Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[janx]

Did Nurmi actually imply that JA shot him in the shower stall, or was that a miscommunication via Twitter?! Because if he did...the story changes again! :facepalm:

 

[katydid23]

I hope the jury understands the answer to Nurmi's question, about why she didnt attack TA when his back was turned. People who understand her, KNOW she wanted him to SEE HER killing him. She wanted him to know it was her and why he was about to die.

 

[MeeBee]

Nurmi is pulling from Juan's bag of tricks to try and temper the impact they will have if/when he does them himself and because he realizes these things work and get people's attention better than his plodding, snail paced style. The problem is he has no sense of timing. Juan saved his fire for witnesses who were defiant and obfuscative and obviously trying to BS the court. Yes the DT has to act somewhat indignant when questioning the state to make it seem like they have something to be indignant about. But Flores is a calm, cool professional who is straight forward and seems to earn respect. He's no Samuels and Laviolette. If I was a juror I'd be wondering why the defense attorney was being so rude to this witness for no reason.

Same deal with the pausing to ponder that Juan employed in the first mitigation phase. Nurmi is using it to minimize its impact later on. He just picked the worst possible moment to have people stop and think. When Juan did it, you were left thinking about the pain and torture Travis endured in the final moments of his life. It was highly effective. If I was a juror and the defense attorney asked me to pause and think at the times he did yesterday, all I'd be thinking about was Travis innocently posing in the shower while Jodi hid a knife/gun behind her back, lying in wait until the perfect opportunity presented itself, acting like she wasn't about to attack and kill him. It would just remind me of the cruelty of it. It was very bad timing.

 

[Destiny617]

I beg to differ; way long ago the Mormon religion (fundamentalist sects) did have a death sentence for those accused of sexual misconduct, particularly adultery. There are cases that have been written about concerning the sentence--being slashed from ear to ear and the blood having to spill upon the ground. This was the only way the sinner/violator could gain access to righteousness before God. And that was what Jodi did; in her mind, she helped Travis into heaven. That was the reason for the throat slitting and hauling him all the way back into the shower after slitting his throat in the hallway--the blood had to go down the pipes and get to the earth. She is totally capable of this mentality and the means needed to achieve it. Today's Mormonism: not acceptable, but there are some records of blood atonement from the past.

Coming out of lurkdom to say:

There is absolutely NO WAY that JA knew anything about blood atonement. How long had she been baptized at this point? Had she ever been allowed into an LDS (Mormon) Temple? No. Which means she only had a very very basic idea in the religion. This is not even an official doctrine of the religion and is not given to the newbies. Even if it was official doctrine you do believe it is not practiced in modern day (aka probably over 100 years), so how would she have possibly known anything about it?

I know what you are referring to but I do not think JA would have known about blood atonement, esp. if she was just dabbling in Mormonism. I could be wrong, but I do not think the old practices/beliefs of Mormonism played a part of the way she murdered TA.

MOO but link:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement

...Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time... Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.

bbm

I post this not to bring religion wholly into the debate (although the defense and JA were the ones who did in the first place) but to indicate there is no way JA could have even known or thought about this theocratic doctrine taught over 100 years ago. I only know about it because my father is a history of religion professor. Again, MOO.

 

[Nore]

I certainly believe someone like Arias deserves nothing less than the death penalty.

I still hope that this jury will do the right thing and remove her gender and base their decision solely on the sadist and cruel manner in which she murdered her defenseless victim.

People like Arias make me more convinced than ever before that the death penalty should be applied in certain cases. None of the mitigating factors could ever begin to outweigh the aggravating factors and how coldly premeditated the murder was.

I do not want to see Arias put in the general population. She will only gather more enablers who coddle her.

She needs to be on death row and no where else. She needs to be locked in a cell 23/24 hours a day. That's what she deserves.

I really don't care how long the appeals will take. The state pays for the first one, but if it is not overturned, which I don't think it will be, then after then she is on her own.

I want her to know she is a marked woman who has to wear DR across the back of her jumpsuit.

But you are probably correct. If she isn't sentenced to the fullest punishment under the law it will be because we as a society are still dripping with gender biases in our justice system. Jurors instead should be solely looking at the horrific sadist crime the murderer carried out and weighing that without interjecting the gender of the offender.

Travis deserves no less.

IMO

----------
Hi Ocean,
:goodpost: :yourock: :seeya:

 

[katydid23]

Nurmi is pulling from Juan's bag of tricks to try and temper the impact they will have if/when he does them himself and because he realizes these things work and get people's attention better than his plodding, snail paced style. The problem is he has no sense of timing. Juan saved his fire for witnesses who were defiant and obfuscative and obviously trying to BS the court. Yes the DT has to act somewhat indignant when questioning the state to make it seem like they have something to be indignant about. But Flores is a calm, cool professional who is straight forward and seems to earn respect. Samuels and Laviolette. If I was a juror I'd be wondering why the defense attorney was being so rude to this witness for no reason.

Same deal with the pausing to ponder that Juan employed in the first mitigation phase. Nurmi is using it to minimize its impact later on. He just picked the worst possible moment to have people stop and think. When Juan did it, you were left think about the pain and torture Travis endured in the final moments of his life. It was highly effective. If I was a juror and the defense attorney asked me to pause and think at the times he did yesterday, all I'd be thinking about was Travis innocently posing in the shower while Jodi hid a knife/gun behind her back, lying in wait until the perfect opportunity presented itself, acting like she wasn't about to attack and kill him. It would just remind me of the cruelty of it. It was very bad timing.

THANK YOU. :tyou:

Great post. You are so right. Nurmi is mimicking Juan, but doing so ineptly. Slamming folders, and screaming at the calm, kind, Det Flores seems so out of place. So staged. lol

 

[Tuba]

Nurmi would have been acting from multiple purposes yesterday, with Detective Flores. He knew he could embarrass Flores and he meant to, because embarrassment wilts confidence. He does not want the answers he gets to bear the full force of confident statements. The smut is one of his implements in this. He also employs slightly off-center questions, the better to misguide direct answers. The messier the session, the better he likes it. Many suggestions were left hanging in the courtroom air. Where he likes them. We are witnessing the awful synergy of Arias & Nurmi at the fleshpots. Nurmi is very experienced at this due to the concentration of his practice heretofore. Arias, of course, likes to get down by inclination. "That's so debasing! I like it." My hope is that the smut will reach containment so as not to run over the facts of the murder and detract from it. This was not a sex crime, it was slaughter of a human being with zero justification.

 

[janx]

Nurmi would have been acting from multiple purposes yesterday, with Detective Flores. He knew he could embarrass Flores and he meant to, because embarrassment wilts confidence. He does not wants the answers he gets to bear the full force of confident statements. The smut is one of his implements in this. He also employs slightly off-center questions, the better to misguide direct answers. The messier the session, the better he likes it. Many suggestions were left hanging in the courtroom air. Where he likes them. We are witnessing the awful synergy of Arias & Nurmi at the fleshpots. Nurmi is very experienced at this due to the concentration of his practice heretofore. Arias, of course, likes to get down by inclination. "That's so debasing! I like it." My hope is that the smut will reach containment so as not to run over the facts of the murder and detract from it. This was not a sex crime, it was slaughter of a human being with zero justification.

Yes. Nurmi's intention so far seems to be to shock and distract. It is absolutely revolting.

 

[Lissa]

Did Nurmi actually imply that JA shot him in the shower stall, or was that a miscommunication via Twitter?! Because if he did...the story changes again! :facepalm:

Maybe this is common knowledge, but how far can a shell casing travel? Is it even possible that she shot in him in the shower and the casing ended up by the sink?

 

[MeeBee]

Yes. Nurmi's intention so far seems to be to shock and distract. It is absolutely revolting.

I think the most disgusting moment yesterday were his questions about a hypothetical 12-year-old girl where Nurmi was all-out trying to insinuate Travis had done things there was no evidence or more specifically, the question asking is it illegal to watch video of a 12-year-old-girl having an orgasm. He did this in the first trial with the innocent YouTube video Travis was watching the day he died trying to imply, with the name of the song, Harder, Faster, Stronger, that it was something seedy. It's just playing dirty. I think you would have to have a mind that operates a certain way to do what Nurmi does. And if I was a juror, I would have asked, point blank, was Travis watching a video of a 12-year-old girl? Was there any evidence he had any relations with a child? I'm sure this question would worry the twitter verse, lol, but it would simply be an imploring to stop being passive aggressive and just get everything out there.

BTW, my husband is a HUGE fan of daft punk and that song and when I told him what the defense attorney was trying to do in the first trial he was BESIDE himself and basically thought he was just sick and gross.

 

[Bernina]

Coming out of lurkdom to say:

There is absolutely NO WAY that JA knew anything about blood atonement. How long had she been baptized at this point? Had she ever been allowed into an LDS (Mormon) Temple? No. Which means she only had a very very basic idea in the religion. This is not even an official doctrine of the religion and is not given to the newbies. Even if it was official doctrine you do believe it is not practiced in modern day (aka probably over 100 years), so how would she have possibly known anything about it?



MOO but link:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement

bbm

I post this not to bring religion wholly into the debate (although the defense and JA were the ones who did in the first place) but to indicate there is no way JA could have even known or thought about this theocratic doctrine taught over 100 years ago. I only know about it because my father is a history of religion professor. Again, MOO.

Ex Mormon, born and raised in the LDS church. Grandpa was in the Mesa Temple Presidency, 1970's.
Blood atonement WAS part of the doctrine and practiced in the early church, for that matter, there are a LOT of "dirty secrets" in the foundation of the Mormon church that members new to the church will never know about unless they study the foundational doctrine of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The early church always found a way to skirt the issue of "murder" versus "divine intervention". Note: Mountain Meadows Massacre. My mother's 2nd marriage is to a man who's grandfather was a part of the slaughter and the journals from that dude are totally different that what the church claims. Polygamy is another "gray" area.

Did CMJArias know about "blood atonement"?
DOUBTFUL.

I think these yahoos talking about the "Mormon Mafia" got her onto the idea, and TA wasn't murdered in the method used for "blood atonement". Major FAIL.

Just like all her so called "knowledge" of the "Word of Wisdom" and LDS Doctrine. She thinks she "talks the talk" but she doesn't "walk the walk". Her record timing from missionary lessons to baptism (-4 weeks if I remember correctly) is ridiculous. A Mormon at "Starbucks"? REALLY. Sucking down de-caff........right.

She got baptized because she had her eye on the "prize", a return missionary who was doing well for himself, without the conflict of parent-in-laws or children and/or child support/alimony from a previous relationship, who had a car and house. HUGE goals for a plain girl without a high school degree, no college, a professional "waitress", silicone in her butt and chest, and in full tilt "deny my heritage, wanna be white" mode (SPF 85? REALLY?). CMJA has MAJOR self image issues on top of all the "other" mental issues.

BTW: No problem with LDS and bi-racial marriages. Pretty common in Ariz. NOT an issue.

 

[Only4Justice]

I'm behind but here goes.

not to go into the sexual gutter Nurmi and the killer have created, but it's very sad FOR Travis that she got him with sex. She makes it dirty. Not the best way to form a relationship lol IMO. She has the most disgusting genitals I have ever seen. Only looked once and it was sooooo gross. He could have had a much more loving sexual relationship with a real person. Not the evil one. IMO and all that [emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

IMO it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what CMJA knew or didn't know about blood atonement or any other aspect of the Mormon religion.

She has made it clear in word and deed that her adoption of that religion meant no more to her than choosing a different hairstyle. Camouflage to bag Mormon prey, no more or less.

 

[garthmax]

THANK YOU. :tyou:

Great post. You are so right. Nurmi is mimicking Juan, but doing so ineptly. Slamming folders, and screaming at the calm, kind, Det Flores seems so out of place. So staged. lol

and the poor Wal - Mart lady....

 

[Hope4More]

Nurmi using the sex tape to insinuate pedophilia is really beginning to convince me CMJA won't take the stand.

Without her testimony, twisting the sex tape is as far as they can go about pedophilia.

Part of me, to be honest, hopes the DT goes there. This time around I think JM could destroy her story enough on that point that any reasonable jury would feel justified in giving her the DP.

 

[garthmax]

I thought Nurmi made a big mistake yesterday by putting JA nude picture up during the sex tape. He didn't need to do that, he kept it up way to long and this only made her look like a cheap *advertiser censored*. He was the one yesterday abusing JA. Also, since JA reported the tape stolen and it was "found" only goes to show her lies again. I don't think it really made any difference if JM had the tape tested, the fact that it ended up in the defense hands first and no one knows why or how...and that it was taped by JA a few weeks before the murder (which a juror asked) goes to show how evil she is. JM is best when cross examining so I am not worried.

I also think it would be great for JM to point this out if he gets the chance...

 

[jevipo74]

Doubt she's still a Mormon. Can they throw her out???

Yes, she can be ex-communicated. Kate Kelly was excommunicated earlier this year for spearheading a movement for women to have priesthood authority. Murder is much worse than that. Hopefully JA already got the boot. Not that she was really devout in the first place.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer - question for you.
I get that "it's the rules" but.....since this is a re-trial of the penalty phase only, it seems logical to me that the prosecutor would get up and present the evidence of what was already proven in the guilt phase. Why is the defense allowed to do anything during that presentation? To me they're only in this phase for the mitigation portion, not the bringing-the-new-jury-up-to-speed part.

Thanks so much for the insight and expertise you share here!

Also, they are pushing the 'shot first' scenario because in their shallow minds, if she shot first, it was not as 'cruel.' HUH? I don't get it either, but that's what the fanpages say.

They make it out to be 'compassionate' to have shot first. So somehow all the stabbing does not count as torture, because he was shot already. That makes no sense to me. Torture is torture.

As to the hollow point, I don't see how it could have been possible for him to fight back and try and crawl away, if he had been shot by a hollow point first thing. So they can't have it both ways.

I must admit I've lost my optimism a little. Mostly because JM's first trial was SO strong and I'm bummed that he didn't get to just to highlight WHY and HOW she was guilty and that the crime was cruel but that the defense got a chance to argue against that. I don't understand why that was allowed. By now - it should be set in stone and the defense shouldn't have even been allowed to insert 'doubt' by stating oh maybe he was shot first. Oh he was a pedophile. Oh she's mentally ill. But I guess I just don't understand US law.

I think the key to understanding what happened so far is to realize that JM was NOT simply "catching up" this jury on the evidence for premeditation or cruelty, and Nurmi was NOT being allowed to offer evidence casting doubt on those findings. The jury will be instructed to accept the premeditation and cruelty findings.

However, at this phase the jury is allowed to consider things like just HOW premeditated was this? Did JA decide to kill him before she left California or while he was taking a shower? And WHAT KIND of premeditation was it? Cold, heartless, logical premeditation or disorganized stressed-out-by-a-secret-relationship premeditation? And just HOW cruel was it? And did JA really UNDERSTAND how much he would suffer, or was that a surprise to her because she shot him first and thought that would take care of it? Etc.

So JM was presenting evidence of the QUALITY AND TYPE of premeditation and cruelty, and Nurmi was presenting evidence to try to show that the murder was only "technically" premeditated (because she had time to think), and "technically" cruel (because Travis did suffer), but only just barely fits within those categories.

Disclaimer #100: I agree with JM on these issues.

 

[jevipo74]

Well....what do you know? Jodi in pigtails pre-Travis. Hmmmm....

 

[Nosey Parker]

View attachment 62422


Well....what do you know? Jodi in pigtails pre-Travis. Hmmmm....

Looks like a twelve year old imitation to me. What was she then? 16 - 18? LOL For a moment I thought it was a Spiderman shirt but it's Superman isn't it? Same idea though.

ETA: I had a feeling she went through old photos, diaries, etc. early on in jail, and drew ideas from them for her defence. This picture serves to reinforce that theory.