Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[TartLemon]

I think Nurmi is doing GREAT. It's his job to throw everything out there to save his client's life. No matter how guilty this defendant is, she deserves the same US Constitution mandated defense any innocent person would get.

 

[Tricia]

My apologies for interrupting the flow of discussion but if you have any questions for Beth Karas (www.karasoncrime.com )

please post them on this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...orts-on-the-Jodi-Arias-Sentencing-Trial/page3

Thank you. Now back to your regular programing.

I shall ban myself for breaking TOS.

Tricia

 

[TexMex]

I'm worried sick that if the jury hangs on this, and Judge Stephens ends up sentencing her, she will give her life with the chance of parole. This judge seems to actually sympathize with Jodi and Nurmi, and for the life of me I can't figure out why that would be.

Nah. IMO there is zero possibility of JSS imposing anything less than LWOP.
She is required to give the defense wide latitude in this capital case. JSS was in the AZ Atty Generals office for many many years iirc

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: Nurmi- Do you have a certificate in mind reading..Flores NO. #jodiarias #3tvarias

 

[AZlawyer]

why is the judge allowing all this testimony, this is the penalty phase

Because it's relevant to the defense's theory that Jodi's acts were spurred by the stress of dealing with a secret, abusive relationship in which she was made to feel debased, combined with her underlying mental illness. If this were true, it would be mitigating.

Disclaimer #99: I think this defense is disgusting and untrue.

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: So you don't know what she was thinking in Salinas or if Jodi is mentally ill correct? Flores- Correct #jodiarias #3tvarias

 

[LaLaw2000]

Who's on trial here? Travis or the murderer? Anyone would think it was Travis, IMO.

 

[TorisMom003]

I understand the positions in this case. If the defense can say garbage and plaintiff can't ( has to have substantiated roof) then which side is the better side to be on ??? Maybe not in this case but others.

I think that the defense is shooting themselves in their foot by trashing Travis the way they are. Especially without any proof of their claims. While Jodi may be getting her sick thrills from these lies being spewed against Travis again, I do believe that the jury will hold these lies against her.

MOO

 

[wenwe4]

bet that text came about the same time that JA hacked his phone and told a friend he was snuggling with his gf Jodi right now.

 

[kolokolo]

I remember now that the convicted murderer requested Detective Flores personnel files.

The convicted murderer intent was to go after him. Actually now I'm glad it was Detective Flores on the stand as I think he held his own against that attorney.

 

[Hatfield]

Maybe its just me and my lack of understanding of criminal law, but by golly I sure would have thought the defense could not throw up a picture of someone's "member" and totally imply that it was Travis' member like he sent that photo to her.

Why oh why was that allowed?
Absolutely no proof that it was Travis. It could have been any one of her other male boyfriends or just a random picture she downloaded from the internet.

This is 1 good example where I think the judge could have and should have legally disallowed this based on absolutely no basis or evidence to imply it was Travis 'member'.

There were plenty more examples like this that I felt could have legally been disallowed.
Like when JA claimed she saw a picture that Travis had of a young boy that she caught a glimpse of this picture as it fell off the bed or something like that. The one where she claimed she was disgusted when she saw it.

Why was that allowed because there was ZERO proof that it even existed?

I understand JA herself testified about this photo, so its really in the 1st trial it should have been disallowed due to no corroborating evidence it existed.

If this sort of thing is legally allowed by a defendent when testifying, then I suppose a defendent can get on the stand and say any number of lies about other people with ZERO basis for it and we have to allow that.

Its one thing to allow it and its another to believe what she is saying. I think it is very important for Juan to point out who actually is making claims and to point out how the claims may not even be true if they are coming from someone who is a murderer and maybe just trying to say things to make others look bad.

Let us all be glad we were not in her circle. There is no telling what she is going to claim about any one of her circle of people she knew.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, I apologize for seemingly attacking you. I didn't mean it. I am furious with KN and I don't understand the legal process of how he can slander the victim. It just seems like he is a worthless to do so. Just my opinion. And it seems like JSS should call him out on it at sidebar like you would a criminal. Again, just my opinion. I am sorry to everyone at WS for attacking JSS but right now I don't like her much.

Curious, you have always been very polite to me. I have taken no offense. But JSS has to do her job. The most she could ever say to Nurmi at sidebar would be that she hopes he has thought through whether he's alienating the jurors--and if she did say that and then ended up having to decide between LWP and LWOP, he would cite the comment as evidence of bias and appeal!

 

[MeeBee]

bet that text came about the same time that JA hacked his phone and told a friend he was snuggling with his gf Jodi right now.

There was a sexual email that Travis sent to Jodi that sounded suspiciously like Jodi to me. It was written in a faux poetic way that is similar to the way she writes.

I don't think you can remotely hack a cell phone though?

 

[Troubled]

No. She's rotated between juvenile and criminal every 3 years during her 13 years so far on the bench. Before that she was a prosecutor for 20 years.

Just my 2 cents. The judge is doing her job. She is making sure to follow all the rules and procedures the laws allow. People need to realize its not the judge its the laws. The defendants have more rights then the victims and their familys. Its how the justice system works unfortunate as I think it is. If you want to change things work on changing the laws. Write your reps asking them make it impossible for the defense to slander the victim when there is no proof etc.

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: Nurmi- Wouldn't Juan give you that cell phone that was stolen? Wouldn't Juan request it from the defense? Flores- idk #jodiarias #3tvarias

 

[bsk]

Maybe its just me and my lack of understanding of criminal law, but by golly I sure would have thought the defense could not throw up a picture of someone's "member" and totally imply that it was Travis' member like he sent that photo to her.

Why oh why was that allowed?
Absolutely no proof that it was Travis. It could have been any one of her other male boyfriends or just a random picture she downloaded from the internet.

This is 1 good example where I think the judge could have and should have legally disallowed this based on absolutely no basis or evidence to imply it was Travis 'member'.

There were plenty more examples like this that I felt could have legally been disallowed.
Like when JA claimed she saw a picture that Travis had of a young boy that she caught a glimpse of this picture as it fell off the bed or something like that. The one where she claimed she was disgusted when she saw it.

Why was that allowed because there was ZERO proof that it even existed?

I understand JA herself testified about this photo, so its really in the 1st trial it should have been disallowed due to no corroborating evidence it existed.

If this sort of thing is legally allowed by a defendent when testifying, then I suppose a defendent can get on the stand and say any number of lies about other people with ZERO basis for it and we have to allow that.

Its one thing to allow it and its another to believe what she is saying. I think it is very important for Juan to point out who actually is making claims and to point out how the claims may not even be true if they are coming from someone who is a murderer and maybe just trying to say things to make others look bad.

Let us all be glad we were not in her circle. There is no telling what she is going to claim about any one of her circle of people she knew.

I wondered about this too. The prosecution would certainly never stipulate it was his I wouldn't think.

Same story on the prodigal phone recording. Did Juan have experts determine it was not edited or doctored in some way?

 

[AZlawyer]

Maybe its just me and my lack of understanding of criminal law, but by golly I sure would have thought the defense could not throw up a picture of someone's "member" and totally imply that it was Travis' member like he sent that photo to her.

Why oh why was that allowed?
Absolutely no proof that it was Travis. It could have been any one of her other male boyfriends or just a random picture she downloaded from the internet.

This is 1 good example where I think the judge could have and should have legally disallowed this based on absolutely no basis or evidence to imply it was Travis 'member'.

There were plenty more examples like this that I felt could have legally been disallowed.
Like when JA claimed she saw a picture that Travis had of a young boy that she caught a glimpse of this picture as it fell off the bed or something like that. The one where she claimed she was disgusted when she saw it.

Why was that allowed because there was ZERO proof that it even existed?

I understand JA herself testified about this photo, so its really in the 1st trial it should have been disallowed due to no corroborating evidence it existed.

If this sort of thing is legally allowed by a defendent when testifying, then I suppose a defendent can get on the stand and say any number of lies about other people with ZERO basis for it and we have to allow that.

Its one thing to allow it and its another to believe what she is saying. I think it is very important for Juan to point out who actually is making claims and to point out how the claims may not even be true if they are coming from someone who is a murderer and maybe just trying to say things to make others look bad.

Let us all be glad we were not in her circle. There is no telling what she is going to claim about any one of her circle of people she knew.

BBM--yes. We should all thank God we don't know her.

The judge cannot disallow evidence just because there is no "corroborating" evidence. If Jodi says something, that is evidence. The judge can't require corroboration before the jury is allowed to hear this evidence.

 

[~Lyric~]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq 2m2 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ

#JodiArias prosecutor never asked for Jodi's phone to test about that call those txts

#JodiArias Atty Nurmi blaming Martinez for not asking for Jodi's phone to test

 

[Tiger09]

Are we still going for the day?

 

[Kensie]

AZlawyer, you are great!!