Post Verdict -Working Out The Unresolved Questions

[geevee]

No No No please No

9/12/2013 MCO - Motion To Continue - Party (001) 9/12/2013
NOTE: MOTION TO CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

 

[Lissa]

No No No please No

9/12/2013 MCO - Motion To Continue - Party (001) 9/12/2013
NOTE: MOTION TO CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

No!!!!! It says Party 001. JM!?!?!

 

[Ricki]

No!!!!! It says Party 001. JM!?!?!

Really, Juan filed? Is he still involved in the other trial? Sorry, don't know what the names are.

 

[Lissa]

I guess so! Is it wrong to hope the JSS denies JM's motion? LoL, I need a Juan fix on Monday! :blushing:

 

[Ricki]

I guess so! Is it wrong to hope the JSS denies JM's motion? LoL, I need a Juan fix on Monday! :blushing:

Me too, but I want Juan fully prepared for this.

 

[geevee]

His current trial (Richard Chrisman/2nd degree murder of Daniel Rodriguez*) is in verdict watch, 2nd full day, jurors just went home, will be back at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. I don't know if one has to do with the other but if JM filed the motion then I'd think he needs more time for all the motions N & W have filed since the last hearing.

*And shooting and killing his dog.

 

[Lissa]

Ok, I guess you're right. But I'm still . I bet the DT is doing :cheer: because it gives them more time to come up with lies and file merit-less motions.

 

[geevee]

Ok, I guess you're right. But I'm still . I bet the DT is doing :cheer: because it gives them more time to come up with lies and file merit-less motions.

For the first time in this whole long event the DT probably liked JM at the moment they saw the motion to continue. lol

I understand but don't like it much either.

 

[gcharlie]

:chillout:

The docket does not show who filed motions. 001 appears on all entries.

I have not seen any reports yet on who filed this, so until I hear otherwise, I am going to presume that it was the DT. They are the ones with a history of trying to delay, not Juan.

 

[Lissa]

The docket does not show who filed motions. 001 appears on all entries.

I have not seen any reports yet on who filed this, so until I hear otherwise, I am going to presume that it was the DT. They are the ones with a history of trying to delay, not Juan.

Well that makes a lot more sense! :scared:

 

[geevee]

Wonder what this is?

9/13/2013 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 9/13/2013

ETA: Got the minute entry:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092013/m5945960.pdf

 

[geevee]

The motion about Dr. Karp has apparently been sealed.

 

[gcharlie]

Wonder what this is?

9/13/2013 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 9/13/2013

ETA: Got the minute entry:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092013/m5945960.pdf

MINUTE ENTRY

It appearing that State’s Motion entitled “Objection to Motion to Preclude” was erroneously filed electronically on September 11, 2013 and docketed September 12, 2013. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED directing that the Clerk of the Court remove the above mentioned document from the e-filing system and place this document under Seal upon its retrieval, not to be opened until further Order of the Court.

BBM- somebody made a mistake so the court is basically erasing it for now.


I reviewed the docket for prior motions to continue. I found two and both were filed by the state, with no objection from the prosecution.

 

[geevee]

MINUTE ENTRY

It appearing that State’s Motion entitled “Objection to Motion to Preclude” was erroneously filed electronically on September 11, 2013 and docketed September 12, 2013. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED directing that the Clerk of the Court remove the above mentioned document from the e-filing system and place this document under Seal upon its retrieval, not to be opened until further Order of the Court.

BBM- somebody made a mistake so the court is basically erasing it for now.


I reviewed the docket for prior motions to continue. I found two and both were filed by the state, with no objection from the prosecution.

Seems like the mistake was to file that motion 'electronically', as it mentions below that the doc is under seal and not to be opened until further order. Am I misinterpreting that? It's still early, I may just need more coffee. lol

 

[gcharlie]

Seems like the mistake was to file that motion 'electronically', as it mentions below that the doc is under seal and not to be opened until further order. Am I misinterpreting that? It's still early, I may just need more coffee. lol

More and more bar associations are moving towards fully electronic communications and away from paper filings. I am not familiar with Arizona or Maricopa County requirements, but it would seem doubtful that the error was due to an electronic filing rather than a paper filing, especially in light of the fact that the motion is now under seal. Just thinking about it logically, if it were only the form of submission that was in question and not the substance, there would be no need or reason to put the substance under seal.

My guess is that this was a clerical error, where the motion had been drafted years ago, but was still sitting in a queue and was submitted in error.

 

[Tuba]

I reviewed the docket for prior motions to continue. I found two and both were filed by the state, with no objection from the prosecution.

Delays and continuances and parties responsible~would you clarify this, gcharlie?

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but did the ME ever match a knife to Travis' stab wounds or opine how large a knife was used?

Jodi said that she remembered "putting the knife in the dishwasher" but that she "had put the knife in the dishwasher before"--the way she said it seems like she is referring to "the knife" as opposed to "a knife."

I'm just wondering if one of the knives recovered from the dishwasher could have possibly been consistent with the stab wounds.

Edited to add: On her direct examination, Jodi described throwing the gun in the desert and washing blood off of her hands, and disposing of the rope--but she says "I didn't have the knife with me in the car." Hmmm....sounds like she DID use one of Travis' knives and put it in the dishwasher.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Here you go. It's in the trial section.

MI - Woman, Jane Bashara, Found Strangled - #3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thanks LambChop. I must have overlooked it. Appreciate the thread.

 

[geevee]

Thanks for the heads up, Zuri.

Jane Velez-Mitchell ‏@jvelezmitchell 4m The next hearing for #JodiArias has been postponed until October 4th. http://on.hln.tv/2ViDUk When it actually happens we'll cover it

 

[Tiger09]

I wonder why it was postponed.