Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/26 -12/02/14 In recess

[Nali87]

Speaking of public scrutiny, I wonder how this all fits in with Nurmi's argument about his fear of scrutiny:

Such a silly argument. If he didn't want to be scrutinized, then maybe he should have chosen a different profession. The scrutiny comes with the job Nurmi.

 

[Frigga]

There is picture of Jodi holding her baby sister in the begamercial they released. It also has Jodi with her hair up several times in little ponytails and braids. I can't remember what age she was, but looked quite young, maybe ten or eleven.

I am sure you are correct, it was just something that stood out to me. I try not to see the world through my own screwed up lens, I guess sometimes it's not possible. Maybe I want a reason to understand why all of these professionals took her side, her family too. Maybe even a reason why Jodi herself is so screwed up. I know what harm it did in my own family... but that is probably my biggest mistake.

 

[hindsight2020]

AZL. . .What legal basis would the judge have to close the court for this defendant? Any sanctions for frivolous motions? This is infuriating, waste of time, taxpayers money, jurors time, COA time, etc.

sufferin' succotash:gaah:

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL - Erickson mentioned a legal delay for transcripts. Do you expect them to be released in whole, or could there be some wrangling/retracting? For example, if JA was asked 100 questions could the DT say "we would not have asked these 10 questions, so can they be struck from the record and the jury advised to disregard them?"

I don't see how they could do that since they demanded that the entire testimony be secret (and also because Juan would object if that closed a door that would be open to him on cross if they 'unrang the bell'), but with all the twists and turns and weird rulings here I'm wondering what kinds of scenarios might be possible in your mind vs just a dump of the transcript. Or were court cameras running but not released?

After the first COA smackdown, it seemed that JSS was pretty curt with KN the next morning. Do you think this final smackdown would allow her to finally grow a set and quit putting up with his nonsense? I think I'll faint if I ever see a tweet saying she refused one of his endless sidebar requests.

I think the only fair thing would be for the transcript to be read out loud to 10 Twitter users, who will then have the job of informing the rest of us.

But I think the media will eventually convince JSS to release it. And I would hope she would start to question KN's requests more closely.

Re typo: All the COA would have to do is order a new piece of paper, surely? If it matters?

It doesn't matter.

So, do you think she will continue to testify? 18 more days of non-sense, lies and deception? I am gobsmacked and in disbelief. Now who's the master manipulator??

No kidding. I would love to have seen Dr. F explain how miss "suffer in silence" got the Constitution of the United States of America set aside for her own manipulative purposes.

 

[ShadyLady]

Happy Days....Happy Days, so glad I came back here to read this!!!

Let's hope transcript comes out soon!

 

[RickshawFan]

I think that if she actually wanted the media to appeal and knew she'd be overturned, then I think she would have granted the stay the media asked for. She would have not let testimony continue, knowing that the courts of appeal would overturn her decision to grant a stay, that would result in the Defense's testimony being put to a stop abruptly and witnesses testifying out of order! All things that ultimately confuse a jury.

Oh, well then, if I were JSS right now, I'd feel plenty silly. The court of appeals didn't even bother explaining why her decision made no sense!

I think it's absolute genius on JSS's part that Fonseca got sandwiched between two segments of JA. Because of Dr. F's BS, the jury can look back at their experience with JA and evaluate it negatively without having to go through piles and piles of stuff. It will be much clearer than if they had to sit through 18 days of tangle. When JA testifies in the next round, jury members can test their unflattering hypotheses from the pre-Fonseca bout against everything JA says post-Fonseca. And they've got the long-weekend to construct said unflattering hypotheses: delicious!

 

[hindsight2020]

Ha, the COA judges must have been laughing their arses off with this nonsense.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL. . .What legal basis would the judge have to close the court for this defendant? Any sanctions for frivolous motions? This is infuriating, waste of time, taxpayers money, jurors time, COA time, etc.

sufferin' succotash:gaah:

No legal basis whatsoever. I can't even imagine what KN said to talk her into it. I suspect JM had some things to say, based on the way he made the "Star Chamber" comment in the one public televised hearing we had (re: whether to stay the retrial pending the Ct App's decision).

No, KN can't be sanctioned for making a motion that he won.

 

[imawitch]

Lol, they messed up, it's a typo. They meant 2014.

thanks..

but you know how Nurmi rolls,any lil mistake no matter how teensy weency, I expect him to say

mistrial lol, jmo

 

[Quester]

She can't refuse to subject herself to cross, and JSS needs to make that clear to her, even if she has to handcuff her to the witness chair.

RSBM - Good and I hope Mike, the court reporter, will be given JA's leg zapper remote control to make sure JA answers and finishes her answers for the sake of the record [or whatever that DT "Dr" snarkily stated!] JMHO

 

[Hez]

Such a silly argument. If he didn't want to be scrutinized, then maybe he should have chosen a different profession. The scrutiny comes with the job Nurmi.

Of course their representation is going to come under scrutiny if their client gets the death penalty. It's called an automatic appeal. :facepalm:

 

[janx]

RSBM - Good and I hope Mike, the court reporter, will be given JA's leg zapper remote control to make sure JA answers and finishes her answers for the sake of the record [or whatever that DT "Dr" snarkily stated!] JMHO

LOL! :floorlaugh:

ZZZZT! "Shut up!"

 

[imawitch]

I bet Nurmi is going to call for a mistrial because of this typo.

now see, I was reading the thread from bottom up and said what you said lol

I need to start marking my place better lol

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Frigga]

Does anyone have the link to the legal reasons why the AZ court could allow a witness to testify in secret? TIA

 

[garthmax]

I think that if she actually wanted the media to appeal and knew she'd be overturned, then I think she would have granted the stay the media asked for. She would have not let testimony continue, knowing that the courts of appeal would overturn her decision to grant a stay, that would result in the Defense's testimony being put to a stop abruptly and witnesses testifying out of order! All things that ultimately confuse a jury.

Oh, well then, if I were JSS right now, I'd feel plenty silly. The court of appeals didn't even bother explaining why her decision made no sense!

I may be wrong, but I think the stunt that CMJA testified in secret bit her in the backside. She thought the appeal would take longer, she could still testify while the appeal was on going and get in all her false details and then have the expert collaborate.Or hoping that the jury would probably dwindle and cause a mistrial. All in all not a good week for CMJA.

 

[elementary]

I'll bet JSS let JA testify in secret on purpose knowing that JA would get face-slimed by the COA. Yippee! We've gone up Slime Lane!

Someone upthread pointed out that JSS could have granted a stay while the COA decided. But she didn't. To me, this means that she really was totally behind her decision to allow this level of unconstitutional secrecy.

 

[elementary]

Do you think there is another ​psychologist who interviewed Arias? Because "psychologist" was on the list she was ordered in August 2014 to turn over to the State. I think it is one and the same.

I imagine it was Fonseca.

 

[MaryND]

She thought the appeal would take longer, she could still testify while the appeal was on going and get in all her false details and then have the expert collaborate.Or hoping that the jury would probably dwindle and cause a mistrial. All in all not a good week for CMJA.

Now that I am totally cynical: maybe she thought she could continue to testify, then *poof* ... stop when COA decided against her, then she could have them strike her testimony instead of being cross examined.... but a bell rung can't be un-rung

 

[Love Never Fails]

I don't think it's her daughter. That would mean she was abused as a child and she would have loved to bring that up to appear more of a damaged victim.

Are you so SURE that would mean she was abused as a child? How about PROMISCUOUS as a child and nothing to do with abuse or with a family member?

I say this because of a friend whose family member was overly sexually active by age 10 and was pregnant at 11. It wasn't family.

In any case, if she was sexually abused, and IMO, contrary to what every psychologist has to say on the matter, sexual abuse does not=psycho murder.

 

[wenwe4]

I love that the COA's ruling outed Jodi for testifying in secret!

Jodi crying to Dr. MF that she didn't want to be Travis' dirty little secret . . . . guess what Jodi - you are no longer an Arizona courtroom's dirty little secret witness!