Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/01/14 In recess

[Nali87]

Nurmi absolutely does not have three viable civilian witnesses. This is just more smoke and mirrors.

The defense has come up with nothing more in greater than 18 months, because there is nothing to find. Remorse would be a good start, but Jodi ain't buying it. Somehow she thinks she can still bash the victim and be remorseful, but that is looking through her warped lens.

He has perhaps one witness, from Cali. We don't know who that is, but my educated guess would be Darryl Brewer.

The DT knows that there's no serious threat to the lives of their witnesses. The witnesses that don't want to testify in her favor don't want the public to know who they are so they can talk whatever and hide behind a curtain of anonimity. No one wants to be associated with a murderer - not in the open anyways.

 

[AZlawyer]

I think I see what you mean. When she is saying she doesnt want to testify unless private and then turning around and saying if you dont allow the privacy then I cant adequately plead the case.

I am convinced the DT has been trying to do that this whole case. Cause something to happen themselves and then turn around and use that in either a current or future appeal or motion.

Like with the length of the trial, the poor legal representation, and other examples.

OK, thanks for the examples to help explain the question.

There is nothing inconsistent about the first argument. She was saying that she needed to testify in private in order to completely present her case. The Ct App said no private testimony. So now she's saying, OK then, I can't completely present my case.

 

[5bigfish5]

But it's there. And she doesn't want to die. She doesn't want to live the life that comes with being on death row. That part isn't just about control. No one would want that. It's about self preservation. I still remember the look on her face when the hung jury was announced. It wasn't fake like before, it was pretty genuine. The idea that there are people out there who actually voted for her death is probably pretty harrowing.

She does probably view not getting the death penalty as a win, because every time she loses she has to create a new competition in her mind until she gets a "win."

This is IMO. It's a complicated thing. But basically, she doesn't want to die.

Did you also see the ABSOLUTE terror in Travis' eyes in those "shower pics

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

I think I see what you mean. When she is saying she doesnt want to testify unless private and then turning around and saying if you dont allow the privacy then I cant adequately plead the case.

I am convinced the DT has been trying to do that this whole case. Cause something to happen themselves and then turn around and use that in either a current or future appeal or motion.

Like with the length of the trial, the poor legal representation, and other examples.

This is exactly what they have been doing the whole time IMHO.

 

[salberg7]

And just what do all these frivolous time wasting motions have to do with mitigation? JSS needs to reign this farce of a trial in. Seriously. Doesn't she have peer review, for goodness sake? Doesn't anyone in that County have have the ability to ask just what the heck is going on here? Isn't JSS privy to county budgets or sensitive to how much money this is costing? Let the killer deal with these issues on appeal, she was convicted 18 + months ago. It is maddening for me.
Is the "fog" ever going to roll out to Perryville? Isn't it inevitable that's where she is going?
Allowing CMJA & Nurmi to shred our Constitution? Please let this end, and soon.
What can anything those three "mystery" witnesses possibly contribute to CMJA's mitigating factors to spare her life? Nothing! Ridiculous, bordering on the absurd.

 

[cindymac]

From last thread:

As a card carrying member of The Club*, I admire JM as much as the next Juanette but as a sleuther I have some questions that haven't been adequately answered. Whether the nudies were made that afternoon or at any other time doesn't change anything really, I just want the truth of the whole matter and there is enough about them that gives me pause.

Frankly some of the prosecution's theory does as well, as in - why did they have the gunshot first all the way up until close to trial, what changed in their mind to go with stabbing first and gunshot last?

The state never really changed from a gunshot first theory, because it never committed to that in the first place. Sure, in the early days Flores' may have had some rough and ready notions, but at that time actual sequencing was largely irrelevant. It sufficed that it could be proven that Arias had shot, stabbed and cut Travis' throat. However, as the trial itself loomed on the horizon, sequencing became important as a potential tool for assessing/discrediting Arias' self-defense story, and establishing cruelty. It's only then that Martinez committed to a sequence - based on the actual medical evidence and expert opinion provided by Dr. Horn, which, incidentally, defense wasn't able to refute.

Why didn't they study the pictures close enough to see in the very last one it isn't the back of his neck you see (as JM compared the red streak pattern to the photo before) but rather someone's hand?

I don't recall anyone presenting a firm opinion in court on whether it was a head or hand or something else. But my memory may be failing me on that one.

And why have they always said the photo before (pant leg pic) is JA dragging Travis when the timestamps clearly show there wasn't enough time for him to be dead and dragged by that point...

There's almost two minutes (1'46") between the sitting in the shower photo and the dragging photo, which seems enough?

and if he were, how could he hold his head up that high?

Maybe he's not holding it up. Maybe Arias is. Maybe her other leg is supporting it...?

And how can they say the last pic was the camera on the floor and upside down when it's clear something is moving just under the lens of the camera?

I'm not sure if this answers the question, but the pics are flipped the right way up for display purposes. Besides, the lens is still taking the same picture, regardless of whether the surrounding camera body is up the right way or not. If that makes sense!

 

[janx]

OK, thanks for the examples to help explain the question.

There is nothing inconsistent about the first argument. She was saying that she needed to testify in private in order to completely present her case. The Ct App said no private testimony. So now she's saying, OK then, I can't completely present my case.

But Nurmi then claims this trial would be unconstitutional if no secret testimony, when in fact a higher court ruled that secret testimony by Arias would make it so. And Nurmi then extends his secret testimony argument to include witnesses who probably aren't even on the list?

So his cracked, fallacious logic is that since JA was a secret mitigation witness and got to testify in secret, all other mitigation witnesses should have that right too...ALL of this after the CoA just ruled that JA must not testify secretly! :gaah:

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I imagine you all have already seen this... But...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...oxnews/national+(Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text)

JODI ARIAS'S LAWYERS SAY 3 WITNESSES ON HER BEHALF WON'T TESTIFY IN OPEN COURT

(More at link above...)

Wow! THREE witnesses for poor, poor Jodi won't testify on her behalf in open court...

:violin:

 

[krkrjx]

BBM - Hi Steve, what are you refering to? Why would it be less secure?

DP is more likely to be overturned/commuted. If she is sentenced to Life, it will be far less scrutinized but more importantly, advocacy groups are less likely to take up an issue of cruel and unusual punishment on behalf of the cruel and unusual killer.

 

[Steely Dan]

Motion on this page

http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-another-motion-filed-by.html?spref=tw&m=1

Boy it's going to get uglier

Ok, I'm skimming today's stuff, but I had to stop here for a moment. Are you :censored: kidding me?! A guy who knew TA before he met CMJA wants to testify that he was into child , but only in secret?

Could it be that if anyone outside of court found out who he is they would come forward and offer up a character assassination of this so called former friend of TA's?

 

[Augustgurl]

Well, Nurmi's super secret defense witness list is just a little bit exposed now.

Requesting that the Constitution be violated for the likes of Brewer or the pathological fellow from NZ to testify.....what a joke. Unfunny, but too ridiculous to take seriously.

No kidding!!!! AND here's where the ridiculous comes in: Brewer won't " testify" in open court because he's scared of threats blah blah... Oh , but, wait, he's not scared to expose himself ( yeesh that sounds bad) on national TV where thousands were watching him give an interview on Hodis behalf. Why does he not think threats will come after that? I hope to God Juan brings up this obvious hypocrisy. The only damn thing these 3 are afraid of is Juan Martinez and his truth finding cross exam. This is such BS I can't take it!!!! :tantrum:

 

[Nali87]

But Nurmi then claims this trial would be unconstitutional if no secret testimony, when in fact a higher court ruled that secret testimony by Arias would make it so. And Nurmi then extends his secret testimony argument to include witnesses who probably aren't even on the list?

So his cracked, fallacious logic is that since JA was a secret mitigation witness and got to testify in secret, all other mitigation witnesses should have that right too...ALL of this after the CoA just ruled that JA must not testify secretly! :gaah:

Well, what does he got to lose at this point? :sigh:

 

[Steely Dan]

Ok, I'm skimming today's stuff, but I had to stop here for a moment. Are you :censored: kidding me?! A guy who knew TA before he met CMJA wants to testify that he was into child , but only in secret?

Could it be that if anyone outside of court found out who he is they would come forward and offer up a character assassination of this so called former friend of TA's?

When I said that I mean a truthful character assassination. Someone who knows them and knows they are lying. JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Googling Gayla brings up some interesting things she's posted online about CMJA. Btw, Gayla worked with the murderer at a Denny's in Yreka. CMJA was sleeping with a Denny's cook then.

Favorite Gayla-ism.....she describes CMJA as being taken over by evil personalities, whom CMJA would refer to in the 3rd person. OK then.

That lady is way beyond "out there". I loved where she told about the manager kicking CMJA's butt. She must not have had access to any weapons then. Could you imagine Juan on cross? :laughing:

 

[krkrjx]

She did not exercise her right to remain silent. She waived it by testifying.

If she HAD exercised her right to remain silent, of course, the result would be the same. Whichever way she chooses, it's her choice--no one is forcing her to exercise or not exercise her right.

