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

[Wing Ding]

I don't think there's any hearsay evidence that Jodi slashed Travis's tires. The problem with the tire-slashing is that there's no evidence at all against Jodi--just suspicion.

Ok, I see the difference now. Thank you for your reply.

I do remember Mimi mentioned "someone stalking and slashing his tires" in her testimony in the first trial (though likely it was only just everyone's suspicion), and I'm not sure if Travis had said anything to (I think) Lisa Andrews about suspecting Jodi of slashing the tires on his car or not. It sounds to me like Lisa would have hearsay evidence through Travis re: Jodi slashing tires, but I guess we'll see what happens (if anything). Probably nothing if the only remaining witnesses are the Bishop, Dr. DeMarte and the former FBI profiler. Oh well...

 

[Reagan]

Haven't been able to read this thread yet but my question is...

How is it that, even though the DT knows who will be called for the day, they're still woefully unprepared. Are they really that inept or are they hell bent on dragging everything out until the bitter end?
If they're trying to lose more jurors by delays and cause a mistrial, all they're going to do is alienate this jury (if they haven't already) because this jury seems determined to see this thru.

My guess is they're both inept and trying to unnecessarily delay to lose jurors.

Thoughts?

 

[TexMex]

That's nice....
I'm sure she is a very nice person. I was only giving my opinion of her as a media person. Agree to disagree, ok?

I guess she's nice but I don't know her. I've watched her since she started at CourtTV in 1994 and was giving my opinion that she's fair overall but tends to lean toward the prosecution sometimes, maybe a result of being a former prosecutor herself.

 

[LinasK]

Below is Monica's List from the link above.


Legally Speaking: Jodi Arias is winning and here's why

Don't feel sorry for Jodi Arias. Even though she's in jail and on trial for her life, she's racked up many victories. And continues to do so, despite the odds. Why is she winning?


1. If delay is the goal, then the battle has been won. The first jury was selected in December 2012 and trial is still going in January 2015.

2. The first jury hung on life vs. death.

3. Arias continues to be in the spotlight and receive attention.

4. The jury heard testimony about found on Travis Alexander's computer.

5. The jury heard testimony about Arias' allegations regarding Alexander and child .

6. The court bends over backwards for her.

7. She received a new attorney for the penalty phase (Kirk Nurmi 2.0 has stepped up to the plate and hasn't stopped throwing punches).

8. She continues to dominate Juan Martinez's time.

9. She testified secretly for two days and escaped from being cross-examined

10. She is still alive.

Yeah, some of these are true. So what? She's won skirmishes, not the major battles. According to this definition of winning, she's going to win herself a ticket to Death Row at Perryville.

 

[AZlawyer]

Ok, I see the difference now. Thank you for your reply.

I do remember Mimi mentioned "someone stalking and slashing his tires" in her testimony in the first trial (though likely it was only just everyone's suspicion), and I'm not sure if Travis had said anything to (I think) Lisa Andrews about suspecting Jodi of slashing the tires on his car or not. It sounds to me like Lisa would have hearsay evidence through Travis re: Jodi slashing tires, but I guess we'll see what happens (if anything). Probably nothing if the only remaining witnesses are the Bishop, Dr. DeMarte and the former FBI profiler. Oh well...

Lisa would only have hearsay evidence that Travis thought Jodi slashed his tires. What he thought is irrelevant, though. No one, as far as I know, has any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that Jodi actually slashed Travis's tires. Unfortunately.

 

[Amster]

I guess she's nice but I don't know her. I've watched her since she started at CourtTV in 1994 and was giving my opinion that she's fair overall but tends to lean toward the prosecution sometimes, maybe a result of being a former prosecutor herself.

I loved CTV....wish we had something like it now.

 

[Val1]

Accusations based merely on suspicion are not evidence, and neither are denials.

If TA had said, "I saw you run off down the street after my tires were slashed," that might be evidence. His "knowledge" that it was her was, as far as we know, just a very strong although likely correct suspicion.

So how did JA's accusations of child get in.... I haven't seen any "evidence" yet of her claims.

 

[LinasK]

:goodpost:

You bring up some excellent points.

Judge Belvin Perry would have taken on these defense attorneys and not put up with their nonsense. He was very respectful of everyone in the court, attorneys, witnesses, the defendant and above all the JURORS. This trial would have been sowed up in 2 months if he resided over this case. JSS could learn so much from way he handled his court cases.

And yet I lost all respect for Judge Perry when he let the DT bully him into allowing onto the jury a woman who should have never been a juror, for fear they'd cry racism. A juror who openly admitted she "refused to judge". So far, JSS has gotten a conviction, Perry didn't! I think JSS is doing a better job.

 

[TexMex]

I loved CTV....wish we had something like it now.

So true. They showed trials! without too many breaks. They'd have lots of commentators and experts. I do miss CTV

 

[AZlawyer]

So how did JA's accusations of child get in.... I haven't seen any "evidence" yet of her claims.

Because her testimony IS "evidence." She doesn't say she "knows" he looked at child or strongly suspects it; she says she SAW him look at child .

 

[Val1]

Could be about Jodi. Wasn't she baptized in Riverside???

Yea, about all that temple worthiness... was she? Do you need to do the missionary thing before you get the recommend? I was wondering how JA figured she was worthy of getting married in the temple if she had barely gotten baptized and was most certainly not being honest with her bishop about her sexual trysts with TA(or maybe she was... as in nothing happened beyond heavy petting and making up scenarios with their "fruitful imaginations")?

 

[tlckgram]

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.

Again, guess I am the minority. I think most of us on here want to see JA get the ultimate penalty. Some of us feel threatened when anything at all is said that hints it may not happen that way. BK, IMO, is very straight forward about what is happening in the court. Face it guys, some days the defense is doing a good job for JA. It is nasty the way they do it, but that is their job. Gotta give the devil his due......sometimes the defense is not doing a horrible job and greasing the path to the DP. That is their job. Someone HAS to do it or our justice system wouldn't be what it is. It isnt perfect, but it is what makes America special...........for innocent people. Just sucks big time that some horrible people squeak by on rules of law that protects truly innocent people. JMO

 

[Shadowboy]

She is still pretending that she is being forced not to testify, yes. The ramifications are zero IMO unless the AZ Supreme Court collectively suffers a head injury.

If she gets the DP, the AZ Supreme Court is required to hear her appeal. There will no doubt also be a federal habeas petition down the line, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The point is that it does not violate her constitutional rights to have a public trial, so yes it will be an appeal issue but no it will not be a successful appeal issue.

Thanks, AZL. There’s this sneaky, cynical part of me that wonders if this could find its way to the US District Court or even the US Supremes. (Talk about getting ahead of myself!)

The media circus surrounding the first trial was out of control. HLN was 24/7 Arias. TV hosts and expert panelists tore into witnesses; ripped open private lives; and camped within yards of the courthouse. I’m hoping KN doesn’t try to prove a case of witness intimidation due to the court’s decision to allow live coverage during the first trial.

He’s pulled this intimidation/media coverage rabbit out of his hat twice. In the first trial, he called no mitigation witnesses, right? Wash, rinse, repeat for this trial. Except, at this trial, JM called his bluff: Fine, slip in affidavits; I won’t stop you. So, out of the (11?) (14?) “intimidated” witnesses, KN went with two useless affiants. A guy JA worked with years ago and a bizarre liar.

Don’t you find that strange?

I’ve often wondered when a Federal Case might limit unfettered public access to a court room and do it on constitutional grounds. I hope The State v. Jodi Arias isn’t it. Hate to see that kind of Federal dabbling in the our right to an open and public justice system. (Oh, Gawd. Somebody stop me!!!)

 

[Val1]

Because her testimony IS "evidence." She doesn't say she "knows" he looked at child or strongly suspects it; she says she SAW him look at child .

Nope, she said she saw a picture of a young child on his bed(then later her "experts" tried to mix that up with him on his knees, pics on the internet, his pc, etc.) when TA allegedly got caught taking care of business...

 

[Amster]

So true. They showed trials! without too many breaks. They'd have lots of commentators and experts. I do miss CTV

Yep....no commercials...just commentary during breaks. Loved it! And, they reran everything at night!

 

[Reagan]

Lisa would only have hearsay evidence that Travis thought Jodi slashed his tires. What he thought is irrelevant, though. No one, as far as I know, has any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that Jodi actually slashed Travis's tires. Unfortunately.

Wasn't there an email/text between JA and Travis and she said "i didn't slash your tires" (not verbatim). I know that's not evidence, but does anyone have that exchange?

 

[DebinGA]

Travis moved to Mesa in 2004 and didn't lose his temple recommend until 2005 per the tweets, so I don't see how a juror would have been thinking he moved to avoid the temple recommend loss "following" him to a new home.

I remember old video of Deanna saying Travis moved to Mesa because he wanted to buy a house and better deals were to be had there than in CA. From Daily Mail, 4-30-13:

"... the murder kept the price of the home down meaning that the family [new owners] paid $206,000 for it in 2009, as compared to the $250,000 that Alexander had paid for it in 2004."

This supports Deanna's contention that TA moved to Mesa with the intention of buying a house.

ETA: TA's house was ~4500 sf.

​

 

[Wing Ding]

Lisa would only have hearsay evidence that Travis thought Jodi slashed his tires. What he thought is irrelevant, though. No one, as far as I know, has any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that Jodi actually slashed Travis's tires. Unfortunately.

Oh, now I see. Travis would have had to have known Jodi had slashed his tires. And then told Lisa about it.

Thanks again. And thanks for holding court here today and answering everyone else's questions, too. I know I appreciate it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Wasn't there an email/text between JA and Travis and she said "i didn't slash your tires" (not verbatim). I know that's not evidence, but does anyone have that exchange?

Yes. That's the opposite of evidence that she slashed his tires. It's evidence that she didn't slash his tires. Even though the truth is very likely that she did.

 

[Hez]

Haven't been able to read this thread yet but my question is...

How is it that, even though the DT knows who will be called for the day, they're still woefully unprepared. Are they really that inept or are they hell bent on dragging everything out until the bitter end?
If they're trying to lose more jurors by delays and cause a mistrial, all they're going to do is alienate this jury (if they haven't already) because this jury seems determined to see this thru.

My guess is they're both inept and trying to unnecessarily delay to lose jurors.

Thoughts?

BBM - I think the jury is probably immensely curious to see what's coming up next in this saga and they will see it through to the end now no matter what, especially now that the State is finally up. The defense team's hope of losing the jury through attrition has failed miserably. :moo: