Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 26, Part 2

[cindymac]

Possible. For me it's common sense. Victims of DV--whether physical or emotional--generally don't leave the relationship b/c they literally can't. It can be due to financial limitations, kids are involved, or b/c they've become isolated from friends and family. NONE OF THAT APPLEIS HERE. She was free to leave anytime she wanted, and she did. A true victim would have never gone back.

IMO

Exactly. Which is why for me, the key part of that question is "How is she choosing to continue contact considering the emotional abuse?"

In other words, if things were really that bad, all she had to do was stop calling or messaging. But she didn't. So obviously they weren't.

 

[MeeBee]

although normally a young woman who presents as JA does would not be as likely to receive the DP as, for example, a hulking tattooed guy with scars on his face or similar, I think there is one thing that could alter that. And I think that "thing" is exactly what she has chosen to do. And that is to attempt to demonize the victim, especially in regard to the pedophile allegations. I'm not sure false claims of regular DV would be enough. But accusing the guy you slaughtered of being a pedophile, based on only your word first expressed years after the crime and the hearsay of a nutcase from AU, now THAT might just tick off even the most wishy washy members of the jury.

Especially as TA presents as something very far from a pedophile, even according to JA's own testimony. What kind of pedophile has simultaneous threads of conversations and potential relationships going with multiple women? A pedophile may be married to a woman, for cover, but I'm pretty darn sure he isn't constantly dating and pursuing new women and spending huge amounts of time being with them and talking to them. It's completely ridiculous.He didn't do anything typical of pedos. He was exclusively with grown men and women.

I was looking at an article a law firm did to help churches, schools and similar identify pedophiles. I couldn't find a SINGLE characteristic that TA exhibited. He lived with other people, worked with adults, didn't have girlfriends with kids, didn't coach little league, had tons of friends and was constantly with other people. The whole idea of presenting this pedophile "evidence" to the jury is just beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. And since, IMO, it is not good faith mitigation evidence, I really question the propriety of an attorney allowing this to be introduced. I just hope it backfires as spectacularly as it deserves.



http://www.butlerpappas.com/1416

I swear that presenting this type of testimony is basically malpractice in my mind in a DP mitigation case. Maybe I'm wrong. But how many defendants in the penalty phase actually choose this type of allegation as their "mitigation" evidence. This is just pure Jodi. She can't help herself and I hope it works just as it should-ensuring she gets the DP. All she had to do was put on a remorseful act. But she won't do it. She'd rather continue her revenge against Travis. I guess I do think that this behavior too just needs to be condemned by society and that's part of why I do hope she gets the DP. I don't want to see an increase in defendants and their lawyers feeling this is a viable method of manipulating a jury.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Some of said a while ago that this was the woret victim trashing wed ever seen and we got chastised for it, told we were exaggerating and told this happens to victims all the time.

It definitely does. I get that. But for a defense to try so hard to prove something so heinous when they know, they KNOW, it is a lie, use the flimsiest of evidence to perpetuate the lie...I've never seen that, and I maitain that. If it's not ethically wrong it is morally wrong. Yes, they're defense attorneys. But with what they're doing here, how do they sleep at night? How can they feel good about this?

Thank you so much for saying this and please post more lol.

 

[Hope4More]

Have been off looking at the dark side. JA could not control herself and did indeed post condolences to Flores on her Twitter account. Gag.

As for the inner circle. Gloom has descended. But they reassure one another that she WILL be free one day. Ummm.

 

[KathrynL]

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
One veteran court watcher made interesting observation about juror questions for Dr. Geffner #jodiarias #3tvarias...

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
...noted some questions seem infused with knowledge beyond facts presented in retrial-curious #jodiarias #3tvarias

I didn't see any question that seemed to have more info than was heard from Geff's testimony and the repetitive evidence regarding abuse, and alleged pedophilia, journals, testing etc. Putting it here to see if any of you think there is any merit to this claim. I follow Beth as well as twitter along with WS.

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: @The13thJurorMD That one too but juror 1 is a psychologist

 

[MeeBee]

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
One veteran court watcher made interesting observation about juror questions for Dr. Geffner #jodiarias #3tvarias...

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
...noted some questions seem infused with knowledge beyond facts presented in retrial-curious #jodiarias #3tvarias

I didn't see any question that seemed to have more info than was heard from Geff's testimony and the repetitive evidence regarding abuse, and alleged pedophilia, journals, testing etc. Putting it here to see if any of you think there is any merit to this claim. I follow Beth as well as twitter along with WS.

I didn't see anything like that either and wish the twitters would refrain from posting that stuff. The defense reads twitter all the time and is looking for ways target jurors. Ugh.

 

[MeeBee]

Hello all...I read here often, but rarely post. I watched the first trial in its entirety, and have followed this penalty phase here and via Twitter. During the first trial, I was often pessimistic after jury questions. This round of questions seems to resoundingly favor the prosecution, in my opinion. While there are some that appear to at least consider the defense's position (like the ones asking for opinion on DV), I don't sense the same conviction in those as I do in the ones that favor the state. In other words, I think at least some folks on the jury are very pro-prosecution right now, and I don't read any questions that seem to have that level of conviction for the defense. I am very encouraged. Before Juan's cross of Geffner, I would have said that there is no way she would get the death penalty. Now, I think there is hope.

Completely agree. I'm feeling pretty good right now.

 

[Hope4More]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Some of said a while ago that this was the woret victim trashing wed ever seen and we got chastised for it, told we were exaggerating and told this happens to victims all the time.

It definitely does. I get that. But for a defense to try so hard to prove something so heinous when they know, they KNOW, it is a lie, use the flimsiest of evidence to perpetuate the lie...I've never seen that, and I maitain that. If it's not ethically wrong it is morally wrong. Yes, they're defense attorneys. But with what they're doing here, how do they sleep at night? How can they feel good about this?

Thank you so much for saying this and please post more lol.

Where I come from we call what the DT has done "suborning of perjury." It is not nice, moral, or ethical. It is a big no no. In theory attorneys can be disbarred for this.

Ahhh, then we have the real world. Ends justify the means rationalizations, big egos, thin skins, win at all cost mentalities.

 

[Hatfield]

although normally a young woman who presents as JA does would not be as likely to receive the DP as, for example, a hulking tattooed guy with scars on his face or similar, I think there is one thing that could alter that. And I think that "thing" is exactly what she has chosen to do. And that is to attempt to demonize the victim, especially in regard to the pedophile allegations. I'm not sure false claims of regular DV would be enough. But accusing the guy you slaughtered of being a pedophile, based on only your word first expressed years after the crime and the hearsay of a nutcase from AU, now THAT might just tick off even the most wishy washy members of the jury.

Especially as TA presents as something very far from a pedophile, even according to JA's own testimony. What kind of pedophile has simultaneous threads of conversations and potential relationships going with multiple women? A pedophile may be married to a woman, for cover, but I'm pretty darn sure he isn't constantly dating and pursuing new women and spending huge amounts of time being with them and talking to them. It's completely ridiculous.He didn't do anything typical of pedos. He was exclusively with grown men and women.

I was looking at an article a law firm did to help churches, schools and similar identify pedophiles. I couldn't find a SINGLE characteristic that TA exhibited. He lived with other people, worked with adults, didn't have girlfriends with kids, didn't coach little league, had tons of friends and was constantly with other people. The whole idea of presenting this pedophile "evidence" to the jury is just beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. And since, IMO, it is not good faith mitigation evidence, I really question the propriety of an attorney allowing this to be introduced. I just hope it backfires as spectacularly as it deserves.



http://www.butlerpappas.com/1416

I swear that presenting this type of testimony is basically malpractice in my mind in a DP mitigation case. Maybe I'm wrong. But how many defendants in the penalty phase actually choose this type of allegation as their "mitigation" evidence. This is just pure Jodi. She can't help herself and I hope it works just as it should-ensuring she gets the DP. All she had to do was put on a remorseful act. But she won't do it. She'd rather continue her revenge against Travis. I guess I do think that this behavior too just needs to be condemned by society and that's part of why I do hope she gets the DP. I don't want to see an increase in defendants and their lawyers feeling this is a viable method of manipulating a jury.

Exactly. I just finished another post a minute ago before I read this. Should be right above this a little bit above.

I think we agree her chosen defense may actually be the nail in her coffin.

 

[Kamille]

Exactly. This is the only case I have ever witnessed where the defendant is literally asking for the DP.

She continues to trash both the victim and his family when it is totally obvious to most that he nor they do not deserve any of it.

Even if we try to give the DT some of their allegations, the totality of the case solidly proves that there was nothing that Travis did that warranted Jodi butchering him up. And for JA to be bashing him and his family like she is doing it is just beyond belief.

And even when you try to give the DT the benefit of the doubt on some things, along comes a juror question that asks Geff if there is any corroborating evidence whatsoever of abuse other than JA words and he flatly says "NO". And NO evidence of child either.

And yet this entire case, JA and DT keeps on trashing Travis and his family. She is practically begging the jury to give her the DP. It is mind boggling.

Well she did tell Detective Flores that if she murdered Travis she'd beg for the death penalty. She just didn't clarify how she would go about doing that I suppose.

MOO

 

[KathrynL]

I didn't see anything like that either and wish the twitters would refrain from posting that stuff. The defense reads twitter all the time and is looking for ways target jurors. Ugh.

Well, being a veteran reporter, who knows what the motivation for sharing that info was. I just wanted to see if my 56yo brain was remembering properly. lol

 

[ShadyLady]

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
One veteran court watcher made interesting observation about juror questions for Dr. Geffner #jodiarias #3tvarias...

Mike Watkiss ‏@mikewatkiss3tv 1h1 hour ago
...noted some questions seem infused with knowledge beyond facts presented in retrial-curious #jodiarias #3tvarias

I didn't see any question that seemed to have more info than was heard from Geff's testimony and the repetitive evidence regarding abuse, and alleged pedophilia, journals, testing etc. Putting it here to see if any of you think there is any merit to this claim. I follow Beth as well as twitter along with WS.

So is this a plant, and Nurmi's latest attempt for mistrial?

 

[MeeBee]

Well, being a veteran reporter, who knows what the motivation for sharing that info was. I just wanted to see if my 56yo brain was remembering properly. lol

Well even so it wouldn't be terrible. The jury is allowed to have prior knowledge of this case anyway. So it's not like he's whistle blowing here. Lol.

But you're right, I didn't see any tweets that suggested that. But I didnt see all the questions.

 

[T-4-2]

In response to a post on the previous thread about Jodi's complete lack of remorse:

http://youtu.be/Qc96tHCPt4M?t=2h12m

 

[PhantomAngel]

I didn't see anything that would point to that either!

 

[WhoaIsMe]

although normally a young woman who presents as JA does would not be as likely to receive the DP as, for example, a hulking tattooed guy with scars on his face or similar, I think there is one thing that could alter that. And I think that "thing" is exactly what she has chosen to do. And that is to attempt to demonize the victim, especially in regard to the pedophile allegations. I'm not sure false claims of regular DV would be enough. But accusing the guy you slaughtered of being a pedophile, based on only your word first expressed years after the crime and the hearsay of a nutcase from AU, now THAT might just tick off even the most wishy washy members of the jury.

Especially as TA presents as something very far from a pedophile, even according to JA's own testimony. What kind of pedophile has simultaneous threads of conversations and potential relationships going with multiple women? A pedophile may be married to a woman, for cover, but I'm pretty darn sure he isn't constantly dating and pursuing new women and spending huge amounts of time being with them and talking to them. It's completely ridiculous.He didn't do anything typical of pedos. He was exclusively with grown men and women.

I was looking at an article a law firm did to help churches, schools and similar identify pedophiles. I couldn't find a SINGLE characteristic that TA exhibited. He lived with other people, worked with adults, didn't have girlfriends with kids, didn't coach little league, had tons of friends and was constantly with other people. The whole idea of presenting this pedophile "evidence" to the jury is just beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. And since, IMO, it is not good faith mitigation evidence, I really question the propriety of an attorney allowing this to be introduced. I just hope it backfires as spectacularly as it deserves.



http://www.butlerpappas.com/1416

I swear that presenting this type of testimony is basically malpractice in my mind in a DP mitigation case. Maybe I'm wrong. But how many defendants in the penalty phase actually choose this type of allegation as their "mitigation" evidence. This is just pure Jodi. She can't help herself and I hope it works just as it should-ensuring she gets the DP. All she had to do was put on a remorseful act. But she won't do it. She'd rather continue her revenge against Travis. I guess I do think that this behavior too just needs to be condemned by society and that's part of why I do hope she gets the DP. I don't want to see an increase in defendants and their lawyers feeling this is a viable method of manipulating a jury.

I agree. Most days I'm rooting for lwop even though I believe the crime heinous enough to merit the dp. I would just like her to go away. To not have a cheering squad working tirelessly to save her pathetic life. But, without fail, the tactics her and her team choose time and again pushes me clean over to the dp side. They just can't stop themselves.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

 

[bettybaby00]

although normally a young woman who presents as JA does would not be as likely to receive the DP as, for example, a hulking tattooed guy with scars on his face or similar, I think there is one thing that could alter that. And I think that "thing" is exactly what she has chosen to do. And that is to attempt to demonize the victim, especially in regard to the pedophile allegations. I'm not sure false claims of regular DV would be enough. But accusing the guy you slaughtered of being a pedophile, based on only your word first expressed years after the crime and the hearsay of a nutcase from AU, now THAT might just tick off even the most wishy washy members of the jury.

Especially as TA presents as something very far from a pedophile, even according to JA's own testimony. What kind of pedophile has simultaneous threads of conversations and potential relationships going with multiple women? A pedophile may be married to a woman, for cover, but I'm pretty darn sure he isn't constantly dating and pursuing new women and spending huge amounts of time being with them and talking to them. It's completely ridiculous.He didn't do anything typical of pedos. He was exclusively with grown men and women.

I was looking at an article a law firm did to help churches, schools and similar identify pedophiles. I couldn't find a SINGLE characteristic that TA exhibited. He lived with other people, worked with adults, didn't have girlfriends with kids, didn't coach little league, had tons of friends and was constantly with other people. The whole idea of presenting this pedophile "evidence" to the jury is just beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. And since, IMO, it is not good faith mitigation evidence, I really question the propriety of an attorney allowing this to be introduced. I just hope it backfires as spectacularly as it deserves.



http://www.butlerpappas.com/1416

I swear that presenting this type of testimony is basically malpractice in my mind in a DP mitigation case. Maybe I'm wrong. But how many defendants in the penalty phase actually choose this type of allegation as their "mitigation" evidence. This is just pure Jodi. She can't help herself and I hope it works just as it should-ensuring she gets the DP. All she had to do was put on a remorseful act. But she won't do it. She'd rather continue her revenge against Travis. I guess I do think that this behavior too just needs to be condemned by society and that's part of why I do hope she gets the DP. I don't want to see an increase in defendants and their lawyers feeling this is a viable method of manipulating a jury.

ICA, especially with your last point. This is my main beef with defense lawyers. its not supposed to be about "by whatever means necessary" when the person is guilty.

 

[cindymac]

Not to me. It still sounds sympathetic. Or clueless. Haven't decided which yet.

I can certainly see that there might be sympathy behind a suspicion that she's obsessed, or deluded. That's why it would have been a far better defense - to portray her as a victim of her own emotions, not Travis. Way more human, for one thing.

 

[KathrynL]

With that DT, nothing's impossible. Reporter quoting unnamed "veteran court watcher" - his source could be a plant-or Watkiss just threw it out there. It just stuck out to me because I'm pretty sure everything they asked about has been in front of this jury.

 

[ElleElle]

Interesting tweet:

" Ssh! I'm a juror @sneakyjuror ·

Juan and Willmott's line of reasoning are so divergent that the jurors will be forced to pick one. I don't see any overlap. #jodiarias"

Again ...

" Ssh! I'm a juror @sneakyjuror ·

When Juan is up, he has a goal: to show cruelty. When Willmott is up, there is no goal. It should be mitigation, but it's all about Travis."