SIDEBAR #33 - Arias/Alexander forum

[m1279]

[video=youtube;VmeXmTaYxUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmeXmTaYxUA[/video]

We're all frustrated by the proceedings but let's all remember that JM has our back. I have faith in our prosecutor.

 

[wenwe4]

Just my thoughts on the video from court today:

It is interesting to me how uncomfy JSS looks everytime that JM says something about the COA giving a decision the defense doesn't like. She almost has a "pained" look as if she is in some sort of ethical dilemma (?) - maybe I am just reading too much into her facial expressions.

Nurmi keeps whining about defendant's rights superceding victim rights . . . . but didn't the COA say the first amendment rights and media rights trump? I thought I heard a sniffle and wondered if it came from one of Travis's family members. What is it that Nurmi is saying is "problematic"? Is he arguing that because JSS told him she would close the court if things were "problematic" or is it the language in the law for sealing courtrooms include exceptions for "problematic"?

JA and Cougarlicious seemed to be quite engaged in conversation - I can't remember who it was but one of the WS posters used to read lips and tell us what they thought they were saying at the defendant's table (might have been CA trial). I am dying to know what they thought so amusing during the sidebar today.

One witness from Cali and 2 expert witnesses for JA . . . along with whoever the mystery witness would could not continue in public are the defense but it will take 3 months? Um . . . is the one from Cali a family member of JA's? Any guesses on the 2 expert witnesses?

 

[TxJan1971]

Video of today's hearing!!!!

http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/mesa/2014/11/04/18487455/

Not sure where to put this transcript but since the video was posted in this thread, that's where I'm putting the transcript. Mod, please feel free to move as appropriate. Thanks.

-----

Video Transcript

Subject: Jodi Arias Trial

Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Participants: Judge Sherry Stephens, Juan Martinez (state), Kurt Nurmi and
Jennifer Wilmott (defense)

Link: http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/mesa/2014/11/04/18487455/

Juan Martinez:
…considerations that the court has to look at in making its decision whether or not we should proceed on Wednesday as you indicated at 10:00. The first one is under Rule 19 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. That sets out the rules and it gives you, the Judge, the discretion to order the defendant to go forward, and I believe that you should exercise that discretion. We actually even advised the jury of the order of the proceedings that is contained or set out in Rule 19 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The other thing that should not be lost in this argument about whether or not we should proceed in a Star Chamber sort of approach to things is the victim’s rights. Victims also have a constitutional right to continue. One of the things that I indicated to the Court of Appeals yesterday was that, um…when they were talking about the stay, I opposed the stay and indicated that we should proceed, and the reason that I cited was that the victims have a right to continue with these proceedings. Somehow their constitutional rights have not been addressed by defense counsel’s request. The other thing that we must consider is that we have a jury that’s been empanelled, a jury that has been told that they are to serve until the 18th of December. These are all interests that indicate…or these are all…um…factors that must be considered by you in deciding whether or not we should take the defendant’s position that they are not going to go forward just because they received a ruling that they did not like, and whether they like it or not, and they’re saying it’s not a ruling on the merits, it’s still an order of the court, of a higher court that says it is ordered staying the enforcement of the Superior Court’s ruling of October 30th which closed the courtroom to the public.

02:01
It did not stay these particular proceedings, and what they are in essence asking you to do is stay these proceedings. They didn’t ask you in so many words, but that’s what they are asking you to do. I am asking…I am requesting that you not follow um…their request, and that you not stay other…the rest of the proceedings in this case.

02:25
The rules are there for everybody to follow, and it appears that in this particular case, uh…because of a ruling, a rule that they did not like, they want to hold the process hostage. They are saying, just because we received a ruling that we did not like, we are now going to try to uh…sabotage the process until we can sometime later on down the road.

02:51
We know that there were other witnesses that uh…could be called. There’s also the witnesses…that witness that was on the witness stand that can be called on Wednesday. There is no reason why we cannot proceed, and I ask you to take a look at or consider Rule 19 Victims Rights, the fact that the jury is already empanelled and been told that they were going to be here until December 18th. In light of those things and in light of the ruling that only talks to the issue of whether or not we’re going to close the proceedings, I ask that we proceed as you indicated, tomorrow, Wednesday at 10:00. Thank you.

Judge Sherry Stephens:
Mr. Nurmi…

03:32
Kurt Nurmi:
Your Honor, one of the things, and I forget the uh…case…but it…holds that the state has presumed to know the law. Then the state would be presumed under that case that I cannot cite for the court, but I believe it’s under Romley, the Superior Court that when the rights of …victims rights conflict with those of the defendant, uh…the defendant’s rights are superior. Uh…this is not as counsel from the state says a uh…what he makes as a very um…pedestrian and non-legal argument that we got a ruling we didn’t like so we want to hold the uh…process hostage – we’re going to sabotage the process. Again, we advocated against this stay. We would prefer to go forward in the manner that we were in which we were proceeding before this stay was granted, but that has not happened here. So, ultimately those rights that heighten sense of due process that Miss Arias is entitled to is of much more significance. Rule 19 is a non sequitur. It doesn’t apply in this situation. The proceedings will go as they go, and in…in…in conjunction with Rule 19, but at the same time, they have to be done in a way that’s cognizant of the rights due Miss Arias, and that’s where the problem is, and this court in and of itself said that it would be problematic for the defense to go forward. I see nothing in the…that has been put before the court to reconsider that ruling -- that it’s problematic. This is different than the Court of Appeals staying it. The court is determined based on the evidence presented to it that it is problematic for the defense to proceed forward. Uh…I think as we said before that…that problematic nature is of constitutional significance which would make any death sentence imposed uh…granted any verdict…be one that could never be imposed upon Miss Arias. She has the right to litigate this issue. It’s not a matter of holding these proceedings hostage. We want to go forward. If the court wanted to go forward tomorrow under the procedure we were going forward with we would do it gladly, but that’s not the situation we’re under. That’s with the media interest thrust upon us. That’s what we must deal with in this. Miss Arias should not be held to suffer because of what the media has done. If the media causes a mistrial, if we have a mistrial by media, so be it. The state never opposed any of the media motions. They wanted them in here so they could exploit these proceedings just as much as the media. So, Your Honor, we believe that we have the right to go forward and litigate the issue on its merits, and when it’s done, it’s done and then we move forward.

06:15
Judge Sherry Stephens:
All right. This court denied the motion for stay on Friday. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to stay the proceedings. They granted the motion that would stay this court from allowing the witness on the stand to testify in a sealed proceeding. So…as I read the order, at this point the defense must decide if they wish this witness to continue ‘not in a sealed proceeding’ or if you want to take another witness out of order. I realize that it may be problematic and it may not be your preferred manner of presentation, but I have the list of defense witnesses in front of me and I think there are a number of these witnesses that there would not be an issue calling out of order. I understand that you do have a deadline for Friday to file your documentation and…so…I am willing to limit the amount of time you need to be here for um…trial this week. We did ask the jury to come back tomorrow at 10:00. Let me ask the defense…as it stands right now, when do you expect this case to conclude? We told the jury December 18th. Do you believe that’s still realistic?

07:57
Kurt Nurmi:
Your Honor, uh….er…uh…to the court’s recollection, we never… we never took the position that that was realistic when it set the date. We believe it should have been through the end of January. So…

Judge Sherry Stephens:
That’s still your position?

Kurt Nurmi:
Yes! At least…

08:13
Judge Sherry Stephens:
Mr. Martinez?

08:15
Juan Martinez:
Knowing what I know about the witnesses and what they may or may not testify to and what has happened that you are aware of …um…I do not agree that January was or is a realistic end date. I think that the date of uh…December 18 is realistic still. In light of the witnesses, there’s the two experts, there’s the potential of another witness from California and then, beyond that, it’s just affidavits as I know…as I understand it.

08:47
Kurt Nurmi:
Your Honor, the other thing we’d be asking you to make record of today is the court seems to be changing its position and I don’t know what basis…legal basis the court is using for deciding we can um…why we should be forced to go forward under these circumstances. Because we already have the problematic nature, it seems unconstitutional under all prevailing death penalty jurisprudence yet this court seems to be reversing its position. I’m asking for the basis of that.

09:17
Judge Sherry Stephens:
I understand the need for certain witnesses to testify before other witnesses in the case. I do understand that, but I believe in looking at the list of witnesses provided to the jury and provided to the court that there are some of these witnesses that could be taken out of the preferred order without doing any harm to the defense case. I don’t want to say anything more in a public proceeding because of the sealed nature and all of the records are still sealed by the Court of Appeals, so I don’t want to discuss anything too specifically about that on the record in open court. Let’s have a conference at the bench briefly on the actual witnesses. It will be …*unintelligible word(s).

10:21
(Kurt Nurmi and Jennifer Wilmott (Defense) & Juan Martinez (state) at the bench – off the record - with The Honorable Judge Sherry Stephens)

16:43
Judge Sherry Stephens:
All right. Court has conferred with counsel at the bench. Everyone will reconvene tomorrow morning, 10:00. There will be no witnesses this week. The court is dark on Monday and Tuesday of next week so the witnesses will begin testifying again on Wednesday at 9:30, Wednesday of next week. All right. Anything else for today?

17:24
Juan Martinez:
I don’t have anything.

17:25
Kurt Nurmi:
Nothing, Your Honor.

17:26
Judge Sherry Stephens:
Thank you.

~End of video transcription~

 

[neesaki]

Cooled off a little. I think Nurmi is trying to get a mistrial. Wear out the prosecution and the Alexanders so JA will get life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree that the goal of this DT is to get a mistrial. Either this judge is not bright enough to catch on, or, she is catering to Nurmi for some reason, either nefarious or otherwise. Is she anti-death penalty ? Or.... what ? Anyone ?

 

[neesaki]

Thanks YesorNo for Post #1009 on previous thread. The one from the inmate. I suggest everyone read the inmates post toward the bottom of that post.

It has given me renewed energy to see this phase through. I was about to give up after today, but after reading that, I now am willing to wait a little longer to see justice eventually prevail and her sentence get handed down.

I missed that, going back now to read. Thanks, Hatfield. I for sure am in need of "renewed energy".

 

[neesaki]

I want to know also. Thanks.

I would like to know if they are accepting donations as well. TIA

 

[MsJosie]

My favorite pic from today --- the letters on the back of her shirt

Her left hand is in a brace.....Her hair is in a tight pony tail....hmmmmm

Did you get that defense?

 

[neesaki]

Why are the pics so little?

Why are they coming out that way instead of this way: (what the heck are you doing :facepalm

I just love you, YorN. You make me giggle :giggle:

 

[Spellbound]

And in other news:

Prince William Gives Up Throne, Asks Queen Elizabeth To Make Prince Charles King--Reports

"..."Ailing Queen Elizabeth had bypassed her eldest son Prince Charles, in favor of her 32-year-old grandson as she prepared to step down and end her 61-year reign. But William has officially informed Her Majesty the pressures of royal life and raising a family at the same time have become too much for his pregnant wife and he has reluctantly made the decision to step aside - for now," Globe magazine added. It seems that with this decision, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Prince Charles will finally have what they have wanted all along, Queen Elizabeth's throne...."

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/5716...ves-up-throne-kate-middleton.htm#.VFmPovnF9Hw

Is this true? I am disappointed.

 

[AngelWings444]

Not sure where to put this transcript but since the video was posted in this thread, that's where I'm putting the transcript. Mod, please feel free to move as appropriate. Thanks.

-----

Video Transcript

Subject: Jodi Arias Trial

Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Participants: Judge Sherry Stephens, Juan Martinez (state), Kurt Nurmi and
Jennifer Wilmott (defense)

Link: http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/mesa/2014/11/04/18487455/

Miss Arias should not be held to suffer because of what the media has done. If the media causes a mistrial, if we have a mistrial by media, so be it. The state never opposed any of the media motions. They wanted them in here so they could exploit these proceedings just as much as the media. So, Your Honor, we believe that we have the right to go forward and litigate the issue on its merits, and when it’s done, it’s done and then we move forward.

Respectfully snipped by me. The bolded part got to me today. :banghead:

The State didn't want the media there "so they could exploit these proceeding just as much as the media."

Complete nonsense and quite offensive. IMO

 

[neesaki]

I'll just copy and paste the article again:


The Truth About Life Without Parole: Condemned to Die in Prison

"The facts prove that life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is swift, severe, and certain punishment. The reality is that people sentenced to LWOP have been condemned to die in prison and that’s what happens: They die in prison of natural causes, just like the majority of people sentenced to death...."

https://www.aclunc.org/article/truth...ned-die-prison

Something wrong? I get an "error" when I clicked on the link.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Here ya go.....

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365229709/

It's about an hour long.

Tho..it's talking about prison, getting a glimpse what it may look like for her.

I have so many emotions watching that.

YesorNo post the essay by William Blake. It's about his life in solitary for thirty years.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Can I post more than one pic at a time? I have 't figured out how, if it is possible. Anyway.... saw this and had a little chuckle.

wow....it may have worked this time! Two pics!

Good, now show me how to be able to post more than one video at a time.

 

[daisymae]

Is this true? I am disappointed.

Am disappointed and hope this is not true and should not happen for many reasons. Camilla on the throne? :thinking: Nope, don't see it happening.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Off topic, but in answer to a question:

First of all, the present Queen of England does not get to "decide" who she wants to succeed her. The laws of succession are quite rigid. Not that they have never, ever been changed, but it hasn't happened for hundreds of years. So the idea that she had "chosen" William as her successor is just silly. If he is alive at the time, Charles will succeed his mother upon her death. If Charles is not alive at the time of her death, then William will be the heir apparent and will become King. (God knows, Charles could be a fatal car accident, right?)

Secondly, despite the high-faluting sounding name, the International Business Times seems to be on about the same level as the Star and the National Enquirer. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It is just that you have to take what you read there with a grain of salt.

Plus I am always suspicious of any online source that uses incorrect English and improper punctuation. Both of which I have encountered at IBT. I guess they are in a hurry to get their articles posted. But it sure makes them look unprofessional.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Just my thoughts on the video from court today:

It is interesting to me how uncomfy JSS looks everytime that JM says something about the COA giving a decision the defense doesn't like. She almost has a "pained" look as if she is in some sort of ethical dilemma (?) - maybe I am just reading too much into her facial expressions.

Nurmi keeps whining about defendant's rights superceding victim rights . . . . but didn't the COA say the first amendment rights and media rights trump? I thought I heard a sniffle and wondered if it came from one of Travis's family members. What is it that Nurmi is saying is "problematic"? Is he arguing that because JSS told him she would close the court if things were "problematic" or is it the language in the law for sealing courtrooms include exceptions for "problematic"?

JA and Cougarlicious seemed to be quite engaged in conversation - I can't remember who it was but one of the WS posters used to read lips and tell us what they thought they were saying at the defendant's table (might have been CA trial). I am dying to know what they thought so amusing during the sidebar today.

One witness from Cali and 2 expert witnesses for JA . . . along with whoever the mystery witness would could not continue in public are the defense but it will take 3 months? Um . . . is the one from Cali a family member of JA's? Any guesses on the 2 expert witnesses?

It sounded like her voice broke one time.

Matt McCartney,Dr. Cheryl Carp, and ? I really don't see ALV coming back and Numi being able to rehabilitate her without Juan impeaching her all over again. Richard Samuels , now how could the defense use him? Nope can't see them using him again, since Juan showed that he had no integrity or ethics after he admitted to falsifying Jodi's text results.


Dr. Robert "I was doing so good" Gefner is an expert on domestic violence too, and they could recall him? But I think they now want someone to tell jury just how messed up Jodi is. They're going to embrace Janeen DeMarte diagnosis, and throw in a few others. How about Sue Stodola?

 

[Steve44]

**Humor alert**

"Hon Judge Sherry Stevens, presiding over the State vs. Jodi Arias, responded yesterday to a COA ruling staying secret proceedings in the trial which blocked all public and media from access to a defense witness's testimony. In the order, the COA recommended the judge grant less restrictive access to the media. Said JSS, "Having read the COA ruling, I have decided the media may remain in the overflow room during the defence's testimony that is at issue. There will be no video nor audio of the trial in this room, however I have provided that a Karaoke machine will be available for all the members of the media to use freely." Attorney Kurk Nurmi, representing Ms. Arias, immediately objected. "Your honor, it is unfair to Ms. Arias not to have access to this Karaoke machine. May I remind your honor that this is a DP case, and that further Ms. Arias knows all the words to "Holy night". At this point Ms. Arias was seen whispering to second chair Jennifer Willmott, who then approached Mr. Nurmi and whispered into his ear. "Your honor", said Mr. Nurmi, I have just been informed that Ms. Arias knows all the words to that creepy interrogation room song she sung after she was arrested." A lengthy sidebar followed.

 

[rose222]

Does anyone know if Travis' family is accepting donations? I remember last time this circus was in town there was some type of donation going on for them??? Anyone remember, or does anyone have an address for them? Last time I remember I received a beautiful thank you card, but I haven't been able to find it. Thanks for any info.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post the donation details here but please go to the State versus Jodi facebook page (you don't need to have a Facebook account, I don't) for more details. I think I will make a donation. I need to feel like I'm doing something for this family. It's a good way for me to channel my anger constructively.

 

[cubbeegirl]

I would like to know if they are accepting donations as well. TIA

Ditto... I want to know as well...

 

[cubbeegirl]

Off topic, but in answer to a question:

First of all, the present Queen of England does not get to "decide" who she wants to succeed her. The laws of succession are quite rigid. Not that they have never, ever been changed, but it hasn't happened for hundreds of years. So the idea that she had "chosen" William as her successor is just silly. If he is alive at the time, Charles will succeed his mother upon her death. If Charles is not alive at the time of her death, then William will be the heir apparent and will become King. (God knows, Charles could be a fatal car accident, right?)

Secondly, despite the high-faluting sounding name, the International Business Times seems to be on about the same level as the Star and the National Enquirer. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It is just that you have to take what you read there with a grain of salt.

Plus I am always suspicious of any online source that uses incorrect English and improper punctuation. Both of which I have encountered at IBT. I guess they are in a hurry to get their articles posted. But it sure makes them look unprofessional.

Thanks for clarification... I did not think they could do that...