Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[neesaki]

You are welcome! I usually do my exercise routine with JA trial on. Never get tired of watching Martinez do his magic and he makes my exercises pleasurable.

You are dedicated ! The best I do is read Websleuths on my Ipad when on the Elliptical. It keeps me from being bored. Have to love Websleuths.:happydance:

 

[katydid23]

She might testify that JA was abused by her parents. She didn't have evidence of abuse last go around, so I think this might be what she'll testify to.

That will be really interesting, seeing how she and the 'abusive' sister sat side by side and giggled together through the last trial. Awkward.

 

[katydid23]

Well. Shoot. Everything I'm reading about today in court has the defense winning today and state's case took a big hit. The state rested today, and the question everyone asked was did the State do a good job of showing the new jury all of the evidence and facts that prove premeditation and cruelty and guilt and the answer from everyone is no, plus Nurmi did a good job of tearing down what the State "proved". I'm bummed.

I disagree with those opinions. I think the jury got a huge dose of her cruelty by seeing the crime scene photos, and hearing some of the autopsy report. Extreme Cruelty= CHECK ~/

In terms of Guilt, we had HER camera left in the washer with all of the incriminating photos. What more do they need?
OBVIOUS GUILT=CHECK ~/

For proof of planning, they had a quick run through of the 3 gas can saga, and they heard her pathetically ridiculous explanations to Flores about being 'lost' for 18 hours and then accidentally being near Travis's home in the wrong state...:facepalm: And the ridiculous calls to him after she knew he was dead, setting up a flimsy alibi. And all that stuff with the check, and if he had cashed it yet...and the KY, being in the pix but then taken with her. And of course, Grandpa's stolen gun. THAT is it right there.
PREMEDITATION=CHECK ~/

For proof of coldhearted cruelty, there are the Irises she sent to Travis's Grandmother. Slam Dunk, coldhearted snake.

I didn't see Nurmi tear down any of that. He 'proved' that Travis was into sex with her and was kind to her, told her she was beautiful on a sex call. Proved that Travis was lapsing in his faith at times, and sinned, as humans do. As the jurors surely do.Proved there was confusion over whether she shot first or stabbed first. BFD.

I am not worried at all---YET. I am holding my breath for what the snake has in store however.

 

[katiecoolady]

Hi Everyone, Just peeking in quickly. I have no HLN (Dish) but managed to be in my car when Dr. Drew read my tweet last night. LOL I have been tweeting a bit on this trial getting some of my "issues" out in the interwebs. I was pretty nauseated to hear his whatever guest say she thought that mental health professionals might be more sympathetic to this mental health defense and I had to take issue. I worked inpatient Psychiatry for many years and THE WORST patients we ever got were the Borderlines. They generally DO NOT engender any kind of sympathy whatsoever from mental health workers. In fact, many won't even take them on. Their prognosis sucks, they wreak havoc on Psych units, are usually only there because of a failed suicide attempt or some other form of manipulation. I don't see ANY Psych professional familiar with this diagnosis sympathetic to her. Furthermore, as a sister of a schizophrenic I find her faux mental illness an afront to people with TRUE mental illness. It adds to the stigma of this already stigmatized population by linking them, inappropriately, with premeditated calculated homicide.

One more thought before I hit the hay: I had dinner with our prosecutor tonite who used to work side by side w/ Martinez before she retired. She let me know that a certain local reporter will never get a decent interview with the County Attorney's office as he's lost all respect there and no one likes him or respects him or trusts him. As it should be. Interesting position though for someone who covers THE COURTS. (duh)
Big layoffs at the local paper coming. Maybe this particular reporter can just seamlessly come out of the closet and move right in to the job he's been doing for some time: defense investigative work. At least with some outward integrity, for once.
Now I'm gonna wash my brain out with bleach to remove those thoughts and hope everyone out there has a good night.
I believe in this jury.

 

[MeeBee]

Hi Everyone, Just peeking in quickly. I have no HLN (Dish) but managed to be in my car when Dr. Drew read my tweet last night. LOL I have been tweeting a bit on this trial getting some of my "issues" out in the interwebs. I was pretty nauseated to hear his whatever guest say she thought that mental health professionals might be more sympathetic to this mental health defense and I had to take issue. I worked inpatient Psychiatry for many years and THE WORST patients we ever got were the Borderlines. They generally DO NOT engender any kind of sympathy whatsoever from mental health workers. In fact, many won't even take them on. Their prognosis sucks, they wreak havoc on Psych units, are usually only there because of a failed suicide attempt or some other form of manipulation. I don't see ANY Psych professional familiar with this diagnosis sympathetic to her. Furthermore, as a sister of a schizophrenic I find her faux mental illness an afront to people with TRUE mental illness. It adds to the stigma of this already stigmatized population by linking them, inappropriately, with premeditated calculated homicide.

One more thought before I hit the hay: I had dinner with our prosecutor tonite who used to work side by side w/ Martinez before she retired. She let me know that a certain local reporter will never get a decent interview with the County Attorney's office as he's lost all respect there and no one likes him or respects him or trusts him. As it should be. Interesting position though for someone who covers THE COURTS. (duh)
Big layoffs at the local paper coming. Maybe this particular reporter can just seamlessly come out of the closet and move right in to the job he's been doing for some time: defense investigative work. At least with some outward integrity, for once.
Now I'm gonna wash my brain out with bleach to remove those thoughts and hope everyone out there has a good night.
I believe in this jury.

Thanks so much for chiming in KCL. We sure miss your calming presence around here

ETA: has this certain reporter been like this for a while, long before JA, that would cause the DA's office not to trust this reporter?

 

[katiecoolady]

Thanks so much for chiming in KCL. We sure miss your calming presence around here

ETA: has this certain reporter been like this for a while, long before JA, that would cause the DA's office not to trust this reporter?

Thank you! I don't really know. We only talked about him in the context of this trial and she, a very level headed Left brained type of person said she'd noticed the extreme bias in reporting all throughout the trial. And obviously she still has many connections in the County Attorney's office so knows how terrible his reputation is there. A reporter sabotaging half of his sources in the very field he's assigned to. Interesting huh? Why the paper still keeps him is a mystery to me. She said he's gotten way way worse but in this trial, over the top.

 

[krkrjx]

Well Jeff Gold kept saying that the defense is trying to put doubt in the juror's minds, and if they have doubts they can't vote for DP. I dunno. I'm just trying to follow this thing thru tweets and other people's opinions and so far the opinions I've read today all say the defense scored big today. I hate not being able to see for myself and judge for myself.

Well, Gold says some really weird things sometimes but I do not think he is stupid, per se. And the big mean dog blogger is obviously no dummy. So with that in mind, this is what I don't get:

Doubt about what? And exactly how did the defense shoot down what the state had "proved?"

The jury has to accept the guilty verdict and that the crime was cruel (death penalty eligible). Those are the two things the state has been informing the jury of. State is not really needing to "prove" anything, just inform--right? She's guilty. The crime was heinous and cruel. There is no doubting at this stage of the game--right???

I do not understand how reasonably intelligent people continue to spew nonsense like "if the jury has doubts they can't vote DP." Or, "Nurmi shot down everything the state proved." Am I out of the loop for seeing either notion as rubbish?

I thought this phase of the trial was for mitigation and if there are any mitigating factors, whether they outweigh the aggravating factors. I thought that's what the jury is to decide and if they decide no, then it should be Death. If they decide yes, then it should be Life.

I do not understand what it is that they could "doubt" at this point. It is a death penalty qualified case and the death penalty is not coming off the table unless the prosecutor says so--right?

Someone please tell me if I am wrong. (Go ahead--I can take it. I promise.)

 

[Nali87]

Well, Gold says some really weird things sometimes but I do not think he is stupid, per se. And the big mean dog blogger is obviously no dummy. So with that in mind, this is what I don't get:

Doubt about what? And exactly how did the defense shoot down what the state had "proved?"

The jury has to accept the guilty verdict and that the crime was cruel (death penalty eligible). Those are the two things the state has been informing the jury of. State is not really needing to "prove" anything, just inform--right? She's guilty. The crime was heinous and cruel. There is no doubting at this stage of the game--right???

I do not understand how reasonably intelligent people continue to spew nonsense like "if the jury has doubts they can't vote DP." Or, "Nurmi shot down everything the state proved." Am I out of the loop for seeing either notion as rubbish?

I thought this phase of the trial was for mitigation and if there are any mitigating factors, whether they outweigh the aggravating factors. I thought that's what the jury is to decide and if they decide no, then it should be Death. If they decide yes, then it should be Life.

I do not understand what it is that they could "doubt" at this point. It is a death penalty qualified case and the death penalty is not coming off the table unless the prosecutor says so--right?

Someone please tell me if I am wrong. (Go ahead--I can take it. I promise.)

I think you're clear on what they're supposed to do. But jurors don't always behave rationally. If they somehow feel that the previous jury made a mistake, even though they're not allowed to even entertain that thought, they might let it influence them. They might not utter the words out loud, but might let it influence their decisions.

 

[krkrjx]

Thanks Nali. I realize jurors sometimes do not know what they are supposed to be doing. What is most scary is how can we expect them to know what their job is when many seemingly intelligent citizens (reporters, bloggers) apparently do not know.

I hope the jury is properly instructed before deliberations of what this phase is about and what they are to decide--and how they are to decide it.

 

[Nali87]

Thanks Nali. I realize jurors sometimes do not know what they are supposed to be doing. What is most scary is how can we expect them to know what their job is when many seemingly intelligent citizens (reporters, bloggers) apparently do not know.

I hope the jury is properly instructed before deliberations of what this phase is about and what they are to decide--and how they are to decide it.

I must admit I've lost my optimism a little. Mostly because JM's first trial was SO strong and I'm bummed that he didn't get to just to highlight WHY and HOW she was guilty and that the crime was cruel but that the defense got a chance to argue against that. I don't understand why that was allowed. By now - it should be set in stone and the defense shouldn't have even been allowed to insert 'doubt' by stating oh maybe he was shot first. Oh he was a pedophile. Oh she's mentally ill. But I guess I just don't understand US law.

 

[krkrjx]

There is supposed to be no question at this point that she is guilty and that the crime was cruel. That must be accepted by the jury so that is why the state does not go deep into details of that. But, if the jurors do not know that that's why he did not go too far into the details, they might (as Nali hints) have some doubts and give more credence to what the defense is saying because the defense is getting into details.

Things may start to look up as the mitigation aspect begins. I think Juan can delve very deeply into anything the defense raises. So far his job has been to inform; soon it may be to refute. And he does that well.

 

[bsk]

She was really good on the stand, very smart young lady or by Nurmis standards young girl. She was calm, steady and unshakable while testifying. Really gave the defense a run for there money. I would expect her to be the same this time.

But as I keep mentioning, that could work against her this time. Last time around the jury wasn't sure she was a killer when they heard her testimony. This time they already know that's the case, so she will seem icy cold and calculating rather than just cool and calm under pressure. It's also probably why her lawyers must be begging her to rely on allocution and not face Juan again, though I'm sure she feels she got the better of Juan in round 1 - if only the jury hadn't "betrayed" her in her mind.

 

[bsk]

That will be really interesting, seeing how she and the 'abusive' sister sat side by side and giggled together through the last trial. Awkward.

True, but the jury will not know that and Juan will not be allowed to point it out most likely.

 

[Spellbound]

Originally Posted by Renee110
Well. Shoot. Everything I'm reading about today in court has the defense winning today and state's case took a big hit. The state rested today, and the question everyone asked was did the State do a good job of showing the new jury all of the evidence and facts that prove premeditation and cruelty and guilt and the answer from everyone is no, plus Nurmi did a good job of tearing down what the State "proved". I'm bummed.

Where are you reading? These people sound like they're suffering from wrongitis.

I didn't get the feeling at all that the State was doing poorly. Waiting for JM to tear apart the Defense's offerings on Thursday.

 

[cindymac]

Not me.
This is how I picture it ...

Travis says Goodbye to Jodi.
He is going to have a shower after having sex, and believes Jodi is off to SLC to see RB and see/visit other Mormon members.
Jodi goes to her rental and comes back in the house and starts taking photos of Travis in the shower with his camera - to add to the collection of sex photos, to frame him with his Bishop/Mimi.
He sees her, she has the .25 caliber gun she "stole" from her grandparents.
She fires out of white rage - misfire.
Travis "leaps" towards her and she shoots again. This time, the small bullet goes straight down and misses his brain.
He is tough.
He stands in front of the sink, blood spattering from his sinus cavity trying to comprehend what is going on.
Jodi has culinary knife on hand and starts to stab him in the back.
He faces her - in a split second, a stab to the heart.
He is tough.
He turns around to face with his hands up, and tries to fight her off.
After 1 minute, he drops to the ground and starts to crawl towards the exit.
He makes it to the end of the tile hallway - throat slit. All in less than 2 minutes.

BBM

But ElleElle, the bullet didn't miss the brain.

From where it went in, the brain is the ONLY place it could go. And therefore did go.

 

[rose222]

Right you are, and this is the fear a lot of us had. Even the jury is getting confused of their job. The defense is effectively retrying her guilt phase.

It would sure be great if the defense had to go by the same standards as the state. Sure hope this jury gets it, hope they remember the real victim is Travis Alexander. The jury questions have me a little worried.

I think you're clear on what they're supposed to do. But jurors don't always behave rationally. If they somehow feel that the previous jury made a mistake, even though they're not allowed to even entertain that thought, they might let it influence them. They might not utter the words out loud, but might let it influence their decisions.

The jurors are still learning about this case so they may have plenty of questions about the guilt/innocence phase. That's okay. However, I do hope that they realize that they are supposed to accept the first-degree (premeditated) especially cruel verdict. Juan will remind them again and again that their only job is to decide life or death.

I am always worried about what a jury will do. Someone asked me how I could not be confident in this jury considering the gruesome photos that will be shown to them. I am skeptical of jurors. Period. And we have a high-profile case which brings up the issue of stealth jurors. I didn't think it was possible for a juror to look at the Travis' autopsy photos, listen to Samantha and Steven's impact statements and still feel sorry for Arias but Zervakos proved me wrong.

I am really grateful for the jurors from last time around who were brave enough to vote for death. I am amazed at how brave jurors 6 and 17 have been to stand by the family inspite of Arias' bullying behaviour. However, I'm not going to trust this jury until they come back with the right verdict.

 

[Nali87]

The jurors are still learning about this case so they may have plenty of questions about the guilt/innocence phase. That's okay. However, I do hope that they realize that they are supposed to accept the first-degree (premeditated) especially cruel verdict. Juan will remind them again and again that their only job is to decide life or death.

I am always worried about what a jury will do. Someone asked me how I could not be confident in this jury considering the gruesome photos that will be shown to them. I am skeptical of jurors. Period. And we have a high-profile case which brings up the issue of stealth jurors. I didn't think it was possible for a juror to look at the Travis' autopsy photos, listen to Samantha and Steven's impact statements and still feel sorry for Arias but Zervakos proved me wrong.

I am really grateful for the jurors from last time around who were brave enough to vote for death. I am amazed at how brave jurors 6 and 17 have been to stand by the family inspite of Arias' bullying behaviour. However, I'm not going to trust this jury until they come back with the right verdict.

Exactly Rose! And the thing is, those jurors were the ones who decided JA was guilty, so THEY were certain of her guilt and still couldn't give her the DP. This jury will just be told to accept a certain verdict and then to move on from there. I think that makes it more difficult, because if they think that the first jury got it wrong, they might not give the DP or force another mistrial. Being told someone is guilty and you have to assume the crime was cruel =/= being convinced that they are actually guilty and that the crime was cruel.

 

[Foghorn]

Good morning. Thank you, again, to all of you posting tweets for us! I was in and out yesterday caring for a sick grandchild and your posts were the only way I could stay on top of this crazy trial.

Don't you wonder why CMJA wanted Nurmi off the case so badly, they seem like a perfect fit for for each other. They both seem to have a "passion" for all things sexual--Nurmi, by his choice of profession and CMJA based on her prior acts.

He appears to be more than willing to go along with her plan to smear Travis and gleefully participates in the twisted, sexual spin CMJA has weaved for her defense. IMO, they were made for each other.

As for CMJA wearing royal blue, I hope the Alexander's wear black for an entire week--in anticipation of her impending death sentence. Put it out on social media and let MDR run to her bestie with the reason they are wearing black. We all know CMJA has a whole, recycled, court wardrobe with plenty of black attire--so every time she wears black--it will remind her of what she has to look forward to and hopefully give the Alexander family a peaceful reminder that justice is coming for Travis--very soon.

 

[Nali87]

I want the DP. JA may think she wins if she gets life.. But I bet that in 10 years or so with no appeals left she'll finally get it: that she'll grow old and die in prison after having to serve decades.

 

[YESorNO]

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/29/2014 8:00 AM

10/28/2014

TRIAL MINUTE ENTRY
DAY ELEVEN

Prior to commencement Defense Exhibit 679 is marked for identification.

Esteban Flores, having previously been sworn, testifies further.

A stipulation is read to the Jury...

Exhibit 428 is played to the Jury in open Court....

Esteban Flores testifies further.

State’s Exhibit 680 is marked for identification....

LET THE RECORD REFLECT the Court has received questions from the Jury. Same is
discussed by Court and counsel and are asked of the witness.

Filed: Juror Questions (5)

The witness steps down but is subject to recall....

The State rests.

3:58 p.m. Court stands at recess until 10/30/14 at 9:45 a.m. in this division...

Exhibits 265, 269, 271, 275, 317, 393, 394, 408, 409, 410, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 431,
432, 433, 434, 435, 438, 439, 452 and 453 are temporarily released to Defense to be returned on 10/30/14.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6550353.pdf