The motion claims that the situation causing harm to Jodi (the threat to witnesses) was created by the public and media, not by Jodi.

I'm just still not sure what your question is about creating a situation and then claiming harm from it. I don't think it applies here, but maybe what you're thinking of is estoppel? Where you are precluded from taking one position, benefiting from it, and then complaining about the results? If so, that is not a written law; it's part of the "common law," which is decided by judges.

Yes, she testified but didn't finish. At least that's what was reported. And now won't finish because privacy is a no-no. So in a sense she is NOW exercising her right to remain silent but claiming that her silence is harming her.

I do not know another way to say it.

ETA: Forgot the question, which is...why would JSS need to allow oral argument for this motion to dismiss based on the above situation? Seems to me she could just deny the motion and look the killer in the eye and say
"You may testify or not, it's up to you."

 

[Caylee Advocate]

No kidding!!!! AND here's where the ridiculous comes in: Brewer won't " testify" in open court because he's scared of threats blah blah... Oh , but, wait, he's not scared to expose himself ( yeesh that sounds bad) on national TV where thousands were watching him give an interview on Hodis behalf. Why does he not think threats will come after that? I hope to God Juan brings up this obvious hypocrisy. The only damn thing these 3 are afraid of is Juan Martinez and his truth finding cross exam. This is such BS I can't take it!!!! :tantrum:

Or another thought... maybe he (DB) thinks he could be subjected to a penis line-up/ just kidding. :shame:

 

[5bigfish5]

No kidding!!!! AND here's where the ridiculous comes in: Brewer won't " testify" in open court because he's scared of threats blah blah... Oh , but, wait, he's not scared to expose himself ( yeesh that sounds bad) on national TV where thousands were watching him give an interview on Hodis behalf. Why does he not think threats will come after that? I hope to God Juan brings up this obvious hypocrisy. The only damn thing these 3 are afraid of is Juan Martinez and his truth finding cross exam. This is such BS I can't take it!!!! :tantrum:

Poor, Poor Brewer.

Can't believe he hasn't wised up enough to set a good example for his son.

Earth to Darryl, Jodi ADMITS killing Travis. Why don't YOU or your son tell us all what went on in that house when she borrowed "gas cans" and did some kind of shuffle with the other things in her car.

 

[AZlawyer]

But Nurmi then claims this trial would be unconstitutional if no secret testimony, when in fact a higher court ruled that secret testimony by Arias would make it so. And Nurmi then extends his secret testimony argument to include witnesses who probably aren't even on the list?

So his cracked, fallacious logic is that since JA was a secret mitigation witness and got to testify in secret, all other mitigation witnesses should have that right too...ALL of this after the CoA just ruled that JA must not testify secretly! :gaah:

OK, the Ct App ruled there would be no secret testimony [impliedly due to the 1st Amd]. Nurmi is saying that, if secret testimony is not allowed, the death penalty should be off the table because none of the (non-JA) witnesses will testify so JA's right to due process [5th/14th Amd] will be violated. I think that's what he's saying, anyway. I'm sure the Ct App would disagree with him, but they haven't been asked to opine on that issue yet.

I don't think his argument is that JA's secret testimony gives anyone else the right to testify in secret.

Yes, she testified but didn't finish. At least that's what was reported. And now won't finish because privacy is a no-no. So in a sense she is NOW exercising her right to remain silent but claiming that her silence is harming her.

I do not know another way to say it.

Well, she's claiming she's being FORCED into silence because of the mean media, not because she wants to exercise that right. Which, again, she's waived so IMO that's not an option.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, she testified but didn't finish. At least that's what was reported. And now won't finish because privacy is a no-no. So in a sense she is NOW exercising her right to remain silent but claiming that her silence is harming her.

I do not know another way to say it.

ETA: Forgot the question, which is...why would JSS need to allow oral argument for this motion to dismiss based on the above situation? Seems to me she could just deny the motion and look the killer in the eye and say
"You may testify or not, it's up to you."

Responding to your "ETA," I agree that there's no need for JSS to allow argument. She can deny the motion without argument, but IMO she probably would like to hear JM's argument to see if he comes up with some creative way for her to wiggle out of her previously declared opinions.

ETA: She might also want to get these witnesses on the phone to see if what Nurmi says about them is true and if they understand (except for the NZ witness) that they can be subpoenaed.

 

[believe09]

I drive by every once in a while with the now fading hope that this is over. I realize JA doesnt ever want it to be over. The idea that there could be secret testimony here is way too absurd for me. The Alexander family must feel like they are subjected to daily torture....a sincere thank you to everyone here who has worked so hard to clarify and debate and share disgust and shed tears... :grouphug: