Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 6 - Part 3

[Mrs G Norris]

I think so too, Molly. AZlawyer has pointed out more than once that a defendant (even a convicted murderer) cannot by law simply testify in private because she's afraid of a reaction from the public. The only exception I can think of (and I hope AZlawyer will correct me if I'm wrong) would be some kind of testimony that is so horrific to a member of the public--including her family--that it somehow required private testimony.

Oh I am sure Jodi has made some kind of argument via her lawyer that she couldn't explain the level of sheer torture she suffered as a child at the hands of her parents because her mother and media were sitting right there and the shame, the horror, the PTSD were just too much to bear, etc etc etc *cue tears .. At the hope of maintaining some kind of connection with at least some of her family in future, which she will need now that she will at the very least serve a lengthy prison sentence *cue more tears, it is crucial that she testify without them present, and this should explain TO EVERYBODY why she couldn't 'got there' in the first trial.

Yep, good luck with that.

 

[rose222]

"Dear Arias Family,

Please accept our sincere apology for the cruel and persistent abuse (physical, psychological, and sexual)) Travis put Jodi through; by sharing with her his thoughts and philosophies about living a truly good, useful, and spiritually rewarding life, and as part of that, introducing her to the religion he felt had helped save his life; by introducing her to dear friends who were, at least initially, willing and eager to accept her with open arms; by continuing to give her the benefit of doubt long after she in any way deserved it; by accompanying her on the road trips she so enjoyed; by helping her start what might have been a profitable business for her (or which could at the very least have given her the opportunity to expand her social circle); by refraining from reporting her various acts of stalking behavior, vandalism, manipulation, and intimidation (of him as well as his friends); by encouraging her, flattering her, loving her; by trying to help her feel good about herself (in the complete absence of any such efforts on the part of, well, you guys, her "family"); by by offering her the warmth and security of his embrace as well as his bed; by helping her financially by paying her to do housework and (after that mean ol' bank repossessed her Infinity -- which, by the way, she had no business driving and should never been sold to her in the first place, given her perpetually precarious financial situation); by attempting to sell her his safe and reliable car on extremely easy terms (and even trying to work out a fair arrangement after she and she alone destroyed the car before she was anywhere close to paying it off); and, last but by no means least (considering her track record), by modeling for her the basics of responsible dog care."

(PS: Aunt Sue -- I'd be happy to help you with orthography and syntax, should you ever desire to improve your writing skills. We could also go over some simple online research skills, should you ever decide to make your writing more fact-based.)

Wow. How I wish Juan could read this and use some of it in his closing statements. There is so much the jury doesn't know about Travis.

 

[AZlawyer]

Oops, I was tring to reply on tapatalk (it's confusing)

Originsl post by AZL;
The judge is required to give her reasons, but apparently doesn't plan to do so.

Radar: Will the Judge be held in contempt? Lol.. Although this sounds funny typing it, in my non-lawyered brain this should be allowed.

No.

She doesn't even have to give a reason to the appeal court?

tia

I believe she said she would release not only her reasoning but the transcript of the secret conference to the AZ Court of Appeals.

She kept talking about how she had to prepare for her settlement conference, but I don't see that happening at this point. Wishful thinking on her part??

Yeah, probably at this point.

I think so too, Molly. AZlawyer has pointed out more than once that a defendant (even a convicted murderer) cannot by law simply testify in private because she's afraid of a reaction from the public. The only exception I can think of (and I hope AZlawyer will correct me if I'm wrong) would be some kind of testimony that is so horrific to a member of the public--including her family--that it somehow required private testimony.

Even horrific testimony would be done in public, unless it involved a child.

 

[Colie]

I think a couple have reported it but not sure anyone used the word "indeed." Basically, it is believed by media that it is Jodi testifying but none have said they're 100% positive (at least not that I have seen).

Except Troy Hayden indeed

 

[Renee110]

AZL did you see this? http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...di-Arias-Day-6-Part-3&p=11159798#post11159798

Post 552

 

[Love Never Fails]

AZlawyer,I am reading really fast here trying to catch up from this afternoon. Did you say the AZ court of Appeals will not hear this case until November 25th? That's three weeks!

lf so, is it possible JSS will just close the court for the duration of the trial?

If she does, she may be sicker than Jodi. JMO

 

[janx]

The media blackout is puzzling, to say the least. Since the Local/On Scene Press seems to believe the witness was JA: What could have compelled the Judge to keep her testimony under wraps? (In advance, my apologies for not quoting the many comments within this thread that attempt to tackle this very question.)

My theory? JA is spewing dirt on her parents. It’s obvious KN is going for family abuse … It’s now one of the mitigating factors, even though – during her post-conviction interview (w/ Troy Hayden) – JA said she didn’t HAVE mitigating factors because her mother didn’t beat her hard enough (or words to that effect). Her folks have a business/restaurant in the small town/city of Yreka. The argument could be made that JA’s testimony would unduly affect her parent’s ability to make a living; invite ‘death threats’ … could it not? Not sure if protecting her parents is reason enough, but … ?

I also believe that IF the witness was JA, KN vehemently advised against it. 1) I doubt he has a witness who can, without prejudice, claim JA was abused; and, 2) IMO, he knows his witness is a liar. But given JA’s own “genius” legal game, the DT feels compelled to make motions covering JA’s *advertiser censored*. That’s the DT’s job.

If the witness WAS JA, I could see her requesting her time in the witness box immediately AFTER the Alexander’s gave their VIS. Just more of her, “I’m a victim, TOOOOooooo.”

Prosecutor JM has shown 1) JA lies to cover her butt; 2) JA felt no remorse post-murder; 3) JA lies under oath. IMO, that last factor is the reason why JM went into the “gas can return” issue … and why, at that point, KN got heated (slamming down files) when trying to discount this vital bit of information.

Jodi. Lies. Under. Oath.

Juan proved it. Whether cloaked in secrecy or in the open, JA is a freaking liar who, apparently, BELIEVES her own “fog.”

Let ‘er yap. Sealed or unsealed, the jury will hear it.

Agreed. JA is going for more abuse by her parents, as suggested by Nurmi's hyperbole during opening statements. Somehow being slapped or pushed into furniture is morphed into being choked into unconsciousness. (Why does this woman seem to reference passing out so much?) Whether or not she details this solo on the stand is anyone's guess. There may be a mitigation witness involved, but I have to doubt it a bit now...if the schedule was so important on Thursday, where does that put the important witness now?

 

[Renee110]

She said the court date is Nov 25th unless they hear it sooner because news lawyers filed for expediency hearing or whatever it's called. So possible it will be heard tomorrow. But go look at my post above yours. Beth Karas tweeted it.

 

[rose222]

I cannot wait for Demarte to take the stand. The combination of Demarte and Juan is electric...enough to make Jodi squirm in her chair. 'The simple answer is Jodi poses a clear and present danger to society and should be put to death by lethal injection.' :what:

 

[Tuba]

It was worthwhile to re-read the defendant's letter to Judge Stephens. Unpleasant, but worthwhile. She relates Nurmi's condemnation of her tantrum and describes herself thus: "I could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thoughts beyond the horrors of exposing Travis & myself." I read that & I realize she's being charitable toward herself in the way she paints it. So we can inflate what occurred by probably 25-30%. It rests in my memory with her fist through walls, smashing doors, swinging the bat, kicking the dog and, utmost in what we have seen exposed, her slaughter of Travis. Whatever else surfaces regarding the mysteries of Thursday and Friday, I do believe Judge Stephens has witnessed an individual out of control, certainly in what she threatens but likely in behavioral 'cameos' as well.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Agreed. JA is going for more abuse by her parents, as suggested by Nurmi's hyperbole during opening statements. Somehow being slapped or pushed into furniture is morphed into being choked into unconsciousness. (Why does this woman seem to reference passing out so much?) Whether or not she details this solo on the stand is anyone's guess. There may be a mitigation witness involved, but I have to doubt it a bit now...if the schedule was so important on Thursday, where does that put the important witness now?

I hope Juan asks for a reenactment .. just so we can watch her flapping about with her hands around her own throat like a fish in it's final death throws. Looking forward to these exaggerated tales of abuse, very much.

 

[Love Never Fails]

She said the court date is Nov 25th unless they hear it sooner because news lawyers filed for expediency hearing or whatever it's called. So possible it will be heard tomorrow. But go look at my post above yours. Beth Karas tweeted it.

Renee, your post just goes to another page. Which post do you want me to read? Thanks.

 

[Renee110]

It was worthwhile to re-read the defendant's letter to Judge Stephens. Unpleasant, but worthwhile. She relates Nurmi's condemnation of her tantrum and describes herself thus: "I could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thoughts beyond the horrors of exposing Travis & myself." I read that & I realize she's being charitable toward herself in the way she paints it. So we can inflate what occurred by probably 25-30%. It rests in my memory with her fist through walls, smashing doors, swinging the bat, kicking the dog and, utmost in what we have seen exposed, her slaughter of Travis. Whatever else surfaces regarding the mysteries of Thursday and Friday, I do believe Judge Stephens has witnessed an individual out of control, certainly in what she threatens but likely in behavioral 'cameos" as well.

I have no trouble believing she couldn't reasoned with or form rational thought.

Sounds about right to me!

 

[janx]

This is a pretty good read. Notice the people involved.




https://azatty.wordpress.com/category/judge-2/

New territory, no doubt.

 

[Renee110]

Post 552 on that page

 

[Madeleine74]

You know, she probably did have a childhood that involved some possibly violent behavior at home from the parents. It does happen and it's not an uncommon thing; unfortunately lots of parents don't have good coping skills or tools and yes, some kids are a real problem as well. There could have been some psychological abuse going on.

But here's the deal: none of that is a good reason or excuse or a pass to commit premeditated murder a decade or 2 later. So she can make whatever claims she wants and some of them might be true, but it doesn't excuse her from murdering Travis Alexander.

 

[Colie]

Agreed but what other experts could Jodi obtain?

 

[Colie]

I think a couple have reported it but not sure anyone used the word "indeed." Basically, it is believed by media that it is Jodi testifying but none have said they're 100% positive (at least not that I have seen).

Except Troy Hayden indeed

 

[ElleElle]

Okay. MAye I'm over analyzing. I do think Jodi was on the stand at some point but maybe it was only to lay foundation for whoever the real mystery witness is. It kinda makes sense for that to be the case

Another thought of the "secret witness", could be Donovan.

 

[Colie]

Agreed. JA is going for more abuse by her parents, as suggested by Nurmi's hyperbole during opening statements. Somehow being slapped or pushed into furniture is morphed into being choked into unconsciousness. (Why does this woman seem to reference passing out so much?) Whether or not she details this solo on the stand is anyone's guess. There may be a mitigation witness involved, but I have to doubt it a bit now...if the schedule was so important on Thursday, where does that put the important witness now?

When I was a young teen we played games where you passed out but more from hyperventilating
Just like truth or dare.