VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Break 2/27 thru 3/2 #2

[Nali87]

And about JA looking different in the pics from the next day; make up and lighting does wonders!

Depending on the light, I can look anywhere from Rihanna's complexion with red-ish hair WITH highlights to Gabrielle Union's complexion with dark hair. Without any photoshop. Lol.

 

[Nali87]

I don't think she had any 'normal people' clothes at the courthouse initially. Once JSS ruled she could hear the verdict dressed like a normal person, her attorneys had to bring her costume right away, since the verdict could come at any time.

That sounds like what happened. But if the verdict would have been reached, they would have received an hour notice to get ready. Plenty of time to grab something then. Right?

 

[Steve44]

And about JA looking different in the pics from the next day; make up and lighting does wonders!

Depending on the light, I can look anywhere from Rihanna's complexion with red-ish hair WITH highlights to Gabrielle Union's complexion with dark hair. Without any photoshop. Lol.

Phone number?

 

[Steve44]

That sounds like what happened. But if the verdict would have been reached, they would have received an hour notice to get ready. Plenty of time to grab something then. Right?

Something easy to do in the moment, and one less thing to do in the end point scramble.

 

[Nali87]

Phone number?

Something easy to do in the moment,and one less thing to in the end point scramble.

That's true.

 

[Schuby]

Llamas?

Don't encourage her. Next she'll be weaving baskets from alpaca hair to hold all those pony tails she's sending off to juvinille cancer patients. "Keep me alive, I weave a mean basket."

 

[Steve44]

I KNEW they were going to rehire her. I said so on here and got blasted for it. :

The DT thinks she is doing a great job. ugh

Something just occurred to me. Many people, including myself, have wondered what exactly MDLR did for Jodi, besides jump the moral line whenever she thought she could get away with it. I think her real 'role', and I mean that literally, was to appear to be her BFF, friendly, familiar, faithful, in order to create the impression that Jodi was worthy of such sentiments. A psychological game to humanize her, a bid for the public's gullibility to accept appearance as the real thing, and not a paid performance. IOW, a court-appointed escort.

 

[Nali87]

Something just occurred to me. Many people, including myself, have wondered what exactly MDLR did for Jodi, besides jump the moral line whenever she thought she could get away with it. I think her real 'role', and I mean that literally, was to appear to be her BFF, friendly, familiar, faithful, in order to create the impression that Jodi was worthy of such sentiments. A psychological game to humanize her, a bid for the public's gullibility to accept appearance as the real thing, and not a paid performance. IOW, a court-appointed escort.

I agree. Sadly enough she decided to keep it up OUT of the courtroom as well.

 

[Steve44]

I agree. Sadly enough she decided to keep it up OUT of the courtroom as well.

"She works hard for the money."

 

[kaRN]

Bringing this over from the last file. Sorry I could not copy and paste so I took a photo!

View attachment 70297

They announced SP's verdict without Mark Geragos being there. Different state though and a different stage of the trial. Otherwise, I loved your post and think you may be on to something!! The clothes being delivered was very strange unless there's a locker to store them at the courthouse. Jodi's last outfit LOL!!! I hope they chose well!
Maybe, seeing as it will be March on Monday and MDLR's contract ends today, she was doing her last mitigation type duty.

 

[bsk]

From previous thread:



It's really important for the appeal if there's a death sentence. The defense will have to say on appeal, "Jodi did not voluntarily give up her right to testify/allocute, and IF SHE HAD DONE SO SHE WOULD HAVE SAID __________, which reasonably could have made a difference to the verdict because _________, so this Court should vacate the death sentence." If you just say the first part and the last part, you lose. If you say the middle part with nothing in the trial court record to support it, you lose. So you have to get the proposed testimony on the record, either by having the witness testify outside the presence of the jury "for the record," or having the attorney describe the proposed testimony outside the presence of the jury, or filing a written description of the proposed testimony.

(snipped the separate answer to save space and avoid confusion)

Thanks for the clarification. This must be one of those things that makes sense to lawyers but not to the rest of us. Judges are always careful about quizzing defendants who don't testify to make it clear that they are choosing not to, right? JSS certainly went overboard in this regard. The premise as you listed it - "Jodi did not voluntarily give up her right to testify/allocute" - is false, so I don't see how it matters what the premise leads to. To me, it's just like RS's "proof" of PTSD - it's invalid because it was based on a false premise.

I don't get why an appeals court would care what she chose not to say. It would be in the defendant's best interest in such a hidden super secret allocution to spout an even bigger bunch of lies since it cannot be addressed in the state's closing. For example, suppose hers says "My friend X was there with me and he's the one who murdered Travis before fleeing the country after I was arrested. He threatened to kill me if I ever told told the truth so I've kept it hidden until now. I tried to stop him but I couldn't, then he forced me to help clean up." Does an appeals say, "Okay that could be possible and the police never investigated this claim that they never heard, so new trial."?

Am I just dense or does this not make sense? Maybe I'm missing something that's too obvious to see.

 

[kaRN]

Llamas?

Llamas with stained knees. Hmmmm..............................

 

[Nali87]

They announced SP's verdict without Mark Geragos being there. Different state though and a different stage of the trial. Otherwise, I loved your post and think you may be on to something!! The clothes being delivered was very strange unless there's a locker to store them at the courthouse. Jodi's last outfit LOL!!! I hope they chose well!
Maybe, seeing as it will be March on Monday and MDLR's contract ends today, she was doing her last mitigation type duty.

 

[Wing Ding]

Dang. In the Troy Haden video he asks her how she dealt with the Alexander family being in the courtroom. Did she make eye contact or avoid eye contact with them? She says since Travis comes from a family "where they tend to all look very much alike" she avoided eye contact because when she saw them, she saw Travis, the "man who abused me and I don't want to see that"

Wow, she actually said that, huh? You know... she's right about one thing. She really IS a used piece of toilet paper.

 

[DebinGA]

Today is the two year anniversary of JM's cross of JA re the camera pics and the murder:

Part 1: https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...8&sigb=13lqts5j6&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Part 2-3 links in the right column

 

[Hope4More]

Something just occurred to me. Many people, including myself, have wondered what exactly MDLR did for Jodi, besides jump the moral line whenever she thought she could get away with it. I think her real 'role', and I mean that literally, was to appear to be her BFF, friendly, familiar, faithful, in order to create the impression that Jodi was worthy of such sentiments. A psychological game to humanize her, a bid for the public's gullibility to accept appearance as the real thing, and not a paid performance. IOW, a court-appointed escort.

But they did almost all their canoodling outside the presence of the jury. I think it's true though that part of that unusual person's job was to keep JA from showing her true self in court. A minder,who kicked her under the table to tell her "doodle, damn it" whenever JA stared too long at autopsy photos, or at herself on video, or when she glared with too obvious menace at Deanna on the stand. Like that.

She did some part of her job well, sadly,because we never had occasion to see JA zapped.

That said, I find it appalling her contract was renewed. Not because of her vulgarity in and out of court, but because I think she violated her own SW profession's ethical standards in a major way by aiding and abetting and exploiting mentally ill JA followers.

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks for the clarification. This must be one of those things that makes sense to lawyers but not to the rest of us. Judges are always careful about quizzing defendants who don't testify to make it clear that they are choosing not to, right? JSS certainly went overboard in this regard. The premise as you listed it - "Jodi did not voluntarily give up her right to testify/allocute" - is false, so I don't see how it matters what the premise leads to. To me, it's just like RS's "proof" of PTSD - it's invalid because it was based on a false premise.

I don't get why an appeals court would care what she chose not to say. It would be in the defendant's best interest in such a hidden super secret allocution to spout an even bigger bunch of lies since it cannot be addressed in the state's closing. For example, suppose hers says "My friend X was there with me and he's the one who murdered Travis before fleeing the country after I was arrested. He threatened to kill me if I ever told told the truth so I've kept it hidden until now. I tried to stop him but I couldn't, then he forced me to help clean up." Does an appeals say, "Okay that could be possible and the police never investigated this claim that they never heard, so new trial."?

Am I just dense or does this not make sense? Maybe I'm missing something that's too obvious to see.

The DT has to try....it's their job to recognize and act on every possible appeals angle. Doesn't mean the appeals are gonna fly. What she might have testified to is a non-starter angle for the very reason you say. To begin with, her on the record trial testimony revealed her, on the record, as a liar. Secondly, what could she possibly have included in her new super secret written testimony that she hasn't already said/someone else has said for her? Nothing significant enough to change the outcome.

And bottom line, diddums! SHE chose not to say those things in court.

 

[ICit]

@juanstie: @adeleatplay @TrialDiariesJ @StabbysPencil @audrey_m It has been extended http://t.co/F4DDuLTxWy

MIT spec contract extended til 2018


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not believe that is real! Why would any agency just cross through the old date and type in a new one?

 

[Hope4More]

I'm not convinced she's a psychopath. I was, through the 2013 trial, and definitely through her testimony on direct (with Nurmi lobbing her softballs), but if you look at how cowed she was after a few days of Juan's cross, that is very incompatible with psychopathy. The nature of a psychopath is to believe unerringly in the power of their own ego, not to break down and fear to even look a questioner in the eye.

Lordy. I don't think that gal was cowed in the slightest by JM. I've watched and rewatched large sections of her 18 day star turn on the stand.

She had fun. She enjoyed the challenge, and was convinced early into cross that she could beat JM. JM masterfully played her overconfidence for the weakness it was; timid DV victims suffering from PTSD don't smirk, correct the prosecutor, play word games, etc. etc.

JA wasn't close to "breaking" that day when JM held her feet to the fire about June 4. Recognizing she was being cornered, she pulled out the fragile girl card, hoping it would make JM look like he was pushing her too hard. It worked. JSS called for break and let her off the hook. JA smiled after the jury left, iirc.

 

[Wizzy]

She may be doing a great job. We have to remember, she is only as good as what she has to work with. Remember Jodi's "spare me, I can grow hair" speech? We all laughed at it but that may have been the product of weeks and months of painstaking labor in the cause of finding something-anything-for Jodi to plead with. They're not magicians. They have to deal with the facts and the defendant they're handed. Jodi doesn't give a lot to work with.

I was thinking the exact same thing. LOL!