Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[Kensie]

This retrial is getting harder and harder to follow with all this killer defense.

It is beyond comprehension that some people believe that she was abused by Travis.

 

[Ranchgirl]

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]

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

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.

 

[Teresa]

I agree with you completely! Casey Anthony did this too and it's just wrong. The victim can't do this and the defense shouldn't either. No evidence, no use.

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

 

[MeeBee]

For instance, imagine someone is up for the death penalty and they are innocent. But they are limited in defending themselves by a law that says they have to prove what they're saying. Where would that line between what is and isn't evidence be drawn? That would be disasterous and sad. A defendant needs a fighting chance. That's the best way I can't put it.

 

[janx]

View attachment 62422


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

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...

 

[rose222]

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.

Thanks for that video link, MeeBee. God alone knows the kind and extent of suffering victims' families go through. How cruel that they not only have to mourn the loss of their loved ones but also have to deal with legal issues and being in the same room as the murderers. If you also add in the character assassinations then it's almost too much for humans to bear. I am touched by Kim's letter. It warms my heart that Travis' loved ones do not walk alone on their wearisome journey towards justice.

 

[bznbear]

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.

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.

 

[cindymac]

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.

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?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

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

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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

No, Daryl 's son was is six years old at the time.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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...

She's wearing braids in a picture of her and vampire Bobby. I think she's wearing a superman t shirt too. She looks to be about 16 years old. and stoned

 

[bznbear]

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 was thinking the same thing. In no way does this sound like JA is remorseful; vindictive, vile, yes.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

Oh I think he is quite proud of himself. The more vulgar he gets the better he likes it.

He could do a lot of things differently. Dwell on making BPD into a mental illness.

But what does he do? He tries is very best to classify Travis as deserving of being slaughtered.

He even rearranges what all was said in the first trial and now says Arias shot Travis first while he was in the shower. Where did that come from for it sure isn't based on the evidence or even his client's lies during the guilt phase.

There is an ethical way to question someone and show decency and respect toward the witnesses. Some of the best crossexaminers I have seen are defense attorneys and they never get down and dirty with any of the witnesses and treat them like they are on a boat full of sailors. But they have the ability to remain respectful at all times yet succeed in getting what they want out of each witness.

He doesn't have to get down in the gutter and ask the witness hypothetical filthy repulsive things that don't even exist.

He is much more vulgar and offensive than the sex tape between Travis and JA and he is liking every minute of it, imo.

 

[Foghorn]

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.

 

[katiecoolady]

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

Thank you...again! What ARE the limits we as a people deem appropriate and necessary? If a proven pathological liar says their victim was a pedophile, a serial killer, a donkey rapist, a clown wearing Satan worshipper who killed little babies and drank their blood...is this all allowed just because they want to say it? Completely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated simply to inflame a jury to think this person deserved to be murdered? Is it ok for Marc Klass to endure his daughter's killer yell profane comments across a courtroom at him about his precious daughter? How about if he was allowed to sit in a witness stand and testify that POlly Klaas initated the sex and begged for it and liked it therefore was self involved in her rape? Is this ok for us to condone as a culture? Just where ARE the limits? It's gotten out of hand and likeyouobe, I think it's gone on too long too far.

 

[katiecoolady]

May I also add that for decades it was deemed appropriate to disallow all witnesses to remain inside the courtroom prior to testimony, including family members. So crafty defense attorneys BECAUSE THEY COULD get away with it, would put victim's families on the witness list, intentionally, having zero intention to really call them but to prohibit them from entering the courtroom and watching the proceedings and allow the jury to see them for the duration of the trial. This was ONLY changed in the Victims Bill of Rights right before we went to trial in 1990. It was a perfectly acceptable practice until someone spoke up, then it wasn't and isn't.

I will add that although it was completely legal for me to sit in that courtroom thru our trials even though I was recalled several times, it was still appealed on for their death penalty appeals. Meaning money was spent on the appeal, lawyers were present, a judge heard arguments and possibly the murderer was there. To appeal on me being present in the courtroom between testimony which was entirely legal and of course shot down.

This is what I'm hoping to do now and appreciate the discussion. We don't have to accept things as they are and agree that the levels things have to drop is a fair defense. Because it's not. Fair.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

No, I don't think JSS would consider the jury's votes in deciding between LWP and LWOP. For one thing, she wouldn't know the vote. For another thing, the choice between death and life is totally different from the choice of LWP or LWOP.

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.

If the defense team came up with a changed story, that would indeed be an ethics violation. If JA changed her story and the defense is simply presenting it, that would not be an ethics violation.

 

[Spycraft]

This is a very spirited and appropriate discussion, one I'm glad to see happen.

Like many others I have had my fair share of *****ing loudly and often to anything or anyone who would listen or read my words about the slime campaign this defense has used from the beginning. I spoke to a relative, a lawyer, who shared my outrage. But like lawyers on forums I was using at the time, he echoed the legalese that did nothing to calm me, in fact only fueling my anger. I understand there are laws, that even wretched defendants have rights but where do ethics play into the legal system when the laws are so distorted and misdirected to allow baseless and filthy accusations?

As a crime victim I have felt dirtied and ashamed by my attacker. Then the verbal and written assault so reprehensible that the defense tactics worked and I begged, begged with everything I had to have the charges against him dropped out of fear, shame, and even guilt! At the time I was alone, I had family members disbelieve my account even as they visited me in the hospital, and the pain and grief was just too great to bear with the weight of what my attacker and his defense were waging. My silence crippled me and will be the single greatest regret of my life.

Allowing defense attorneys to engage in the kind of disgusting war that Nurmi and company have waged under the guise of everything is fair game because of a defendant's rights has to be seen as a grave miscarriage of justice and a morally corrupt misuse of the law. I have to believe this can change. It must.

 

[MeeBee]

There's a misconception that these laws are in place to protect the defendant and give them every chance to get off for their crimes, no matter what. I don't think that's true. They are there to protect potentially innocent defendants from unfair prosecution. It's not that they don't care about the victims, but the defendant is the one who's life is on the line in a trial and our government wants to make sure they do everything in their power to be fair to them.

There's also a misconception that injustices only affect victims of crime. That's not true either. There have been unethical prosecutors who mount a case, even seeking the death penalty, against people they know are innocent but do it anyways. Harry Connick Sr. was one such prosecuter, whose sole goal was to get as many men death in the chair, as he could, guilty or not. Many of those men were exonerated later on. There have also been innocent men executed who the state knew was innocent, though. That should not happen.

And there are defense attorneys do take advantage of the leeway they are given, like I said before. I also think that things said about the victim should be relevant to a defense. For instance, going back to Kim Goldman's article, she talks about the mud thrown against her brother by OJ's defense attorneys. I don't really know how what they said about him and what bringing about negative things about him had to do with OJ's defense, at all, especially because OJ was claiming full innocence. What did Ron Goldman's flaws have to do with anything? Idk, maybe it's more apparent if you actually watched the trial. But I don't get it from over here.

That's the last thing I'll say about it since I myself am not a victim of crime and mean no offense to those who are and am entirely sympathetic to all of you. It's just I've thought about this and have been thinking about it. I'm just trying not to operate from a purely emotional standpoint on this one.

*please excuse any typos. Too lazy to correct them right now lol.