Discussion of the Transcriptions of the Testimony of Jodi Arias

[Chelly]

Whenever JA gets her butt back on the stand, if she does. Or he can use bits of her prior testimony. Or he can just comment on it in closing.

Thank you. Let's say she decides not to retake the stand and continue her testimony, can Juan call her back to cross examine on her testimony thus far. Does he not have that right?

 

[believe09]

No they're trying to figure out how to distribute barf bags simultaneously with the PDFs.

I am way behind but this is the quote of the day.:yourock:

 

[G&AMom]

Can anybody explain why Wilmott keeps talking about the past in the present tense? This is when she's having Jodi talk about her "miserable" childhood.

"What happens next?" (Not "what happened next")
"What are you doing in 1998?" (Not "what were you doing")
"Where are you living now?" (And so on)

It's really weird. Maybe it didn't sound that odd when you heard it live, but it certainly does when you're reading it.

 

[Koshka]

Of course she found out Bobby was cheating because they left the computers at the library, dropped him off at a friends then went back to the library, to the computer and checked his email he hadn't logged out of. Yeah sure. She's been a hacker/stalker from way back

Yeah, that stuck out like a sore thumb to me too.

At my local library, those public computers are in continual use - if for some reason one is not used for more than 3 minutes, the computer automatically logs everything off.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

She meets Travis as the house she and Darryl is going too crap. If I was a juror I'd be thinking you met people that had money, like the one she said she had waited on for years, it was more than she'd ever had.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I pray that some of those jurors saw her testimony during the first trial and see how she was changed her stories and answers. In the first trial, did she remember being at... Here comes my fog.. The dam when she left the voicemail? She remembers every bit of that gory murder but she wanted to act like she didn't so she wouldn't get convicted.. well that backfired because they found her guilty. This will backfire too. Juan will pounce on this on closing. He will bring up her points of "being sorry" and show pics of Travis (forgive me) dead.. and what she did to him. There is no way anyone can be remorseful for that kind of murder.. Jodi Arias or not.

Before this is over they will know because Juan is going to tell them one way or the other whether she testifies further or not.

He has already hinted that her secret testimony was filled with more lies and contradictions.

Questions for AZlawyer please:

If she refuses to be cross examined then I know JSS will strike her testimony right?

But will Juan be able to bring that up during closing?

I have never heard of any case where a person testified on direct and then refused to be cross examined. Has that ever happened that you know of?

TIA

 

[Val1]

Can anybody explain why Wilmott keeps talking about the past in the present tense? This is when she's having Jodi talk about her "miserable" childhood.

"What happens next?" (Not "what happened next")
"What are you doing in 1998?" (Not "what were you doing")
"Where are you living now?" (And so on)

It's really weird. Maybe it didn't sound that odd when you heard it live, but it certainly does when you're reading it.

Iirc it's a common mistake liars make when telling stories, as in creating it as they go along instead of remembering it.

 

[kaRN]

Excuse my confusion here but If in fact JA was ever abused and did in fact kill in self defense, why is she so concerned about the horrible thing she did or how she would have done things differently if she weren't so stupid? I'm thinking if I have to kill you to save myself, I'm not going to be worrying about what I could have done differently. I did what I had to do. No fog required. No reasonable person will buy this carp IMO......and now onto page 7 LOL

 

[believe09]

How can she testify to things that other people allegedly did before she was even alive? :facepalm:

This was likely answered but it may have come from a pre sentencing report.

 

[Becky Sharp]

Can anybody explain why Wilmott keeps talking about the past in the present tense? This is when she's having Jodi talk about her "miserable" childhood.

"What happens next?" (Not "what happened next")
"What are you doing in 1998?" (Not "what were you doing")
"Where are you living now?" (And so on)

It's really weird. Maybe it didn't sound that odd when you heard it live, but it certainly does when you're reading it.

Maybe because speaking of her trials and tribulations in the present tense makes them more immediate and more emotionally intense? And thus still unresolved?? I dunno.

 

[krkrjx]

Whenever JA gets her butt back on the stand, if she does. Or he can use bits of her prior testimony. Or he can just comment on it in closing.

HMMMM...how extensively can Juan comment on it in closing?

 

[Nosey Parker]

Done reading. What a pathetic little Pity-Fest! Nothing really new, except Travis' childhood seems to have morphed into hers.

So all this was to out-do the Alexanders' impact statements? Another Big Fail Arias!

How many working court days did this 'secrecy' cost, and continues to cost, the judicial system?

I cannot for the life of me understand why JSS fell for this garbage. Her reason was apparently Arias' fragile mental state. I detect no fragility in that testimony, other than an obviously phoney will-o'-the-wisp whisper. What were you thinking judge??

I also cannot believe this was the defence's idea - she will be annihilated by Juan.

 

[RR0004]

So I have to ask...did many of you read all of the transcripts?? OMG, I couldn't make it through...they were so boring (at least what I read). Same 'ole, same 'ole.
Kudos to those who could get through it all.

 

[G&AMom]

Maybe because speaking of her trials and tribulations in the present tense makes them more immediate and more emotionally intense? And thus still unresolved?? I dunno.

That's what I'm wondering. It definitely seems like a tactic by Wilmott, I just can't figure out what it is.

 

[KPinMN]

These transcripts are revealing how clear it is that JW gets lost in the woods on lawyering type subjects. Page 79 of Oct 30 transcript has an objection on foundation. It was clear as day to me that JW needed to establish how/from who JA heard what happened when Carl and his posse went to see Bobbie, but JW is lost as to the reason it was sustained goes down the same path saying it's something different (which I'm lost as to what she wss referring to). Then they take a break during which the court (aka JSS) and JM have to explain it to her. It seems JW hasn't brushed up her lawyering skill between the verdict and now.

Side note: Please excuse if my post looks wonky, using Tapatalk from my phone for the first time

 

[bsk]

Before this is over they will know because Juan is going to tell them one way or the other whether she testifies further or not.

He has already hinted that her secret testimony was filled with more lies and contradictions.

Questions for AZlawyer please:

If she refuses to be cross examined then I know JSS will strike her testimony right?

But will Juan be able to bring that up during closing?

I have never heard of any case where a person testified on direct and then refused to be cross examined. Has that ever happened that you know of?

TIA

That got me to thinking. If she refuses to testify, they'll try to couch it in the most innocent terms possible to the jurors if anything is said at all. Then Juan gets up to call his first witness and says, "I call Jodi Ann Arias." lease:

Then after Lawrence moves faster than he has since the last time someone announced there was free food on the first floor to object, Juan can say, "Well she didn't agree to testify further in the defense's case. I will agree to limit my questions to crossing what she testified to."

 

[krkrjx]

I think the issue is that she SAYS she's sorry, but everything she says and does afterwards indicate she's not. As you point out, she says none of the things that you would expect to hear from someone who's remorseful.

Exactly! If she were truly remorseful she would accept responsibility for her actions instead of trying to blame her victim. Instead, she goes on blaming him even after claiming she wishes she would have done things differently.

IMO, Arias had a perfect opportunity during that secret testimony--or even in open court--to stand before the jury and plead remorse. Cry, sniffle, cough, get all choked up when trying to speak--even if it was all a big fat lie she should have at least tried to act the part, to say precisely what the jury wants to hear. Sure, the jurors would have seen right through her but maybe just one would have bought it. And that's all she needs...one juror. But no! this killer does not even try to act the part of a remorseful killer. She speaks of wishing things had gone differently. But she doesn't usually specify what things and on the rare occasion that she does, it's not the right thing. It could lead jurors to believe she wishes she had done a better job of cover up. I just can't believe what she and her DT are doing to her case in this phase when IMO there are simpler and better ways they could have gone about mitigation.

This is a time for brevity, Jodi--whenever one is not being honest it is usually to their benefit to be brief. I am speaking of your case, not just your testimony. Your mitigation witnesses so far have not done you any favors that I can see. There is such a thing as juror alienation.

 

[ShadyLady]

That got me to thinking. If she refuses to testify, they'll try to couch it in the most innocent terms possible to the jurors if anything is said at all. Then Juan gets up to call his first witness and says, "I call Jodi Ann Arias." lease:

Then after Lawrence moves faster than he has since the last time someone announced there was free food on the first floor to object, Juan can say, "Well she didn't agree to testify further in the defense's case. I will agree to limit my questions to crossing what she testified to."

In one of the sidebars Nurmi addresses if she refuses to get back on the stand. Argument disingenuous at most. imo

 

[bsk]

These transcripts are revealing how clear it is that JW gets lost in the woods on lawyering type subjects. Page 79 of Oct 30 transcript has an objection on foundation. It was clear as day to me that JW needed to establish how/from who JA heard what happened when Carl and his posse went to see Bobbie, but JW is lost as to the reason it was sustained goes down the same path saying it's something different (which I'm lost as to what she wss referring to). Then they take a break during which the court (aka JSS) and JM have to explain it to her. It seems JW hasn't brushed up her lawyering skill between the verdict and now.

Side note: Please excuse if my post looks wonky, using Tapatalk from my phone for the first time

I've noticed often in the past when JSS sustains an objection from Juan that JW gets lost as to how to proceed. It's like she's so shocked that he gets an objection sustained that she doesn't know what to do for a few moments. I think Juan enjoys pouncing on her in those instances.

 

[KPinMN]

You'd think JA would have learned from her first 18 day BS session that mentioning that it was hard to live in your parents house "under their rules" makes her sound like a spoiled, whiney, entitled, brat. Then again narcissism does tend to get in the way of objective reflection.