SIDEBAR #17- Arias/Alexander forum

[YESorNO]

When the penalty phase is retried, does anyone know what we can expect in terms of how the guilt and aggravation phases are presented to the new jury? I can't get a handle on this; all I know is that the purpose is to bring the jury up to speed so that they can make an informed decision.

If they do question witnesses, how much can they veer from the original line of questioning? Can new information come into the case?[/B]

Just as I don't want to listen to CMJA, I also don't want to hear much from Nurmi or Willmott. I do have issues with the DT and it seems that they crossed ethical boundaries more than once. Nurmi represented to the Hughes that the forged pedo letters had been verified as authentic; Chris testified to this in court when the jury was not present. They also led Patti Womack to believe that she was under subpoena to testify in the penalty phase; I believe that she publicly stated this in her last appearance on Nancy Grace. In court, Willmott deliberately misstated Alice Walker's position on DV when questioning Janine DeMarte; fortunately, DeMarte was an ideal witness in that she handled the question appropriately by stating she was not aware of what Willmott was trying to sell. I found it distasteful that ALV was only give cherry picked communication upon which to base her opinion, but at the same time I have to give the expert witness equal blame for not requesting full access to all correspondence.

If these are indeed ethical breaches, I would hope that appropriate sanctions are given.

I took deep umbrage with Nurmi suggesting that the jury was not abiding by the court's admonishment not to seek information about the case outside of the courtroom. If I had been a juror on that trial and found out about it after I was dismissed, I would have been furious.

BBM This is what I'm curious about, too. I just don't understand a second jury and how they will proceed with the case. :scared: Can missy change any of her testimony?? I mean - oh what was that called at the end??? her little speech she gave about why she needs to live???? :floorlaugh: (I think I'm in a coma :floorlaugh.

 

[daisymae]

Where's my daisy.
I'm getting worried.

WS is really slow on my end and I'm backed up a couple of pages.

 

[neesaki]

I tried to watch JVM, but it got too screamy, yelly for me. I was glad to see Beth Karas on the panel; she is a voice of reason and IMO has integrity so it was good to see her vouch for some of JVM's "bombshells.

Information has been out disclosed in cyberspace about CMJA's stalking of Bobby Juarez. I have seen people who claim to have known both of them posting on this and giving some very specific incidents as examples, so it was good to have confirmation from Beth on this.

Neesaki, the "nympho" bombshell bombed, as the evidence in the trial did point to CMJA being the aggressor in the physical relationship. Some of the panel's speculation on June 4th is consistent with opinions here that her having sex with him on that day was all part of her plan.

There was also talk of CMJA attempting to blackmail Travis with the sex tape and that this was the basis for Travis sending that blistering exchange on May 26. Again, no surprise as this is something that has been discussed here. JVM did support this theory with Skye Hughes' speculation that CMJA was going to consult her attorney about the legality of a phone conversation recorded without permission.

That was as far as I got in the program before I tuned out.

Like you, this whole thing about too prejudicial is a concept that serves the defendant, not justice. I thought that it used to be a prior history could be introduced in court if it directly related to the crime. In this case, Travis was stalked as was Bobby and the stalking escalated enough to cause fear in both men. I'm as confident as one can be that there were many incidents of stalking Travis that were not mentioned in court.

The one thing that did bother me was when Amy Murphy talked about the penalty phase being hung, she repeatedly said the foreman felt that
Travis was culpable and thus CMJA did not deserve the death penalty. What I saw from the evidence presented was a man who was trying to get out of the relationship and as the stalking escalated, he did become scared and angry. It was a vicious cycle; the more he tried to break free, the harder she tried to rope him in and unfortunately the cycle ended in him being brutally murdered.

I agree with your post. The only thing new to me, is that Bobby was actually described as being "afraid" of CMJA. I don't remember ever hearing exactly that. I now wonder if that had something to do with him not testifying, and also that is what Juan was talking about when he threw it up in her face, that she still believed that Bobby was loyal and someone she could depend on. And, the only other thing, the term "nymphomaniac", even though we all believed that was the case, I don't think I had actually heard it put into words as such. :seeya:

ETA: Oh, totally agree that JVM is too screamy yelly, hard for me to tolerate as well. :facepalm:

 

[gcharlie]

Speaking about sex and orgasms, I stumbled upon this article and thought it might be interesting to post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The internet is abuzz today with both visceral and intellectual responses to The Art of Sleeping Alone, a memoir by Sophie Fontanel (senior fashion editor at French Elle) that chronicles her decision to abstain from sex. Not for religious reasons, not because she was waiting for the right person to come along and sweep her off her feet - simply because she realized she was happier that way. Because she was 27 and she wanted to. Because she decided that having bad sex, or sex just for the point of having sex, is not actually better than no sex at all - for her, at least.
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/could-without-sex-12-years-heres-one-womans-141500878.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think she was pretty young to stop having sex, IMO.

I'll have to read the article as it could be very interesting.

Within the past two weeks, I was talking to my college aged son and saying that I wish that society would talk more openly about sex, so that people have a better understanding about sexuality and that wide range which can be considered normal and healthy sexual relationships. I know that my son is not comfortable with me talking to him about sex beyond the basic stuff that parents are supposed to teach their children. I remember trying to tell him how much more satisfying sex is when you love a person, hence the phrase making love, and he was almost squirming; I guess that mental image of his mother and father doing the nasty was too much for him!

I think that we got into this discussion as a tangent when he asked me how relationships change once a couple has children. Now there is a hot button for a lot of couples!

Maybe if we talked about it more openly, people like Travis or the friends in whom he confided would recognize that there was something very wrong which went beyond the sexual aspect of the relationship.

 

[daisymae]

hey everybody :seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

I'm here! Coming out of a coma after eating too much bread (diabetes) but it was white wheat! I can hardly move. LOL Now thinking about some candy. :floorlaugh:

It's a good thing I'm not taking care of you, sis. I would cut your hands off before you'd touch that candy. We would be fighting all the time.
Diabetes is very dangerous- you could lose your sight and your limbs, too. I've seem what diabetes can do and it's not pretty.
Bad. :stormingmad:

 

[neesaki]

hey everybody :seeya:

Hey daisy :wave:

 

[daisymae]

hey everybody - WS still slow

Finished the driveway today except for oil spots. Bought some strong stuff for oil, put some in my pump sprayer, and it sort of melted the wand. LOL Too caustic for rubber. :floorlaugh:
:rockon:

 

[gcharlie]

WS is really slow on my end and I'm backed up a couple of pages.

MODS:

I've had problems too. Tried to post something and somehow it double posted so I got an error message saying I had to wait 30 seconds between posts and try again. I can't type fast enough to be able to post twice within 30 seconds!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[daisymae]

It's a good thing I'm not taking care of you, sis. I would cut your hands off before you'd touch that candy. We would be fighting all the time.
Diabetes is very dangerous- you could lose your sight and your limbs, too. I've seem what diabetes can do and it's not pretty.
Bad. :stormingmad:

I know I know ... but mine is very easily managed, except for bread. Really!

 

[neesaki]

If you ask me though, she was probably faking a lot of them :blushing:. I don't believe she was addicted to the sex so much - she was addicted to the power that she felt sex obtained her. She used sex as a weapon, not for enjoyment. JMO

Actually, I think you're right. So I withdraw my earlier comment that we all knew she was a "nymphomaniac". What she really was, was a faux nymphomaniac. Also known as a "con". jmo

 

[daisymae]

MODS:

I've had problems too. Tried to post something and somehow it double posted so I got an error message saying I had to wait 30 seconds between posts and try again. I can't type fast enough to be able to post twice within 30 seconds!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:[/QUOTE

happening to me too! :floorlaugh:

 

[neesaki]

NG has news about a child, Erica Parsons, missing for 2 years and no one reported her missing. Parents still collected $600+ every month from the gov't. Told everyone that Erica was living with her Grandmother (who has been dead for 5 years).
What a sin. I don't understand people anymore.

I saw that just a little while ago. How horrible, that poor, poor baby :cry: Those evil people need to fry for this. No. Mercy. :stormingmad:

 

[YESorNO]

I'll have to read the article as it could be very interesting.

Within the past two weeks, I was talking to my college aged son and saying that I wish that society would talk more openly about sex, so that people have a better understanding about sexuality and that wide range which can be considered normal and healthy sexual relationships. I know that my son is not comfortable with me talking to him about sex beyond the basic stuff that parents are supposed to teach their children. I remember trying to tell him how much more satisfying sex is when you love a person, hence the phrase making love, and he was almost squirming; I guess that mental image of his mother and father doing the nasty was too much for him!

I think that we got into this discussion as a tangent when he asked me how relationships change once a couple has children. Now there is a hot button for a lot of couples!

Maybe if we talked about it more openly, people like Travis or the friends in whom he confided would recognize that there was something very wrong which went beyond the sexual aspect of the relationship.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was growing up, we never talked about sex in our house. Since my parents were from Italy, it was a taboo subject and if a girl wasn't a "virgin" when she got married she was "broken" and was considered almost on the same level as a prostitute. Why my mother didn't allow me or my sisters to use tampons as it would "break" us (if you know what I mean). :blushing:
I spoke to both my sons about sex when they were young and tried to stress the love part of sex. And about taking care of the things you love- so important in life, IMO. Sex is not dirty- only if you treat it that way.

 

[neesaki]

I'm here! Coming out of a coma after eating too much bread (diabetes) but it was white wheat! I can hardly move. LOL Now thinking about some candy. :floorlaugh:

Are you serious?! Are you ok? Too much carbs is bad honey. And please, no candy.

 

[neesaki]

hey everybody - WS still slow

Finished the driveway today except for oil spots. Bought some strong stuff for oil, put some in my pump sprayer, and it sort of melted the wand. LOL Too caustic for rubber. :floorlaugh:
:rockon:

I'm curious now, what is it with your driveway? Ok, just indulge me, lol.

 

[YESorNO]

I know I know ... but mine is very easily managed, except for bread. Really!

OK- that's all I'll say about this, miss "very easily managed".

 

[neesaki]

I don't know how old you are, but when I was growing up, we never talked about sex in our house. Since my parents were from Italy, it was a taboo subject and if a girl wasn't a "virgin" when she got married she was "broken" and was considered almost on the same level as a prostitute. Why my mother didn't allow me or my sisters to use tampons as it would "break" us (if you know what I mean). :blushing:
I spoke to both my sons about sex when they were young and tried to stress the love part of sex. And about taking care of the things you love- so important in life, IMO. Sex is not dirty- only if you treat it that way.

You're mother sounds just like mine, YorN. She never even told me about that monthly curse that girls get. It seriously freaked me out, I didn't know what was going on. Can't you imagine? It was my older sister and cousin who had to help me. Seriously.

And, she used to think that tampons were bad like that too. Thankfully, my big sister got her in line, at least I suspect that's what happened, lol.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

When the penalty phase is retried, does anyone know what we can expect in terms of how the guilt and aggravation phases are presented to the new jury? I can't get a handle on this; all I know is that the purpose is to bring the jury up to speed so that they can make an informed decision.

If they do question witnesses, how much can they veer from the original line of questioning? Can new information come into the case?

Just as I don't want to listen to CMJA, I also don't want to hear much from Nurmi or Willmott. I do have issues with the DT and it seems that they crossed ethical boundaries more than once. Nurmi represented to the Hughes that the forged pedo letters had been verified as authentic; Chris testified to this in court when the jury was not present. They also led Patti Womack to believe that she was under subpoena to testify in the penalty phase; I believe that she publicly stated this in her last appearance on Nancy Grace. In court, Willmott deliberately misstated Alice Walker's position on DV when questioning Janine DeMarte; fortunately, DeMarte was an ideal witness in that she handled the question appropriately by stating she was not aware of what Willmott was trying to sell. I found it distasteful that ALV was only give cherry picked communication upon which to base her opinion, but at the same time I have to give the expert witness equal blame for not requesting full access to all correspondence.

If these are indeed ethical breaches, I would hope that appropriate sanctions are given.

I took deep umbrage with Nurmi suggesting that the jury was not abiding by the court's admonishment not to seek information about the case outside of the courtroom. If I had been a juror on that trial and found out about it after I was dismissed, I would have been furious.

:goodpost: Thanks wasn't enough! Her DT are extremely unethical IMO. I find them to be an embarrassment to their profession. I know defense attorneys have a job to do, but they have crossed too many lines JMHO. They are offensive in every way imaginable. I said many times that they make Jose Baez look like an angel. :stormingmad:

I loved Dr. DeMarte, but she never should have gone on Dr. Drew . I didn't think she was the type that would get sucked into the circus. She is so smart, and was so ethical and honest in her testimony. IMO she was the best witness the prosecution had.

 

[daisymae]

Are you serious?! Are you ok? Too much carbs is bad honey. And please, no candy.

I'm good - not to worry! Thanks, N. :rockon: