weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #154

[leebee52]

i think he's as nuts as JA is, myself. i rank his credibility very close to hers.

I agree. Seems like a wanna be celebrity to me.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Exactly. This whole Juan the wonder prosecutor sentiment I really can't understand. They wouldn't have charged this case (or any of his other cases) unless they thought they definitely would win. They rarely, if ever, do. Here, the State has dna, other physical evidence and photographs at the scene; days of videotaped police questioning of the defendant who chose not to lawyer up and to lie her face off; the dateline interview with more of the same. Really, the only thing that Juan could do here would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And I'm not saying that to slam Juan. Even though I really don't like him, what I'm saying in this post has nothing to do with that. It would be true, imo, for any prosecutor trying this case.

Check back in the thread. Another poster brilliantly outlined how JM was able to deal with obfuscating, uncooperative witnesses (not to mention a lying psychopath), and still get in the testimony he needed to. Remember that the jury did not have all of the facts prior to trial, so despite constant attempts by the DT witnesses to bury the facts in meaningless diatribe JM was able to get at the truth. Not a skill that all prosecuting attorney's have, but one he is obviously masterful at.

 

[BetsyB]

Agree with everything you said, except for the defense doing a good job.
If doing a good job is assisting your client in lying and trashing a dead man, then they have done a heck of a job. I just hope they don't sleep at night after doing their "good" job. They would make more money just being a hit man for the mob. Same amount of respect from the public.

I agree; their approach is deplorable. It is incredibly difficult to hear the self-defense argument, with its concomitant trashing of Travis Alexander.

It's wrong, and it's awful.

BUT--there can be NO argument made that Jodi Arias was not rigorously defended.

And THAT is my only criterion for "good defense." That she can't weasel out of a conviction based on trial error.

She's gotten a good defense.

But I agree, it's been heart-wrenching, and the family has been traumatized yet again, watching their slain brother essentially brutalized all over again.

Please don't misunderstand; I HATE what they are doing. I especially hate the self-defense angle. I have a malignant narcissist/sociopath father, a sociopath/psychopath nephew, and an almost ex-husband with a mixed personality disorder (which, really, they often are) with STRONG antisocial tendencies. One thing (among many) they all have in common is that NOT ONE OF THEM would accept any defense that even hinted at mental illness. They, too, would insist on self-defense.

I am quite certain that the defendant insisted, as well. Because no lawyer in his/her right mind would attempt to swim up Niagara falls when they could stay on the backyard slip 'n' slide.

I'm glad the rigorous defense leaves no room for the murderess to slither through a legal loophole. But when I say "good defense," I DON'T mean that it sits well with me. I think it's despicable. I think they've bought their own tickets to hell with this one, actually.

But Arias won't have another free moment in her life----and that, given that we can't undo her heinous acts, is about all we can hope for at this point.

I'm sorry I didn't clarify my meaning. I don't think they're good. I don't think their approach is good. I don't think anything about this situation is good, other than that (a) Juan Martinez is prosecuting, and doing an astounding job, and (b) Arias is getting a strong enough defense that she will never be able to claim incompetent counsel.

 

[SyraKelly]

You want to what is going to be an interesting/best part of this trail,besides her being found guilty.
The victims impact statements & when the judge askes her if she has anything to say before she sentence her?

 

[leebee52]

Strongly disagree regarding the Casey Anthony case- her charges weren't brought due to public or political pressure. The evidence was there- the jury was too stupid to see it.

I thought the CA jury was trying to ride on the coattails of the OJ jury.

 

[SunDawnn]

do you have a reference link for this info? thanks.

We learn Arias`s grandparents` house under secret police surveillance, cops watching Arias pack and load boxes to flee. Packed, two knives and a secret .9-millimeter gun, hidden so well only found when her rental car was finally serviced.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/22/ng.01.html

 

[Karmady]

Strongly disagree regarding the Casey Anthony case- her charges weren't brought due to public or political pressure. The evidence was there- the jury was too stupid to see it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the Casey Anthony case as one form of anomaly and cases that are brought for public pressure/political reasons as another form.

 

[nursebeeme]

Please understand in the real world the tests mean zero, absolutely nothing. All they are are basic guide lines and a great source of verbal volleyball and to waste countless time in court with. No two people testing a single person will agree on anything and the person being tested will be all over the place esp. if they have a brain disorder.

and esp if they lie on the test :wink:

 

[GoAskAllie]

You think it would take more than 12 hours to do an in depth analysis? Are you kidding? The tests are empirically validated and certainly not worthless, it doesn't make sense to say that. She's efficient and doesn't waste time and that's a good thing. Seems an odd expert to have a problem with given what we've seen from the impeached witness for the defense.

I seem to recall Dr. DeMarte saying under direct examination that the time she spent administering the various psychological tests were NOT included in the 12 hours of clinical interviews with Jodi.

 

[leebee52]

Check back in the thread. Another poster brilliantly outlined how JM was able to deal with obfuscating, uncooperative witnesses (not to mention a lying psychopath), and still get in the testimony he needed to. Remember that the jury did not have all of the facts prior to trial, so despite constant attempts by the DT witnesses to bury the facts in meaningless diatribe JM was able to get at the truth. Not a skill that all prosecuting attorney's have, but one he is obviously masterful at.

I've said that several times too. I find JM to be consistently insistent if there is such a thing. The poor man can barely get any words out of his mouth before we hear that dreadful OBJECTION MAY WE APPROACH?! I give him mucho kudos for having been able to keep any kind of cohesion going despite all of that JW nonsense.

 

[kaRN]

Bravo! Standing "O" for you! :drumroll:

I admit I watch HLN After Dark. (And yes, I realize they make many mistakes on that show.) But, the "Bold Accusation" the other night was that "Jodi is a threat to society". This is the show where the only 2 MALE jurors voted "Not Guilty". (Imagine that. And we have a real jury heavily loaded with males. :doh

Anyway, Vinnie's "Smoking Gun" that night was the 9mm found hidden in Jodi's latest rental car and the two knives in the box of her books. I had already known this info, but I felt an "OMG moment" come over me to how VERY serious this was when put in the context of her being a threat to society.

Here's a woman who's about to flee to avoid being captured for Travis' horrendous murder, yet she's already armed herself with the tools to do it again.

A "Threat to Society"? Ya think??? :gasp:

Did they show these male jurors on HLN, TA's more gory autopsy photos? :facepalm: Per KCL our male jurors don't make eye contact with JA at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

Strongly disagree regarding the Casey Anthony case- her charges weren't brought due to public or political pressure. The evidence was there- the jury was too stupid to see it.

The Pinellas County 12 'de-edified' juries for decades to come.

 

[sammijo]

I really think if she could kill Juan, she would. That is how psycho she is. She has put all her anger of being locked up, all that anger and hatred, into Juan. She has taken it from Travis and put it onto Juan now. You can definately see it in her tense jaw, in her expressions, and in the way she sometimes looks over at him to see when he's writing something down.

Then, on the other hand, with her "protector" Wilmott she is exactly opposite - making sweet faces, looking lovingly at her, sharing jokes with her, being her "assistant lawyer." I really feel as though she feels like Wilmott is her mom. Psycho, that's all I can say.

I completely agree. I've always felt she hates Mr. M because he is doing exactly what Travis threatened to do, expose her for what she really is.

Not only that, but now the whole world knows. Travis was only threatening to expose her to their inner circles, family and friends. Imagine how much more she hates Mr. M.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

If Jodi had PPL insurance, she would have called the hot line. No doubt, they would have told her not to answer any questions waiving her right to an attorney. Even if she could not afford an attorney, if Jodi had asked for one, the investigator would have immediately stopped engaging with her.

