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

[Teresa]

Went to the dentist today. Wanted to catch up... Couldn't make myself do it after reading a few posts here. Good grief, it must have been he!! What ever happened to not biased, fair and a search for the truth?

 

[Sulamith]

HA! Thanks for tracking down all these links! I adore Queen (first concert I ever went to!), but when I wrote "Is this real life," I was actually referring to this YouTube clip from a few years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs

Throughout this trial, I've been thinking of "Bohemian Rhapsody." Really. Mostly the "No! No! No! No! No! No! No!" part. And how Freddy Mercury puts more emotion into his confession in the song than Jodi does when she's confessing to an actual murder! Wait no, self defense, I forgot.

I'm going to go watch Queen at Live Aid for the millionth time and soothe my nerves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPHJFnob8p8

Nobody can replace Freddie Mercury but IMO, Adam Lambert does a fine job with Queen!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2cTOpW8yd4

 

[Tiger09]

I don't know how the Alexander family is holding up. If that was my friend/brother/loved one, I'd have to be medicated. Especially with the purple sweater garbage today.

 

[T-4-2]

Nobody can replace Freddie Mercury but IMO, Adam Lambert does a fine job with Queen!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2cTOpW8yd4

Agree and agree. Can you imagine getting that phone call, meeting these guys, rehearsing these songs? Not only does Adam Lambert have the vocal ability to stand in FM's shoes (though not fill them, of course, since no one can), but he must also be very professional and mature in order to remain detached enough to perform. I'd be weeping just from the emotion.

 

[Sulamith]

Wing Ding! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O3tijE8ZY

 

[Sulamith]

Agree and agree. Can you imagine getting that phone call, meeting these guys, rehearing these songs? Not only does Adam Lambert have the vocal ability to stand in FM's shoes (though not fill them, of course, since no one can), but he must also be very professional and mature in order to remain detached enough to perform. I'd be weeping just from the emotion.

He has such a beautiful voice..without auto tune. Have you seen this? Beautiful IMO.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvwcJUhIa0U

 

[daisydomino]

OK. I suppose its a risk the DT is willing to take. They may also be gambling on perhaps Juan not being able to call Deanna.

One fear I have is the judge telling Juan that he can only cross Geff for anything about the affidativs. That would sure put a damper on things if that happens. I hope JSS allows more than that although you never know.

Deanna could come back, Juan could play video from the last trial, or Juan could have Geffner read Deanna's previous testimony to the jury.

Don't worry. The judge is not doing anything wrong. She does not favor the defense. Have faith. Sleep well WS friends, Juan knows how to deal with this.

 

[rose222]

Agree to disagree about Travis being trashed....could just be me, but insinuating, accusing him of being a pedophile is trashing IMO. Not sure what to give the jury credit for....this jury? I guess credit for showing up....ok

I don't know how the Alexander family is holding up. If that was my friend/brother/loved one, I'd have to be medicated. Especially with the purple sweater garbage today.

Travis has been trashed over and over again. The family is not doing well precisely because the Defense is trying to butcher Travis' reputation. Travis' siblings are worried that people might believe the scurrilous stories about their beloved brother. Being called a perpetrator of domestic violence and a pedophile = not trashing? Is there anything worse than being called a child molester? I mean, please...:gaah:

 

[wendiesan]

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion about what happened in court today.

Reminded me of this scene in Chicago.

ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm really scared.

BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!

http://www.metrolyrics.com/razzle-dazzle-lyrics-chicago-the-musical.html

Honestly, LKN could show up tomorrow wearing a straw boater and tap shoes, and JW could wear black net stockings and three inch heels while they keep explaining to the jury that "He had it coming!" Doesn't sound too different in substance than what went on in court today.

 

[bsk]

Ethically aren't they beholden to at least confirm to some certainty the truth of the statements put forth?

ie. confirm that this bishop not only saw both TA and MM the day in question and for the matters MM has purported, but also confirm with DR that MM and his wife administered first aid to her in her hour of need... or hey, I have a great idea, why not check with the authorities, surely this MM and his wife reported this abusive behaviour, let alone tried to have someone(gee maybe it's a huge ring with the church officials too...) apprehended that they believed was such a threat to children, sheesh.

BBM - This is the hardest thing for us non-lawyers to get past. As AZL was explaining, the attorney's job is to get his client off the hook, whatever that means in any given situation. They know NOTHING as a fact since they didn't personally observe anything themselves. I'm sure most of them believe inside that most of their clients are guilty liars and don't like them at all, but that is irrelevant.

So as in AZL's example, you have MM saying he saw Travis assault Deanna. It COULD be true because she COULD be lying. Then he sees what we would call proof that it could NOT have happened like he said. No problem, he just changes the story. He COULD have had the date wrong. It doesn't matter whether the DT is 99.9% sure that MM is lying - they were not present every moment Travis and and Deanna were in the same room together, so they don't know for a fact that he is lying and they can run with it.

We see it all the time in this and other trials. A recent example was in all the computer nonsense. Sure, Flores COULD have risked arrest, his career, and his pension by breaking into the evidence room late one night to download to give to Juan so he could go home and masturbate to it while fantasizing that he was seeing JA naked. The odds might be 0.00(insert many more zeroes)01% that is true, but the DT wasn't there, so to them it's a theory and not a lie.

Back to your question, ETHICALLY their only duty is to defend their client to the best of their ability. Anything and everything else is fair game to them, as we have seen in this trial more than most. It's up to them to give the jury doubts about the state's case any way they can.

 

[katydid23]

BBM - This is the hardest thing for us non-lawyers to get past. As AZL was explaining, the attorney's job is to get his client off the hook, whatever that means in any given situation. They know NOTHING as a fact since they didn't personally observe anything themselves. I'm sure most of them believe inside that most of their clients are guilty liars and don't like them at all, but that is irrelevant.

So as in AZL's example, you have MM saying he saw Travis assault Deanna. It COULD be true because she COULD be lying. Then he sees what we would call proof that it could NOT have happened like he said. No problem, he just changes the story. He COULD have had the date wrong. It doesn't matter whether the DT is 99.9% sure that MM is lying - they were not present every moment Travis and and Deanna were in the same room together, so they don't know for a fact that he is lying and they can run with it.

We see it all the time in this and other trials. A recent example was in all the computer nonsense. Sure, Flores COULD have risked arrest, his career, and his pension by breaking into the evidence room late one night to download to give to Juan so he could go home and masturbate to it while fantasizing that he was seeing JA naked. The odds might be 0.00(insert many more zeroes)01% that is true, but the DT wasn't there, so to them it's a theory and not a lie.

Back to your question, ETHICALLY their only duty is to defend their client to the best of their ability. Anything and everything else is fair game to them, as we have seen in this trial more than most. It's up to them to give the jury doubts about the state's case any way they can.

THANK YOU. Very well said. I know it is sometimes frustrating. My father was a great defense attorney. And when people would ask him 'how can you defend criminals?' -----he would say, in all sincerity, that it was his duty to defend and preserve the integrity and balance of our justice system. In order to do that, every single defendant needs to be given the opportunity for a robust defense. If that does not happen, then the entire system collapses. Our trial system is based upon the assumption of innocence and the constitutional right to defend oneself without prejudice etc.

:judge:

 

[TexMex]

Travis has been trashed over and over again. The family is not doing well precisely because the Defense is trying to butcher Travis' reputation. Travis' siblings are worried that people might believe the scurrilous stories about their beloved brother. Being called a perpetrator of domestic violence and a pedophile = not trashing? Is there anything worse than being called a child molester? I mean, please...:gaah:

Samantha and Steven cry when a kind word is said about their family by Deanna

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqf2mNFmoVg

 

[bsk]

THANK YOU. Very well said. I know it is sometimes frustrating. My father was a great defense attorney. And when people would ask him 'how can you defend criminals?' -----he would say, in all sincerity, that it was his duty to defend and preserve the integrity and balance of our justice system. In order to do that, every single defendant needs to be given the opportunity for a robust defense. If that does not happen, then the entire system collapses. Our trial system is based upon the assumption of innocence and the constitutional right to defend oneself without prejudice etc.

:judge:

Originally there was probably some notion of acting in good faith as part of ensuring your client received a fair trial. But now it's just win at all costs and screw the rest IMHO.

 

[garthmax]

AZL: Would JM be able to bring up the magazine where CMJA wrote in code about getting their story straight?

 

[ohreally]

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.

 

[Luvrosco]

N

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 hope so.

 

[MeeBee]

@jeffgoldesq: Evidentiary Abomination in #JodiArias. Generally an expert witness is given wide latitude to include in testimony... http://t.co/iU0naDBgMA

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=815963421783976

 

[Dr. Know?]

Not that the court calendar is always right but here's JSS's scheduled time for JA's trial today. Maybe there's other things to clear up before the jury is there. (I hope so)

CR2008-031021 1/21/2015 11:30 Trial - Continuing State Of Arizona
Jodi Ann Arias

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....List.asp?ID=3604&startdate=1/21/2015&length=7

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Not that the court calendar is always right but here's JSS's scheduled time for JA's trial today. Maybe there's other things to clear up before the jury is there. (I hope so)

CR2008-031021 1/21/2015 11:30 Trial - Continuing State Of Arizona
Jodi Ann Arias

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....List.asp?ID=3604&startdate=1/21/2015&length=7

I thought yesterday she said they would start at 12:30? So much for her promise of "a full week." :facepalm:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I thought yesterday she said they would start at 12:30? So much for her promise of "a full week." :facepalm:

:seeya: Yep ... judge said LAST week that THIS week would be 3 FULL DAYS of trial.

I knew it would not happen because JSS has proven over and over again that she has NO control over her courtroom, has serious time management issues, and lets the defense team roll over her every chance they get.

JSS needs to tell them to STOP the shenanigans and games, but she will NOT as her continued favoritism of the defense speaks volumes, IMO.

:moo: