Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #4

[east2west]

JM really needs to get rid of that 23 year old "New" Mormon who will believe what the murderer lies about ("if he hears from someone who professes to be LDS and says something he knows is a lie. "How will you handle that?" he asks. "I don't know...I'll have to go with what the person says." "Even if you know they're lying?" "Yes, because it's what they believe.") So he will believe all the baloney that murderer spouts because she believes it?!!! What a crock, IMO. :stormingmad: Nurmi wants this juror real bad, IMO.

OMG- what is it with this man/child? :scared:

The "Yes, because it's what they believe" comment sounds like something out of the Law of Attraction speech that the felon professed from the witness box.

 

[Renee110]

@ericksonvision: Court is back in session for #jodiarias. Quick recap, Arias speaks, Martinez objects, Willmott asks a juror a question, Martinez objects.

Okay.

What did Arias say?
What was the Objection?
What was Willy's question?
What was the Objection?

A little clarity here, please!!! Might as well say something about the weather.

 

[Renee110]

@ericksonvision: Disregard my last tweet gang, I was recapping yesterday to bring you up to speed, but some thought it was a current play by play #jodiarias

I thought it was too lol. I was all, she tried to talk again?

Hmmm. I should have read further first.

Still.

 

[Renee110]

Just watched JVM interview JA's investigator and here are my thoughts on what is going on. I posted this one bit on side bar and I'm just going to put that over here too… and also what has occurred to me.

She's claiming one of her appealable issues is she didn't get a speedy trial and it has dragged on and on and on and she's blaming that on first chair… Nurmi. This detective said that several times so that seems to be what they have decided will benefit her the most. She didn't get a timely trial.

And I hate to say this but he comes across as very professional. Ack.

What has just also popped into my head is this. I've seen for over a year so many people on here complaining about the judge and how slow she is. We saw yesterday that JA tried to say something and JSS said another judge is handling it. And the jury selection is speeding right along, in fact jurors were selected today. In fact, one of the reporters tweeting today said that this time around jury selection took one less day than last time. There was the part of instructions that the judge forgot to tell the jury. I think she is claiming that the judge has hurt her ability to have a speedy trial. Things have certainly "sped" up compared to how they were handled in the past. No delay, on time etc.

The investigator seemed very confident. He also blamed the cost of the trial on Nurmi. Said that this trial wouldn't have cost millions if she had had a timely trial. And he reiterated several times that she asked to have Willy named first chair, even went so far as to represent herself to get away from Nurmi… all things they are going to use to claim she had an unfair trial. Yep…. Me thinks JA is going to hang the judge and Nurmi out to dry.

AZ Lawyer…. what do you think of this tactic?

[video=youtu;MCq8Ru0bNGY]http://youtu.be/MCq8Ru0bNGY[/video]

 

[daisydomino]

Okay.

What did Arias say?
What was the Objection?
What was Willy's question?
What was the Objection?

A little clarity here, please!!! Might as well say something about the weather.

LOL! I totally agree! I feel like we are lip reading via Twitter. It's really driving me bananas.

I think the reporters are mostly catching on. Feedback is fairly instant on Twitter, if you have a Twitter account ask for clarification—you'll either get it right away or the reporters will adjust their Tweets. I hope we can count on them getting the hang of live blogging being our only source instead of a supplemental explanation of goings-on.

 

[Truth Detector]

@monicalindstrom: If #JodiArias gets life she will still b n solitary for a number of years until shes re-classified and then would get more human interaction

Interesting...

And Travis Alexander, what does he get for a number of years?

What about his family?

 

[bsk]

Just watched JVM interview JA's investigator and here are my thoughts on what is going on. I posted this one bit on side bar and I'm just going to put that over here too… and also what has occurred to me.

She's claiming one of her appealable issues is she didn't get a speedy trial and it has dragged on and on and on and she's blaming that on first chair… Nurmi. This detective said that several times so that seems to be what they have decided will benefit her the most. She didn't get a timely trial.

(Respectfully snipped the rest of this excellent post to save space.)

Holy carp! I thought I was joking the other day when I posted this:

Maybe she's complaining her right to a speedy trial was violated by JSS allowing 89,000 sidebar requests from the DT.

 

[YESorNO]

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/07/2014

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6520289.pdf
---------------

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/08/2014

IT IS ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on 10/14/14 and resetting same on 10/16/14 at
8:00 a.m. in this division

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming Trial on 10/14/14 at 10:00 a.m. in this division...

IT IS ORDERED vacating Trial on 10/16/14 and resetting same on 10/21/14 at 10:00
a.m. in this division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6522249.pdf
------------------------

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/08/2014

IT IS ORDERED that the parties (Ms. Willmott and Ms. Delarosa for the Defendant)
shall conduct an interview on 10/14/14 in Sacramento, California with a State’s witness...

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6522250.pdf
----------------------------

 

[Hatfield]

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/07/2014

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6520289.pdf
---------------

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/08/2014

IT IS ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on 10/14/14 and resetting same on 10/16/14 at
8:00 a.m. in this division

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming Trial on 10/14/14 at 10:00 a.m. in this division...

IT IS ORDERED vacating Trial on 10/16/14 and resetting same on 10/21/14 at 10:00
a.m. in this division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6522249.pdf
------------------------

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2014 8:00 AM

10/08/2014

IT IS ORDERED that the parties (Ms. Willmott and Ms. Delarosa for the Defendant)
shall conduct an interview on 10/14/14 in Sacramento, California with a State’s witness...

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102014/m6522250.pdf
----------------------------

Oh crud. Is this the 1st official postponement of the actual trial to 10/21?

And who do we know who lives in Sacramento? Doesnt the guy who gave JA the Helios phone live in Sacramento or am I imagining that?

 

[Hatfield]

@ericksonvision: Court is back in session for #jodiarias. Quick recap, Arias speaks, Martinez objects, Willmott asks a juror a question, Martinez objects.

Renee already pointed this tweet out, but this is totally hilarious.
Cmon Erickson. Are you serious that this is a recap?

Arias speaks. Well, what the heck did she say?

Martinez object. Well, what was the basis for the objection? (i bet it was that she is no longer representing herself, therefore, she cannot really try to direct anything about the proceedings. She has to work through her attorneys with her whispering tactic she is so good at with Wilmcott).

Wilmcott asks a juror a question.
Well, WTH did she ask?

Martinez objects. Well (see above). If we knew what Wilmcott asked, we could take a guess at the objection. But you havent given us enough to even guess at this objection.

GREAT RECAP ERICKSON. Good grief. I wonder why I was so optimistic yesterday that these tweets would get better over time. LOL

 

[grammieto5]

She's already made up her mind. I don't think they want someone "wishy washy" but the DO want someone who hasn't decided in their minds that she has no remorse and deserves death. I understand that. Most people won't' have dissected every little minute thing about this trial like we have. I have decided she is not remorseful and I have also decided she is dangerous and likely to hurt someone again. I probably couldn't be impartial if I were a juror.

Great Post! BUT would you be honest about thinking you might not be able to be impartial? I ask, because I have a feeling some of these people being questioned are not being honest. I was talking with my daughter yesterday, I told her I would not answer "yes" on the questionnaire about being a victim, I'm a survivor, So in that sense I wouldn't be honest.

 

[LambChop]

Not sure this jury has to be impartial. A jury has already convicted her of a crime they considered cruel because it went over and beyond self-defense, as she claims. The new jury just have to decide if she should be put to death or given LWP/LWOP. Is there anything that shows she is remorseful up to this point? It is easy now to say she is. Too little, too late. That should be a big issue for consideration, IMO.

 

[LinTX]

So this PI is working on appeal issues...I thought JSS furnished a PI for this trial? If he's working on appeals, shouldn't that be paid for after sentencing (either by JA if she gets life or by state if she gets DP)? Also, if DP, I would assume the attorney handling the appeal would have his own investigator that he works with, etc. What's going on here?

 

[LinTX]

Okay.

What did Arias say?
What was the Objection?
What was Willy's question?
What was the Objection?

A little clarity here, please!!! Might as well say something about the weather.

Since he said it was a recap, I'm guessing that scrolling up through his earlier tweets would give you those details? He's actually been doing pretty well, IMO, considering how ridiculous it is to try to cover a trial by twitter.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That's a tough one. I feel she deserves the DP because of how she killed Travis. Three times over. Even if I set that aside and listen to the evidence that's presented, wouldn't I still feel she deserves the DP for the same reasons? I'm not sure there's ANYthing Jodi or her defense team could say that I would consider a reasonable explanation/mitigating circumstance. I'd be willing to listen but would I be sent home too?

What blew my mind in the last penalty phase was the four jurors who believed the mitigating factors OUTWEIGHED the aggravating factors!!! WTH could they have been thinking? Did they not pay attention to the aggravating factors in this case? I really don't know how they can live with themselves and even her power point presentation clearly showed she doesn't have on ounce of remorse and still thinks to this day she was entitled to murder Travis.

And she really didn't have any mitigating factors that would ever override what she did to Travis and the cruel manner in how she did it.

All the mitigating factors were just filled with fluff/filler nonsense.

IMO

 

[Zinvestigator]

I'm not sure I am posting this on the correct thread/forum but this is too good not to share:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amk8UNPu-UE&index=10&list=PLYe2dWgF7z52WtA2M0YXQksDII13sL5ZN

 

[MeeBee]

She's already made up her mind. I don't think they want someone "wishy washy" but the DO want someone who hasn't decided in their minds that she has no remorse and deserves death. I understand that. Most people won't' have dissected every little minute thing about this trial like we have. I have decided she is not remorseful and I have also decided she is dangerous and likely to hurt someone again. I probably couldn't be impartial if I were a juror.

The only thing she'd made up her mind on is that JA didn't seem to show any remorse. It doesn't mean she made up her mind about the DP, although, sure, usually lack of remorse goes to mitigation so I can see why the defense wouldn't want want her. But that kid seems to already made up his mind about the DP. He said he didn't believe in it. But as questioning continued he began wavering saying he didn't mean what he said on his questionnaire, he didn't believe in the DP but could give it if he needed to, and even if someone was lying he'd have to accept it because it's THEIR truth. That does not sound like he's being honest. It doesn't even make sense. You either believe in the DP or you don't. He sounded firmly against it but changed his answers so he could get on the jury. I'm not seeing the logic in letting him through.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Great Post! BUT would you be honest about thinking you might not be able to be impartial? I ask, because I have a feeling some of these people being questioned are not being honest. I was talking with my daughter yesterday, I told her I would not answer "yes" on the questionnaire about being a victim, I'm a survivor, So in that sense I wouldn't be honest.

I am the type of person who is honest to a fault.

When I got a jury summons for a death penalty case I had to fill out a 22 page questionnaire before even appearing in the courtroom as a potential juror.

Every questions asked was specific and detailed. That worked great for me since I am a detailed oriented person. I was asked on the form if I had ever been a victim of domestic violence and if 'yes' to enclose the details in the space provided. I did as I was to do and even though I do most definitely consider myself a survivor of domestic violence now but the truth is I was also a victim of it several times as well so I answered the question honestly and forthrightly just like I did every question. I was selected to be on the jury.

IMO, being a DV juror will not bode well for the defendant.

Arias' excuse of abuse doesn't hold water and doesn't have one ring of truth to it because it isn't true. Arias used this only as another manipulation game. That is why it never come up when she first murdered Travis. She simply was thinking in that twisted evil mind of hers what she could think of that may turn the jury against the victim. Then she had a light bulb moment. Aha she thought.......'I must throw abuse into the mix along with a little pedophilia to boot. She really thought it would get her out of being convicted of murdering Travis but what Arias fails to understand is 'to know abuse one must live it' and she never did and that is why she had such a flat affect when telling her 'concocted' story she had made up.

IMO

 

[daisydomino]

Oh crud. Is this the 1st official postponement of the actual trial to 10/21?

And who do we know who lives in Sacramento? Doesnt the guy who gave JA the Helios phone live in Sacramento or am I imagining that?

Gus Searcy is from southern California. Not sure where he was located when he was driving around with the mystery person and talking on the phone with Chris Hughes. I don't think it was Sacramento, but I could be wrong.

 

[Renee110]

Great Post! BUT would you be honest about thinking you might not be able to be impartial? I ask, because I have a feeling some of these people being questioned are not being honest. I was talking with my daughter yesterday, I told her I would not answer "yes" on the questionnaire about being a victim, I'm a survivor, So in that sense I wouldn't be honest.

I'm sorry that you've suffered in the past {{hugs}}

I think I would be honest, and I think the experts in there would know if I wasn't. I am not impartial, I feel loathing for her, and I think I would convey that with my speech or body language or something. I think I would have to admit that I watched the trial, saw her crazy interviews, have read her stupid tweets, and I see no remorse. I truly don't think I could go in there with an open mind and willing to listen to her spouting mitigating nonsense. I'm not sure I'm enough of an accomplished liar to fool the judge, lawyers and experts that I am unbiased.