Very strange to me she hadn't absorbed more sub-basic legal info by hanging out with that crowd through osmosis if nothing else. I understand Travis was just an insurance salesman, but one of the selling points is not to risk saying the wrong thing but get immediate legal direction.

I think it was just JA being the narcissist that she is. After all, she did think she was Einstein enough to defend herself in a DP case :lol:.

 

[Karmady]

Check back in the thread. Another poster brilliantly outlined how JM was able to deal with obfuscating, uncooperative witnesses (not to mention a lying psychopath), and still get in the testimony he needed to. Remember that the jury did not have all of the facts prior to trial, so despite constant attempts by the DT witnesses to bury the facts in meaningless diatribe JM was able to get at the truth. Not a skill that all prosecuting attorney's have, but one he is obviously masterful at.

We'll have to agree to disagree on it. I've watched him with my own eyes, including in person, and masterful is not a word I would ever choose to describe his presentation of the State's case. But that's jmo. I understand very clearly that many posters strongly disagree.

 

[katiecoolady]

FYI just a peek in to what really goes on with death row inmates and their celebrity status..just ran in to this dialogue I had w a Canadian website that hosts "singles ads" for death row inmates. The man who slit my sisters throat had a photo of himself on there holding her dog at one point. He was released from death row in 2009 for "mental retardation" yet they still held him up there as one of their poster children for years...he may still be listed as far as I know. Take a look at this exchange...oh and they banned me for holding their feet to the fire calling it "mean" :
http://ccadp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=victims&action=display&thread=7586

 

[FrayedKnot]

I got confused by this expression, because I thought it meant it was a hard thing to do, DH just explained it meant an easy thing to do.:blushing:
JM just is that good. He convicted both the guy who killed his wife and claimed he was sleepwalking when he did it, and another woman in AZ who killed her husband, who wasn't dying of cancer fast enough for her (Wendy Andriano). She is on Death Row.

Thanks for that, LinasK!

He seems to have a huge fan base, so I suspected there was a solid record behind him.

That said, I would imagine this case is cake walk for him! :drumroll:

I defer to the legal eagles here at WS that the DT is doing a decent job, considering the mess they have to defend. But I swear they appear so inept and disorganized. Again, I know this case is a nightmare for a defense attorney, but jeez........:facepalm:

 

[YESorNO]

The question is not whether he thinks his client his guilty, but rather, whether JA is still maintaining her innocence. The ABA rules forbid the lawyer from offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If perjury has already occurred, the lawyer “shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal” even though the lawyer learned of the perjury from a confidential communication.

So, it would be almost impossible at this point for Nurmi to be removed from representing her, unless she actually told Nurmi that she lied during her testimony. The fact that Nurmi believes she is guilty would not be enough. My guess is that both he, and Wilmott, do not believe she is innocent, but their job at this point is to vigorously defend her to mitigate her sentence.

BBM a lot of baloney, if you ask me. I will never, never understand how they could defend her if they think she is guilty. Just criminal in my mind- so I'm cray-cray. :twocents:

 

[Truth Detector]

I think I see where she may have thought she was going with this question.

You can get information from a dead person. That's what forensic pathologists do. However, in regards to determining what someone felt, thought, or meant when they wrote something after they are dead, is impossible. You always have to rely on someone else's interpretation of what they think the deceased person meant.

Rather stupidly, I think, Jenny got so excited at the prospect of a "gotcha!" moment, that she forgot just WTH she was talking about.

Just MHOO.

I was hoping that Dr. DeMarte would have answered more explicitly.

"The reason that I couldn't interview and follow up with Mr. Alexander is that by the time I got this case your client had already brutally torture-murdered the victim."

Objection?

Oh, so sorry.

The jury is instructed to disregard...

 

[Dark Inertia]

I thought I read somewhere that Nurmi tried to get off the case but the judge ordered him to stay on it.