Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 27

[katydid23]

Nurmi has a pre-formatted stack of those motions. All he has to do is fill out the date.

And hopefully, JUS has a rubber stamp that says "DENIED"

:judge: :denied: :denied: :denied: :denied::denied: :denied: :judge: :denied: :denied::denied: :denied::denied: :denied:

 

[AZlawyer]

In every trial I have watched, the judge insists on decorum in their courtroom. Which includes witnesses not calling the prosecuter by his/her first name, witnesses not instructing the jury what to believe, defense team sending tweets, messages, etc. to the convicted killers SM accounts. I won't even get into the unconstitutional action by Sherry and all the secrecy....but, I have been told, by Az. attornies that this judge is brilliant and fair and charming and totally "with it"....so, maybe it's an Arizona thing. Just how courtrooms are run. :dunno:

Who are these Arizona attorneys you're talking to? Anyone can see she makes odd decisions about courtroom management.

I have read that she lied about having sex with TA. I have no first hand knowledge of this. Don't tell me what to post. She was interviewed by the DT yes? Did their transcriber lie? How did the rumor start that DR said she never had sex with TA?

It seems like the rumor started with people posting inaccurate things on public forums. From what was tweeted from court today, it appears the actual transcript shows she never said any such thing.

 

[bsk]

AZL question: All Juan knows of the DT's interview of Deanna are the notes they put into evidence and what Deanna told him about it, correct? Neither side turns anything else about interviews over do they?

 

[Hope4More]

I have read that she lied about having sex with TA. I have no first hand knowledge of this. Don't tell me what to post. She was interviewed by the DT yes? Did their transcriber lie? How did the rumor start that DR said she never had sex with TA?

From the murderer, for one, who said just that in her 10 page screed to JSS asking for Nurmi to be fired.

Personally I think Deanna is far more credible than JA . But that's JMO.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL question: All Juan knows of the DT's interview of Deanna are the notes they put into evidence and what Deanna told him about it, correct? Neither side turns anything else about interviews over do they?

He has the transcript at the very least. He may have the audio as well.

 

[LinasK]

So the defense's witnesses can bash Juan all they want and this Judge says nothing but she admonishes Deanna? Wow.

Juan didn't call the Whambulance like the DT does.

 

[bsk]

Thats the same impression I get from Wilmcott. An immature whiney high school brat.

She tries to pull off Juan's style but you can only get away with that if you have great experience and know what you are doing. She doesnt have the experience to pull off that style and she fails miserably and it is not a good style for her to use.

Maybe in 10-15 more trial years she can pull off that style.

In the meantime she's training new trial attys how to be the best they can be.

 

[Nali87]

I think she was getting ready to rule on the last one regarding JM saying the super secret witness name in court and was asking if he had any supplements to it before she did? Did JM ever respond to that last one? I hope he did with the information that it was a slip of the tongue in this ridiculous super top secret trial and that even their own witness did it...twice. And how is he expected to do his job and keep his train of thought under these unheard of conditions where most of the information and witnesses in a public trial are to be kept from the public. LOL

MOO

That is actually a concern of mine. He can't even say the EXPERTS names in court. It's insane.

 

[MeeBee]

I have read that she lied about having sex with TA. I have no first hand knowledge of this. Don't tell me what to post. She was interviewed by the DT yes? Did their transcriber lie? How did the rumor start that DR said she never had sex with TA?

No one is telling you what to post. But what she said and what she was asked is being taken out of context. They asked her if she knew of anyone else Travis was sleeping with other than Jodi. She said no or I don't know. She really wouldn't know this. If she was having sex with him at the time it would be a lie by ommission. But she hadn't slept with him in years. If that is what the meant to ask her then they worded the question improperly. If they meant to ask her if she knew anyone else who slept with him overall that would also be a lie by ommission. But then the question was still worded improperly because that's not what they asked her. And even if she did not include herself that's still not quite the same as lying. They're making it sound like they straight asked her if ever slept with Travis and she denied it. That's not exactly what happened. Sounds like they were just pumping her for information about Travis and she didn't have it. There was either a communication breakdown due to a poorly worded question or they're taking it out of context.

Jodi is the first person who ever brought up that Deanna lied.

 

[katydid23]

Thats the same impression I get from Wilmcott. An immature whiney high school brat.

She tries to pull off Juan's style but you can only get away with that if you have great experience and know what you are doing. She doesnt have the experience to pull off that style and she fails miserably and it is not a good style for her to use.

Maybe in 10-15 more trial years she can pull off that style.

One thing that the 13th juror points out is that Juan stays calm for MOST of the cross. And when he pounces, he often has one hand in his pants pocket, which is a non aggressive type of stance. He usually has papers in his other hand. And he often is pacing back and forth, intensely, but not usually in the witnesses face. So even though he is barking questions and saying sternly, " YES OR NO"--he is not screeching or whining or throwing a hissy fit. It does not work if you are throwing a tantrum while you try and be aggressive. That makes you look like a bratty tween-ager. Not an intimidating authority figure.

 

[bsk]

He has the transcript at the very least. He may have the audio as well.

Thanks. If he has the audio, then this was a huge setup and JW walked into a trap.

 

[Val1]

I've heard women will be more likely tospot a female psychopath quickly. And men spot male psychopaths. It's more difficult to spot a psychopath of the opposite sex.

Maybe we just expect the opposite sex to be a little crazy? [emoji51]

Nah, more likely we've all played the same games to some degree(flipping hair, playing helpless, sitting ladylike, or acting like an alpha male when all you want to do is go home and play on your pc, unnecessary chivalrous acts, taking someone to some 5star establishment instead of for burgers that you can afford, etc.), so can recognize when someone ups the ante past harmless.

 

[GigiG]

Well if anyone still has any doubt about JA's "personality" and how it doesn't fit this crime, check out her book review:

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/
View attachment 68336

hahaha! that's too funny!

 

[Kamille]

But how does this necessarily help the DT? Yes, Wilmott was acting like a yappy little dog trying to bite DR's ankles and likely turning off the jury, but I really doubt she will behave any differently tomorrow. She'll go straight back where she left off and in the same offensive manner. And someone tweeted the jury was looking exhausted. Besides, as someone else noted upthread, JM will likely get the audio for tomorrow and the DT won't, making them look like they are trying to hide something. This gives him time to do just that.

Agree with your post and just adding to it.

You know I wasn't there today and I only have the tweets and the fantastic posts by our own WS member ziggy, but I seriously can not believe what JW tried to pull today. I bet even Nurmi can't. She is NOT Juan Martinez. She is a defense attorney so she will rarely be considered someone who is in there fighting for truth and justice (and lord knows they've both gone so far afield of that in this very public secret trial that neither will ever be considered trustworthy again) so why on earth does she try to pull this stunt repeatedly. I think even Nurmi, who I do believe tried it a couple of times without success, has backed off that obvious tactic. I swear that JW has spent WAY too many hours listening to the viper sitting beside her and has formed her own hatred of JM and anyone who would DARE to dispute their carefully thought out web of deceit just from being brainwashed by her client. Did she attack Deanna for JA's sake? Because she knew that would please her. Or did she do it to get back at JM for doing it to her obviously questionable witnesses and she just has to go there? Whatever the reason, one thing's for certain, she did not do it because she is anywhere near a good attorney and it is not at all helpful to her client's case. Oh wait...




MOO

 

[katydid23]

Who are these Arizona attorneys you're talking to? Anyone can see she makes odd decisions about courtroom management.



It seems like the rumor started with people posting inaccurate things on public forums. From what was tweeted from court today, it appears the actual transcript shows she never said any such thing.

I feel awful because I took the bait and saw it in another public forum that she lied in the interview but told the truth on the stand. I should not have believed it. :blush: It was disinformation.

 

[pocketaccent]

Juan will pounce on that in his closing. "Recall how Deanna Reid testified that Witness #1 fabricated everything. And recall that Dr G said he used W1's statement as part of his anaysis. He didn't care what sort of fabricated test results, interviews, or tall tales from secret 'witnesses' in hiding he got, as long as it fit his job as a hired gun to come up with predetermined findings."

And if the jurors think Jodi Ann's magazine messages were directed to W1, we have a poetic justice. It just doesn't get better than that. I don't think Jodi Ann will be having sweet dream tonight.

 

[atthelake]

I bet that DR worked this out with JM beforehand. I don't think she would have done this and gone out on a limb all by herself. I am sure they knew that JW was going to try and call her out as a 'liar' from the interview. So they blocked them and insisted upon an audio version, which points out her distrust of the DT. Which is understandable, because she just got through testifying that she was out of the country during the time they first accused her of being in a physical fight with TA.

So she sounds logical and rational when she says, " let me hear the audio--did you bring it with you? " LOL -WELL PLAYED!!!!!

This is when he starts shaming Deanna in the first trial. Video is cued up to the part where he asks her about having sex with Travis, about them both going to their respective bishops in 2005 and both losing their temple recommend. He continued with asking her twice how many times/over what time period they had sex, and if they had it after they visited the bishop (no)


[video=youtube;zAWE0iXS9nc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAWE0iXS9nc&feature=youtu.be&t=2h1m13s[/video]

youtu.be/zAWE0iXS9nc?t=2h1m13s

 

[LambChop]

I have read that she lied about having sex with TA. I have no first hand knowledge of this. Don't tell me what to post. She was interviewed by the DT yes? Did their transcriber lie? How did the rumor start that DR said she never had sex with TA?

I think this was from defense that she lied. It does not appear they can say she is lying because it's not clear how she is answering. The question was: "Would it surprise you Jodi wasn't the only one TA had sex with", and DR's answer was "I don't know". So was she answering the part of the question "would it surprise you".... because it's not clear which part of the question her answered pertains to and it seems as if DR might have been cut off without being able to explain what she does not know about the question. Obviously DR does have an answer but wants to explain that she was not lying. DT would never give her that opportunity. So the answer would be from the audio so let them play it. DR seems fairly confident that she did not lie with her answer. jmo

 

[MeeBee]

One thing that the 13th juror points out is that Juan stays calm for MOST of the cross. And when he pounces, he often has one hand in his pants pocket, which is a non aggressive type of stance. He usually has papers in his other hand. And he often is pacing back and forth, intensely, but not usually in the witnesses face. So even though he is barking questions and saying sternly, " YES OR NO"--he is not screeching or whining or throwing a hissy fit. It does not work if you are throwing a tantrum while you try and be aggressive. That makes you look like a bratty tween-ager. Not an intimidating authority figure.

That's the thing. I get that juan can be aggressive and annoying at times. But he knows how to pick his moments and knows what he can get away with without coming off terribly. Willmott does not have the same demeanor as him so when she tries it she just comes off as catty and mean. She doesn't pick her moments and its jsut something that doesn't come off as well from her. Asking a witness if they can read is far more condescending than asking a witness if they're having trouble with their memories. How rude. It's hard to explain why it works for juan and not for Willmott but it just does.

 

[atthelake]

And today, perhaps she is still seething from this encounter (cued up also) of him asking did he call you xyz, and did he want to tie you to a tree etc. :thud: I recall that day.

[video=youtube;zAWE0iXS9nc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAWE0iXS9nc&feature=youtu.be&t=2h14m20s[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAWE0iXS9nc&feature=youtu.be&t=2h14m20s