Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/15 thru 1/20 Break

[Madeleine74]

Actually if Travis were alive he'd be able to testify to all that, the stalking the tires, etc. His testimony would be the evidence just as Jodi is able to testify to things there is no proof of. And based in Travis' testimony they probably would be able to charge with something like stalking in addition to the attempted murder charge.

You're right he could talk about his experiences. A defense attorney would get TA to admit on the stand he never saw who slashed his tires, no fingerprints were taken, he'd be asked if he reported the tire slashing, etc. IIRC there was no evidence that actually linked that to Arias, which any decent defense attorney would have pointed out. The attempted murder alone is really all the state would need to get her put away.

 

[MeeBee]

You're right he could talk about his experiences. A defense attorney would get TA to admit on the stand he never saw who slashed his tires, no fingerprints were taken, he'd be asked if he reported the tire slashing, etc. IIRC there was no evidence that actually linked that to Arias, which any decent defense attorney would have pointed out. The attempted murder alone is really all the state would need to get her put away.

Yes, of course on the defense asking questions that calls his claim into doubt. That's a common sense argument.

 

[KPinMN]

Okay, but isn't the claim that the DT was ineffective because they didn't call them??? :waitasec: Just trying to understand here.
Still think Juan shouldn't have to do their job for them.

I think (which comes with the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney, nor do I even play one on TV) Juan calling the DTs mitigation witnesses would quell any possible claims of ineffective counsel on that issue not because they weren't actually ineffective, but their ineffectiveness was mitigated (for lack of a better word) by the Prosecution calling the only witnesses the DT disclosed as mitigation witnesses. Again I'm not 100% sure of this, so it's alll imho.

That said Juan shouldn't have to do that and frankly it shouldn't be left as an option because I think the judge should order the defense to subpoena the witnesses or produce an affidavit or video from each witness they claim won't testify to use in place of their live testimony. I just feel JSS needs to put her foot down on this issue to prevent any possible successful claims of ineffective counsel based on it. Imho, of course.

 

[T-4-2]

Yes, but ALV said that JA was vulnerable and had trouble with setting boundaries:

Willmott: Okay, and did she speak to you about her being uncomfortable with that type of sex?

LaViolette: She said she was uncomfortable because she thought it was too fast, too soon, but she didn’t exactly know how to stop it.

Willmott: Alright, and she ultimately went through with it, obviously, right?

LaViolette: She did, she did go through with it.

Willmott: The fact that she was uncomfortable with the too fast too soon, but then goes through with it, what does that, is that important to you?

LaViolette: Well, the way it would be important to me is to look at it in a broader context, but certainly I think, one of the things that happens is that for many young women, it is very difficult to say no, especially if they are attracted to someone.

Martinez: Objection, other folks.

Stephens: Sustained.

Willmott: With regards to your expertise, do you speak to other women about these types of situations?

LaViolette: Yes, I have.

Willmott: And what do you learn from these other women?

Martinez: Objection, relevance.

Stephens: Overruled.

LaViolette: That when they feel pressured, they’re not sure how to stand up for themselves. Now this certainly isn’t every woman, I’m not trying to say that at all, but when you’re a more vulnerable woman, when you’re not a real assertive woman, and maybe when your boundaries aren’t as good, you’re much more likely. And when people are vulnerable their boundaries tend not to be as good, then saying no can be a more difficult thing.

Willmott: Alright, you said a couple of things in there, vulnerable and boundaries. Does that, does this instance tell you anything about what Jodi might have been going through at this time, with regard to her vulnerability or setting boundaries?

LaViolette: It speaks to both of those things. That she was vulnerable, which was about coming out of that relationship, that she wanted stability which she talked about, that she met someone who appeared to be very stable, who was of a faith that really supported and appreciated family, and that she was probably not real strong with her boundaries, or her ability to say no. And some people are better at that than others.
​

Oh, you know.

JA was a victim of soikumstance.

[video=youtube;sxAk3B_zS5k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAk3B_zS5k[/video]

A victim of soikumstance and everything else as well. Victim victim victim. Victim. Victim victim. Vic. Tim.

Among a lot of other things, of course, ALV's testimony was embarrassing. We're talking about a grown woman, with plenty of relationship experience, and did I mention a grown woman? We all have our vulnerabilities, difficulties with boundaries, difficulties saying no -- these change over time and in different contexts and that's just part of being alive and yes of course they're different for everyone. And none of that is relevant in this case! (At least not for Jodi. For Travis, I think, yes.) Does ALV actually believe, and expect anyone else to believe, that Jodi's wishy-washiness gave Evil Travis the opening he needed to get her into his evil clutches? To make her his sexual pawn? And to convert her into his wholesome, family-centered religion? Bwahahahahaha?

Darn it. If only Jodi weren't so vulnerable at that particular moment in time. If only she had a clearer set of boundaries, if only she could have stood up for herself. Then she could have said "no" that night and thus would not have started down the twisted, sordid path of debauchery that ultimately forced her to stab Travis almost 30 times, nearly decapitate him, shoot him in the head, leave him in the shower, etc, etc.

(Love the clip, BTW.)

 

[LinasK]

I remember those Bill/Sandra interviews. They didn't doubt for a single moment she was guilty. Even before the arrest, when Jodi pretended to find out about the crime from 'friends', Bill/Sandy asked Jodi if she had anything to do with it. THEY KNEW.

IMO, Jodi is bored with this phase. Emotionally, mentally she's moved on to what's next. In her mind it's what's to come AFTER she's released back into the wild. Jodi already has her next CRIMES planned, but to her it's not a CRIME, but earned retribution.... payment for what she's been put through.

Oh yeah, she got posted an M.L.K. quote with a selfie tracing of her- it's posted in the Sidebar thread, that appears to me to be a subtle threat to the Phantom 14 if they don't testify for her...

 

[MeeBee]

Yes, I don't think that State can call witnesses during this trial. AZL? Or anyone with an opinion.

Juan has given them every possible option for witness testimony. Being scared of him shouldn't be a reason. They shouldn't be scared of him if they don't lie. :lol: The interwebs making you look bad? Deal with it. It's a free society.

Actually they can. The state has a rebuttal case to present. He can call anyone to counter the defense mitigation claims. Juan could call the witnesses like the mother and father to get hurtful tetsimony out of them knowing the defense would be forced to rebut it but taking the licks anyway. It's an option. A loooong shot option but an option.

 

[LinasK]

IIRC, Darryl B. testified that he moved out of the home that he and CMJA shared, sometime in December, 2006. If that is true, how in the hell on 11/26/06 (date she was baptized by Travis) was she able to take Travis back to her home and he forced (yeah right) anal sex on her? If DB still lived there, I doubt TA even went to her house, and I also remember a Bishop saying he thought Travis had went back to Mesa following the baptismal. The lies just keep being uncovered. There is also this juicy morsel > SEE BELOW.




"Another woman, who wanted to only be known as, “Debbie,” said that her daughter “Ashley,” met Arias in October, 2006. Later in January, 2007, when Arias claimed that Brewer, “left her high and dry”…Ashley moved into Arias’s home, to help out with expenses. Ashley found it extremely troubling that Arias had a constant and steady stream of men in and out of her bedroom, at all hours. When these men would show up, Arias would order Ashley to her room, and tell her to shut the door. Ashley could clearly hear them, having sex. Arias would call these encounters “bible studies.” Ashley lasted all of three weeks, living with Arias but as many do, she found it difficult to extricate herself from Arias. Debbie had to step in and threaten Arias with a restraining order, in order to get Arias, to leave her daughter, alone. The same Arias that was trying to woo Alexander!! (Ashley met Alexander, as he visited, too) The same Arias, that wanted the world to know that, she wasn’t promiscuous!"

Hope Juan points out that she had anal sex with Darryl and Bobby. This was all her doing, not Travis's "abuse" or sidestepping his vows of Chastity.

 

[ElleElle]

I think (which comes with the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney, nor do I even play one on TV) Juan calling the DTs mitigation witnesses would quell any possible claims of ineffective counsel on that issue not because they weren't actually ineffective, but their ineffectiveness was mitigated (for lack of a better word) by the Prosecution calling the only witnesses the DT disclosed as mitigation witnesses. Again I'm not 100% sure of this, so it's alll imho.

That said Juan shouldn't have to do that and frankly it shouldn't be left as an option because I think the judge should order the defense to subpoena the witnesses or produce an affidavit or video from each witness they claim won't testify to use in place of their live testimony. I just feel JSS needs to put her foot down on this issue to prevent any possible successful claims of ineffective counsel based on it. Imho, of course.

This is what i'm thinking is the strategy.

If they don't testify for whatever lame reason, Jodi won't testify.

If she doesn't testify, then, only then, she may say she never had a fair trial because she never had the chance to testify because her witnesses' couldn't.

 

[ElleElle]

Actually they can. The state has a rebuttal case to present. He can call anyone to counter the defense mitigation claims. Juan could call the witnesses like the mother and father to get hurtful tetsimony out of them knowing the defense would be forced to rebut it but taking the licks anyway. It's an option. A loooong shot option but an option.

Then good. Hope Dr. DeMarte is called.

View attachment snapshot_0021.bmp

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

:waitasec: I'm confused. Who called the witnesses??

For the state Juan is calling Dr. Janeen DeMatre, Dr. Jill Hayes , and - a friend of Travis Taylor Searles. I know at one time Juan was going to call Bishop Parker wife, but now am not sure.

 

[Meemaw12]

Hopefully we've all become pretty jaded about all the "who did what to whom, when, where, how, and how many times" sex talk... because I'm bringing it up again. I'm begining to suspect that not everything Jodi says is true. (Ha! Kidding.) So, in particular, this nonsense in her secret testimony about reciprocal oral sex a week after they first met. Regardless of what she may or may not have told Daryl about "saving herself for marriage, starting (checks watch) now," and regardless of what she thought was OK/not OK for Mormons or what she claims Travis may have told her...here's why There Could Not Possibly Have Been Oral Sex At The Hughes' House After Only Knowing Each Other One Week:

Travis loved and respected Chris and Sky. That is a fact not in dispute. As a guest in their home, he would not have gone sneaking around at night to have a sex tryst with another guest in their home, whose room, according to Jodi, was adjacent to Chris and Sky's. Because, first of all, ew. Second of all, Travis would never have behaved that way in his friends' house! With them on the other side of the wall! And with their kids in the house! Maybe people behave that way in Jodiworld, but thankfully that's not where we live. Might Travis sneak into the kitchen with Jodi for leftovers and a chat? Maybe. But anything even remotely sexual would have been disrespectful to Chris and Sky and even if just for that reason alone, not something Travis would ever have done.

Jodi says in the transcript that she and Travis left Las Vegas on Sunday, then she had "the talk" with Daryl that Thursday because she'd already been invited to Chris and Sky's house for the party that Saturday and she'd also been invited to spend the night and go to church with them the following morning, AND she thought Travis might be there AND she thought "something might happen" because "there's kind of an attraction" etc etc etc... As we know, Jodi the delicate flower/special snowflake would never cheat on a boyfriend, so she had to cut Daryl off before whatever "might happen" with Travis actually "happened." Basically, then, what she's saying is she showed up that Saturday ready for action? But it was Travis who came to her room, right next to Chris and Sky, only a couple of minutes after everyone disbursed for the night, Travis who started kissing her, took her clothes off, initiated sex...?

It's up to the jury, of course, to decide between LWOP and the DP for Jodi. I just wish they could also add a nice loud, flat-palmed slap in the face for the sheer stupidity of her lies. It would also be cool, especially in this case, if the prosecutor had "Right of Moe" over the defendant, defense witnesses, and defense counsel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U

I absolutely agree with you and thanks for saying it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mydirtysecret]

She can't claim ineffective counsel, she herself was appointed as her own attorney c twice in the case. She'd never make it past the motion. It'd be denied so fast her motion probably wouldn't even have time for the ink to dry.

 

[KPinMN]

This is what i'm thinking is the strategy.

If they don't testify for whatever lame reason, Jodi won't testify.

If she doesn't testify, then, only then, she may say she never had a fair trial because she never had the chance to testify because her witnesses' couldn't.

Which we all know is a load of steaming horse dung in terms of being the truth.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

This is what i'm thinking is the strategy.

If they don't testify for whatever lame reason, Jodi won't testify.

If she doesn't testify, then, only then, she may say she never had a fair trial because she never had the chance to testify because her witnesses' couldn't.

Nurmi and Wilmont need to subpoena them and get them init court. That way they've done what they can and it won't be an appellate point for ineffective consul, and it will be up to JSS to deal with them for not showing up, and KN and JW have covered at least some of their butt.

 

[KPinMN]

Serious question...If you represent yourself, pro se, can you win an appeal based on ineffective counsel? Meaning your own counsel, not those that the court may have appointed to guide you.

 

[ohreally]

Here's my concern, and confusion. Nurmi has made a big issue out of 14 witnesses that are not willing to testify. He has been given numerous way for them to testify, but as far as we know he has done nothing to compel them to testify. From the link below is the definition of ineffective counsel is: Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. In analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the overriding concern is to determine whether counsel's conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversary process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i083.htm
I know there is a lot going on behind closed doors, but I don't see how it cannot be ineffective counsel if he is given remedies to get the witnesses to testify and he chooses not to.

 

[KPinMN]

Nurmi and Wilmont need to subpoena them and get them init court. That way they've done what they can and it won't be an appellate point for ineffective consul, and it will be up to JSS to deal with them for not showing up, and KN and JW have covered at least some of their butt.

The question is do they want to cover their hindends or are they ok with leaving it an appealable issue? From what I understand having a case you worked on overturned on ineffective counsel does not have any real ramifications for you (counsel).

 

[ElleElle]

Nurmi and Wilmont need to subpoena them and get them init court. That way they've done what they can and it won't be an appellate point for ineffective consul, and it will be up to JSS to deal with them for not showing up, and KN and JW have covered at least some of their butt.

So, my question is why aren't they being subpoena'd? Or maybe they are?

 

[bsk]

The tire slashing was never proved to be Jodi, so that wouldn't be allowed to come in at trial. Social media hijacking--I don't recall seeing any evidence of that nor was anything reported to authorities, though there's been discussion on here. So that might not have come in either. The stalking was never reported to the police so not sure what would happen there. Stalking is not a charge she was given, so a jury wouldn't be considering her fate based on that though they would hear about her obsessiveness for sure.

As for her claims about TA's abuse or whatever else, he would be able to testify to refute it all. His mistreatment of her via rude texts or whatever else wouldn't take away the attempted murder charge. Plus, Arias didn't report his abusive behavior to anyone so she'd be S.O.L. on that. There is no proof about any pedophlia, nothing on his computers, and so none of that would be a factor. Not sure his computer(s) would ever have been seized had he lived.

There would be no DP on the table so the case would be simpler from that angle too.

The attempted murder would be the big charge and the one that would get her and keep her in prison and it's the one thing there would be the most evidence of. Maybe 25 yrs to life? Maybe more than 25 yrs. She'd be put away for a good long time, perhaps for life. Going to... Perryville!

In reviewing old David Lohr versions, I thought something about tire slashing did get in, but I could be wrong. It was in JA's diaries, so that could have opened the door. I don't recall.

 

[bsk]

So, my question is why aren't they being subpoena'd? Or maybe they are?

They weren't subpoenaed by the defense because the judge didn't push the issue IMHO.