Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[LinasK]

IIRC Juan won a motion that said none of the witnesses could talk about any porn on the computer until the whole computer matter is settled. I believe that is why Jodi is refusing to go back on the stand at this point. They are saying it is because of the COA ruling but I believe it is because she has major lies she wants to say about porn on the computer. IMO Jodi's planned testimony will only work if computer porn comes in. Time for them to come up with another plan.

I think you're onto something!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I guess I am just nervous because of the Phylicia Barnes GUILTY verdict against her killer being overturned. The RETRIAL happening now due to an issue with one of the witnesses. Something was not revealed to the jury and so it was scrapped. DO OVER.

It makes me nervous to think about it.

CONVICTION OVERTURNED MD - Retrial for the murder of Phylicia ...
www.websleuths.com/.../showthread.php?...MD-Retrial...murder-of...Bar...
Nov 13, 2013 - 25 posts - ‎8 authors

RBBM:

:seeya: I hear ya, katy, and I agree with your points !

JMO considering how this entire case has been handled, it would NOT surprise me IF -- a BIG IF -- her conviction is overturned on appeal :gaah:

Remember what CMJA said: "No jury will ever convict me ... and you can mark my word."

I hope I got the quote right -- it's late !

This trial is the nightmare trial from he!! !

:moo:

 

[krkrjx]

That's what I think even though I'm in the minority here. Tired of all the JSS bashing. The delays are the fault of the defense, noone else. Jodi could testify if she really wanted to. She's the one it's all a game to, a manipulation game. Well if everyone wants to see me testify, I won't let them!!!

The problem is that JA and Company could not get away with their carp if JSS would not allow it. She should be instructed to testify or waive her right. She should be subjected to cross by JM if she has already testified. Or move on with the next witness.

I do not think this judge has control of her courtroom and I do not see it as bashing if we are simply calling it as we see it. I was a JSS supporter until just recently, but I cannot support her actions (or lack of as the situation may be) any longer. I just do not think it is bashing in this case, given all we have seen. JMO of course.

 

[Becky Sharp]

She says she let them know if her questionnaire. That is probably true. They are asked to disclose these things.

SW is the one who broke the news. She gave an interview last week that was somewhat neutral and this didn't come out. Not five minutes after her more opinionated interview tonight and SW breaks the news. The trial people reported they know for a fact MDLR was hanging out in there. The trial talk people also may have had her name but they'd be the only ones other than the DT and the state because she's never revealed it publicly and they never gave a last name. The court, as we all know, have been cautious about keeping everything about everything under tight seal. It's suspicious, is all, that the report didn't come from a savvy reporter but from a crazed JA supporter who has been known to have personal contact with members of the DT.

Yes, it certainly is suspicious. Was this an ace up their sleeve? Or is this mazey-maze of a trial making us paranoid?

Now is probably the time for me to ask a question I've had for a long time now, but I've always been somewhat shy about asking it because it likely is stupid: just what is MDLR's job? Clearly it is a two-level job: the official duties and the not-so-official duties.

Thanks MeeBee for providing all this information and your perceptive thoughts.

 

[LinasK]

Can a judge recuse themselves in the middle of a trial (well...that's what I'll call it)

Judge Strickland did in the Casey Anthony trial, but he had good reason to do so. JSS does not.

 

[Becky Sharp]

Her endless chatter forced their hand? Forced to reveal the skeletons in her closet? This wasn't done out of necessity. It was done out of spite.

Exactly: spite.

 

[Myvice]

That's what I think even though I'm in the minority here. Tired of all the JSS bashing. The delays are the fault of the defense, noone else. Jodi could testify if she really wanted to. She's the one it's all a game to, a manipulation game. Well if everyone wants to see me testify, I won't let them!!!

Totally agree. JA destroys everything in her path. Defense attorneys HAVE to defend their clients. The judge HAD to hear the motion on tampering with evidence and I think she's right to get to the bottom of whether there is ped porn on the computer now rather than later.

I think the defense backed JS into the corner over the media issue but I think the trial will move forward on Monday. (A girl can hope!)

 

[AZlawyer]

JSS is the very reason that a yearly review of judges should exist in every county and every state. IMO

AZL, do they have anything in place like this in AZ?

Yes. JSS has always done fine on the reviews in the past.

BBM: Whoa ... "BAD CHECK" !

So is this different than a "bounced check" or NSF check under Arizona Law ? You have time to make restitution for the NSF check along with the fees, and overdraft fees the bank charges.

So ... is a "bad check" like fraud ?

Hopefully, AZlawyer will let us know !

No, a "bad check" can be just a bounced/NSF check.

Would any other judge by now have said, "Call your next witness or rest your case."?

Yes.

The booking sheet online looked like the excommunicated juror's arrest was for issuing a bad check on November 28. Are we to believe she issued that check eight years ago and is first going to court for it in January? That sounds ridiculous. What am I missing in this story? Why on earth would there be a warrant issued NOW for a crime committed in 2006? WTH?

If the bad check was over $5,000, IIRC the statute of limitations is quite long.

 

[daisydomino]

I think JSS knows what she's doing. She must have good reasons for doing what she's doing. I remain optimistic about her.

There's a lot more going on in each of our lives besides this trial. There's nothing going on in JA's life other than this trial. We are impatient because we want to see the end. She's going to be miserable in jail for a long, long, long time even after she gets sentenced. I can wait.

The psycho social media drama surrounding the trial is awful. I feel bad for juror 3.

 

[MeeBee]

Who is SW

Thank You

Sandra Weber.

 

[krkrjx]

It does not matter to me who broke the news about the juror's arrest. She is off the jury and that is a good thing because it could have been a bonafide appeal issue had she not been dismissed. I am glad she is gone, no matter which side she appears to have been leaning toward. If we ever get a verdict we want it to not be overturned on this kind of technicality.

 

[AngelWings444]

That's what I think even though I'm in the minority here. Tired of all the JSS bashing. The delays are the fault of the defense, noone else. Jodi could testify if she really wanted to. She's the one it's all a game to, a manipulation game. Well if everyone wants to see me testify, I won't let them!!!

Your post is why we have a judge. Her job is to maintain her calendar and her courtroom. She should be reigning the defense team in, yet she doesn't. When this phase first started, I was very pro JSS. Now, I believe she is at fault for the defense and the delays. If they run out of jurors, IMO, this is on her for allowing this to drag on.

 

[krkrjx]

I think JSS knows what she's doing. She must have good reasons for doing what she's doing. I remain optimistic about her.

There's a lot more going on in each of our lives than this trial. There's nothing going on in JA's life other than this trial. We are impatient because we want to see the end. She's going to be miserable in jail for a long, long, long time even after she gets sentenced. I can wait.

The psycho social media drama surrounding the trial is awful. I feel bad for juror 3.

Thank you for this. It helps me have a little hope that this fiasco might just get straightened out. And to be honest, I think if JSS were as off the wall as she appears to me right now, her superior might have stepped in. But s/he has not so maybe there is something to this notion that JSS has not totally lost her mind.

I will try to refrain from speaking mine so freely. Again, thanks. And to you too, LinasK.

 

[MeeBee]

Your post is why we have a judge. Her job is to maintain her calendar and her courtroom. She should be reigning the defense team in, yet she doesn't. When this phase first started, I was very pro JSS. Now, I believe she is at fault for the defense and the delays. If they run out of jurors, IMO, this is on her for allowing this to drag on.

Based on what Jen said, I think JSS was ready to go forward today but Nurmi, as he does, kicked up a fuss about his next witness not being ready until Monday, and accounts for the inevitable ruling JSS would probably make to get Jodi back on the stand by telling her Jodi's refusing until the COA's full ruling comes out. Because logic.

 

[LinasK]

Hopefully there will be justice soon. Travis and his family are still the focus in sane peoples minds. I have never been able to grasp how anyone can defend a cold blooded murderer, my mind just won't take me there and I'm glad. Even IF I could believe a self defense claim (I can't), it still wouldn't negate the wounds he suffered. All of this has been so unreal to me.. like a bad movie that the script got effed up. I still have 100% confidence in JM, and know he will bring it full circle. :winner:





View attachment 65141

Me too! And it will be worth it in Jan. when Juan and JSS get the Death Penalty for Jodi!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[MeeBee]

It does not matter to me who broke the news about the juror's arrest. She is off the jury and that is a good thing because it could have been a bonafide appeal issue had she not been dismissed. I am glad she is gone, no matter which side she appears to have been leaning toward. If we ever get a verdict we want it to not be overturned on this kind of technicality.

No, it doesn't matter who broke the story any more than the real reason for her dismissal matters. It's better she's gone, obviously. But we shouldn't outright condemn her without the full story. It doesn't make me angry. It just is. There's no reason to be mad at her.

 

[krkrjx]

No, it doesn't matter who broke the story any more than the real reason for her dismissal matters. It's better she's gone, obviously. But we shouldn't outright condemn her without the full story. It doesn't make me angry. It just is. There's no reason to be mad at her.

I'm not mad at her. I am just glad she is gone because I do not want JA to have a real appeal issue. I do not know the circumstances of the juror's issues and really do not care. I hope she is done giving interviews now, though.

 

[MeeBee]

There's nothing wrong with her giving interviews. TTL isn't exactly Good Morning America, lol. There's only a small group of people who even know she's been speaking. Even so, it's her right.

 

[MeeBee]

A statement from juror 3 on the State vs JA page:

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/749017525174392

P.s. She says the check was written by an ex from a joint account and she's still dealing with the fallout.

 

[AngelWings444]

Based on what Jen said, I think JSS was ready to go forward today but Nurmi, as he does, kicked up a fuss about his next witness not being ready until Monday, and accounts for the inevitable ruling JSS would probably make to get Jodi back on the stand by telling her Jodi's refusing until the COA's full ruling comes out. Because logic.

The COA specifically said JA could not testify in secret. They are waiting for their specific ruling, to see if they said anything about the other witnesses testifying in secret. JSS could have told the defense to continue with JA since she was right there. Like that would ever happen. Also, I don't understand the comment in the twitter world, that said the judge said she would be "accommodating" the other witnesses who refuse to write an affidavit or testify. How can she accommodate them if they are refusing to testify or fill out a document? Seems to me, she doesn't agree with the COA and is taking it into her own hands since it wasn't specific enough. I really don't think the COA was ruling on ALL the witnesses, as that wasn't before them. I really believe the ruling was solely intended for JA and the defense will be using that to try to have other witnesses testify in secret.

(BTW - just jumping off your posts)