SIDEBAR #20- Arias/Alexander forum

[Hope4More]

Oh he's a media expert now huh? I think this is the only intelligent person Nurmz could get to do his shilling.

****CONTINUED UPDATE ON JODI ARIAS HEARING TODAY****

CNN's attorney, David Bodney, continues to argue before the Court (Judge Stephens) to have media coverage/live coverage in all of the hearings and her trial. They are presenting legal briefs for live coverage.

One of Mr. Bodney's arguments is in regards to the fact that Jodi Arias did media interviews herself.

Who can forget her numerous interviews she did.....after the guilty verdict....demanding makeup, her hair done, wearing a sweater and DEMANDING that they were not to show her below the waist because she had on jail stripes and chains? Yep, she sure was worried about the media then, wasn't she?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Joey-Jackson-Fans/485866588137167

Sorry to be so cynical, but really, imo the media's interest in having the show televised is purely about making money. I don't see any compelling public interest justification for televising a sequel to this horror show.

Yah, maybe it would be OK if no possible harm could come from televising this spectacle in the name of advertising revenue. For me making sure that NO avenue of legitimate appeal is opened up to this murderer trumps ad dollars and the interest of court followers in this case, myself included.

I think court proceedings for the possible retrial should be made available to the public as the retrial unfolds, but cameras to suit the media and the Thing's craving for fame? Nah.

 

[Hope4More]

Oh he's a media expert now huh? I think this is the only intelligent person Nurmz could get to do his shilling.

****CONTINUED UPDATE ON JODI ARIAS HEARING TODAY**



Who can forget her numerous interviews she did.....after the guilty verdict....demanding makeup, her hair done, wearing a sweater and DEMANDING that they were not to show her below the waist because she had on jail stripes and chains? Yep, she sure was worried about the media then, wasn't she?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Joey-Jackson-Fans/485866588137167

And shame on each media outlet for agreeing to those "demands."

 

[janx]

Good catch! I did not put that together until you mentioned it.

This guy is a forensic media specialist. His expertise has nothing to do with media coverage. He analyzes pictures, audio and the like. Absolutely nothing to do with media saturation, influence of media on general population.

Almost as good as the DT bringing in a neuropsychologist to testify as to whether a bullet to the brain would be incapacitating.

Like replacing Dr. Karp, a forensic psychologist, with ALV, a DV counselor.

OMG, both this guy and Nurmi will do anything. They are digging really deep. Hope that Bodner rips them apart.

Also hope that Stephens denies this motion.

Exactly!

 

[gcharlie]

Sorry to be so cynical, but really, imo the media's interest in having the show televised is purely about making money. I don't see any compelling public interest justification for televising a sequel to this horror show.

Yah, maybe it would be OK if no possible harm could come from televising this spectacle in the name of advertising revenue. For me making sure that NO avenue of legitimate appeal is opened up to this murderer trumps ad dollars and the interest of court followers in this case, myself included.

I think court proceedings for the possible retrial should be made available to the public as the retrial unfolds, but cameras to suit the media and the Thing's craving for fame? Nah.

I'll take the other side of this and say that I have relied on the live streamed coverage so that I witness the court proceedings in their entirety without editorializing by media outlets or relying on reports that may be selective in what is reported, reflecting a bias.

Once I started watching the stream, I made it a point to sit through everything, just as the jury had to do.

I have learned much about the judicial process and this particular case by watching the trial, including inevitable tedium. It is not a TV show, nor is it entertainment, at least not to me.

 

[aa9511]

Sorry to be so cynical, but really, imo the media's interest in having the show televised is purely about making money. I don't see any compelling public interest justification for televising a sequel to this horror show.

Yah, maybe it would be OK if no possible harm could come from televising this spectacle in the name of advertising revenue. For me making sure that NO avenue of legitimate appeal is opened up to this murderer trumps ad dollars and the interest of court followers in this case, myself included.

I think court proceedings for the possible retrial should be made available to the public as the retrial unfolds, but cameras to suit the media and the Thing's craving for fame? Nah.

I "hear" your point. Yes, in this specific case, I agree that the media's reasons are about money. And yes, it wouldn't hurt any of us if it wasn't televised. But I think that would set a dangerous precedent. Lawyers everywhere could start pushing for more and more secrecy, claiming too much "media attention." It's not worth it that just for this one case, our rights as a public get trampled on for years to come. The more secret things are, the more possibility for corruption. The other side of that is the more open proceedings are, the less chance for corruption in all aspects. We should never take for granted that the judicial system is always going to be fair just because there are judges, those judges are human and all the attorneys are human, and they have to follow the law for everything to be fair. We have a right to be a part of that process and to know what is going on. JMO.

 

[janx]

Sorry to be so cynical, but really, imo the media's interest in having the show televised is purely about making money. I don't see any compelling public interest justification for televising a sequel to this horror show.

Yah, maybe it would be OK if no possible harm could come from televising this spectacle in the name of advertising revenue. For me making sure that NO avenue of legitimate appeal is opened up to this murderer trumps ad dollars and the interest of court followers in this case, myself included.

I think court proceedings for the possible retrial should be made available to the public as the retrial unfolds, but cameras to suit the media and the Thing's craving for fame? Nah.

Sure it's about making money. Many people keep up with the trial by watching television. Like CG though, some of us don't. I watch it online on YouTube after it's over and have learned a lot by doing so.

I agree with your priorities, but I'm not sure how a camera in the courtroom would constitute the grounds for an appeal; it seems to me that the judge in this case has been very cautious about it.

 

[Nore]

I "hear" your point. Yes, in this specific case, I agree that the media's reasons are about money. And yes, it wouldn't hurt any of us if it wasn't televised. But I think that would set a dangerous precedent. Lawyers everywhere could start pushing for more and more secrecy, claiming too much "media attention." It's not worth it that just for this one case, our rights as a public get trampled on for years to come. The more secret things are, the more possibility for corruption. The other side of that is the more open proceedings are, the less chance for corruption in all aspects. We should never take for granted that the judicial system is always going to be fair just because there are judges, those judges are human and all the attorneys are human, and they have to follow the law for everything to be fair. We have a right to be a part of that process and to know what is going on. JMO.

------
But I want to see her squirm when the sentencing comes in!:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :drumroll:

 

[Zuri]

Sorry to be so cynical, but really, imo the media's interest in having the show televised is purely about making money. I don't see any compelling public interest justification for televising a sequel to this horror show.

Yah, maybe it would be OK if no possible harm could come from televising this spectacle in the name of advertising revenue. For me making sure that NO avenue of legitimate appeal is opened up to this murderer trumps ad dollars and the interest of court followers in this case, myself included.

I think court proceedings for the possible retrial should be made available to the public as the retrial unfolds, but cameras to suit the media and the Thing's craving for fame? Nah.

I think you make a very good point. :goodpost:
CMJA loves the camera and if she testifies again, she will be up there for 2 months, Arizona Court Time. There are a lot of Phoenix residents who have not followed this case despite what the Defense has alluded to. I hope this ends quickly, quietly and CMJA is never heard from again.

 

[aa9511]

------
But I want to see her squirm when the sentencing comes in!:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :drumroll:

LOL! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh: True, very true, we all do!

I have this feeling that JSS is gonna be pretty matter-of-fact during the sentencing. Like, here is what I'm charging you with, bye-bye.

 

[aa9511]

I think you make a very good point. :goodpost:
CMJA loves the camera and if she testifies again, she will be up there for 2 months, Arizona Court Time. There are a lot of Phoenix residents who have not followed this case despite what the Defense has alluded to. I hope this ends quickly, quietly and CMJA is never heard from again.

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Hope4More]

I'll take the other side of this and say that I have relied on the live streamed coverage so that I witness the court proceedings in their entirety without editorializing by media outlets or relying on reports that may be selective in what is reported, reflecting a bias.

Once I started watching the stream, I made it a point to sit through everything, just as the jury had to do.

I have learned much about the judicial process and this particular case by watching the trial, including inevitable tedium. It is not a TV show, nor is it entertainment, at least not to me.

I watched the entire trial, and like you, via live stream. The nonstop commercials on in session were beyond irritating. I learned a lot too. I'm glad the trial was televised and certainly didnt think of it as entertainment either. I don't think anyone posting here thought of it that the way.

The penalty retrial, which imo is fairly certain to happen, is different. Here's why, again IMO. In the first trial she was presumed innocent, and the outcome of guilty was never a given. Now she is fighting "only" against being sentenced to death. I read a great deal about the higher courts out there who will hear her inevitable appeals. From my reading, it seems that many of those judges are extremely receptive to novel challenges to the DP. I think Nurmi's entire strategy is to fashion appeals that would provide the higher courts reasons to widen their objection to the DP. Social media as grounds for an appeal and likewise, media saturation? You betcha. Its new, its untested, its ripe for interpretation. Bingo.

Better to err on the side of caution, it seems to me, and go for the most certain and irreversible DP as can be had.

 

[21merc7]

Just jumping in here quick. Having problems with the board and still getting positives on anti-virus and malwarebytes.....

Appeals are automatic. Unless a plea deal is in place that she agrees to, in order to drop appellate rights.

Yes, the State will have to pay for them. They will not be successful, they will just be paper work that requires a couple of years.

She already admitted the murder. Any issues with the Judge's ruling are going to be very much a waste of time, but required in every death penalty case. I think Judge SS has handled everything quite well, and to tell all the truth, not many appeals ever make it. Unless an attorney or Judge openly says out loud that they compare the defendant to Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, or the DNA comes back later that more were involved. (They have hers at the crime scene and her admission of murder.) Pointless as it may be, expect it. And, don't bother to hold your breath for a couple of years. (At this point, nothing merits a reversal of the conviction.) ETA: Also know that whomever is assigned to do the appeal must bring up some legal issue, no matter how weak. Do not fret, it is their job, and the know it is fruitless, but they get paid for it. It all looks good on paper, but the lawyers know, the Judges know, and eventually the Justices know, that it is just part of the job. It will not be granted. It will be some minor something, but that is what is required. Never forget, she already admitted the murder and know, it is fruitless. Never forget the evidence.

Also, why would anyone watch the made for t.v. movie? It is offensive! Oh, I don't have cable. Guess it is normal, but the less you tune in the more these crappy movies stop. Digital world will know if you do watch, not kidding. Digital t.v.s, t.v. boxes, not being uber paranoid, just being honest.

 

[janx]

Just jumping in here quick. Having problems with the board and still getting positives on anti-virus and malwarebytes.....

Appeals are automatic. Unless a plea deal is in place that she agrees to, in order to drop appellate rights.

Yes, the State will have to pay for them. They will not be successful, they will just be paper work that requires a couple of years.

She already admitted the murder. Any issues with the Judge's ruling are going to be very much a waste of time, but required in every death penalty case. I think Judge SS has handled everything quite well, and to tell all the truth, not many appeals ever make it. Unless an attorney or Judge openly says out loud that they compare the defendant to Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, or the DNA comes back later that more were involved. (They have hers at the crime scene and her admission of murder.) Pointless as it may be, expect it. And, don't bother to hold your breath for a couple of years. (At this point, nothing merits a reversal of the conviction.)

Also, why would anyone watch the made for t.v. movie? It is offensive! Oh, I don't have cable. Guess it is normal, but the less you tune in the more these crappy movies stop. Digital world will know if you do watch, not kidding. Digital t.v.s, t.v. boxes, not being uber paranoid, just being honest.

I'll come back with something fun in a sec.

I don't have cable either. I can get news online, and I have Roku for documentaries, movies, etc.. I cannot deal with commercial television! :facepalm:

 

[gcharlie]

After today's court date, Neumeister can amend his CV to read All Purpose Expert Witness. :floorlaugh:

Wonder if Judge Stephens is tired of seeing his face? "Oh, you again. What expert hat are you wearing today?"

 

[Zuri]

When is JSS supposed to set a new penalty phase trial date?

 

[gcharlie]

When is JSS supposed to set a new penalty phase trial date?

ummm....when she feels like it?

No, as far as this non-lawyer person knows, there is no set schedule. As judge, she uses her judicial discretion to determine when both sides are ready for trial and all pre-trial issues have been properly addressed? This is my best guess.

She set another court date today, 11/1, for oral arguments. Logically that would mean either she considered that not enough time had been set aside for arguments already in front of the court and/or counsel indicated that more motions will be filed.

 

[YESorNO]

Video: FOX 10's Syleste Rodriguez talks to attorney Brian Foster about what's left to decide in the Jodi Arias trial and what might happen behind closed doors on Friday.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...-arias-back-in-court-hearing-closed-to-public

more ABC news:
CNN's attorney would not comment on what happened in the courtroom.
The judge was expected to rule on several motions at the hearing, which started at 8:30 a.m.:
- Whether or not the defense can access jurors' Twitter accounts.
- A potential change in venue for the sentencing phase.
- A defense request to sequester the jury during the sentencing phase.
- A request to limit media coverage of the sentencing phase.
- Motion to question potential jurors individually


http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...ens-set-a-start-date-for-the-sentencing-phase

-that's all I could find on Google right now. :stormingmad:

 

[21merc7]

After today's court date, Neumeister can amend his CV to read All Purpose Expert Witness. :floorlaugh:

Wonder if Judge Stephens is tired of seeing his face? "Oh, you again. What expert hat are you wearing today?"

Nurmi needs a new career. Whatever he is going through, he should not be assigned to Death Penalty cases. He can stick with traffic and simple drug possession. This was a no win case, however, they got a bit of a win on the no Death Penalty in the first go round. That is more than can be expected with the evidence, confession, and uncooperative client.

When is JSS supposed to set a new penalty phase trial date?

Don't know the next Court date, but nothing will be happening as far as a new penalty phase until some time after the new year. Courts are heavily booked (and all lawyers including Juan, lol), and this is expected to take more than a couple of days.

 

[holidayy]

Stepped out fo awhile,what happened today? Are they letting cameras in for retrial? Thanks

 

[gcharlie]

Video: FOX 10's Syleste Rodriguez talks to attorney Brian Foster about what's left to decide in the Jodi Arias trial and what might happen behind closed doors on Friday.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...-arias-back-in-court-hearing-closed-to-public

more ABC news:
CNN's attorney would not comment on what happened in the courtroom.
The judge was expected to rule on several motions at the hearing, which started at 8:30 a.m.:
- Whether or not the defense can access jurors' Twitter accounts.
- A potential change in venue for the sentencing phase.
- A defense request to sequester the jury during the sentencing phase.
- A request to limit media coverage of the sentencing phase.
- Motion to question potential jurors individually


http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...ens-set-a-start-date-for-the-sentencing-phase

-that's all I could find on Google right now. :stormingmad:

Thanks, YoN for this info.

I did not expect Judge Stevens to rule on anything today, so the ABC15 report surprised me. I expected that she would take time and refer to case law before making a decision.

But then again, what do I know? :floorlaugh: