Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/13/15 Break

[Kamille]

Tomorrow is supposed to be A Boy Named Sue testifying about how much *advertiser censored* he found this week (while he was too busy to testify), then the judge denying the defense motion to take DP off the table, then the DT throwing a bunch of hissy fits.

Something like that.

I also believe that JSS called for court to start at 10am but for the jury not to arrive until 12pm. So what is she expecting to do all morning if she is waiting until after "Sue" testifies in front of the jury and finishes his redirect before making a ruling on all the motions before her?

MOO

 

[Steely Dan]

Yreka is a pit stop, a place to stop for dinner driving on the way to Oregon. They like to call themselves "Jefferson" despite the fact the ballot measure to split up California didn't pass. I was through there in August.

What's this about a ballot measure splitting up California?

 

[Steely Dan]

I also believe that JSS called for court to start at 10am but for the jury not to arrive until 12pm. So what is she expecting to do all morning if she is waiting until after "Sue" testifies in front of the jury and finishes his redirect before making a ruling on all the motions before her?

MOO

Maybe she's going to rule on the motions first. :dunno:

 

[MeeBee]

I would love for Juan to cross Jodi and put up the picture of Bobby and Jodi (with what looks like cocaine in the background). Then ask her "Did the lines of cocaine in Mom and Dad's room look like this?"

That would actually be pretty great.

 

[MeeBee]

They are eally trying to push this Jekyll and Hyde, master manipulator, freak in the sheets, choir boy on the streets thing.

"So we had oral sex and it was icky and I mean I liked it and all but it was still weird and uncomfortable."

"And what did you and Travis do the next day?"

"We went to church and prayed."

GMAB.

 

[bsk]

I also believe that JSS called for court to start at 10am but for the jury not to arrive until 12pm. So what is she expecting to do all morning if she is waiting until after "Sue" testifies in front of the jury and finishes his redirect before making a ruling on all the motions before her?

MOO

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of Sue's *advertiser censored* testimony has been outside the presence of the jury. What went on in front of the jury had to do with whether there were changes - that sort of thing. That's how I recall it.

I expect tomorrow morning will be for him to talk about *advertiser censored*, because unless he can say he found a bunch of *advertiser censored* in 2008 that was deleted in 2009 then the defense motion is dead. So if I put all these pieces together correctly then it makes sense that it would be without the jury present.

 

[LinasK]

What's this about a ballot measure splitting up California?

It didn't pass. Some idiot thought it was a good idea to split the state up 6 ways...

 

[MeeBee]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of Sue's *advertiser censored* testimony has been outside the presence of the jury. What went on in front of the jury had to do with whether there were changes - that sort of thing. That's how I recall it.

I expect tomorrow morning will be for him to talk about *advertiser censored*, because unless he can say he found a bunch of *advertiser censored* in 2008 that was deleted in 2009 then the defense motion is dead. So if I put all these pieces together correctly then it makes sense that it would be without the jury present.

No he has testified in front of the jury and will finish his testimony tomorrow. Nurmi is still on re-direct and then jury questions if there are any.

 

[NashBridges2]

Maybe she's going to rule on the motions first. :dunno:

I think she needed a few extra days to read and understand the motions lol. Yes, I'm being mean. I just shook my head in disbelief when I read in the released transcript sidebar that she DIDN'T understand the ruling from the COA. Even our non-legal people understood it. Unreal.

 

[bsk]

No he has testified in front of the jury and will finish his testimony tomorrow. Nurmi is still on re-direct and then jury questions if there are any.

Was it Flores who was part in front of the jury and part not? I'm in a fog.

 

[NashBridges2]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of Sue's *advertiser censored* testimony has been outside the presence of the jury. What went on in front of the jury had to do with whether there were changes - that sort of thing. That's how I recall it.

I expect tomorrow morning will be for him to talk about *advertiser censored*, because unless he can say he found a bunch of *advertiser censored* in 2008 that was deleted in 2009 then the defense motion is dead. So if I put all these pieces together correctly then it makes sense that it would be without the jury present.

Jury was there, remember the defense was pushing the *advertiser censored*/prosecution misconduct and we were all floored.

 

[MeeBee]

I think she needed a few extra days to read and understand the motions lol. Yes, I'm being mean. I just shook my head in disbelief when I read in the released transcript sidebar that she DIDN'T understand the ruling from the COA. Even our non-legal people understood it. Unreal.

So I think what the disagreement was on was whether the judge was ordered to release the sealed argument of the chamber meeting that was sent to the COA or if she could. It was hard for me to follow because of the legal mumbo jumbo going on, but that's where the disconnect was happening. And in my layman's opinion, Juan might have been wrong in his interpretation.

 

[MeeBee]

Was it Flores who was part in front of the jury and part not? I'm in a fog.

Yes it was! He did finish his testimony in front of the jury though.

 

[Amster]

Seems to me a judge should be able to interpret a ruling....on a decision she should never have made in the 1st place. :facepalm:

 

[MeeBee]

Seems to me a judge should be able to interpret a ruling....on a decision she should never have made in the 1st place. :facepalm:

She did interpret it. Juan just confused her or threw her off and she knew she was right but just wanted clarifying.

 

[Amster]

Oh, of course! Confused...... :giggle:

 

[NashBridges2]

So, let's do a little poll.

Just a simple yes or no....WILL JODI GET BACK ON THE STAND.

I vote no, not a chance in hell.

 

[MeeBee]

Oh, of course! Confused...... :giggle:

Well we haven't seen that transcript so she was right, right? And Juan was wrong. So he was the one who was confused. I don't blame him, he didn't have the document in front of him, the judge was reading it to him. But that's a simplistic way of looking at what happened and totally ignores Juan's part in the kerfuffle.

 

[MeeBee]

So, let's do a little poll.

Just a simple yes or no....WILL JODI GET BACK ON THE STAND.

I vote no, not a chance in hell.

I vote yes! She won't be able to help herself.

 

[WichitaFalls]

So, let's do a little poll.

Just a simple yes or no....WILL JODI GET BACK ON THE STAND.

I vote no, not a chance in hell.

I vote no as well. I'd love to see Juan the Man get to cross her though.