VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 42

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you oceanblueeyes, so much for putting into words how I have been feeling about the Arias family. I have had empathy for them even though they have done some disturbing things throughout this circus (asking for money on-line is one example).

Despite all the horrific things they have learned about Arias, all the terrible accusations that she has made against them personally and watched the manipulation by her and her defense team throughout, Arias is their daughter, their flesh and blood.

As a parent myself, I have absolutely no idea what I would do or how I would react given the same circumstances. I would like to think that although I abhor the actions, I would still remember that it is my child, somehow.

I think Sandi protested the lies being told by JA in a silent way the day she wore the necklace saying #1 Mom. I am sure JA saw it and I hope the jurors did too.
 
Yum! Take away the pancakes. Add tomato gravy and home made biscuits to the eggs, hash browns, and bacon, and we have a winner! :loveyou:

Can you send tomato gravy recipe Sis?
 
Some tweets suggest some jurors look tired <---- would this be synonymous with disagreements? . . . :sigh:

Or just hard work going through all the crap the defense threw at the wall for months and months.
 
Some tweets suggest some jurors look tired <---- would this be synonymous with disagreements? . . . :sigh:

I think the fact that we don't have a verdict yet is probably a sign of disagreement.
 
I don't think you can ever have too much evidence (on the prosecution side) in a death penalty case. It would be different if it was the same thing being said over and over again (Ala T-Dogg). The guns and knives are to me, different and unique enough that they could have been introduced (assuming it was allowed of course).

ITA...I'm sure there was a good reason they were excluded.
 
Or just hard work going through all the crap the defense threw at the wall for months and months.

So true, even we were exhausted and couldn't make sense of all the carp.
 
Tweets:

Wild About Trial 2 &#8207;@WildaboutTrial2 · 9s9 seconds ago

3 female jurors return to room. #jodiarias
 
so i took a trip to the darkside (JAII) and i am seriously worried for these peoples mental health.

she admitted she killed him admitted it and got caught in her lies...god help anyone who comes in contact with these twits
 
Nore, that is what I have been doing all morning, but it is k2 p2, making hot pink bling fingerless mitts for my grand daughter! I am trying to get two pair done...I will knit faster!

OK all you knitters out there, stop slacking off, we need a verdict!
 
I think I would feel really weird knowing 20 twitterer's were tweeting my bathroom breaks... LOL
 
I don't think you can ever have too much evidence (on the prosecution side) in a death penalty case. It would be different if it was the same thing being said over and over again (Ala T-Dogg). The guns and knives are to me, different and unique enough that they could have been introduced (assuming it was allowed of course).

I actually think you can. The point in this case is that they have a guilty verdict with premeditation and felony murder. That makes her eligible for the DP. I think that The prosecution used everything they could that would work.
Now we wait and see what the jury has to say.
 
From Cathy:
Cathy &#8207;@courtchatter · 34s34 seconds ago

3 jurors now back in jury room. #jodiarias
 
Trial Queen Sharee &#8207;@TrialQnSharee 23s23 seconds ago
3 female jurors back in deliberation room #JodiArias
 
This part of our system drives me NUTS! I think there is a lot juries should know that they never do because of this rule. For instance the fact Jodi had multiple weapons in her car when she was arrested. This delicate flower had another gun and another knife in her car. I believe that is HUGELY relevant. The only reason Juan got to tell the jury that other people viewed her as a crazy nut job was because Nurmi opened the door with look it how much people love her. And truth is always prejudicial if you have done something wrong, that shouldn't exclude the truth from trial.

Relevant things are allowed in even if they are harmful to the defendant. The "prejudice" rule does not exclude relevant evidence. IMO if JM had wanted to argue that the weapons in the car showed a lack of PTSD and if Dr. DeMarte had agreed that this was true, he could have used that information. We don't know if he just didn't think of it (I know I have never thought this information was important--maybe JM didn't either), or DeMarte said, hmmm, IDK, if they are just kitchen knives in a box I don't think that's a big deal, or what. It's possible that he tried to use the information and it was excluded because the relevance ("probative value" in lawyer-speak) was pretty low compared to the potential prejudice, but if so, the prejudice would have been the risk that the jury would assume she was off to kill victim #2, not the risk that the jury would think she didn't have PTSD!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,144
Total visitors
2,223

Forum statistics

Threads
600,318
Messages
18,106,705
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top