Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/9-1/12 Break - Part 2

[cindymac]

In affidavit style, possibly.... Gus Searcy, Matt McCartney, Pity-Patty Womack, Angela, 2 former co-workers, and a couple of nuts from her support site. Oh, and a former jailhouse roadie (can't recall her name but she was listed once before)

In person, possibly Darryl Brewer, Aunt Sue, and um, that's all got.

What about Bishop Vernon Parker, or his wife? Or did they become State witness(es)?

 

[TexMex]

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-sidebar-transcripts/

The Court: Well, that terminology doesn’t necessarily mean suicide. That’s her interpretation is that he wanted to commit suicide, that was the defendant?

Ms. Willmott: No. Judge, first of all, it’s not about Mr. Alexander’s state of mind. It’s about Ms. Arias and what she have perceived when Mr. Alexander said, I F’n want to kill myself. That’s what he says. He threatened suicide. Now that’s about what that does to somebody in a relationship.

Second of all, Ms. LaViolette does not have this all wrong. She’s talking– she just is not allowed to finish the story because of the constant objections. But that’s what she’s talking about is when she goes back the next day and talks to Mr. Alexander about it and how upset he gets.

Mr. Martinez: But the thing is that if Ms. Willmott and I were married, I certainly would say I F’g want to kill myself. That doesn’t mean I want to kill myself. It just means there’s a bad relationship and I want you to leave me alone.

She’s talking again about somebody’s state of mind. Just because somebody says that, that doesn’t mean that he wants to commit suicide.

The Court: Okay.

Ms. Willmott: Judge, just for the record, I think that that was an insult because he’s trying to say that if he and I were married–

Mr. Martinez: That was a compliment, bad joke.

Ms. Willmott: I don’t see it as either. But at any point–

The Court: All right. Let’s move past that.

Ms. Willmott: Okay

 

[Frigga]

Come on- Juan is hilarious. That was funny with a capital F! Poor Wilmott, I wonder if she has a sense of humor at all, outside of court. I love Juan.

 

[AZlawyer]

Respectfully Snipped and BBM:

Just jumping off you post here with a ? for AZLawyer TIA !

- Can the State file a Motion with the Court to have this witness reveal his true identity -- real name and any "nicknames" -- and true credentials ?


JMO but it is outrageous that this so-called expert is allowed to hide this info ... obviously, he has something to hide, IMO.

JM did file a motion to preclude any witnesses from testifying under a pseudonym. Apparently it was denied. I agree it's ridiculous.

IF the ASC had overturned the CoA and JSS had already released the transcripts then it could have created an error resulting in a mistrial. I don't know that it absolutely would have, but the defense certainly would have gone to town with it, and any defense team would do the same thing.

I'd love to hear AZLawyer's opinion on this.

It COULD have resulted in a mistrial in theory, but it WOULDN'T result in a mistrial in practice, because the AZ Supreme Court is (1) pretty smart, and (2) very practical--in other words, they will twist things around a bit if necessary to avoid obvious injustice. I don't always like that because I'm kind of a legal purist, but I get it. So they would not allow a mistrial even if they (for reasons I can't fathom) thought there was some problem with releasing the transcript.

 

[Frigga]

So, do we think it may be Daryl Brewer tomorrow? He is the only one who seemed anxious to testify for Jodi by the end of the original trial. He was actually disappointed he wasn't able to tell their "Love Story", SMH. I have come to believe he DOES have a lot of guilt and regret. He doth protest too much, IMOO. <modsnip>

 

[Val1]

If anyone wants to review what JM talked to BN about in his "interview" when the DT suddenly decided to bring in "Sue", I found the following explanation of just what an E01 file is quite informative in light of BN's testimony that he never made one.
http://thetrialdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/motion.pdf
http://www.forensicsware.com/blog/e01-file-format.html

 

[MeeBee]

So, do we think it may be Daryl Brewer tomorrow? He is the only one who seemed anxious to testify for Jodi by the end of the original trial. He was actually disappointed he wasn't able to tell their "Love Story", SMH. I have come to believe he DOES have a lot of guilt and regret. He doth protest too much, IMOO. I wonder if he is still a drinker. He definitely had a dry mouth, in his TV interview. Medicated maybe?

Well, the defense is still trying to get those pedophile letters in. Both the defense and state have handwriting and document experts on tap. We could be hearing about those letters tomorrow. Maybe.

 

[TexMex]

So, do we think it may be Daryl Brewer tomorrow? He is the only one who seemed anxious to testify for Jodi by the end of the original trial. He was actually disappointed he wasn't able to tell their "Love Story", SMH. I have come to believe he DOES have a lot of guilt and regret. He doth protest too much, IMOO. I wonder if he is still a drinker. He definitely had a dry mouth, in his TV interview. Medicated maybe?

I just wonder what the defense plans to do until the 20th when Geffner is available again. If they have Brewer and Aunt Sue that'll take a day. Tomorrow is the 12th. If Nurmi plans to stand at the podium and read affidavits from Jodi's old grade school friends for seven days I may f'n kill myself

 

[tandt]

Come on- Juan is hilarious. That was funny with a capital F! Poor Wilmott, I wonder if she has a sense of humor at all, outside of court. I love Juan.

I literally LOL'ed when reading that. I can just see Wilmott's face! ha ha!

 

[NashBridges2]

So, do we think it may be Daryl Brewer tomorrow? He is the only one who seemed anxious to testify for Jodi by the end of the original trial. He was actually disappointed he wasn't able to tell their "Love Story", SMH. I have come to believe he DOES have a lot of guilt and regret. He doth protest too much, IMOO. I wonder if he is still a drinker. He definitely had a dry mouth, in his TV interview. Medicated maybe?

My guesses for tomorrows witness, another pseudonym. Choices are:

1)Stu Padasole
2)Hugh Jass
3)Mike Rotchburns
4)Mya Buttreaks
5)Dixie Normous

 

[NashBridges2]

I just wonder what the defense plans to do until the 20th when Geffner is available again. If they have Brewer and Aunt Sue that'll take a day. Tomorrow is the 12th. If Nurmi plans to stand at the podium and read affidavits from Jodi's old grade school friends for seven days I may f'n kill myself

A day? In what dream world do you live in that Nurmi can start and finish with a witness in one day? More like a week.

 

[TexMex]

A day? In what dream world do you live in that Nurmi can start and finish with a witness in one day? More like a week.

True that.

What will the affidavits say?

"Jodi was so nice in first grade. She was an excellent artist. We would trace pictures of Barney then carefully color them in. She would always ask nicely to borrow my purple crayon. Her parents never believed in her creative side so she only had a five pack. Looking back she did get angry when I talked to the cute boy in our class...thankfully we only had those blunt scissors."

 

[NashBridges2]

True that.

What will the affidavits say?

"Jodi was so nice in first grade. She was an excellent artist. We would trace pictures of Barney then carefully color them in. She would always ask nicely to borrow my purple crayon. Her parents never believed in her creative side so she only had a five pack. Looking back she did get angry when I talked to the cute boy in our class...thankfully we only had those blunt scissors."

"In grade 2 someone stole my pop rocks and tootsie pops out of my care bear lunch kit. Jodi swears it wasn't her, and I believe her"

 

[wendiesan]

Believe it or not, the case is not owned by "the family," the case is owned by the State of Arizona on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction. The state takes the family's thoughts and feelings into consideration, and the state of AZ has specific victim's rights laws, but "unfairness" to the family is not a factor of the legal rulings. All burden to prove the charges shifts to the state. However, while the media & public were barred from seeing secretTestimony, the victim's family got to stay. The victim's family also gets to go to judge's chambers on secret hearings back there, and the victim's family is kept informed by the state of all kinds of things that the public and media are not, along the way.

Jumping off your post.

Arizona has a victim's bill of rights (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/2_1.htm).
Among the rights listed are:

3. To be present at and, upon request, to be informed of all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.

and

4. To be heard at any proceeding involving a post-arrest release decision, a negotiated plea, and sentencing.

Arizona makes a specific provision for cases which involve homicides.

C) "Victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed or, if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative, except if the person is in custody for an offense or is the accused.

I believe that the family, representing Travis Alexander, has received some of the courtesies.

However, it seems evident to me that the JSS's court has utterly failed to meet the first point in the document.

1. To be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.

Sadly, slander is not specifically mentioned as a form of abuse.

Even more apparent, at least to me, is the impression that JSS's court has failed to meet the tenth point. That is, that the a victim has a right--

10. To a speedy trial or disposition and prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction and sentence.

 

[LinasK]

Not speaking from personal knowledge, I trust, LOL

ETA: There used to be a show "Banged up Abroad" - the prisons were horrifying.

No, people have posted pictures of Joran van Der Sloot's conditions.

 

[wendiesan]

IIRC, Katiecoolady, present as a volunteer during the trial, was the person who advised the Alexander family that they did not have to interact in any way with ALV.

 

[kolokolo]

Good to remember IMO. It's amazing how manipulative this convicted murderer has been - through her lawyers. Are we seeing a blatant display of 'omnipotence' and 'megalomanic control' manipulated through her lawyers? or have they been caught in her web too? It is amazing how this character pathology has influenced and 'played with' the court processes... and, of course, all on the public purse of AZ citizens! My opinion only.

The convicted murderer is manipulative all on her own. Remember when she was pro se, she told JSS if she (JSS) lets Nurmi go she would give up her pro se.

 

[kolokolo]

By now that might have been overtaken by "Who is causing all these stupid delays? I wanted to be done before Christmas!"

If I was a juror I would be wondering when is the convicted murderer going to say she is sorry for this horrible crime.

 

[Wysteria]

IF JSS is against the DP, as some have opined, then why did she deny the defense's multiple (at least 20 or more) motions to dismiss the DP from consideration?

I don't know how many times AZLawyer has told us the reasons for various decisions by the judge, not all of which make sense, but certainly many of them are a result of the judge either not having a choice at all (her hands are legally tied by the laws of AZ) or she is trying not to provide any reason for a successful appeal by Arias in the future, when everyone knows with 100% certainty Arias will be appealing regardless.

But little of what AZLawyer informs seems to be believed and spectators continue to insist JSS rules as she does because she either secretly supports the killer, or is against the DP, or hates the prosecutor, or wants to subvert justice, or any other number of reasons, none of which have any factual basis behind them. JSS is a weak scaredy-cat judge, but I don't see where she's on the side of the defendant.

Perhaps it would make people feel better if JSS ruled exactly how they themselves want, laws of the state and future appeals be damned.

I agree with some of your post.

I don't want to engage in a circular argument, and I'm not implying that you are or have. The reason why I like it here on Websleuths so much is because ordinarily we can disagree and move on. One trying to convince the other that their opinion is the right one gets frustrating. Again, my statement is not directed at you. I also want to make it clear that my intent is not to tell or advise others how to post.

I feel that JSS has made some unusual and concerning rulings and that she is having a terrible time controlling her courtroom. I don't feel as though there is some sort of nefarious plot, although those that do; have at it, fine by me, agree to disagree etc...

I feel that JSS is in over her head with this DP case. (especially this portion of the case).

According to some of the posts I've read she is well thought of and experienced. I do believe that statement to be true.

In my opinion; the unusual rulings have shown me that she is inept and tepid...on the other hand though; she is more than likely concerned about appeals at some point down the line and that concern is what is causing her questionable rulings.

According to all of the posts I have read, many here will disagree with my post and my opinion, and it's all good. I respect their opinions and feelings. :grouphug:

I just wanted to share mine. I have more thoughts regarding JSS, but I've only included the two that I felt, in my opinion, were the ones that concern me the most.

 

[bsk]

I think if I were a juror, I would ask JS how often he cleans his computer. I would ask him if anti virus software is made to keep viruses off a computer or to take it off after it's already on there.

I think I would ask him if it's unusual to find links on a computer.

It's hard to know how far they got into the explanations but I think most people, even me, know that viruses can be caused just by opening an e-mail. I think I would ask if can be on a computer for innocent reasons, as in I may have a virus and not know it and if something happens to me I don't want someone thinking I'm a sexual deviant. What would be the PROPER steps to remove a site caused by a virus if anti virus software makes you look guilty.

Just some questions...

Good points. Might also ask if he ever texts after 11pm.