SIDEBAR #37 - Arias/Alexander forum

[Ricki]

I think it was AZlawyer - I flip back and forth between the two threads - not sure which one had it.
Beth K was in courtroom and saw a gentleman walk with defense - assumptions were made it could be "Sue"
The question of who could Sue be began.

The only thing about that is , why would the defense team walk with him where he could be seen, if they want him kept a secret. I still think that person was a decoy.

 

[Ruby]

The only thing about that is , why would the defense team walk with him where he could be seen, if they want him kept a secret. I still think that person was a decoy.

Makes sense - why parade in public so to say.

The interview Juan was to have - was that the same day as this sighting?
Defense thought that Sue was going on stand for testimony.
Juan had a motion to interview Sue.
If my memory serves me right otherwise, never mind :blushing:
Not sure if this was all on one day - Monday?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Well we've been through two earthquakes in four hours. and just had another, and another small one


but anyway I'm trying out my new tablet and I'm not able to thank anyone so please don't be insulted.

 

[Ricki]

Well we've been through two earthquakes in four hours. and just had another, and another small one


but anyway I'm trying out my new tablet and I'm not able to thank anyone so please don't be insulted.

Earth quakes, Holy Smokes and you seem to be so calm. Are you in an area that gets them frequently? Stay safe.

 

[YESorNO]

Makes sense - why parade in public so to say.

The interview Juan was to have - was that the same day as this sighting?
Defense thought that Sue was going on stand for testimony.
Juan had a motion to interview Sue.
If my memory serves me right otherwise, never mind :blushing:
Not sure if this was all on one day - Monday?

That interview with Pseudo was suppose to be on Sunday, Jan 4 @8:00

Pg 10:

https://geebee2.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/statemotion4jan2015.pdf

 

[YESorNO]

Well we've been through two earthquakes in four hours. and just had another, and another small one


but anyway I'm trying out my new tablet and I'm not able to thank anyone so please don't be insulted.

earthquakes and snow- and my son wanted to move to Arizona because there was no snow???

Are you and yours OK?

 

[Ruby]

That interview with Pseudo was suppose to be on Sunday, Jan 4 @8:00

Pg 10:

https://geebee2.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/statemotion4jan2015.pdf

Wasn't Juan going to interview someone on Monday - that was why the delay?
Juan had filed a motion on Monday morning?
I thought that was the same person from Sunday, but he ran out of time because Nurmi set up the wrong time - 2hrs late.
I may be off - this does get confusing.

 

[Ruby]

Well we've been through two earthquakes in four hours. and just had another, and another small one


but anyway I'm trying out my new tablet and I'm not able to thank anyone so please don't be insulted.

Be Safe!

 

[Ricki]

So, will Geffner be returning to the stand on Thursday or will it be another surprise or maybe no one at all?

 

[LinasK]

Well we've been through two earthquakes in four hours. and just had another, and another small one


but anyway I'm trying out my new tablet and I'm not able to thank anyone so please don't be insulted.

How big and what state are you in?

 

[Ruby]

Has anything been decided with porngate?
I thought Nurmi was stuck/stalling until he can introduce ?

 

[mydirtysecret]

Has anything been decided with porngate?
I thought Nurmi was stuck/stalling until he can introduce ?

Nobody is really sure where that stands since everything is done behind the iron curtain err I mean under seal.

 

[Ricki]

LinTX posted this on the retrial thread a few minutes ago.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc...Cattyindex.htm

It's listed as:
CV -15-0005-PR
Civil Petition for Review - Appeal
KPNX TV et al v HON. STEPHENS/STATE et al

 

[YESorNO]

Wasn't Juan going to interview someone on Monday - that was why the delay?
Juan had filed a motion on Monday morning?
I thought that was the same person from Sunday, but he ran out of time because Nurmi set up the wrong time - 2hrs late.
I may be off - this does get confusing.

These are the Tweets from that day that relates to interview on Monday:

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial Jan 5
JSS says Nurmi has to conduct an interview w/a mystery person prior to them meeting at 4pm. Nurmi wants to do it by phone. #jodiarias

Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ Jan 5 Phoenix, AZ
So the argument of getting secret transcripts can't be heard until Judge looks at this since it was filed this morning. #jodiarias #3tvarias

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq Jan 5
interview being done by defense today in #JodiArias which seems the cause of issue. My guess is that it's a witness revealed by JM about PC

Chris Williams ‏@chriswnews Jan 5
Judge Stephens calls recess after talk w/ Nurmi RE: 4pm hearing. She said it had to be done "in person" because "interview" was in person

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer Jan 5
Apparently, there are witness interviews to be done today by one side or the other, which may have been topic of sidebars, etc. #JodiArias

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer Jan 5
Martinez filed motions to interview forensic expert Bryan Neumeister's two assts. When he learned one will testify, he filed to preclude.

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer Jan 5
The #JodiArias lawyers have been in closed court all afternoon as Juan Martinez interviews the computer expert he calls "Pseudonym."

Was the same person

 

[YESorNO]

LinTX posted this on the retrial thread a few minutes ago.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc...Cattyindex.htm

It's listed as:
CV -15-0005-PR
Civil Petition for Review - Appeal
KPNX TV et al v HON. STEPHENS/STATE et al

That link is not good.

Is that Bodney and his secret witness, release of?

 

[Bernina]

If the comments on this site - http://www.therobingroom.com/arizona/Judge.aspx?id=6099 are anything to go by, she doesn't stand much chance of being re-elected.. Her rating out of 10 is maxed at 1.8, most that I have read are 1.0.....

Wow.

I really find it hard to criticize Judge Stephens because I don't have a clue as to what she's dealing with: Meetings in her chambers, slick manipulation by the defense and CMJA, side bars, the media circus from the first trial.............

All I can believe is she is doing the best she can do within the law, with the baloney this defendant and her "crew" are dishing out, and criticism coming from all sides.

I have NEVER seen a case where there were so many motions, so many attorneys, so many of everything. The closest I could compare it to is the Bryan Hulsey trial, also in Arizona.

What I DO see is a Judge who would rather err on the side of caution, then see a mistrial, or boatloads of appeals after the final sentence. And in the process, I think this trial will set precedence's in areas of future trials. Public and media access to trials for one. What quantifies as "threats' to a defendant or witness. Who knows, maybe even limitations to fees an attorney can charge the State, or contingency contracts if he goes from Public Defender to private attorney during a case?

We shall all see.............eventually............one of these years.............I hope.

 

[YESorNO]

KPNX v. HON. STEPHENS/STATE

http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona...ision-one-published/2014/1-ca-sa-14-0213.html

Is it this one?
---------------

No- this one:

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/1CA\SA\SA140213.pdf

"26. 5-Jan-2015 FILED: Email Notice from ASC re: Petition for Review filed 01/05/15; request for partial record
27. 5-Jan-2015 FILED: Letter forwarding partial record to Arizona Supreme Court"

What does this mean?

 

[Ricki]

That link is not good.

Is that Bodney and his secret witness, release of?

I am no good at deciphering these things this is what is posted on the retrial thread.

LinTX


The AZ Supreme Court now shows a case number for the appeal. Hopefully AZLawyer can advise, but guessing this means they will hear the case? ETA: or maybe it just means they have received the petition to review?

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc...Cattyindex.htm

It's listed as:
CV -15-0005-PR
Civil Petition for Review - Appeal
KPNX TV et al v HON. STEPHENS/STATE et al

 

[LinasK]

Wow.

I really find it hard to criticize Judge Stephens because I don't have a clue as to what she's dealing with: Meetings in her chambers, slick manipulation by the defense and CMJA, side bars, the media circus from the first trial.............

All I can believe is she is doing the best she can do within the law, with the baloney this defendant and her "crew" are dishing out, and criticism coming from all sides.

I have NEVER seen a case where there were so many motions, so many attorneys, so many of everything. The closest I could compare it to is the Bryan Hulsey trial, also in Arizona.

What I DO see is a Judge who would rather err on the side of caution, then see a mistrial, or boatloads of appeals after the final sentence. And in the process, I think this trial will set precedence's in areas of future trials. Public and media access to trials for one. What quantifies as "threats' to a defendant or witness. Who knows, maybe even limitations to fees an attorney can charge the State, or contingency contracts if he goes from Public Defender to private attorney during a case?

We shall all see.............eventually............one of these years.............I hope.

Thank-you!:clap: I'm so sick of the JSS bashing. We have no idea what the real reasons are for the delays. I left the main thread because I couldn't stand another 3 days of JSS bashing. It's not productive. How about blaming the defense team for a change??

 

[YESorNO]

I am no good at deciphering these things this is what is posted on the retrial thread.

LinTX


The AZ Supreme Court now shows a case number for the appeal. Hopefully AZLawyer can advise, but guessing this means they will hear the case? ETA: or maybe it just means they have received the petition to review?

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc...Cattyindex.htm

It's listed as:
CV -15-0005-PR
Civil Petition for Review - Appeal
KPNX TV et al v HON. STEPHENS/STATE et al

This is the correct link (when you copy and paste some links from another thread, they don't paste correctly- I don't know why):

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/ASCattyindex.htm

ETA: found it:

Civil Petition for Review - Appeal

3 P R O C E E D I N G E N T R I E S
1. 5-Jan-2015 FILED: Request for Stay; Certificate of Mailing; Certificate of Compliance; Opinion (Real Party Arias)
2. 5-Jan-2015 FILED: Petition for Review; Certificate of Mailing (Real Party Arias)
3. 5-Jan-2015 FILED: Notice - Errata; Certificate (Petitioner)


http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/ASCattyindex.htm

What does it mean?