Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 38

[DebinGA]

They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.

Nurmi opening statement included JA, "this mentally ill woman", being "diagnosed with BPD and PTSD".

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

I think it's time to revisit the dates we all picked for the trial end date. I don't even remember what date I picked. Where do we find this?

 

[Hatfield]

Its understandable a lot of us have let some of our emotions loose today. We have tolerated witnessing a multi-year trial and we finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.


WOW. I still cant hardly believe it "may" be happening tomorrow.

KUDOS to everyone. Its been a long ride. Lets get those last 3 strikes tomorrow.

 

[josie1986]

Just dropping by again. Can't believe she threw a hissy fit typical jodi.
Hopefully the jury see her for what she really is

 

[ShadyLady]

They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.

But their shrinks did not admit to it. IIRC.

 

[mydirtysecret]

JW is providing ex parte notices that she wishes to have sealed. There are 3 - judge orders them sealed even though she has not seen them, does not know what they are. There will be other supplemented materials given related - and JSS will also seal those.

Can you expound on What this means

 

[Nali87]

From what I have seen, juries are about and try very hard to keep personal feelings like that out of it and follow the law.

I think they get what they are deciding and will decide accordingly and keep their need for vengeance or a sense of duty out of it. This is a very huge decision that weighs heavily on people. I Don't think this jury will do that. They will want to make sure they're doing what they think is right. .

Yeah, but I don't mean vengeance. I remember the jurors from the previous trial apologizing to the Alexanders for not returning with a sentence. So I wonder if these jurors will feel that same sense of duty. Not vengeance but duty. And aren't personal feelings and sense of duty part of the "personal decision" of death versus life that they will have to make?

 

[ButForFortune]

If my mother in law was alive she could have kept up with everything through short hand....she was extremely fast. I took a course in the 80's that used the words we have now but cut out a lot of the letters. Secretaries were using that because it would let the 'boss' beable to read what was dictated before it was actually typed out, in case the secretary had not typed it out yet....did that make sense? Infact a lot of the texting is done like that now. U for the word YOU, lv would be love or leave depending on the content of the paragraph, mthr is mother, most vowels are cut out. This person could be using a form of shorthand like this or one she made up. Hence she is saying 'recording'.

I took one of those classes, and you are right - probably in the 80's. I still use it at work. It is really easy, especially since most people use the same words over and over when they speak and don't even realize it.

 

[Nali87]

But their shrinks did not admit to it. IIRC.

They'll just use Dr. DeMarte diagnosis. Their shrinks aren't even licensed in AZ.

 

[ShadyLady]

They did. It was one of the mitigating factors they presented in opening statement.

Only healthcare professional that made that claim was a state witness, Dr D, and we know how defense treated her. Don't think F&G admitted to it.

 

[coeurfragile]

I just want to say that I hardly ever post but I'm an ever present lurker.

Thank you to all who have posted tweets and documents in this phase of the retrial. For Lambie who always gives us a shiny new thread. For ziggy and others who take time out of their lives to attend court and report back. For AZ Lawyer being patient with all of our questions.

It's been a long, bumpy road. I'm confident in the jury and that the verdict will be satisfactory. I would rather have her get death but at this point I'm consoled by the fact that either way, she isn't going anywhere ever again.

I'm grateful for everyone thoughts and opinions, whether they be in sync with or different than mine.

It's been an honor to be here with all of you until the bitter end.

JUSTICE FOR TRAVIS!!

 

[AZlawyer]

Paragraph two invalidates everything the prosecution has tried to accomplish. It just gave every juror the right to say Life, with no justification.

Pretty much, but that's the law. JM will not be surprised by this standard AZ jury instruction.

1. BBM: I thought it was supposed to be: "If mitigating factors are of higher value than aggravating factors than you must vote for death.." But it seems to be "Even if the mitigating factors aren't higher than the aggravating factor - you can still decide they are enough to show mercy." Did I understood that right?
2. BBM: Can facts and circumstances of the case include trashing the victim after death?

1. Yes.

2. Yes, if the trashing relates to the defendant's psyche, the "pressures" leading up to the murder, etc.

Yeah, its interesting isnt it.

I probably have interpreted it all wrong. The way I take that 2nd paragraph is like this.

"No matter what evidence you may or may not have heard during this trial, you can vote any way you want".

Yep, that's how I read it. Some lawyers insist it doesn't say that, but...

 

[Nosey Parker]

Now I probably won't word this right...

But do you all think that this jury will vote for DP, in a sense out of their need to "punish" JA for her crime as well? For example the first jury got their "say" by voting GUILTY! Could this jury feel as if they would let the Alexanders down, would let JA get away with it somehow, if they too don't give their own version of "guilty" but this time by voting for "DP"?

I did not explain that right. But could that be a motivation?

Yes. On the other hand, they could unanimously decide that this woman is cray cray. Without labelling PTSD, Bi-Polar, or Borderline, they could feel that she has to be suffering from some mental disorder that accounts for all her despicable behaviours, and vote LWOP. Either way, I think they will recognise that she is dangerous.

 

[Quester]

Could we have a verdict by the end of the week?

 

[Amster]

BBM. Judge Perry caved and seriously erred when he allowed that woman onto the jury, but I could see that he felt pressured that the DT was going to claim racial bias (she was black) if he didn't let her on, so he did. I lost all respect for him when that happened.

We agree on something!! :happydance:

We don't agree about JSS, but I do respect your opinion....eace:

 

[MeeBee]

Yeah, but I don't mean vengeance. I remember the jurors from the previous trial apologizing to the Alexanders for not returning with a sentence. So I wonder if these jurors will feel that same sense of duty. Not vengeance but duty. And aren't personal feelings and sense of duty part of the "personal decision" of death versus life that they will have to make?

I don't think so. The personal feelings will only have to do with how you feel about death vs life. I guess someone could be thinking about the family. But, again, IMO juries try very hard to read their instructions and make sure they're following the law. A couple of jurors have said we want to keep our emotions out of this.

I read it as you thought they'd make the decision based on the fact that she killed him so this is their version of a guilty verdict. I don't think so.

Again I don't see them doing that. They will weigh her mitigators against her aggravators and decide.

 

[spiderlady]

Would someone be kind enough to update me on Jodi's hissy fit. Am still at work and having to sneak in when FD is distracted or in the prep room.

 

[Nali87]

Only healthcare professional that made that claim was a state witness, Dr D, and we know how defense treated her. Don't think F&G admitted to it.

I'm 100% they'll argue BPD but if you mean that they'll look silly using Dr. DeMarte diagnosis after trashing her calling her naive, unethical, asinine, etc, then I agree with that too. They'll use the inexperienced doctor's BPD diagnosis but will try to get the jurors to ignore everything else she testified too. How could that ever not work?

 

[Hez]

Yeah, Don't be so sure. There are stories of Women convicts having hook ups with Jailers.

Susan Smith comes to mind. She was with two different guards, who were subsequently fired. I wouldn't be surprised to see the killer involved in something like that. :moo:

 

[Boytwnmom]

what's the deal with the three sealed ex parte "notices" given to JSS that she won't read? Juan doesn't get a copy and JSS isn't reading them so what's the dealio? Is this an AZ thing? Is it some kind of protection for the DT-like, if you find us dead, read these-Jodi's minions will have gotten to us? KIDDING!

JW is providing ex parte notices that she wishes to have sealed. There are 3 - judge orders them sealed even though she has not seen them, does not know what they are. There will be other supplemented materials given related - and JSS will also seal those.