Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/20 Sizzle Break

[rose222]

Yesterday at the open sidebar Juan mentioned several opinions written in the affidavits. Like Jodi would have to be forced to do such a crime, the last trial was one sided and Jodi being brainwashed. So far I have not seen of these mentioned in tweets as being brought out by Geffner. I do think there was some serious editing of these affidavits by JSS yesterday to only allow what is legally required. It is maddening to hear what we heard yesterday from these affidavits, but I think it was required to allow them in. They seem to be only one or two sentences in each affidavit, Juan has hours of testimony and interviews to discredit them. IMO all of these affidavits will back fire on the defense, and stop any chance of appeal because the mitigation were not allowed to be presented.

I'm not worried about the jurors listening to all this BS. I just feel bad for Travis' family. However, as you say, the good thing is that there will be no real chance of appeal. It will be sweet if the jury comes back with a verdict of death. I still believe that Juan can make it happen. :juanettes:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

So, Geffner is still on the stand tomorrow. Do you think there is any chance Juan will get a chance to cross this witness at some point tomorrow.?

:seeya: Oh I hope so, but I seriously doubt it will happen tomorrow -- oh, it's now today

The defense is clearly DELAYING and delaying the inevitable: a Juan Martinez SMACKDOWN of all their lying witnesses !

:juanettes:

 

[TexMex]

Given the above timeline, how would that story about him yelling he 'would never marry her' make any sense?

Doesn't he say it happened in 2001? That would make his story impossible. because she did not return until nov 2001, and they were already broken up. This is total BS

Exactly. Deanna also testified it was two weeks after she returned from Costa Rica when she first saw Travis. She found out he was dating Linda Ballard. Linda is the girl Travis bought an engagement ring for. Only after Linda turned him down and moved out of state did he get back together with Deanna

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I am convinced the DT has been purposely trying to make JSS slip up and break a serious rule and if they somehow are allowed to do something they really should not have been allowed to do, then they will turn around and use their own breaking of the rules in a future appeal.

Its just been a theory I have had for quite some time this phase. I honestly think they are pushing the limits on purpose to try to make JSS slip up on something bad. Something that could allow them a successful appeal later.

:seeya: I totally agree, Hatfield !

I was thinking something similar, but was not able to put it in words as well as you did here ... but here's what I was thinking:

JSS is "scared" and she needs to stop playing "scared."

The defense knows this, and they will keep rolling over her because they know she is "scared" of being overturned on appeal.

And look what happened when she allowed JA to testify in secret which IMO, JSS knew was unconstitutional: JSS WAS overturned by the Appellate Court because she was "scared" IMO.

She needs to straighten up ... JMO, but I do not see that happening.

:moo: and another :moo:

 

[TexMex]

Deanna testified Travis wrote her the breakup letter in June 2001 because he wanted to be honest and not cheat on her

Ballard Boss says they began dating in June 2001. She broke up with him in January 2002. She knew he planned to propose

“I knew he was planning on proposing to me. We were talking very seriously about marriage. I actually started to have doubts about whether I wanted to continue the relationship,” Ballard Boss told Grace.

When asked why she ended the relationship, Boss said, “I was very in love with Travis. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. I didn’t feel like he was the right man for me.”

Alexander’s ex-girlfriend also recalled an eerie conversation she had with Alexander during the last visit she had with him at the Arizona State Fair in October of 2006.

“He said he had been dating a girl named Jodi and he mentioned to me that she is a pathological liar,” Boss said.

“I want people to know that the real Travis was not abusive. He was kind, he was a shoulder to cry on, he was passionate about life, he had more goals than most people would ever dream about trying to accomplish. He inspired people to be better,” Boss told HLN.

 

[Hope4More]

I am really surprised the way the DT is unfolding the mitigation this time around. I actually think they did much better the first time, when they put the killer herself up there to plead for her life. Sure, it was awkward. But she revealed herself, her art, her wishes, her phony charity attempts, etc....but she made an attempt to mimic a real, authentic, human girl. And a few of the jurors fell for it.

But this time they are all over the place, and it is a bit about TA being a dog, and a Jekyl and Hyde, supposedly. And about her being so mistreated by everyone all of her poor life, but yet it never rises to any level of notable abuse. [' umm, gee, my parents stopped taking us for fun family outings after my baby sibs were born...we just weren't as close...and they didn't support my artistic talents as an expert tracer... and everyone always choked me out at some point...']

So then they try to top it off with their witnesses, and it is again, all about Travis, and his so called shortcomings. But nothing even coming close to anything bad. He talked to three women online at once, did a bit of sexting, might have led an ex girlfriend on, etc. But then they tried to sell a line of BS, claiming that someone, who did not come forward to testify, has knowledge of a couple of damning incidents. Problem is, the timeline does not back up his story. So witness says the time might be misremembered, but Juan will be able to blow holes in that.

But they really made a mistake, imo, by going even further down the Slime Highway, with this same 'witness', and allowing him to tell a totally unbelievable story about him seeing child porn that TA downloaded on his Bishop's computer, in a folder in his own name. On a group computer. LOL I really do not think ANY of the jurors are going to believe that. Especially since he was wrong about the year of the other accusation he made. This witness will easily be blown out of the water.

So the DT is taking a huge chance with little possibility of success, imo. They are hinging their entire mitigation on proving what a lowlife that Travis was. But if they are shown to be LYING, then what?

Yes, especially on your last point about the damage done when Juan exposes the DT's lies. Which is why yesterday's antics didn't upset me.

Here's what the jury is being asked to believe about Travis:

1. Travis routinely abused women emotionally, including JA.

JA is the only woman who claims to be abused. Every other woman who was abused by Travis doesn't realize they were abused. Then or now.

2. Travis occasionally abused women physically, including JA and Deanna.


Travis was abusive because he felt conflicted between being a good Mormon and being sexually active. He took out his anger on JA because of this conflict he felt.

Travis abused JA because she knew he was a pedophile.

Travis abused Deanna because he was pissed about her pressuring him about marriage.

3. Travis is hyper sexual/aggressive sexually, obsessed with watching/having sex with women.

4. Travis is a pedophile who is interested in little boys.

5. Travis is a pedophile who is interested in little girls. And tweens.

6. Travis obsessively hid porn on his own computer but felt OK about downloading child porn on his bishop's computer at his bishop's house and didn't try to cover his tracks at all.


Proof that Travis is a pedophile? JA's story about floating paper porn. A story about the bishop's computer told by an anonymous person via an expert on the stand who never met him. An assertion that Travis watched porn on his computer therefore JA's story about paper porn must be true.

Proof that Travis physically abused JA? JA says so. Proof that Travis abused Deanna? An annoymous person says so.

Proof that TA emotionally abused JA? JA says so. A small handful of angry texts sent by Travis.

 

[ZoeyW]

Exactly. Watching now I think Juan expected this affidavit crap. He asked her 4-5 times the list: did Travis hit, yell, curse, scream, throw you down, advance on you physically, grab you. Every time she answered no. She's extremely believable

You are absolutely correct. Juan has known about Mark McGee for a long while. I am trying hard to think of a polite way to say it. I believe Juan thought even Nurmi would never put this guy on the stand. Of course he did not, but got in these claims through the back door.

The jury already washed away the entire week's worth of painstaking readings and re readings of the Hughes' emails with one simple juror question. They asked this was only four months into a long distance new relationship. Is it possible that the Hughes feelings and opinions about Travis and Jodi changed over time?

Dr. F. had to answer truthfully what we all knew. She replied. "That is very likely true. Yes."



The same thing is going to happen here. I'm sure Phillip booked a flight for Deanna and she would agree to come if Juan says he needs her here, but he may just dismiss this nonsense with a question or two to Dr. Geffner and trust that the jury concurs.

JM: Are you aware that Deanna Reid came into this court and testified under oath ( he will have the transcript in his hand and attached to it the CD of her testimony, good to GO for his Bose player ) she said Travis Alexander never once in his lifetime raised a hand to her, (Juan will appear to be reading from the transcript, JUST FOR EFFECT; BECAUSE HE HAS A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY AND HAS IT MEMORIZED ) Deanna Reid said Travis never even raised his voice to me. Juan will start quoting from the page. He was a gentleman to me. We loved one another. We trusted each other.

Deanna Reid on the witness stand, facing the jury, under oath tells them TRAVIS NEVER EVEN RAISED HIS VOICE TO HER, LET ALONE HIT HER. http://youtu.be/uWd7tusi754?t=12m31s

Geffner will know that the defense does NOT want him to say or do anything that will move Juan Martinez one step closer to the clerk to have the CD marked for identification and played on that Bose player for Deanna's words to ring out in the courtroom. He will be forced to say the obvious that the jury will agree.

If Miss Reid testified under oath that it DID NOT HAPPEN and on the other hand we have someone who is unsure if his memory is clear on the dates, etc and is unwilling to take the oath and stand, we are left with conflicting accounts at best.

The jury will dismiss the Deanna nonsense without hesitation.
It will happen that fast.

It was humiliating, mean, brutal the way Nurmi treated Deanna on the stand. Even so, if Juan needs her, for the sake of the family of Travis Deanna will walk in that courtroom with her head held high and tell the truth for her friend.

The jury will hate Jodi Arias, either way. Juan is going to prove this is ANOTHER lie, designed purposely and is the epitome of lack of remorse. She is relishing in muddying his name. She is torturing his family. The absence of remorse could push even someone unsure before over the edge of doubt about the death penalty.

However weird it sounds, I think this may just work in our favor. The reaction to these utter lies is a visceral one. Knowing she is lying and the evil that allows for it in her soul gives the opposite of sympathy for her. It makes one despise her. Juan is going to drive that point home in his closing. He will say something that strong.....how evil to go to this length to murder him all over again. It is going to be a powerful moment in that courtroom. The jury will look at Travis' family and their victim impact statements will flood back with all the emotion as if they had been given yesterday. It will remind the jury, Jodi Arias did so much more than murder Travis that day. The damage she caused will be felt for generations in those families, in those marriages, and for the little children growing up with the now ill from PTSD parents and how that handicaps their lives. All the while Jodi Arias' message through her entire defense is ....he deserved it.

I believe for the first time in a long while she will get the death penalty. With this level of evil on display she leaves them without doubts.

 

[Hope4More]

BTW, Affadavit Marc did not say he saw porn in a folder labeled with Travis' name or in a folder belonging to Travis.

What he said, per BK, is that he went looking for wedding photos in the general download folder. Then saw a file of child porn that indicated Travis had downloaded it.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

TexMex, thanks for being such of wealth of info on Deanna and Travis. I appreciate all that you remember! I am having a problem with my thanks button and most of the time I cannot thank your posts so consider this a global "thank you".

 

[Hope4More]

One other BK. JM is still entitled in theory to subpoena any of these affadavit witnesses. Except for Marc, the coward who slings his lies from New Zealand, and so cannot be compelled to testify.

I sincerely doubt JM has any interest in wasting the jury's time by exercising this right. Though I imagine he would have thoroughly enjoyed calling on Marc to take the stand for a wee exchange.

 

[bsk]

The trick for Juan is how to introduce the lies about McGee and others to the jury. Does he call Carl or even Pops to testify? That would be highly risky. Calling Deanna is a no-brainer - the jury will hate the defense team and their client after she testifies. But Juan needs 12 out of 12, so it's very difficult. There are obviously some friends of Travis he can call, or maybe even some acquaintances of JA's who dislike her.

He's going to have to go through a lot of sustained objections from the defense to put some carefully worded hypotheticals to Geffner to plant seeds in the jurors minds. Jenny will of course be screaming "assumes facts in evidence" or "it calls for speculation on the part of the witness" on every single one.

ETA: I presume JSS will give Juan a fair amount of leeway in what questions he poses to Geff since Geff didn't just read them - he was interpreting and drawing conclusions from them.

 

[Reagan]

They don't KNOW these people are lying. And if they don't KNOW for sure they are ethically required to present the testimony. The jury is free to believe these nuts over,e.g. Deanna.

Intellectually and realistically, I think they know they are lies, but I see what you're saying from a legal standpoint...and that legally they do not know they're lies. Its all pretty messed up, regardless.

I hope I'm making sense. I just started my first cup of coffee.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I do not see how TA has been "trashed". Other posters have said he was a highly sexual 30 year old man and so what if he looked at porn. We heard the sex tapes and read his flirtatious communications with women he met via the internet. I would not blame the whole state of Arizona on anything. Give the jury some credit.

Travis has been trashed unmercifully much more than any other victim than I can remember. Even normal things that most 30 year old single healthy males do has been twisted as meaning something sinister.

The DT and their ilk have put Travis on trial from moment one in the guilt phase and continue to pound him further into the ground that Arias put him in.

They have murdered him all over again. It is as if he has been strung up even in death inside that courtroom and the defense has torched his good character and gentle spirit and laughs as it goes up in flames. And all based on the pathological lies of the one who killed him. Or based on unsupported claims by witnesses too cowardly to show their face.

It reminds me very much of the times before there was a law protecting rape victims for being blamed for being raped. Until then defense attorneys always blamed the victim and accused them of 'asking for it' by the way they dressed.. the way they acted or the way they looked or where they were at the time of the rape, etc..

This defense has carried out an 'overkill' concerning bashing and trashing the victim in this case. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

I hope once this is over that the Alexander family will go before Congress asking them to enact a protection law for murdered victims just like the law that protects rape victims from being put on trial instead of the actual perpetrator.

 

[Hope4More]

The trick for Juan is how to introduce the lies about McGee and others to the jury. Does he call Carl or even Pops to testify? That would be highly risky. Calling Deanna is a no-brainer - the jury will hate the defense team and their client after she testifies. But Juan needs 12 out of 12, so it's very difficult. There are obviously some friends of Travis he can call, or maybe even some acquaintances of JA's who dislike her.

He's going to have to go through a lot of sustained objections from the defense to put some carefully worded hypotheticals to Geffner to plant seeds in the jurors minds. Jenny will of course be screaming "assumes facts in evidence" or "it calls for speculation on the part of the witness" on every single one.

ETA: I presume JSS will give Juan a fair amount of leeway in what questions he poses to Geff since Geff didn't just read them - he was interpreting and drawing conclusions from them.

JM has known the gist of Marc's lies since last fall. He has had the bishop's wife on his witness list since that time. I very much doubt he's going to call additional witnesses to discredit Marc, other than Deanna, perhaps, though he could simply roll the video of her testimony in rebuttal.

 

[RickshawFan]

We have seen JA come to court with a brace on her hand every now and then. Sometimes we joked that she had it out with her cell's wall.
As this trial has wore on I honestly think maybe she does do that. There was 1 day a decision did not go her way and she came in next day with the brace. Now it seems like this MM may have witnessed an example of her losing her temper.

I think she exhibits Jekyl + Hyde behaviors. She can turn on that sweet soft voice she uses like when she sung for the Prison contest. Yet she can also turn into a monster and become vicious IMO. As indicated and allegedly witnessed by MM.

We may have a real Sybil but with a twist with this one. A split personality turned on or off on demand. JA has always scared me once we learned what she is capable of. It is partly due to not being able to easily spot that she is a monster. She hides it well. She could have tricked any number of guys. She has tricked her minions in the same sort of way. They think that surely there must have been some other reason she viciously murdered him.

Breaking news for her minions. NO There was no good reason. She just went into a jealous rage that lasted 2 weeks until she finally drove all the way there to put him out of HER misery. A Jekly + Hyde in all its forms she is.

In this article..... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/m...ear-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You will see that the ability to change moods on a dime is a characteristic of psychopaths. As I read it, this article describes JA almost exactly, the manipulativeness, deviousness, sweet innocence, articulateness when needed, all of it.

The article gives examples of how "callous-unemotional" traits evolve over time, sometimes quite quickly.

This article also gives some ideas about how "callous-unemotional" traits may have shown up in more benign forms in the family history.

They can test for "callous-unemotional (CU)" traits. Adults with CU traits also have brains that are different from those of folks with empathy. Has JA been tested? Can she be tested? (Although, presumably it couldn't be argued that if her brain is a certain way, she must be CU.)

I believe, if JA displayed clinically verifiable traits of Jekyll/Hyde (bipolar?), we would have seen it presented in court by DeMarte, or even by the DT if they want to argue that JA "couldn't help it". In the last trial Demarte didn't label JA bipolar (bipolar doesn't account for manipulativeness); she may also have hedged on issuing the "psychopath/sociopath" diagnosis because JM wasn't allowed to go there. There were a lot of features in JA's psychopathy that DeMarte didn't account for. Perhaps she'll be freer to say something about those this time?

 

[TorisMom003]

Has JA worn the wrist brace to court when the jury has been there? From what I remember it has only been when she is in her jail clothes without the jury being in the courthouse. My question, if that is correct, would be why doesn't she want the jury to see her with the wrist brace on? Wouldn't that lead the jury to feel some sympathy for her? And why does she wear it only some of the time instead of all of the time if she really needs it?

 

[Sweetiemom]

Has JA worn the wrist brace to court when the jury has been there? From what I remember it has only been when she is in her jail clothes without the jury being in the courthouse. My question, if that is correct, would be why doesn't she want the jury to see her with the wrist brace on? Wouldn't that lead the jury to feel some sympathy for her? And why does she wear it only some of the time instead of all of the time if she really needs it?

I think she wears it part time like she does her glasses-because she really doesn't need either one. Glasses to make her look less attractive-wrist brace to make her look injured.

 

[TexMex]

Travis has been trashed unmercifully much more than any other victim than I can remember. Even normal things that most 30 year old single healthy males do has been twisted as meaning something sinister.

The DT and their ilk have put Travis on trial from moment one in the guilt phase and continue to pound him further into the ground that Arias put him in.

They have murdered him all over again. It is as if he has been strung up even in death inside that courtroom and the defense has torched his good character and gentle spirit and laughs as it goes up in flames. And all based on the pathological lies of the one who killed him. Or based on unsupported claims by witnesses too cowardly to show their face.

It reminds me very much of the times before there was a law protecting rape victims for being blamed for being raped. Until then defense attorneys always blamed the victim and accused them of 'asking for it' by the way they dressed.. the way they acted or the way they looked or where they were at the time of the rape, etc..

This defense has carried out an 'overkill' concerning bashing and trashing the victim in this case. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

I hope once this is over that the Alexander family will go before Congress asking them to enact a protection law for murdered victims just like the law that protects rape victims from being put on trial instead of the actual perpetrator.

IMO the trashing establishes that this killer has NO remorse. She, instead of accepting responsibility for a cold blooded premeditated murder, makes up lies about pedophila and abuse to justify her acts. She is not sorry. Travis rejected her. If she tried to "move on" and fulfill her obsession of marriage, family, financial security by dating PPL men and Mormons then there's a real possibility Travis might share her stalking, hacking and slashing with any of her prospects. He rejected her after all she had given up for him AND might prevent her from a financially stable future? There's no way she was going to let him live.

But for her crime, her actions after the murder and her insistence on trashing her victim she truly deserves the death penalty

 

[ParrotGal]

I don't know who could combat the evil that pervades this courtroom better than Juan Martinez. He is an unfailing advocate for justice and reason in the midst of what feels like a demented circus. I think he has an incredible ability to think on his feet, to switch directions and recall huge amounts of data without all the "shuffle, dig, scrounge, search" the DT is always doing. He is prepared, focused and no-nonsense. He is a true champion for justice. When things ramp up to defcon 10 on the crazy meter in this courtroom (all too often) , I remind myself of these things.

 

[Nosey Parker]

JM has known the gist of Marc's lies since last fall. He has had the bishop's wife on his witness list since that time. I very much doubt he's going to call additional witnesses to discredit Marc, other than Deanna, perhaps, though he could simply roll the video of her testimony in rebuttal.

:seeya: JM is a wizard of a prosecutor, and my brain is, of course, no match for his, but I do try to imagine what his strategy will be after every despicable defence presentation.

The question I have from yesterday is, why was he so adamant that MDLR's name not be connected with these affidavits? We all know she took them, and no doubt notarized them, because that's the essence of her job as Mitigation Specialist. She can testify concerning them. I assume he cannot call her to the stand because she is a member of the defence team. None of that answers why he wants her name left out. Any ideas on where his genius is going on this?