Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 31

[TexMex]

Why is all the spying and slashed tires stuff allowed in this trial, but it wasn't allowed in the last trial?

It was in the last trial. Both MiMi and Lisa mentioned it

 

[Love Never Fails]

From the perspective of trial watchers, we can see the genuine evil that she has perpetuated in the pursuit of the destruction of Travis Alexander. But will the jury get that? There is so much they don't know. The blackmail regarding the second degree murder plea. The twitter account. The blog. The supporters. The manipulation of all things having to do with this trial both while representing herself and not. So much more I'm sure that I'm forgetting at the moment.

All the jury is seeing is a woman with an obvious mental illness/personality disorder who stalked and killed a man for no apparent reason other than she was obsessed with him, he wasn't that into her, so she killed him and then lied about it. Which is what you might consider a person with a mental disorder to do, blame the victim. So will there be at least one on the jury who doesn't think a person with a mental illness/personality disorder belongs on death row? I sure hope they think more along the lines of "what person currently on death row isn't there due to some kind of mental illness/personality disorder?"

I hope there is a psychologist on the jury and that they make it to the final cut. To explain to the jury why they can make the decision for the DP even though she may have a mental/personality disorder.

MOO

There is a psychologist on this jury and maybe he or she will make it in the final cut. But they are now hearing everything we now know. Someone will ask...if this was a man stalking and murdering a woman, would we let him off? Answer. No way.

 

[bettybaby00]

What I want to know is whether all of this alternate evidence was made available to the DT "experts". Because if it was...shame on them. Well shame on them anyway for their skewed version of things but if they had this info? No excuse. And if they didn't? They should be livid with the DT for not providing everything they needed to form an "opinion" and refuse to return for the rebuttal phase unless under subpoena and as a hostile witness.

MOO

I think they did know about some of it. Remember LaViolette? Any time Juan tried to show the situation from Travis' side, she would just dig in her heels and say it didn't matter. It was laughable how she refused to acknowledge glaring evidence that Travis was a victim. Even without focusing on the mirder itself, she wouldn't budge, no matter how obvious it was that JA was in the wrong, ie, the looking in Travis windows, or hacking his social media.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Tweet from JA from the Courtroom:

Jodi Arias Updates @JodiAnnArias · 4m 4 minutes ago


So glad TA's lies about #jodiarias were so ludicrous and went so far. Otherwise, they might actually be believable.

 

[Snoopy1]

Why do I only see the black X's instead of the pictures?

From Mark Henle:


Mark Henle @HenleMark · 2m 2 minutes ago

Prosecutor #JuanMartinez questions Dr. DeMarte during the #JodiArias retrial Wednesday morning.

Mark Henle @HenleMark · 3m 3 minutes ago

Dr. Janeen DeMarte testifies during the #JodiArias retrial Wednesday morning.

Mark Henle @HenleMark · 6m 6 minutes ago

Prosecutor #JuanMartinez questions DeMarte during the sentencing phase of the #JodiArias retrial Wednesday morning.

Mark Henle @HenleMark · 6m 6 minutes ago

#JodiArias enters the courtroom after a Wednesday morning break.

Mark Henle @HenleMark · 6m 6 minutes ago

Defense attorneys Kirk Nurmi reads a document during the #JodiArias retrial Wednesday morning.

 

[tinkabella]

What I want to know is whether all of this alternate evidence was made available to the DT "experts". Because if it was...shame on them. Well shame on them anyway for their skewed version of things but if they had this info? No excuse. And if they didn't? They should be livid with the DT for not providing everything they needed to form an "opinion" and refuse to return for the rebuttal phase unless under subpoena and as a hostile witness.

MOO

I don't think it would've made a difference for them. I remember juan going after geffner about when does a lie become a lie and he made all kinds of excuses. No matter what evidence is before them they will absolve it in Jodi's favor. They wont budge. One of my favorite from the trial.
[video=youtu;qXq1i27Ei-c]http://youtu.be/qXq1i27Ei-c[/video]

 

[AZlawyer]

Her response to him asking her aboit the ring is telling.

She first says, "what ring?" What ring? How many diamond rings does Travis have that you took. You know what ring.

Then she says oh yeah, I have it, I'll explain later. Explain what? What could the explanation possibly be for going into a drawer and taking something that doesn't belong to you? Something valuable? Safe keeping? It was in a drawer! It wasn't yours!

And now that Nurmi strongly implied in front of the jury twice that she somehow did NOT steal it, he needs to offer some alternative explanation on cross. But given those texts, any alternative explanation is bound to be ludicrous.

 

[Princess of Oz]

Someone will ask...if this was a man stalking and murdering a woman, would we let him off? Answer. No way.

Definitely not. We probably would have never heard about it at all. The only reason I think this got so big was because JA was considered "attractive", she is a female doing such a heinous killing, and maybe (doubtful though) because they were Mormon. Men killinga woman like this is an everyday thing, but for a female to murder a male in this way is taboo. MOO

 

[NashBridges2]

I hope so MM. All this "fear of abandonment" talk is making me picture a lonely scorned women who just went crazy and decided to kill this man who just wouldn't love her. She just wanted to be loved!

They're not thinking that at all, you're worried for nothing. I imagine they feel like we all do, relieved they are finally hearing the truth. The only thing they are thinking is "what a lying manipulative Bit...."

 

[bsk]

From the perspective of trial watchers, we can see the genuine evil that she has perpetuated in the pursuit of the destruction of Travis Alexander. But will the jury get that? There is so much they don't know. The blackmail regarding the second degree murder plea. The twitter account. The blog. The supporters. The manipulation of all things having to do with this trial both while representing herself and not. So much more I'm sure that I'm forgetting at the moment.

All the jury is seeing is a woman with an obvious mental illness/personality disorder who stalked and killed a man for no apparent reason other than she was obsessed with him, he wasn't that into her, so she killed him and then lied about it. Which is what you might consider a person with a mental disorder to do, blame the victim. So will there be at least one on the jury who doesn't think a person with a mental illness/personality disorder belongs on death row? I sure hope they think more along the lines of "what person currently on death row isn't there due to some kind of mental illness/personality disorder?"

I hope there is a psychologist on the jury and that they make it to the final cut. To explain to the jury why they can make the decision for the DP even though she may have a mental/personality disorder.

MOO

And then we'll see a motion for the verdict to be thrown out because a juror went beyond using his/her own common sense and tried to act like an expert witness for the state, in effect introducing evidence that was not offered during the trial.

 

[bsk]

But the text of the phone conversations came in after, on BK's site. And Travis asked her if she took it and she said yes. So yes, JA was lying and DeMarte was not. The jury will know this.

I realize that, but the judge shouldn't be letting that sort of innuendo in via improper objections. LKN loves to do that.

 

[Spycraft]

Yeah. If Travis were an abuser, he'd be the one facing trial for murdering her. Some of the antics she pulled and then to claim abuse on top of it? Ask any real abuse victim, anywhere, if they'd feel safe enough to slash their abuser's tires.

I know many here have either first hand experience with abuse or knowledge from other experiences and have said the same thing; that abuse victims don't go in search of their abusers, nor do they even dare to antagonize them. In my own experience I have altered my driving routes for 8 years now in order to bypass the TOWN where my abuser lives. Geographically this means a 30 minute detour over less than well maintained roads to reach destinations east of my place. I had friends living in the same town where he did who I no longer see because I won't drive there. Because my situation was and continues to be threatening, however subtle his attempts are at times, unpredictable and perilous should I dare to cross him/his friends/his family, I told no one outside law enforcement. This frustrated and angered friends who couldn't understand my unwillingness to visit them.

I am kept in the loop via law enforcement and Victim's Aid about what car he drives, any change in address, any infractions landing him in jail, anything pertinent to my personal safety. I don't shop where he is known to shop, and living in a rural area this is a problem, but a problem I am willing to deal with because I will do nothing that could put me in physical proximity of him. Although usually unemployed, when he is working I avoid anything to do with those places. At one time he was employed briefly with food service at our local college. I was still working on completing my PhD but would NOT step foot on campus to visit an advisor, the library, or colleagues. A lot of this is driven by my fear, but equally so by NEVER ever wanting to share air space with him. Never, ever wanting him to see me, to know ANYTHING about me. I would NEVER confront him, NEVER antagonize him. Abuse victims do NOT seek out their abusers. Ever. (I am speaking from an abuse situation not involving a domestic partner, no physical, financial ties, no children obviously. Therefore there is no reason to ever have to see him outside of court proceedings. I appreciate this is far different from folks who have had partnerships/relationships/shared expenses/shared housing/children etc. I don't want to minimize the extreme additional hardships those folks have to face.)

I am appreciative of Dr. DeMarte making a point about the continued pursuit by Arias. Completely opposite of what any abused person would do. I hope the jury members get this as well, because it's imperative they realize the extremes Arias went to in order to stay involved, the extent she went to pry, to disrupt his other relationships, to always have his attention in some way, her relentless pursuit of a man who allegedly abused her!!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Why do I only see the black X's instead of the pictures?

I am seeing the photos in your post ... maybe hit the Refresh button and see if that works ?

Anyone ?

:seeya:

 

[bettybaby00]

And now that Nurmi strongly implied in front of the jury twice that she somehow did NOT steal it, he needs to offer some alternative explanation on cross. But given those texts, any alternative explanation is bound to be ludicrous.

Well that's never stop them before!

 

[LinTX]

(about "can't execute a crazy chick")

Yikes. Anyone have an example of a stalker/murderer woman who has been sentenced to death?

Aileen Wuornos was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

 

[AZlawyer]

I realize that, but the judge shouldn't be letting that sort of innuendo in via improper objections. LKN loves to do that.

Apparently the judge told the jury to disregard that speaking objection. Of course, the jury won't disregard it--they'll wonder what the hell he's talking about since they can see perfectly well from the texts that she took it without his permission.

 

[Nali87]

Aileen Wuornos was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

Serial killer though. :thinking: Lord, I googled her, what a messed up life she had. [shivers]

 

[tinkabella]

I realize that, but the judge shouldn't be letting that sort of innuendo in via improper objections. LKN loves to do that.

I agree but thats how she rolls it seems. But if anyone is awake in that jury box you can see despite LKN making that statement that is exactly what Jodi did. She took the ring. It did not belong to her.

1steal verb \ˈstēl\
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission

: to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)

She did exactly this, I see no lies.

 

[bsk]

OT while we're at lunch break.... Cray cray person excused from cray cray Aurora theater shooter jury pool.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/holmes-jury-candidate-released-after-pulling-hair-out/

 

[Meemaw12]

Michelle in the texts I believe is the Michelle who worked for PPL, met ja, took her to the Vegas convention where she met TA. There is mention of her in the journals that BK released. Also in 1st trial she was mentioned in a text between ja and TA. Imo


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk