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

[LinasK]

I hope so. But in DP cases they sometimes err on the side of caution.

Not to overturn the Guilty conviction they wouldn't. And even in the case of true wrongful convictions, appeals can take years to overturn the conviction. It cost Ryan Ferguson a decade of his life.

 

[MeeBee]

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)

Possibly, in light of the COA ruling, the judge will do what she was going to do for Jodi and boot the media to the overflow room. Secret testimony just isn't ok, period.

 

[Becky Sharp]

Like daisydomino and others, I have confidence in the judge. She's being cautious--clearly being overly cautious for most of us--but I think that is "judicious" of her (bad pun, I know, but for me it's the best word to describe her carefulness). We don't have all the background information that would explain her decisions, so I think we shouldn't be too quick to second guess her decisions or dismiss them outright as incompetent.

I truly understand how frustrated everyone is about this trial, and I'm frustrated too, but I think it's unwise to quickly criticize when we don't have the full picture.

Anyway, IMO!

 

[AngelWings444]

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.

If I am reading it correctly, she had a prior misdemeanor that she disclosed to the court and this new arrest is the one for the bad check, on a joint account, with her ex. Didn't she have a BF who was a defense attorney. I guess he can help her out now. There is NO way the prosecution knew of this bad check and pending charges when they agreed to have her on the jury. It's making sense now.

 

[LinasK]

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.

BBM.
Good Post!:clap::clap::clap::goodpost:

 

[MeeBee]

If I am reading it correctly, she had a prior misdemeanor that she disclosed to the court and this new arrest is the one for the bad check, on a joint account, with her ex. Didn't she have a BF who was a defense attorney. I guess he can help her out now. There is NO way the prosecution knew of this bad check and pending charges when they agreed to have her on the jury. It's making sense now.

I think she is referring to the bad check as the prior class 1 misdemeanor, which it is. She is saying she told them about the bad check on her questionnaire. So they did know and were ok with it. She may not have let them know it wasn't resolved yet, idk.

 

[AngelWings444]

I think she is referring to the bad check as the prior class 1 misdemeanor, which it is. She is saying she told them about the bad check on her questionnaire. So they did know and were ok with it. She may not have let them know it wasn't resolved yet, idk.

There has to be more to have them arrest her 8 years later. Not that it matters now, but I truly believe there is more to the her story. I feel bad for her. She shouldn't have done any interviews. That is JMO. The JA supporters are relentless. I am glad she is gone because it would be one heck of an issue if this was released while they were deliberating.

 

[LinasK]

I was subpoeanaed(sp?) for Jury Duty in Oct. and wasn't able to get out of it in writing, but the judge did excuse me for personal reasons when I got down to the court house. We saw the defendant. He looked scary- was a murder trial. I couldn't have been open-minded even though I hadn't heard of the case.

UPDATE: I just Googled it, and they convicted him (without me) of 1st Degree Murder on Nov. 13th! WooHoo! Slam dunk! This guy was a gang member without conscience.

 

[MeeBee]

There has to be more to have them arrest her 8 years later. Not that it matters now, but I truly believe there is more to the her story. I feel bad for her. She shouldn't have done any interviews. That is JMO. The JA supporters are relentless. I am glad she is gone because it would be one heck of an issue if this was released while they were deliberating.

There probably is more to the story. As an OP said, just because she was arrested doesn't mean she is guilty. She may be disputing the claim. The statute of limitations may have run out. The holder of the check may be coming back around to her if the man responsible didn't honor his obligations to pay back the check back then. But I believe she probably did reveal the issue and that it's not the reason she was released just that she was now arrested for it and now had scheduling conflicts. She seems a pretty upstanding woman. We'll probably find out more soon enough.

 

[Hope4More]

I have a lot of catching up to do, it seems. Tomorrow. Should be asleep, but a suspicion is really bugging me.

Im beginning to think the computer skirmish was never a good faith complaint against JM. That Nurmi has known from the beginning that the files were deleted accidentally.

I think its possible Nurmi overreached as strategy, and that his plan all along is to get those forged pedo letters into evidence.

 

[Hope4More]

There has to be more to have them arrest her 8 years later. Not that it matters now, but I truly believe there is more to the her story. I feel bad for her. She shouldn't have done any interviews. That is JMO. The JA supporters are relentless. I am glad she is gone because it would be one heck of an issue if this was released while they were deliberating.

There aren't many of them, but those most rabid supporters are genuinely scary. Like their earth angel, they believe the end justifies the means and that people who disagree with them need to be destroyed.

 

[daisydomino]

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.

Please don't censor your posts! Do speak your mind! I didn't mean to shut anyone down at all, I just wanted to throw in my $.02. I am comfortable enough here to do that.* We don't have to all agree here to make an excellent discussion group.

* ETA I'm too chicken on Twitter to even use the #jodiarias hashtag, lol

 

[MeeBee]

There aren't many of them, but those most rabid supporters are genuinely scary. Like their earth angel, they believe the end justifies the means and that people who disagree with them need to be destroyed.

IMO, SW is a genuinely scary woman.

 

[AngelWings444]

Does anyone really believe Juan Martinez would allow a juror, who wrote a bad check in 2006, and has potential charges/arrest pending, on this jury? There is no way.

 

[MeeBee]

Does anyone really believe Juan Martinez would allow a juror, who wrote a bad check in 2006, and has potential charges/arrest pending, on this jury? There is no way.

I think they allow people with priors on a jury if they haven't been convicted. They ask them if it would affect their decision or their ability to serve on the jury. It doesn't automatically exempt someone if they have a misdemeanor in their history. And Juan may have felt comforted by her honesty.

 

[Kamille]

Seems a little suspicious that this woman claims to have disclosed her "bad check" from 2006 in a questionnaire and that she gets arrested for it during this trial. Is it possible that everyone assumed this was an old charge that had been dealt with and the defence decided to look into it when they were looking at ways to get rid of jurors?

It is also very suspicious that JA supporters knew her full name and already had the information about her arrest as soon as she gave a pro state interview. There should only be about 8 people who would know her name in that courtroom correct? Was it used by the judge the day she was removed? When JSS, JM, Samantha, KN, JW and JA were in chambers to discuss it? How many court clerks or employees would know it? How did a JA supporter get her name?

I guess it doesn't really matter. The defence can do anything they want with impunity it seems. There is no "motion for mistrial" or any other punishment for their behaviour.

MOO

 

[krkrjx]

Please don't censor your posts! Do speak your mind! I didn't mean to shut anyone down at all, I just wanted to throw in my $.02. I am comfortable enough here to do that.* We don't have to all agree here to make an excellent discussion group.

* ETA I'm too chicken on Twitter to even use the #jodiarias hashtag, lol

No, that's not what I meant. You did not cause me to censor myself; no one did. You did help me to see things with a bit less emotion than I had been and for that I am grateful.

This case is getting on my nerves in a big way. I have had to step away quite often because of my fear that justice will not be done. But it has already been to some extent--she has been found guilty as charged and that in itself is huge.

Those who stand behind the judge may be on to something. I wish she were a bit more stern but we saw that in other cases and those did not exactly have stellar results. So maybe there is something to JSS knowing what she is doing. I would prefer things not be so hush hush, top secret, everything under seal, etc. That is what made me view her suspiciously. I was on her team until then and I still think that level of secrecy is neither kosher nor necessary. All this secrecy does not play well and leads to more conjecture and confusion.

But I do not feel censored at this point--just maybe need to take a step back and accept that I do not know it all.

 

[04009margaret]

How do I search here for a post if I can't remember which thread? I'm looking for the.post about someone's family member knowing JSS and commenting how nice she is......

Let's hope they fess up, admit their mistake & apologise. I've never signed up to join in the discussion on BK's site. I like reading the comments but don't like that the comment section is linked to your other accounts like Microsoft, facebook & twitter etc.

 

[rose222]

Seems a little suspicious that this woman claims to have disclosed her "bad check" from 2006 in a questionnaire and that she gets arrested for it during this trial. Is it possible that everyone assumed this was an old charge that had been dealt with and the defence decided to look into it when they were looking at ways to get rid of jurors?

It is also very suspicious that JA supporters knew her full name and already had the information about her arrest as soon as she gave a pro state interview. There should only be about 8 people who would know her name in that courtroom correct? Was it used by the judge the day she was removed? When JSS, JM, Samantha, KN, JW and JA were in chambers to discuss it? How many court clerks or employees would know it? How did a JA supporter get her name?

I guess it doesn't really matter. The defence can do anything they want with impunity it seems. There is no "motion for mistrial" or any other punishment for their behaviour.

MOO

JA supporters appear to have a direct link with the Defense team. I think JA has been targeting this juror from day 1. JA watches the jurors like a hawk and probably realized that this one was very active from the jury box. I'm glad that the juror is gone as she has her own issues to sort out but I do feel sorry for anyone who is associated with this trial and has to deal with slimy tactics from this slimy Defense team.

 

[04009margaret]

I love Beth Karas, but I'm not going to shell out money for one trial summary a week though. She's gotta love this stalling. It keeps people subscribed. It's only what? $5.99 a month?

Hence why I won't re-subscribe until we have more than 1 day per week. I was going to re-subscribe yesterday so i could report the person sharing BK's blog but after today, glad i didn't.