled men for much longer.

Well if anyone still has any doubt about JA's "personality" and how it doesn't fit this crime, check out her book review:

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/

 

[LinasK]

Astonishing that the DT ever thought lying about Deanna being abused would fly.

They'll claim she was abused, she just didn't realize it.:doh:

 

[Amster]

But Juan doesn't object when their witnesses are being rude, he objects when it's proper to object, not when his widdle feelings are hurt. Why reprimand?

In every trial I have watched, the judge insists on decorum in their courtroom. Which includes witnesses not calling the prosecuter by his/her first name, witnesses not instructing the jury what to believe, defense team sending tweets, messages, etc. to the convicted killers SM accounts. I won't even get into the unconstitutional action by Sherry and all the secrecy....but, I have been told, by Az. attornies that this judge is brilliant and fair and charming and totally "with it"....so, maybe it's an Arizona thing. Just how courtrooms are run. :dunno:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I think attorneys DO coach their witnesses.

Attorneys "prep" their witnesses :wink:

:seeya:

 

[katydid23]

from Lambchops link about preparing witnesses:

Yet lawyers often spend hours preparing witnesses to testify, a practice that is not only accepted but also generally considered necessary. Lawyers have been punished for incompetent representation for failing to interview and prepare witnesses.

"Your obligation as a prosecutor is to bring out the truth," said Mr. Butler, now in private practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington. "You can't shape it around what other people have to say."

But he, too, drew some distinctions. "It's proper to share the questions you're going to ask them but not to tell them what answers they should give," Mr. Butler said. "It's O.K. to point out additional facts or show them documents that would refresh their recollection. It's entirely proper for someone to come in and do a mock cross-examination to draw out what might be vulnerabilities in the witness's testimony."

What is not proper, he said, is to recite, much less transmit wholesale the testimony of an earlier witness.

"You would never say so-and-so said such-and-such on the stand," Mr. Butler said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/national/16assess.html?_r=1&

 

[Night-owl]

So I wonder what Nurmi's answer was, is he filing a supplement to his prosecutorial misconduct motion or not?

Nurmi has a pre-formatted stack of those motions. All he has to do is fill out the date.

And hopefully, JUS has a rubber stamp that says "DENIED"

 

[Sulamith]

She didn't lie.

She didn't lie.....please stop saying she did...

I have read that she lied about having sex with TA. I have no first hand knowledge of this. <mod snip> She was interviewed by the DT yes? Did their transcriber lie? How did the rumor start that DR said she never had sex with TA?

 

[bsk]

I hope they realize how crazy it is that they expect people to believe nameless, faceless words on a sheet of paper from someone who apparently can't keep his ish straight over a real life person who is sitting on the stand testifying to her own experiences. It's hilarious.

Juan will pounce on that in his closing. "Recall how Deanna Reid testified that Witness #1 fabricated everything. And recall that Dr G said he used W1's statement as part of his anaysis. He didn't care what sort of fabricated test results, interviews, or tall tales from secret 'witnesses' in hiding he got, as long as it fit his job as a hired gun to come up with predetermined findings."

 

[RickshawFan]

That's not exactly lying about having had sex with Travis.

1. DR would only have been lying if asked if she were aware TA had had sex with other women. [this means in the past] As a direct question this looks like: "Did TA have sex with other women before JA?"
2. DR was not lying because evidently she's asked if she were aware TA was having sex with other women [currently] As a direct question this looks like: "Did TA have sex with other women at the same time as JA?"

"Was having" is a totally different time frame from "had had"; plus the former is continuous, the latter "done deal."

DR took the question as #2, which is correct grammatically. JW needs to go back to junior high if she doesn't understand how the tenses in her question relate to one another.

 

[Hatfield]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I sure hope the jury is feeling ill-will towards JW. She prances around with her perky smile, thinking that her cheery facade somehow negates the BS that comes out of her mouth. This isn't high school.

Thats the same impression I get from Wilmcott. An immature whiney high school brat.

She tries to pull off Juan's style but you can only get away with that if you have great experience and know what you are doing. She doesnt have the experience to pull off that style and she fails miserably and it is not a good style for her to use.

Maybe in 10-15 more trial years she can pull off that style.

 

[LinasK]

WHOA!!! My screen just exploded when Deanna said "The only one who is being misleading is you" to JW

WHOA!!!

Figures, I leave for a little while and all the good stuff happens.