Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 28

[Hope4More]

The inner circle report: stunned into quasi silence for once. Half heartedly reaching for.....something to hold onto. Deanna and the Bishop are colluding. The Bishop watches *advertiser censored*. The Bishop brought an attorney because he knew he would lie. Sending hugs to JA.

And....gathering in the sooper secret "vent" room to ...um.....vent? Last, sleuthing Jake and the other lad like crazy.

 

[bettybaby00]

I dont have a clue of who BBM is, but I'm on a couple of newsgroups who have a squiggly line under often used anacronyms that you can click on it and it expands with a a definition. This would be wonderful here.

Oh sorry....

BBM= Bolded by me

So I was saying if the "Bolded by me" part of the post was true.....

 

[T-4-2]

[/B]
BBM Speaking of that I stumbled across the hearing- the day after Chris Hughes testified because Gus Searcy implied that he had tried to affect his testimony (or some such nonsense). When Nurmi asked him about him calling Nurmi a snake. I had forgotten all the crazy crap her defense team pulled during the original trial. Anyone else remember it? Oh, and Abe called in on the phone. Lets get this done- this little psychopath has had way too many years to terrorize other peoples lives.

Nurmi told Chris and Sky that he had absolute, ironclad, irrefutable, gosh-darn proof that Travis had admitted to a sexual attraction to children. Nurmi then (iirc) got Chris and Sky to say, on record, that they knew Travis had some issues, but they didn't know that was one of them. I don't know what "issues" they meant, maybe inability to commit. I think Nurmi tried to use the fact that they believed him( Nurmi) as a sign that they weren't surprised by this news. Chris said (again, iirc) that they didn't know lawyers could lie to potential witnesses in pre-trial interviews.

Hence "snake" comment.

 

[ohiogirl]

It seriously makes me question if her entire motivation behind it wasn't simply to hurt/inconvenience Deanna. She had to have known it would very quickly be proven false. Or, maybe she's still delusional that the jury will believe her version of events and discount the live testimony of a bishop and special ed teacher.

Or she is just a compulsive liar.

 

[Ranchgirl]

No. If they had NOT used MM's testimony, JA certainly would have cried ineffective assistance of counsel. But now it's in (at JA's insistence IMO) and it's been totally decimated--due to the FACTS, not to any fault of JA's counsel--so no IAC.

So, AZlawyer, you think JA insisted on witness 1 affidavit coming in even though the defense knew JM would call witnesses to refute all of it? Do you think they told Dr. G that he was basing much of his testimony on false info? Wow! What does that say for their case...POW! But, all they need is one juror!

 

[Princess of Oz]

Harumph. So ... In an attempt to be "Christ-like," let me "soothingly" and "lovingly" say to the DT: STFU. (In case that's against WS TOS, I'm sure there's a NASA acronym that works ... with a different meaning, of course.)

BBM: It just means Stop The Framing Ugh!

 

[ohiogirl]

JW is either extremely stupid or extremely mean with this immigration paper question. DR is almost certainly an American citizen. She was not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. She was not going anywhere permanently or to become a citizen. There are no "papers" for being an American citizen and not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. Costa Rica doesn't even require a visa for an American citizen, for gosh sake, and even if so, a visa is a stamp in the passport. "Immigration papers" in this country brings up a specter of non-citizens in the US who are here legitimately but not especially welcomed. JMO JW is playing a racist card and trying to pander to someone on the jury.

Jmo, I think you are reading too much into it. Imo,jw is not that bright.

 

[Hope4More]

Psychopaths' Brains Don't Grasp Punishment, Scans Reveal

http://www.livescience.com/49613-psychopaths-brains-punishment.html

Perfect link, thanks.

Paraphrased.......A psychopath only sees the positives of a given action, not the negatives, so proceeds with the action ignoring the potential for negative consequences.

That explains a great deal about her mitigation "strategy.'

 

[luvmygarden]

Can you imagine sitting in court and talking about your entire sex life? The jury would fall asleep during mine. :sigh:

If you're ever in a courtroom and asked about your sex life pretend you're JA and u will blow them away. LOL

 

[Dr. Know?]

