Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, AZ. So the Tennessee courts are attempting to look like they've done something to protect victims rights, but in reality, they did very little if anything, and in fact, only restored what they should have been doing all along. So in the end, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it's very little more than a bunch of political BS... they're working really hard, after all, there are elections coming up... and so on.... :blah: Well just color me surprised.

ETA: re: bolded in your post: So anything is relevant even if it's an unsubstantiated fabrication. That's what gets all over me. Not mad at you AZ, just at the system.

No, not anything is relevant. Only relevant stuff is relevant. But whether or not something is "substantiated" is a different question, and a judge can't say no evidence comes in unless it's "substantiated." Evidence is evidence, even if it's only one piece of evidence hanging out there all by itself.

 

[Amster]

Curious, you have always been very polite to me. I have taken no offense. But JSS has to do her job. The most she could ever say to Nurmi at sidebar would be that she hopes he has thought through whether he's alienating the jurors--and if she did say that and then ended up having to decide between LWP and LWOP, he would cite the comment as evidence of bias and appeal!

I think we all have our own opinion of JSS....and, should be allowed to voice those opinions without being chastised. Wether those opinions are rationally based on the law or not. Unless, for example, I say I can't stand the questions Nurmi is allowed to ask....is it legal for him to do so? Then, yes, a legal opinion is being asked for. When I say, JSS allows the defense team to control the courtroom....that's my opinion. Not an opinion based on what the law says. Just an observation from my point of view.

 

[Only4Justice]

Put this cold calculating Completely VILE Person AWAY. Now. Please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tuba]

Here's a tray of Comfort with some lemon wedges & a soda siphon. We have now discovered what we were "deprived of" in the past. The mental talents of Arias & Nurmi have combined & we are left to view the running polluted discharge of their convergence. Yes! Counsel and defendant have long been at war, a war that so raged it could not be concealed from the public, no matter how it harmed either of their causes. But as all courtroom observers have observed & informed us, a week ago and slightly more, they found a new understanding and congeniality. So what we see and hear now is what they produce when they cooperate. It may be ghastly to look upon but at least we can understand how we have arrived at this new low in suggestions, assertions, innuendos, smears & accusations complete with handy churn to keep it flying in all directions. Please, do have a drink of Comfort on me, erase the day's slime for now and then stiffen your resolve for next court day.

 

[RickshawFan]

All the nasty stuff Nurmi imposed on Flores today....... Don't forget, from the jury's point of view, it was juxtaposed with the long interrogation tapes in which Flores did a stellar job. It would be obvious to the jury that Nurmi was being retaliatory with his line of questions and that the source was likely to be his client. Only JA has a grounds for a vendetta against Flores: this would have been transparent just from the way evidence unfolded yesterday and today, imho.

 

[elementary]

I don't like her style either. She is the judge and has to comply with the law. We may not like it, but I do think she is being overly cautious to avoid appellate issues. :twocents: I think she wants this monster to get the DP as much as the rest of us, but we do have to abide by law.

I was emphasising her style and I think many others are as well. She comes across as wussy. Yes, she rules according to the law, but that is not what a lot of us are getting from this. And, I do believe the defence has shaped her responses; it's especially hard to get past the secrecy. Will she give the murderer LWOP? Given her style, I can see why people have doubts that she will come down hard.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think we all have our own opinion of JSS....and, should be allowed to voice those opinions without being chastised. Wether those opinions are rationally based on the law or not. Unless, for example, I say I can't stand the questions Nurmi is allowed to ask....is it legal for him to do so? Then, yes, a legal opinion is being asked for. When I say, JSS allows the defense team to control the courtroom....that's my opinion. Not an opinion based on what the law says. Just an observation from my point of view.

I see what you're saying. I just want to make sure everyone understands that she is not "allowing" the defense to make these horrible arguments, because she has no choice to "disallow" it. That's a matter of fact rather than opinion. Now, if someone wants to say that she needs to exert more control over the courtroom, that's an opinion (and one I happen to share).

 

[Love Never Fails]

I am really glad there is no court tomorrow. It's my birthday and I would like a day in which I am calm and not thinking of this trial. . And I think Thursday is a good day to find something else to do, because I am sure that will be when Nurmi slimes Travis some more.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I see what you're saying. I just want to make sure everyone understands that she is not "allowing" the defense to make these horrible arguments, because she has no choice to "disallow" it. That's a matter of fact rather than opinion. Now, if someone wants to say that she needs to exert more control over the courtroom, that's an opinion (and one I happen to share).

Okay. Yes. She needs to exert more control over her courtroom. She also needs transparency and not all the closed door hearings in which SHE LOOKS FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE. That's my opinion.

 

[MeeBee]

I am really glad there is no court tomorrow. It's my birthday and I would like a day in which I am calm and not thinking of this trial. . And I think Thursday is a good day to find something else to do, because I am sure that will be when Nurmi slimes Travis some more.

Brief OT:

:bdsong:

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay. Yes. She needs to exert more control over her courtroom. She also needs transparency and not all the closed door hearings in which SHE LOOKS FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE. That's my opinion.

And that's an excellent point, too. This super-secrecy means that we don't get to hear the argument on legal points, etc. that might help people understand the judge's rulings.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Was what recorded?

The cellphone that Jodi used to record the call on.

 

[MsJosie]

I also have wondered if she dropped the knife and gun into one of the gas cans and then later had that bonfire in the desert as you suggested. JMO

If there was a bonfire...and the days can be pinned down, the satellites may have been able to pick up the fire from the sky. The satellites pick up so many things, that a fire in the desert may be easy for them to pick up....but is the video kept this long past the crime?

 

[grammieto5]

I'm wondering what the juror who asked this question, "Was any blood recovered from the rental car?" is thinking after finding out the answer is NO?

 

[Only4Justice]

Here's a tray of Comfort with some lemon wedges & a soda siphon. We have now discovered what we were "deprived of" in the past. The mental talents of Arias & Nurmi have combined & we are left to view the running polluted discharge of their convergence. Yes! Counsel and defendant have long been at war, a war that so raged it could not be concealed from the public, no matter how it harmed either of their causes. But as all courtroom observers have observed & informed us, a week ago and slightly more, they found a new understanding and congeniality. So what we see and hear now is what they produce when they cooperate. It may be ghastly to look upon but at least we can understand how we have arrived at this new low in suggestions, assertions, innuendos, smears & accusations complete with handy churn to keep it flying in all directions. Please, do have a drink of Comfort on me, erase the day's slime for now and then stiffen your resolve for next court day.

[emoji497]so worth repeating. Thank you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MeeBee]

I'm wondering what the juror who asked this question, "Was any blood recovered from the rental car?" is thinking after finding out the answer is NO?

That Jodi was very calculated in making sure she was completely clean before leaving the house.

 

[neesaki]

No, not anything is relevant. Only relevant stuff is relevant. But whether or not something is "substantiated" is a different question, and a judge can't say no evidence comes in unless it's "substantiated." Evidence is evidence, even if it's only one piece of evidence hanging out there all by itself.

So evidence can be fabricated in order to substantiate a false allegation, i.e., "evidence". In which case, all the prosecution has to do is prove that the "evidence" is not evidence ? So if the defense churns out some whoppers, such as in this case, IMO, the prosecution really has their work cut out for them. Poor Juan, poor Travis... . Am I on the right track ? TIA I'm smiling , but not happy, if that makes any sense. :/

 

[Quester]

And that's an excellent point, too. This super-secrecy means that we don't get to hear the argument on legal points, etc. that might help people understand the judge's rulings.

Did we get to hear arguments and JSS' rulings in the first trial? Seems to me most everything was argued and ruled at the numerousssssssssss sidebars. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

So evidence can be fabricated in order to substantiate a false allegation, i.e., "evidence". In which case, all the prosecution has to do is prove that the "evidence" is not evidence ? So if the defense churns out some whoppers, such as in this case, IMO, the prosecution really has their work cut out for them. Poor Juan, poor Travis... . Am I on the right track ? TIA I'm smiling , but not happy, if that makes any sense. :/

Yes, the defendant can lie, and criminals sometimes do. It is the prosecution's job to counter the lies.

Did we get to hear arguments and JSS' rulings in the first trial? Seems to me most everything was ruled at the numerousssssssssss sidebars. JMO

It was the same nonsense then, yes.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Does anyone know the purpose of having Flores read the text and explain the tape? It seems odd that he would be asked these questions by Nurmi-other than shock value.

Hes trying to imprint the spoken and written word on the jury's mind. Remember the old saying if you say something enough times some may think it's the truth. I hope the females on the jury are not happy at with him and Jodi all in having to see those photos and hear that phone call.