Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/29 thru 2/2 - Break

[pinkandgreenmom]

I think Juan's brief made it very obvious that Sue D. Nimh was Computer Guy #3.

The physical description of Sue D. Nimh was also not at all similar to that of Marc McWitness #1.

And Juan would have cross-examined the heck out of Sue D. Nimh if he had been Marc McWitness #1 as well lol.

I thought Juan's brief made reference to 3 different guys (Sue, Tony, and mystery computer guy) but upon re-reading I see now it mentions only 2 (with mystery guy clearly being Sue). I'm not sure where I got it in my brain that there was a discussion that there were enough differences between Sue and mystery computer guy to assume they were two different guys. There was discussion that Tony wasn't Sue so maybe that is what I was thinking of.

 

[samspace070]

Don't forget <modsnip>. She was horrible to DR and other witnesses and she won't sit in her chair for 30 seconds without jumping up and objecting for no reason except to throw Juan off.

 

[Val1]

To clear up some confusion regarding Bishops on this thread.

Vernon Parker is the former Bishop from Riverside, CA. He knew Travis from 1999, when he'd just returned from his mission. He lived with the Parkers for two months (June-July 1999). Travis was NOT living with the Bishop in 2000/2001 when MM supposedly saw the on the computer and the altercation between Travis and Deanna.

The Bishops who heard Travis and Deanna's "confessions" were there separate Bishops in Arizona, where they were in different wards.

Sorry if someone has already cleared this up... BK had reported that it was said TA had come to live with the Bishop in June or early July 2000 and then moved out in early August 2000. He first met TA(and MM) in March of 1999 when the new singles ward was first established, so don't know if that's where any confusion is from?

 

[fillymj]

How is it that we still don't know the reason Travis sent this email or txt to Jodi? Just like "You are the worst thing that has ever happened to me."

They emailed and texted like crazy. Why isn't the details in writing somewhere? I know we speculate what she did or was going to do but wouldn't it have been great if the reason for him turning on her was in writing?

This email must have really pissed her off. Of course we know what happened next. There was a break in at her grandfather's house within days of this correspondence and a gun was stolen.

Just think they stopped communicating as CMJA knew the gig was up. If JA had walked away,never to be heard from again, Travis probably would have dropped what he had on JA.

Sadly I wish he had documented it & placed safely or given it to someone for safe keeping. Maybe he did & CMJA found & destroyed. Don't know. There are several things that only JA knows & will go with her to the grave so some questions will never be answered.

 

[fillymj]

:seeya: Hi MeeBee,

I read this last night and my first thought was WTH ?

Is Monica serious -- or -- joking ?

Something huh !!

 

[Dmacky]

Something huh !!

I think it is Monica's attempt at sarcasm. She's not good at that either

 

[Hope4More]

I'm a masochist. Am rereading her journals for late 2007, when TA have lost his TR.

Wow do they read differently when one knows there never was a relationship. Waaaaaay weirder and more disturbing.

An entry on 10/6/07 jumped out for obvious reasons. JA starts off by saying she's been feeling an urge to pray for DR. A bit later she says Travis "thinks I've become like her now, having to hide any new relationships from me......he's on crack if that's what he thinks, and no, I'm not lying to myself."

Everything else aside, reading that after DR's testimony yesterday drove home that her description of psycho -Deanna is demonstrably a lie and projection. DR asked TA to talk to her about JA, fgs. Any hesitation was on his part.

I am reimagining how incredibly creepy it must have been to walk in and find Travis' stalker in his house, making cookies and playing hostess.

 

[Val1]

Quick AZL question: JA said she wants to testify but is unable to for reasons given in chambers (or something to that effect).

Does this mean she is STILL not relinquishing her constitutional right to testify? If so, what are the ramifications of that, given the appeal to the AZ Supreme Court?

If the Supremes say, &#8220;We&#8217;re not taking up this appeal;&#8221; or if they decide to hear it, then rule against JA/DT, can the DT file another appeal on the Federal level, maintaining their client&#8217;s constitutional rights were violated?

Sorry. This little nugget still bothers me.

I would think, taking into account JA's propensity for tall tales, that the reason she "can't" testify in court and open herself up to cross is because nothing she has to say can be corroborated. JM will just demolish it as yet another version of JA's blame the victim defense.

 

[sumbunny]

Aaron Hernendez finally live and ON! FYI

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?269693-MA-trial-of-Aaron-Hernandez-New-England-Patriots-player&p=11442567#post11442567 is thread

Watched today and what a difference a judge, and professional defense attorney's make.....

 

[Amster]

Does she just make that statement...or does she clarify how he is doing a good job?

I think he has done a good job on specific things, mostly that he is doing anything at all involved in a case he clearly does not want and has not wanted to be involved in for a very long time. However, as a whole, I think Nurmi's performance in this mitigation phase is really off the wall as I see little to no actual mitigation being presented. His hands may be tied by what the killer demands he do but still there is nothing that indicates that he is doing a good job.

I would really be interested in how BK sees Nurmi as doing a good job with this retrial.

It had to do with the computer "mini trial" that happened. She was agreeing with Nurmi that JM screwed up over the 2008 hard drive issue. That Nurmi said JA would never be executed and BK agreed because Nurmi did such a good job making a strong appeal issue.....
To be honest....in the minority for sure....I don't care for BK. Have watched her from the old Court TV days and always saw her as I see most other media. Say and do anything to get an exclusive. The pic of her and MK together the other day didn't surprise me. I'll take the opinion of any WS poster in the courtroom over a media persons always!

 

[Shadowboy]

FYI re: Supreme Court action on secret testimony
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/asccalendar.htm

 

[Myvice]

FWIW......I read there (don't watch her videos) and haven't seen her express that opinion of Nurmi.

It was actually in the video.

I think what she means is that Nurmi is doing everything he possibly can with what he has to work with. He's covering everything that JA said he hadn't covered in the trial, when she was trying to get him off the case. He has done everything possible to discredit all the states witnesses and Juan. He's done everything he can to delay the trial and hope that jurists drop out.

That's all he's got to work with but he's doing everything he can. I don't think she meant he was "winning", just that he was getting it all out there.

 

[bsk]

Quick AZL question: JA said she wants to testify but is unable to for reasons given in chambers (or something to that effect).

Does this mean she is STILL not relinquishing her constitutional right to testify? If so, what are the ramifications of that, given the appeal to the AZ Supreme Court?

If the Supremes say, &#8220;We&#8217;re not taking up this appeal;&#8221; or if they decide to hear it, then rule against JA/DT, can the DT file another appeal on the Federal level, maintaining their client&#8217;s constitutional rights were violated?

Sorry. This little nugget still bothers me.

The right way to look at it IMHO is that she never lost or was forced to give up her right to testify - she retained the right but chose not to exercise it. She was not denied any basic right in any way - she just wanted to exercise it under conditions that are not attached to that right.

They'll try to make that argument of course, but it will go absolutely nowhere.

 

[samspace070]

In every trial there is the possibility of stealth jurors. There is not a whole lot that can be done about that because some people are really good at sneaking in under the radar. However, I really was not too concerned with questions asked of DR by jurors. Remember, JW took DR all the way down a path while she tried to steer clear having DR speak of anything claimed in MM's affidavit. So juror questions were more likely to be about the subject of cross. Also, it could be that the jurors totally understood everything DR said about the incident MM claimed he saw, and they believed DR that it never happened and did not have any questions about it.

I did not see any "bad questions" from jurors. Some can have me wondering about where it is coming from but I always try to consider that it is possible they might ask if something happens a certain way in order to clarify that it in fact does not happen that way or does not happen at all.

As for stealth jurors...they probably would try to ask questions in a way that would allow them to remain stealth for the duration. Maybe. I would probably try not to tip my hand if I were stealth.

Thank you krkrjx, you have given me a new perspective on this. I now see what you mean. They believed what she said about the liar MM so had no questions. The questions about her sex life and the Religious questions are probably just what you said. I fell a lot better. I felt great after Abe testified and he had no questions because I believe he jury liked him and believed him and therefore had no questions, besides arias supporters were unhappy the jury didn't question him.:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Myvice]

You mentioned the captions on her pics, but I don't see any captions on the pics I access from the link given. Is there a way to change that?
What a biotch!!

[/QUOTE]

If you click on the pics and hover over them you see her captions.

 

[tcrockett]

It had to do with the computer "mini trial" that happened. She was agreeing with Nurmi that JM screwed up over the 2008 hard drive issue. That Nurmi said JA would never be executed and BK agreed because Nurmi did such a good job making a strong appeal issue.....
To be honest....in the minority for sure....I don't care for BK. Have watched her from the old Court TV days and always saw her as I see most other media. Say and do anything to get an exclusive. The pic of her and MK together the other day didn't surprise me. I'll take the opinion of any WS poster in the courtroom over a media persons always!

Re Beth and Nurmi...it seems to me that at the end of the first trial Beth was skewered by lots of folks for seeming to be too close to the prosecution and to the family of Travis Alexander. I think pictures were posted of Beth (and KCL and Katie Wick maybe???) "celebrating" with them. Wasn't it said that the perception of closeness to the prosecution helped Beth out the door at TruTV? My point, I guess, is that I tend to see Beth as trying to bend over backwards to find something, anything to not criticize Nurmi/Wilmott for.

 

[atthelake]

FWIW......I read there (don't watch her videos) and haven't seen her express that opinion of Nurmi.

It was a misunderstanding of a post 3 days ago... yet it kept being repeated one night. she did not say that. :moo:

 

[ElleElle]

I thought Juan's brief made reference to 3 different guys (Sue, Tony, and mystery computer guy) but upon re-reading I see now it mentions only 2 (with mystery guy clearly being Sue). I'm not sure where I got it in my brain that there was a discussion that there were enough differences between Sue and mystery computer guy to assume they were two different guys. There was discussion that Tony wasn't Sue so maybe that is what I was thinking of.

The whole on computer fiasco has worn me out. I think it went as deep as it did was exactly for the DT to confuse the heck out of everyone.

JMO

 

[Hope4More]

The only question that seriously worried me was from the last trial. Remember the bear versus tiger one? :scared: Oh, and also the one about DV victims snapping and killing their abusers. And the jury still came back with a murder 1 verdict.

This is a retrial of the penalty phase so this jury is going to be under tremendous pressure to reach a unanimous verdict. And there is no way that 12 jurors will vote for life.

I agree completely. They also are decidedly not comparable to that certain jury in FL, in that I believe every one of them said they knew about her first trial. No doubt that includes knowing that it ended in a hung jury which upset a LOT of people.

No hanging, no life.....DP.

 

[Shadowboy]

I would think, taking into account JA's propensity for tall tales, that the reason she "can't" testify in court and open herself up to cross is because nothing she has to say can be corroborated. JM will just demolish it as yet another version of JA's blame the victim defense.

I agree, but that's because we know the truth! JA maintained (as per the appeal to the AZ SC) she feels a clear and present danger from the public reaction to media reports about her testimony (or some such nonsense); this fear keeps her from speaking freely if the media is present.