Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 9

[Renee110]

I'm a couple of hours behind ya'll, watching the actual video of testimony while reading here. I'm just not getting this defense. Much ado about nothing in my opinion. So Travis acted like he was driving off as <modsnip> was getting in car. So Travis said something over the top. Really? And Dan Freeman just talked about how on a trip she would sit on his lap under a waterfall or have arms around each other while taking pictures and at home they were more reserved. Hello? Um, maybe behaving appropriately depending on the situation is something EVERYONE does? When my husband is at my barn and my customers are there, we don't sit on each other's laps, but when we go to Stampede to have a beer and shoot pool I have been known to sit on his lap. Didn't know I was jekyll and hyde and screwing with his head and deceiving my customer's, friends and myself. I have just sat and watched over an hour of people talking about normal behavior.

Something I just noted&#8230;. at the end of the video, and I will put the link to the one I watched, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNNcqk2ps5Y) at about 59:45 minutes, JSS is talking to the jury about an incident that happened the day before. She tells the jury that from now on someone from court security will escort them at lunch and at the end of day to the bus. She then goes on to say if they are concerned about someone approaching them to just take off their juror badge when coming into and leaving the courthouse. I wonder if she said the same thing to this jury, and that is why the juror who was dismissed after approaching BK wasn't wearing hers.

 

[mawt28]

I was speaking to a sales rep. on the phone just the other night ...to avoid that awkward silence while she was processing my order I happen to ask her where she is located. Phoenix, AZ. I made a comment about the trial causing such a stir around those parts....she made the comment "I'm not familiar with that case". I explained to her a little about the case and she just said 'I think I may have heard something about it'.

Go figure.

 

[Miss Judy]

Has this been posted yet? Kiefer puts his usual spin on Juan's explanation of "Porngate":

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...-schaffer-denies-deleted-🤬🤬🤬🤬-files/18978593/

Warning: Usual Kiefer bias/omission of facts, of course.

 

[janx]

So..six hours and a few emails were read, video testimony established that Travis and Jodi had a spat on a road trip and a young Morman girl Travis was dating objected when he grabbed her butt? Pretty great mitigation stuff, right?

I saw some tweets and WS comments earlier. It looked even more boring than yesterday! Those poor jurors. Also, there was a question as to oral argument scheduled for tomorrow...?

 

[Laura60]

I was speaking to a sales rep. on the phone just the other night ...to avoid that awkward silence while she was processing my order I happen to ask her where she is located. Phoenix, AZ. I made a comment about the trial causing such a stir around those parts....she made the comment "I'm not familiar with that case". I explained to her a little about the case and she just said 'I think I may have heard something about it'.

Go figure.

This is what makes me question my own obsession with this and that Florida case !!

 

[AZlawyer]

I just realized something. Since the first jury found the crime "cruel", and this part of the re-trial is only SUPPOSED to be about mitigating factors, JM didn't get to highlight all the way TA was brutally murdered. Remember his "end of the rainbow" analogy? This jury won't be hearing any of that...

Yes, he did get to highlight the cruelty information. That was done at the beginning of this phase. The jury is entitled to consider the level and type of cruelty when balancing mitigation vs. aggravation, and since we have a new jury JM was allowed to go through it all again.

 

[Nali87]

Yes, he did get to highlight the cruelty information. That was done at the beginning of this phase. The jury is entitled to consider the level and type of cruelty when balancing mitigation vs. aggravation, and since we have a new jury JM was allowed to go through it all again.

I know he got to show pictures and talk to the doctor but he didn't get to tell it in a story. The way he told the first jury exactly how JA killed TA and how much he suffered was incredibly powerful, imo. I wish he would have been able to really present it to them.

 

[NashBridges2]

Nurmi has had this case for THREE WEEKS. And what has been accomplished? A day and a half of secret testimony and 2 days of listening to some sex doctor give her opinion on a few emails and 2 witnesses? No wonder he expects to be here until January.

Can't the judge step in or something? This jury must be wishing they hadn't agreed to sign up for this.

 

[bsk]

Has this been posted yet? Kiefer puts his usual spin on Juan's explanation of "Porngate":

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...-schaffer-denies-deleted-🤬🤬🤬🤬-files/18978593/

Warning: Usual Kiefer bias/omission of facts, of course.

So Shaeffer says Flores powered up the computer. Why would he do that if the DT did not ask him to?

Who cares at this point? Unless the defense is going to argue that Travis accessed remotely while dead, then JSS needs to kill this nonsense. But if she lets it in, then certainly Juan will get to introduce all the connections: the magical disappearing gun, JA's computer being destroyed by JA at about the same time Travis's computer gets infected, etc.

 

[MeeBee]

I know he got to show pictures and talk to the doctor but he didn't get to tell it in a story. The way he told the first jury exactly how JA killed TA and how much he suffered was incredibly powerful, imo. I wish he would have been able to really present it to them.

Last time he did that in his closing argument. He still has a closing argument coming.

 

[Hatfield]

Yes, he did get to highlight the cruelty information. That was done at the beginning of this phase. The jury is entitled to consider the level and type of cruelty when balancing mitigation vs. aggravation, and since we have a new jury JM was allowed to go through it all again.

Hello AZ,

Just a small question if you are still around tonight.

When the witness was giving her opinions on the recorded testimony tapes of other people's opinions, Isn't that heresay and not allowed because they are not present?

I can understand allowing the tapes to be played but i cant understand how it is allowed the witness is able to give her opinion on their opinions of Travis.
Those people are still alive and could be called as witnesses if the defense wants more of their original opinions.

Just seems to be something illegal about it.
Kind of like she says "What he really meant was....."

Thanks in advance if you can chime in about this.

 

[jbc]

I get from the synopses by Beth K. (kudos Beth!!), that the argument is made that because TA dated two women at the same time, he damaged their self-esteem, and therefore he was cruel to them.

To that I say - Nurmi and the defense psychologist, you are just....so high-school.

Most people would be affected by that, but it doesn't lower your self-esteem...it lowers your esteem of the person you are trying to date.
Your level of self-esteem determines how you respond to the insult.
It is not "cruel" in the sense of an abusive relationship; "playing the field" is the way humans act (on average) when they are trying to establish a pair bond.

I certainly knew people that were much "crueler" - both men and women.
And how many Sleuths reading this board found out that their "sig other" was "dating" other people?
Hey, it hurts a lot, we get over it (at least partially), we move on. We find someone better.
In our search, we take our self-esteem with us, for better or worse.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think Juan will be able to rehabilitate most of this garbage by reading other emails and by filling in timelines and facts that have been glossed over.

I don't think they will tune out JUan. LOL He will not let that happen. He will swoop in and define the timeline, how SHORT the relationship was. How long he dated Deanna. His reasons for backing off from JA. Her move away and then BACK to Mesa. Her cray cray coming out. When they get the fuller version and see the bigger picture, the DP will be back on the table, imo.

I think the jury will be thinking all of the above. How their OWN relationships would look bad if we were to read private emails. And how they fought in past relationships and how they played the field, and how they had booty calls or were booty calls until they learned better. Everyone fought on road trips and got angry over stupid stuff and hid sexual trysts and treated others poorly and cheated in one way or another. I don't think ANY of what was shown in these long boring emails rose to any level of mitigation. NONE of it justified his being slaughtered and none of it justifies her escaping the ultimate justice, jmo.

I think the jury is hearing what we are.... blah blah blah blah.. or Wawa wa wawa wa wawawa..... ala Charlie Brown.

 

[NashBridges2]

Hello AZ,

Just a small question if you are still around tonight.

When the witness was giving her opinions on the recorded testimony tapes of other people's opinions, Isn't that heresay and not allowed because they are not present?

I can understand allowing the tapes to be played but i cant understand how it is allowed the witness is able to give her opinion on their opinions of Travis.
Those people are still alive and could be called as witnesses if the defense wants more of their original opinions.

Just seems to be something illegal about it.

Thanks in advance if you can chime in about this.

This is a great question, I'm wondering about this as well.

 

[MeeBee]

@troyhaydenfox10: I can't think of a bigger waste of jury's time than watching tape of sidebars from last #JodiArias trial. But that's happening.

 

[Nali87]

Hello AZ,

Just a small question if you are still around tonight.

When the witness was giving her opinions on the recorded testimony tapes of other people's opinions, Isn't that heresay and not allowed because they are not present?

I can understand allowing the tapes to be played but i cant understand how it is allowed the witness is able to give her opinion on their opinions of Travis.
Those people are still alive and could be called as witnesses if the defense wants more of their original opinions.

Just seems to be something illegal about it.
Kind of like she says "What he really meant was....."

Thanks in advance if you can chime in about this.

This is a great question, I'm wondering about this as well.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?258910-Retrial-for-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-4/page40
I think she left, but she's commented on it before. Scroll down to 982.

 

[LinasK]

Wow. Even though I watched Desiree's testimony at the first trial I never thought that she was just a child at that time. It just never came to my mind. Her view of what was going on could be much different to an adults. Wonder why it never struck me before.

Because she was tall for a 12-year-old, and reportedly had a crush on Travis. This just came out that she was only 12 at the time. How would she know anything about their love life??? At least the Hughes were adults, not that even his "best friends" had a right to pressure him whom to marry and how to treat a woman. They clearly didn't know what abuse and sociopathy were. Travis was the furthest thing from abusive. I would've said much worse to Jodi and called the cops on her!

 

[Hatfield]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?258910-Retrial-for-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-4/page40
I think she left, but she's commented on it before. Scroll down to 982.

Thanks. Maybe that is it. Maybe the rules are really laxed because we are in penalty/mitigation phase only.

 

[Renee110]

This is the very question I have. It is driving me crazy that we don't know what the rulings are on objections.

I've tweeted the reporters and asked them to let us know. Maybe they don't know what the ruling was if it's a sidebar. I'll tweet them again on Monday.

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello AZ,

Just a small question if you are still around tonight.

When the witness was giving her opinions on the recorded testimony tapes of other people's opinions, Isn't that heresay and not allowed because they are not present?

I can understand allowing the tapes to be played but i cant understand how it is allowed the witness is able to give her opinion on their opinions of Travis.
Those people are still alive and could be called as witnesses if the defense wants more of their original opinions.

Just seems to be something illegal about it.
Kind of like she says "What he really meant was....."

Thanks in advance if you can chime in about this.

Just about to leave for the day.

Without getting into the times when experts are allowed to talk about hearsay anyway, let's just skip ahead to the fact that the hearsay rules and most of the other rules of evidence are pretty much tossed out the window for the penalty phase. So fun!! So free!! :happydance: