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

[LambChop]

You are right, it wasn't the whole print. But there was still enough there to match it to Jodi's left hand.

I wonder if there is enough of the print to show where she was cut?

 

[Ricki]

Last night, I was so exhausted and mentally worn out from the palaver from Geffner that I did the unthinkable. I actually closed the thread! I usually keep it open so I can go back from time to time and see what's going on.

Now, having the opportunity to finish reading here, I commend you all for such a wonderful bunch of posts. I don't know how you all managed to keep going.

The juror questions and the way Geffner is said to have answered them, according to our own Ziggy, would give the jurors even more information than they asked for. They know that Geffner had to tip-toe through his vocabulary and choose JUST the right words so as not to commit to anything the DT didn't want him to. His differentiation between "belive" and an "opinion" was very telling. If one has a clinical opinion, then one has to believe it. How can you not believe something yet have an opinion about it? Verbal gymnastics at its worst.

I don't believe that JA will continue her testimony today. If anything, the judge could throw out her testimony and allow her to allocute. IIRC, this is the time she would have to do so. What would bother me the most is if the judge were to allow her prior testimony as allocution and allow her to continue today.

I don't remember where I read that idea yesterday, but I believe someone here mentioned it.

Waiting for high noon here in the East. We've had a tiny dusting of snow and the world looks beautiful, but not work-inducing... as in shoveling.

BBM. That was so obvious.

 

[Hope4More]

BritsKate....do you have access to BK site? She posted a piece awhile ago about what happens if JA doesn't take the stand again. She consulted with Maria Schaeffer (yes, same one)about JSS options. Maria said it was at JSS' discretion whether or not to have JA's previous testimony stricken. And that she can allow the testimony to stand without allowing JM to cross.

That sounds different from AZL's take. Which was why I was confused. Maybe BK means that JSS can allow it in but as allocution, hence no cross. What AZL said.

ETA....sadly, CarolineM, AZL has said JA's prior testimony can stand as allocution AND she'd have the right to keep on going, because her testimony-allocution was interrupted.

 

[MeeBee]

I think 13th juror has some interesting insights and perspectives, but we know the same facts he does. When you get away from facts and evidence, well, it's all just speculation. This blogger writes "true crime". That's a different genre from crime reporting. In the same way, "historical fiction" is different from "history". In his defense, the 13th juror is not claiming all his words are facts. On the contrary, he overtly makes clear that this is a "point of view" piece, the viewpoint being of a former juror in a trial very similar to JA's. The Devault trial was very long, featured JM and DeMarte, was a death trial, DV and porn lies just as prolific, and Devault is JA's real-life jailhouse BFF. The Devault trial was also very recent.

BBM: Juan didn't prosecute Devault though.

 

[Hope4More]

Juan didn't prosecute Demarte though.

Um. Huh?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Some morning Tweets:


Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 1h 1 hour ago

I will be heading down for more #JodiArias this morning.

Thanks for the minimal BTS yesterday while I was gone. -hWild


Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 1h 1 hour ago

More #jodiarias today at 10am MST. Stay tuned

 

[MeeBee]

OH this makes me sad! especially "for as long as she wants"

Yeah but days of testilies vs. about a 20 minute speech...I think I would take the allocution lol. Juan hasn't even needed to cross her. He's done a pretty good job dismantling the lies without it.

 

[MeeBee]

Um. Huh?

Because Rickshaw wrote the Devault trial involved many of the same players including JM and Demarte, unless I misunderstand. JM was not involved in that case. Probably should have quoted.

 

[netbrsr]

i have a question thats probably already been asked but..

if saint arias doesn't take the stand again to complete her testiphony will her previous testiphony be striken from being considered by the jury?

CMJA introduced stuff that Dr F and Dr G testified to, if CMJA doesn't get back on the stand and they striken stuff, wouldn't that in effect striken the stuff the other 2 testified to based on what CMJA said?

 

[bsk]

If JA chooses to take the stand to testify, I think she'd do it because she believes she can best JM and wants another go at it.

Otherwise she can just tell her story as allocution, uninterrupted by JM or the truth, for as long as she wants and say whatever she wants

AZL said earlier IIRC that in the latter case, the only limitation (should JSS choose to exercise it) is to prevent her from repeating something she said earlier in the secret testimony. I'm guessing it wouldn't happen unless Juan pushes it and JSS goes along, but I'm not sure it's even worth the trouble vs letting her drone and drone and drone however long she can stand it.

 

[netbrsr]

Because Rickshaw wrote the Demarte trial involved many of the same players including JM and Demarte, unless I misunderstand. JM was not involved in that case. Probably should have quoted.

I think you meant Marissa Devault?

 

[MeeBee]

I think you meant Marissa Devault?

Lol oh my God I'm an idiot....

 

[Hope4More]

Yeah but days of testilies vs. about a 20 minute speech...I think I would take the allocution lol. Juan hasn't even needed to cross her. He's done a pretty good job dismantling the lies without it.

I agree on both counts. There are still great big gaping holes in the DT's narrative: what happened on June 4th (1,000 miles there and the murder itself), and a full expression of her remorse.

I have no doubt that she's absolutely incapable of looking or sounding remorseful. She'll sink herself. No need for JM on that one.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL said earlier IIRC that in the latter case, the only limitation (should JSS choose to exercise it) is to prevent her from repeating something she said earlier in the secret testimony. I'm guessing it wouldn't happen unless Juan pushes it and JSS goes along, but I'm not sure it's even worth the trouble vs letting her drone and drone and drone however long she can stand it.

Hoping AZL pops in when new thread gets going. What you just said doesn't make sense to me. If she's continuing on stand as allocution then her previous testimony is in as allocution. Its not stricken. And there's no way it would be considered secret anymore.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[LambChop]

The thread for today's court session is open. Feel free to start moving over as this thread will be closing in 10 minutes.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?269489-Retrial-for-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-Day-27

 

[rose222]

Apologies in advance if this was posted previously! It's an article by admitted Arias "supporter" Rob Roman in which he details (again, as a supporter) why he thinks the DP is a huge possibility for her now thanks to her own defense. He discusses the letter to the Alexanders and that ridiculous affidavit by "Witness #1." It doesn't have inflammatory pro-Arias rhetoric (not to me at least) and it's specific about how he thinks the DT has sunk Arias' case. I found it an interesting read.

https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/jodi-arias-and-her-defense-add-insult-to-injury/

Thank you for this interesting article. Of course I agree with him that Deanna is an honest and credible witness. The Defense's case is in pieces thanks to the affidavits. I think they ought to wrap it up with a nice 'At this point the defense rests' and allow the jury to decide Arias' fate.

 

[RickshawFan]

Why was it impossible for TA to masturbate while kneeling?

I have been thinking more about this question since I started commenting on JM's word skills late last night (around midnight!). JM has many other games going besides "just the facts, ma'am". One of them has to do with language. For starters, the DT can't keep up with the vocabulary (I'll bet they have a dictionary at screen center), for another JA thinks she's so great with language because she likes to sprinkle 3-syllable words here and there. But think about it: the DT team has all this talk about sex, and their expert witnesses are completely out of their depth in that area when they shouldn't be. If they've spent careers in DV or have reputable Ph.D.'s and a viable history with clients, sex talk should be eezy peezy. But no, they won't go there, and if they ever do, they pick their way through it like a minefield (Fonseca comes to mind; ALV couldn't even do that much).

Geff can't engage in sexual discussion, either. JM has trapped him into looking inept/inexperienced/unfamiliar/obfuscating/disconnected about the whole topic. Presumably, Geff has the same selection of private members as TA. He should be able to answer JM's question definitively in a "knee jerk" reaction, because either professionally or personally he should have that answer right quick. Instead he says he "hasn't thought about it"? He's had years to evaluate this statement of JA's!

The actual answer to JM's question could simply be "It's not impossible." But Geff just couldn't bring himself to go there.... Nor did Geff say "We're not able to know that because everyone's anatomy is unique and we can't reconstitute Travis to check it out".

Anyway, JM has had other games going with Geff, and sometimes these involve outmaneuvering him verbally.

Also, Demarte is up at JM's level of vocabulary and word usage; on the fly, JW and KN can't keep up with her at all. This is part of their problem in cross-ing her and doesn't have to do with professional vocabulary (the DT could get advice on this part): it has to do with Demarte's comfort with precision and her exceptional vocabulary range. JW and KN simply can't engage in this realm at all.

Oh, and I'm fine with contrary input on Geff's sex snafus: I am not a DV expert, a sex practitioner, or a man.

 

[ElleElle]

I honestly can't decide what I want more: Juan to start rebuttal case or JA to take stand. On one hand, Juan is so good, even at trial by tweet. On the other, she was so bad at testifying last time. Thoughts?

I want JA to testify so this jury can really see from her own mouth that she is a liar and makes up BS for own benefit.

 

[bsk]

Hoping AZL pops in when new thread gets going. What you just said doesn't make sense to me. If she's continuing on stand as allocution then her previous testimony is in as allocution. Its not stricken. And there's no way it would be considered secret anymore.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

I didn't explain it very well at all - sorry. As I recall it, AZL said if she didn't retake the stand but that testimony stood, then the judge could tell her not to be repetitive in allocution. (I'm not sure I'm saying it correctly.) It seems unlikely to me that restriction would be enforced. The judge could instruct the jury that they can take into account that she didn't have to face cross-examination over her earlier testimony.

On the other hand, if she doesn't take the stand and that testimony is struck, then of course she is free to talk about anything in her allocution.

 

[Luvrosco]

Please forgive if this has been explained. My question is, if JA doesn't take the stand WHY is there a chance that her testimony could be thrown out?