Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 28

[oceanblueeyes]

That's an idea. MK is fine, want to post him that's ok he's harmless. But I really do go out of my way to avoid what she's saying and not give her a lick of attention.

When I see a MK tweet I just scroll on by and don't read it.

 

[daisydomino]

That's an idea. MK is fine, want to post him that's ok he's harmless. But I really do go out of my way to avoid what she's saying and not give her a lick of attention.

It took me a while to figure it out, so just in case it helps someone else, the spoiler tag is not in the formatting toolbar, even in "advanced" mode. You have to type [ spoiler ] hide me [/spoiler ] around the text you want to hide. (Remove the spaces after and before the brackets.)

ETA: I'm good with just scrolling by, usually, so don't sweat it. I like katydid23's point that knowing what they're saying, even if we don't like it, keeps us fully informed, too.

 

[Nali87]

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.

You know what... Jodi Arias is really really dumb isn't she?

 

[deedee21]

The piece of paper in front of JA must look about like this after Deanna's testimony.

View attachment 68381

How much would Charles Manson pay for this?

 

[Softail]

Thanks for all of the updates guys! I cannot stomach to sit through this stupid "tweet trial". It truly disgusts me what this defense is able to get away with.

ETA: I totally agree with others. I do not want to see her face or tweets or anything she has to say. Ignore her! :ignore:

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Out of curiosity, do you think Jodi may be pulling the strings for the whole defense strategy altogether? I can't imagine any attorney worth their salt would choose to pursue mitigation in a DP case through victim character assassination. That's the only reason I can come up with for them not utilizing her borderline which could have been spun to be sympathetic.

And...do you think there will be negative repercussions for their careers as a result of how this case was defended? TIA

 

[Preyevateye]

The piece of paper in front of JA must look about like this after Deanna's testimony.

View attachment 68381

I see a St. Bernard.

 

[T-4-2]

Gonna be Jodi's vicarious thrill of the trial, If Willmott can make Deanna say what her penance was.

Jodi doesn't realize that confession/repentance/forgiveness/restoration are part of LDS doctrine. But then, why would she.

 

[BritsKate]

You know what... Jodi Arias is really really dumb isn't she?

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.

 

[bettybaby00]

Out of curiosity, do you think Jodi may be pulling the strings for the whole defense strategy altogether? I can't imagine any attorney worth their salt would choose to pursue mitigation in a DP case through victim character assassination. That's the only reason I can come up with for them not utilizing her borderline which could have been spun to be sympathetic.

And...do you think there will be negative repercussions for their careers as a result of how this case was defended? TIA

in a word absolutely!!!

And your last point, I hope so.

 

[5bigfish5]

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 Jodi is basically writing her own obituary as we suffer through "her' way of doing things?

 

[bettybaby00]

You know what... Jodi Arias is really really dumb isn't she?

Yea well that Einstein declaration was just another lie......in a long, long, long list of lies.

 

[giles86]

It's kind of muddled, but there is this 'theory' that the ninja story was true. And Deanna was the female ninja, and they scared poor innocent JA so much that she just went and hid from the truth. But when she was arrested, she told the truth. But since no one believed her, she was forced by her attorneys to go with the self defense angle. It is something like that anyway and several of them truly believe that hot mess of a story.

Brilliant, thank you for explaining that for me.

I really don't understand how anyone could possibly believe that though? If JA told me it was raining I'd stick my head out a window to check! Clearly everything she has said is a downright lie as it appears is being proven as this phase continues (and was in the trial which convicted her)
From not being there, to ninjas (and Mormon ninjas at that) to her Chicago defense I don't understand how some people can't see through her lies :thinking:

 

[LinasK]

Out of curiosity, do you think Jodi may be pulling the strings for the whole defense strategy altogether? I can't imagine any attorney worth their salt would choose to pursue mitigation in a DP case through victim character assassination. That's the only reason I can come up with for them not utilizing her borderline which could have been spun to be sympathetic.

And...do you think there will be negative repercussions for their careers as a result of how this case was defended? TIA

I'm quite sure she's pulling the strings in this defense. It's attack everybody but her. She was justified in killing Travis because he was a pervert. Juan was a pervert too because he wanted to see the nude photos of her (evidence). I really don't think Nurmi & Wilmott would've used Marc McGee's affidavit otherwise, knowing how easily it could be disproven. They have no other mitigating factors. Jodi said so herself in her post-conviction interview, so they had to come up with a case. This is all they've got- throw mud and see if it sticks. Jodi promised to trash Travis when they wouldn't let her plead to 2nd degree murder, and she's made good on that promise. She invented the abuse after hearing from other abused inmates in jail. Plus Jodi doesn't want to be seen as having mental problems, she's too narcissistic for that. She wrote a letter to a PPL meeting after she was arrested, telling them not to suspect her, she cared what they thought of her and tried to control it.

 

[Nali87]

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.

Really really or really really evil then if her motivation was just to hurt Deanna.

 

[NashBridges2]

Haha, just saw the picture of jodi in court today. She is NOT looking too happy. Also saw the back of the bishop, the jury will trust him, he looks like a big ole cuddly bear.

ETA---everyone's fed (ordered Chinese). Teenagers going out with friends (no school tomorrow) and the husband is gone to play hockey. Wine time! Lots to celebrate

 

[5bigfish5]

Well, I guess we know which way any Mormons on the jury are voting.

:juanettes: :juanettes: :juanettes:

Yep!

Hmm, who Ya' gonna believe, a LDS bishop, even if retired, or a nameless/faceless affidavit from NZ?

Done deal.

Has Arias written all over this cluster.

 

[AZlawyer]

Out of curiosity, do you think Jodi may be pulling the strings for the whole defense strategy altogether? I can't imagine any attorney worth their salt would choose to pursue mitigation in a DP case through victim character assassination. That's the only reason I can come up with for them not utilizing her borderline which could have been spun to be sympathetic.

And...do you think there will be negative repercussions for their careers as a result of how this case was defended? TIA

I do think this is the Jodi version of mitigation. We saw what Nurmi chose to do last time--he basically had her say that she could sort of draw and had hair that could be donated etc. Then Jodi filed 7 million motions (or maybe like 2--I lost count) saying that Nurmi refused to follow her strategy and specifically refused to call certain witnesses who had totally BOMBSHELL testimony that would make her case. Nurmi tried his best to get off the case, but JSS said he had to stay, so now IMO he's saying FINE let's see how your brilliant mitigation strategy works Miss Jodi.

I don't think there will be any negative repercussions for them.

 

[5bigfish5]

Jodi's probably long been ex-communicated. She never read her bible in Jail, she "dabbled", and she was always a "Jack Mormon" drinking caffeine and having sex anyhow. And murder is #2 sin for the Mormons after adultery.

I'm pretty sure, in an interview, Daniel said she was LONG gone.

 

[Dmacky]

I see a St. Bernard.

Hmm...I see a Chihuahua :cold: