Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 5

[neesaki]

For instance, imagine someone is up for the death penalty and they are innocent. But they are limited in defending themselves by a law that says they have to prove what they're saying. Where would that line between what is and isn't evidence be drawn? That would be disasterous and sad. A defendant needs a fighting chance. That's the best way I can't put it.

The difference being that CMJA is not innocent, no contest there.

 

[MeeBee]

The difference being that CMJA is not innocent, no contest there.

Obviously. She was convicted.

 

[jbc]

I am slow on the uptake...so please excuse me...
but JA's new position that the shot was first, while TA was seated in the shower, implies...

1. no argument about a dropped camera
2. no body slam
3. no rolling to the side and getting up
4. no ring-around-the rosy chase by a wet naked man
5. no darting into the closet and slamming the door
6. no getting up on the shelf to retrieve a non-loaded gun
7. no linebacker lunge and being cursed at
8. no shooting the non-loaded gun, only to find out it was indeed loaded (oops)
9. and...no fog rolling in due to the stress of the consequence of the unexpected gunshot

so there never was a "non-loaded" gun on the shelf (likely), and she used a gun that she brought.

ok, my head is spinning. I know I'm stating the obvious, and you all are way ahead of me... but this is an admission that the entire previous defense was built on horsehockeypucks. It's not that it is a surprise, but JA **promised** the previous jury over and over that she was finally revealing the truth in the last trial because she wanted to get the story out because she couldn't keep her lies straight. And, the new defense reinforces what we thought all along... she was BS'ing the entire previous trial. So, JM will point this out, naturally, and will KN come back with that being further evidence of a psychiatric disturbance?

I know that AZlawyer addressed this, but at what point in this charade, as an officer of the court, does KN become more culpable than JA in this abuse of the legal system? If JA would have told Nurmi in the previous trial that she couldn't have killed TA because she was telepathically transported to the moon, would Nurmi be obliged to present that defense, and then later change the story in a retrial because JA admitted it wasn't the moon, but Bermuda?

 

[katiecoolady]

If indeed Nurmi is changing the story or if JA is changing the story for the umpteenth time in this retrial it leads me to wonder if he's pointing his focus more on appellate issues than winning this phase. Her first line of appeal, if sentenced to death, will be ineffective counsel. He/she knows this. I just can't imagine what he thinks would be useful about a change of story such as this esp if he intends to put her on the stand.

One more thought--I get the emotional vs. rational argument meebee AND I will say that as indeed I have high emotions around these abuses of the system, I am also an intelligent rational thinker and could present my opinion in a very rational well thought out manner. Just saying I don't think it's that black and white.

Also, I think a certain degree of outrage is necessary to make big societal change sometimes. So I'm ok with expressing it in a considered, well thought out manner.

 

[katiecoolady]

I don't think attorneys are bound to present any defense at all that their clients present. I think that's at least part of the reason their expertise is needed..to guide their clients toward what is best for them. Which in my opinion, and esp in death penalty trials which Iam mostly familiar with and obviously highest stakes, has spiraled out of control to conspire to present the most aggressive defense, at all costs true/untrue/fabricated/spun out of thin air in order to WIN.

As far as I'm concerned, let them put on outrageous stories...let Jodi still try and argue Ninjas were still there even though her photos were all over that camera...let her argue that she was never in AZ, let her stick with her various and sundry tall tales AS LONG AS SHE DOESN"T GET TO REKILL HER VICTIM OVER AND OVER AGAIN in court without his ability to rebut her outrageous BS.

 

[katiecoolady]

This is a very spirited and appropriate discussion, one I'm glad to see happen.

Like many others I have had my fair share of *****ing loudly and often to anything or anyone who would listen or read my words about the slime campaign this defense has used from the beginning. I spoke to a relative, a lawyer, who shared my outrage. But like lawyers on forums I was using at the time, he echoed the legalese that did nothing to calm me, in fact only fueling my anger. I understand there are laws, that even wretched defendants have rights but where do ethics play into the legal system when the laws are so distorted and misdirected to allow baseless and filthy accusations?

As a crime victim I have felt dirtied and ashamed by my attacker. Then the verbal and written assault so reprehensible that the defense tactics worked and I begged, begged with everything I had to have the charges against him dropped out of fear, shame, and even guilt! At the time I was alone, I had family members disbelieve my account even as they visited me in the hospital, and the pain and grief was just too great to bear with the weight of what my attacker and his defense were waging. My silence crippled me and will be the single greatest regret of my life.

Allowing defense attorneys to engage in the kind of disgusting war that Nurmi and company have waged under the guise of everything is fair game because of a defendant's rights has to be seen as a grave miscarriage of justice and a morally corrupt misuse of the law. I have to believe this can change. It must.

Thank you for this and I too appreciate this spirited and intelligent discussion. I appreciate it even being on the table for consideration and I truly am deeply affected by your story of revictimization. It truly can destroy completely innocent people, and there are very vulnerable ppl in that Alexander family who will not easily recover from the abuse they are subjected to in that courtroom.

Edited to add, I'm not presuming you've been "destroyed" and I sincerely hope you can find some inner forgiveness for what you were navigating at that time. I believe, not even knowing you, that you were doing your best all things considered.

 

[LinasK]

If indeed Nurmi is changing the story or if JA is changing the story for the umpteenth time in this retrial it leads me to wonder if he's pointing his focus more on appellate issues than winning this phase. Her first line of appeal, if sentenced to death, will be ineffective counsel. He/she knows this. I just can't imagine what he thinks would be useful about a change of story such as this esp if he intends to put her on the stand.

One more thought--I get the emotional vs. rational argument meebee AND I will say that as indeed I have high emotions around these abuses of the system, I am also an intelligent rational thinker and could present my opinion in a very rational well thought out manner. Just saying I don't think it's that black and white.

Also, I think a certain degree of outrage is necessary to make big societal change sometimes. So I'm ok with expressing it in a considered, well thought out manner.

She won't win Ineffective Councel. As disgusting as he's been, Nurmi has fought hard for her. It's very difficult to win. He'd have had to sleep through the whole trial in order to win this.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't think attorneys are bound to present any defense at all that their clients present. I think that's at least part of the reason their expertise is needed..to guide their clients toward what is best for them. Which in my opinion, and esp in death penalty trials which Iam mostly familiar with and obviously highest stakes, has spiraled out of control to conspire to present the most aggressive defense, at all costs true/untrue/fabricated/spun out of thin air in order to WIN.

As far as I'm concerned, let them put on outrageous stories...let Jodi still try and argue Ninjas were still there even though her photos were all over that camera...let her argue that she was never in AZ, let her stick with her various and sundry tall tales AS LONG AS SHE DOESN"T GET TO REKILL HER VICTIM OVER AND OVER AGAIN in court without his ability to rebut her outrageous BS.

Good point, I think that is true. I certainly understand your side here.

I also wasn't meaning to imply you yourself or anyone else was operating from a purely emotional standpoint. Just that I'm trying to stop myself only from doing so, knowing that I can do that sometimes and not think of things from the other side.

 

[Spycraft]

Thank you for this and I too appreciate this spirited and intelligent discussion. I appreciate it even being on the table for consideration and I truly am deeply affected by your story of revictimization. It truly can destroy completely innocent people, and there are very vulnerable ppl in that Alexander family who will not easily recover from the abuse they are subjected to in that courtroom.

Edited to add, I'm not presuming you've been "destroyed" and I sincerely hope you can find some inner forgiveness for what you were navigating at that time. I believe, not even knowing you, that you were doing your best all things considered.

Thanks, Katie. Actually the situation did destroy a very important part of me. It stripped my confidence, forced me to question family, but most importantly my silence made it possible for my attacker to victimize other women. That is something I can't yet forgive myself for, but I'm a work in progress. Slow perhaps, but progress.

 

[katiecoolady]

Good point, I think that is true. I certainly understand your side here.

I also wasn't meaning to imply you yourself or anyone else was operating from a purely emotional standpoint. Just that I'm trying to stop myself only from doing so, knowing that I can do that sometimes and not think of things from the other side.

I can do that too...and often do. Ask any of my ex boyfriends.

 

[katiecoolady]

Thanks, Katie. Actually the situation did destroy a very important part of me. It stripped my confidence, forced me to question family, but most importantly my silence made it possible for my attacker to victimize other women. That is something I can't yet forgive myself for, but I'm a work in progress. Slow perhaps, but progress.

I'm glad to read you are making progress. I completely understand. <3

 

[elementary]

I can't imagine sitting in court and listening to the filth he's put out there! Really. I do well remember your posts all the way through last time.

I just don't believe Nurmi has defended her with any glee whatsoever. It's actually been pretty telling, Imo, that a man who chooses to represent the lowest and basest of deviants has repeatedly tried to flee from representing this butcherer.

I believe he relishes it all and absolutely wants to win at all cost. What he doesn't relish is interacting with the murderer, not out of disgust, but because she won't listen to him and treats him like dirt/her lackey.

 

[elementary]

As AZ pointed out, the killer's words are the evidence. It is up to the state to disprove them and Juan has done a very good job of it. Unfortunately, the trial is not meant to be fair to the victim or to their family but to the defendant because they deserve a fair trial. I am disgusted by it and I do wish there was a way to put a stop to it. But I can't see a way for that to happen without trampling on a defendant's rights to give their side. I've thought about it...and have nothing.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the Alexanders and to KCL. I would be enraged if I had to sit there and listen to my loved one be slaughterd all over again in court. I was also just reading an article yesterday by Kim Goldman in support of the Alexanders about this very thing.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...der-family-kim-goldman-ron-goldman-oj-simpson

So I'm operating from two standpoints here: my logical side and my compassionate, more emotional side. Posting those tweets yesterday made my blood boil. But it's all the defense has and, honestly, I don't think it'll work.

What you're saying then is that a right to a defence means the right to lie without limit? Because that is what is happening and escalating in courts and becoming the 'norm'.

 

[rose222]

I was under the impression that the production of evidence (truth-seeking) is at the heart of the criminal justice system. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. I get that. The State has the burden of proof. Okay. The defendant has the right to effective lawyers/speedy trial/DNA testing (DNA...they should) I get all this. I simply do not understand how the defendant's mere words are considered to be evidence. Anyone can say anything about anybody. And consider the issue of secondary gain in the case of a defendant. If a defendant feels the need to slander the victim then it should be backed up by hardcore evidence. But what do I know... :thinking:

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

BBM OT (gross alert) Perhaps you were thinking of smegma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma

Yes, I know what smegma means, and that's possibly why the obscene nuance would kick in. Also, it depended on the context in which it was used. I think it's hard to read something vowel-less like it could be a word without automatically adding a vowel to it, "e" being the most frequently used letter in the alphabet.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

A young girl with graying hair...it's gonna be a hard sell.

A young girl who is showing signs of starting to get slightly droopy jowls, at least what I can tell from recent photos. That's going to mitigate the waifish little girl facade.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I do not want to see Arias put in the general population. She will only gather more enablers who coddle her.

Given what we know of her, she would probably wear her DR status proudly, since she will belong to an elite club; not just ANYONE gets onto DR, after all.

She may also have to be in isolation even if she gets LWOP, because the prison has the responsibility of protecting high-profile inmates, especially after the death of the high-profile Jeffery Dahmer at the hands of other inmates. There will be inmates who would find their status among like-minded inmates elevated if they managed to "take her out". They might even add another tattoo to their face(s), like notches on a bedpost.

I hope she's shaking in her prison shoes with fear every day for the rest of her life.

 

[Luvrosco]

I'm so glad that if she gets LWOP that she could be in solitary confinement. I asked this question yesterday. My fear is that if she winds up in general population, she'll become the belle of the ball and relish in it.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

Ex Mormon, born and raised in the LDS church. Grandpa was in the Mesa Temple Presidency, 1970's.
Blood atonement WAS part of the doctrine and practiced in the early church, for that matter, there are a LOT of "dirty secrets" in the foundation of the Mormon church that members new to the church will never know about unless they study the foundational doctrine of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The early church always found a way to skirt the issue of "murder" versus "divine intervention". Note: Mountain Meadows Massacre. My mother's 2nd marriage is to a man who's grandfather was a part of the slaughter and the journals from that dude are totally different that what the church claims. Polygamy is another "gray" area.

Did CMJArias know about "blood atonement"?
DOUBTFUL.

I've known about Mormon blood atonement for a very long time. I didn't know (and still don't know) the details, but I knew about its existence. While reading multiple posts about it in this thread, I kept wondering HOW I knew about it. Could it be because of true crime reading and watching? No, my sense was that I knew about it well before that. But HOW?

It finally came to me in the last few minutes: Gary Gilmore. Back in the mid-1970s, his trial and decision to die was a HUGE topic in the news and around the water coolers. Really, not a day went by that I didn't hear about it in some form or another, even though I wasn't even paying close attention. I KNOW I heard some talking head somewhere along the line mention blood atonement, given that he chose to be executed by a firing squad. The talk was that, because Utah gave the option of firing squads, it had to do with that, so the topic of Mormons was frequently brought up. At australianhumanitiesreview.org, it says his brother firmly believed that that was why his brother chose a firing squad. Wikipedia says it's because GG thought being shot would be quicker and less likely to get botched.

After scanning the story, I now remember why it was such a HUGE deal. GG wanted to die. He refused to appeal, which brought all sorts of people out of the woodwork, insisting that he MUST appeal the decision, most notably the ACLU, not wanting his wishes to die as soon as possible to set a precedent that would affect other DR prisoners.

That said, this happened before CMJA was born, and the topic had died down (so to speak) well before it would have ever hit her radar. She may have seen the movie "The Executioner's Song", though, although I don't know if the BA subject was brought up in the movie (or the book by Norman Mailer, for that matter).

 

[Foghorn]

Good morning! I agree that a change in the law is needed to protect innocent victims from being vilified by an unethical attorney – a Truth in Representation type of law. But how would it be enforced, short of recording the defendant and their attorney? (Of course, as the laws are written now that would be a violation of privilege.)

The defendant-- that has agreed to an unethical attorney’s “counsel”, “Well, Ms. Smith I hear your story but don’t you agree that [insert outrageous theory here] must have occurred (wink, wink)?”—is only going to throw this attorney under the proverbial bus IF they lose.

As in any profession, there are attorneys whose moral compass points in the direction of a win at any cost. The laws are already in place to keep them ethical but they are circling around the fringes of these laws into a grey area, originally designed to protect the innocent.

Spycraft, I am so sorry that this happened to you—your situation, the vilification of Travis and all of the other bashing of innocent victims must stop. KCL, I hope and pray that by raising your voice, it inspires others to join you and that, collectively; this cry for true justice is the catalyst for change.