Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MeeBee,
Why can't we ask that anytime an accusation is made about a murder victim that some kind of proof is required. For instance, if JA wants to insinuate that Travis was a pedophile there has to be pictures on computers or in his dresser drawers or people have seen something. This whole idea that anything can be thrown against a wall just to see if one juror will fall for it is so unfair to the victim's loved ones who have already suffered enough, I also believe that justice is not served.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
MeeBee,
Why can't we ask that anytime an accusation is made about a murder victim that some kind of proof is required. For instance, if jJA wants to insinuate that Travis was a pedophile there has to be pictures on computers or in his dresser drawers or people have seen something. This whole idea that anything can be thrown against a wall just to see if one juror will fall for it is so unfair to the victim's loved ones who have already suffered enough, I also believe that justice is not served.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
As AZ pointed out, the killer's words are the evidence. It is up to the state to disprove them and Juan has done a very good job of it. Unfortunately, the trial is not meant to be fair to the victim or to their family but to the defendant because they deserve a fair trial. I am disgusted by it and I do wish there was a way to put a stop to it. But I can't see a way for that to happen without trampling on a defendant's rights to give their side. I've thought about it...and have nothing.
I am incredibly sympathetic to the Alexanders and to KCL. I would be enraged if I had to sit there and listen to my loved one be slaughterd all over again in court. I was also just reading an article yesterday by Kim Goldman in support of the Alexanders about this very thing.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...der-family-kim-goldman-ron-goldman-oj-simpson
So I'm operating from two standpoints here: my logical side and my compassionate, more emotional side. Posting those tweets yesterday made my blood boil. But it's all the defense has and, honestly, I don't think it'll work.
Unless one has just learned about the 'birds and bees' why would this sex talk be interesting or shocking? It's beyond lame. B-O-R-I-N-G.
The judge was visually emotional when the verdict was read at the 1st trial. I took that she was disappointed in the verdict, that maybe she wanted them to vote DP. This is just my opinion and I doubt she would giver LWP. Again, my opinion.
How though? It is disappointing to see this happening but I don't see any other way to fix it without taking away the rights of the defendant. No matter what, a defendant deserves the right to tell their side of the story and the defense attorney is there to defend that story. If this is Jodi's story than this is Jodi's story and it's up to her attorney to present it the way she would if she was an attorney. Same with CA. Her story was her story. I'm sure there's no doubt in dad's mind what's actually going on here, though...
Do they go above and beyond sometimes? Yes. But they don't really have much to lose at this point. We can say, this is gross, he's gonna lose this jury, but they know all they need is one, just one, thinking hey...what if? All they care about is saving her life and at this point I think they think it's just a necessary evil.
It would be nice if this wasn't allowed. Its hard to hear. But I wish I could think of a way to curb this kind of thing without limiting a defendant's right to tell their side of the story.
Now, it does sound like your sister's DT KCL went pretty above and beyond the victim bashing and trying to convince the jury what? she deserved to die because she was promiscuous? I don't see what story they could have been defending there. Sometimes I wonder how they can think that's a smart plan of attack. You're trying to save your client and all you end up doing is making the jury hate them more. That's just awful. I do think defense attorneys take advantage of their wide leeway sometimes. I don't think I could sleep at night knowing I helped or could help put a killer back on the streets through obfuscation and misleading. And there are probably defense attorneys out there who won't do it.
I think Wilmott interviewed a juvenile in CA about this case. Could it be Darrell B's son who will say JA gave them a DVD player and remote? She said she had to go back to Darrell's place because she had inadvertently taken a remote from Darrell's house? Gosh, I hope!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If someone had noticed at that time--the same could be said for each one of us--but if someone had held her and told her that education and self-respect mattered more than boys...
What does this line of questioning have to do with the convicted murderer being remorseful?
This line of questioning sounds more like revenge. The convicted murderer wants to go after and humiliate those that testified against her.
If I was sitting on the jury I would be thinking wait hasn't she already been found guilty? I would also be thinking her attorney must be a just like the convicted murderer.
I think the only thing Nurmi can hope for is by smearing Travis, some of the jury will dislike him and fail to vote DP. I believe his tactics are despicable, and I can't imagine he even affirms his defense. But, truly, what else does he have? His strategy could backfire, yes, and I hope it does.
The 'how' is what we must obtain.
It has become way too one sided in our criminal justice system. Now of course most all defendant and attorneys do not take it to this level of victim bashing/blaming but it does happen and it is happening more and more but not to this degree.
There has to be some middle ground. The DT can bring in things that can be substantiated but to pull false allegations out of thin air knowing that this defendant is a total pathological liar makes it even more egregious.
Just like KN and the penis photo. Not one thing was ever substantiated to prove it belonged to Travis and if it was sent from Travis from his phone or computer it would have still been there even if he tried to delete it. They found nothing yet they let this lie in as if it has been vetted. Knowing Arias and how she likes to take snapshots of men in the nude even without their permission it could belong to anyone. But yet it is entered as if it has been factually tested to be true.
And all the made up crap about Travis looking at a 12 year old having a climax on a video also had no verification that it ever happened and imo it didn't happen but yet the jury is left thinking if the defense attorney is allowed to bring it up then it must have been verified when that is not true.
It is a sad day when defense cases are based solely on the lies the defendant has told.
I want the defendant to get a fair trial but I also want the state to get a fair trial and having to contend with lies made up out thin air is not only repulsive but flat out reprehensible. I don't have the answer but something needs to change.
As Katie said the Judge shut the defense down when they tried to disparage her sister. If another Judge can limit the slurs and victim bashing so could any other Judge. I have seen them do it in other cases.
But this one is like a runaway train and there is no boundary as to how much victim blaming can come in. If KN and Arias can think of it .........it comes in like toxic waste even though everyone knows Arias has told a gazillion lies.
IMO
I would hope that she'd give a great deal of weight to the majority opinion. For instance, if 8 jurors voted for the death last time and 9 this time, that would be 17 out of 24.
Perhaps AZLawyer can let us know if this would be a factor?
If CMJA’s story is evidence but the story has changed with the help of her defense team, how is this not an ethics violation? Is this why Nurmi repeatedly asks to withdraw from the case? Please forgive my ignorance--I am truly trying to understand how and why Nurmi is allowed to present fraudulent evidence.
http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ViewRule?id=26
Per the State Bar of Arizona, Rules of Professional Conduct --Client-Lawyer Relationship, Disclosure Adverse to Client:
[8] Paragraph (c) permits the lawyer to reveal the intention of the lawyer's client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime. Paragraph (c) does not require the lawyer to reveal the intention of a client to commit wrongful conduct, but the lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. See ER 1.2(d); see also ER 1.16 with respect to the lawyer's obligation or right to withdraw from the representation from the client in such circumstances. Where the client is an organization, the lawyer may be in doubt whether contemplated conduct will actually be carried out by the organization. Where necessary to guide conduct, in connection with this Rule, the lawyer may make inquiry within the organization as indicated in ER 1.13(b).
Definition of fraud
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.