Immigration is a big topic, especially in AZ. Thanks RickShawFan, I agree.

Can't wait until this is finally over and she is finally sentenced. It will be like the melting of the Wicked Witch of the West from OZ to me.

 

[atthelake]

Some folks on the sidebar were going to watch this, so I made a thread http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?269607-CNN-Special-1-28-quot-The-Voices-of-Auschwitz-quot if you are interested in posting while watching.. :seeya:

Auschwitz survivors share stories of horror and hope with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Voices of Auschwitz. Wednesday Night January 28th at 9 ET/PT.

Discussion of tonight's broadcast on CNN Voices of Auschwitz which airs at 9 pm eastern. Tread lightly please to offending others with comments that may be participating and remember WS TOS. :grouphug:

View attachment 68364

[video]http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/26/voices-of-auschwitz-promo-wednesday-night.cnn-promos[/video] <<---has trailer

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/26/voices-of-auschwitz-promo-wednesday-night.cnn-promos

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL question: For her appeals, do the attorneys pretty much just get to ignore her and work with only trial transcripts/motions/rulings/etc.? Do they typically have any dealings with the original attys?

I can't imagine any attorney would relish getting stuck with disaster of a client if they have to answer to her every beck and call. I'd almost feel sorry for KN and JW if they weren't so obviously relishing their role as sleazebags.

The appellate attorneys won't have much if any contact with JA. They will likely have some communications with trial counsel, but they can't use anything on appeal that's not in the record, so there isn't much point in talking to trial counsel either except at the beginning to get their thoughts on what to look for in the transcript.

Hi AZl...
I have been thinking today about Jodi's allocution this time around. I believe she is too much of a psychopath to ever show remorse. I am thinking she may just defy everyone and tell the jury she is a victim of domestic violence and abuse, that she HAD to defend herself, and that the jury OWES it to her to give her life, with the possibility that she may start over one day (maybe after 25 years). Do you think she would do that? That's what I am expecting. I know that idea sounds totally insane but this is JA we are speaking of. What do you think?

Ugh. I don't think it sounds insane at all if we're talking about JA.

What about the Hughes?
Should they be called?
Would the jury wonder why they weren't called?

If I were JM, I wouldn't call them, because to call them and allow JW & KN to spend 10 hours cross-examining them would suggest that their "abuse" email was somehow worth talking about.

Im' asking this question simply because so much evidence that the Defence has bullied into the court. Can any of these witness's actually sue defence collectively in a civil suit for defamations of character? So much of what they have chosen to present either comes from a convicted felon/or liars..and obviously proven today as perjured statements ( allowed by the court)? Can the court also be charged with allowing such defamations??

Jodi threatened to do exactly what she is doing. That is smear reputations if they (state) doesn't agree to her terms...I have to say..she not only has succeeded in HER mission..She has caused $$$ costs to taxpayers..and direct reputation slandering. I've seen over and over again so many accusations proven to be unfounded and shown to be lies..Yet Judge Stephen's allows them to continue with this cr$$$olla...Good decent people have been hurt by Jodi and her minions..Surely there is recourse to deal with that..including Nurm's and Willy!!

No, accusations made in court cannot be the basis for a defamation suit.

JSS is absolutely required to allow them to make these accusations if they are conceivably relevant to Jodi's case (which they are). Judges are not permitted to throw out evidence on the ground that people are "obviously lying"--that's up to the jury to decide.

 

[MeeBee]

JW is either extremely stupid or extremely mean with this immigration paper question. DR is almost certainly an American citizen. She was not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. She was not going anywhere permanently or to become a citizen. There are no "papers" for being an American citizen and not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. Costa Rica doesn't even require a visa for an American citizen, for gosh sake, and even if so, a visa is a stamp in the passport. "Immigration papers" in this country brings up a specter of non-citizens in the US who are here legitimately but not especially welcomed. JMO JW is playing a racist card and trying to pander to someone on the jury.

I honestly don't think she meant that when she mentioned immigration papers. She almost certainly meant any documentation she needed while living abroad and traveling. Willmott probably doesn't know exactly what Deanna needed. But, iirc, visitor visas only last for 6 months or less so she probably would have needed to get some kind of expat or extended stay visa.

 

[LambChop]

JW is either extremely stupid or extremely mean with this immigration paper question. DR is almost certainly an American citizen. She was not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. She was not going anywhere permanently or to become a citizen. There are no "papers" for being an American citizen and not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. Costa Rica doesn't even require a visa for an American citizen, for gosh sake, and even if so, a visa is a stamp in the passport. "Immigration papers" in this country brings up a specter of non-citizens in the US who are here legitimately but not especially welcomed. JMO JW is playing a racist card and trying to pander to someone on the jury.

There seems to be some confusion regarding what JW meant by immigration. She was not talking about US immigration. She was asking DR about going through immigration in Costa Rica. DR would have to go through their immigration/customs prior to entering their country. She would have to fill out a card with information on it, it would be stamped and when she was ready to leave DR would again go through their immigrations before departing for the US. JW asked her if the immigration (in Costa Rica) would reflect that she did not leave the country and return home during those 18 months.

It has nothing to do with US immigration. DR knew what JW was asking her and that is why DR answered the way she did. Those records in Costa Rica will show that she entered the country and did not leave until 18 months later.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[ohiogirl]

The appellate attorneys won't have much if any contact with JA. They will likely have some communications with trial counsel, but they can't use anything on appeal that's not in the record, so there isn't much point in talking to trial counsel either except at the beginning to get their thoughts on what to look for in the transcript.



Ugh. I don't think it sounds insane at all if we're talking about JA.



If I were JM, I wouldn't call them, because to call them and allow JW & KN to spend 10 hours cross-examining them would suggest that their "abuse" email was somehow worth talking about.



No, accusations made in court cannot be the basis for a defamation suit.

JSS is absolutely required to allow them to make these accusations if they are conceivably relevant to Jodi's case (which they are). Judges are not permitted to throw out evidence on the ground that people are "obviously lying"--that's up to the jury to decide.

Thank you so much for your legal insight! Much appreciated.

 

[RickshawFan]

That's correct. When go to South American countries you go through their immigration. I have to do it when I go to Aruba and fill out paperwork regarding how long I will be staying.

Well, a person might have to fill out a form—flying back to the US and UK and others you have to do this too, everyone does except diplomats (maybe those now, too)—but this is not "immigration papers": this is like a summary that you stick in your passport temporarily that the passport officer can glance at and then eyeball you and then stamp and then put in a pile (or these days, scan into a system). I have lived abroad all over the place; I have traveled all over the place. JW, jmo, is trying to stir up animus against DR on the sneak.

 

[T-4-2]

It would have been a Visa though- not immigration papers- whole other thing.

I think that's what Willmott meant.

I keep forgetting we need to cut the DT some slack since they're just lawyers after all and can't be expecting to be good at English. Words are hard. And really, nobody understands that "past" and "present" stuff they got all confused about with Deanna.

 

[5bigfish5]

The Delusional Ones over at Jodiland refer to the Honorable JSS as "Pickles".

Pickles...LOL!

Thanks, you solved a mystery for me tonight!

 

[5bigfish5]

JW is either extremely stupid or extremely mean with this immigration paper question. DR is almost certainly an American citizen. She was not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. She was not going anywhere permanently or to become a citizen. There are no "papers" for being an American citizen and not immigrating or emigrating anywhere. Costa Rica doesn't even require a visa for an American citizen, for gosh sake, and even if so, a visa is a stamp in the passport. "Immigration papers" in this country brings up a specter of non-citizens in the US who are here legitimately but not especially welcomed. JMO JW is playing a racist card and trying to pander to someone on the jury.

Well, Jodi should know, she was there SO many times on her little jaunts to visit Arias, whateverhisnamewas...norelation.

 

[Niner]

Good explanation. To add to us. Witness #1 did NOT want to be identified that is why he filed a secret affidavit. In court Juan blurted out his name, Marc McGee, three times. The third time he did it he yelled "Crap". oops accidents happen. :facepalm:

Priceless.

Plus I believe Dr. Geff said his name twice too...