947 users online (180 members and 767 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 306
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    209
    Thanks so much. Makes more sense of what is going on.
    Justice for Travis

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    933
    What are the chances that for the next week, both sides will be going back and forth on a settlement?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by mydirtysecret View Post
    What are the chances that for the next week, both sides will be going back and forth on a settlement?
    I would be very surprised if there were any settlement discussions at this point, unless Nurmi finally succeeds in getting a mistrial.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I would be very surprised if there were any settlement discussions at this point, unless Nurmi finally succeeds in getting a mistrial.
    Thank you az. I know that DT has probably pushed for lwp, since I don't see JA accepting LWOP. They are stuck at a perpetual impasse. I was wondering if the DT are doing these shenanigans though to break TAs family will and BACK to the settlement table.

    Eta- I am glad to hear that the state would be unlikely to make a deal at this point

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    209
    Any idea what this motion is for? Thanks

    11/5/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/6/2014
    NOTE: MOTION FOR JOINDER AND FOR OMNIBUS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH PENALTY
    Last edited by Colie; 11-06-2014 at 01:14 PM. Reason: adding
    Justice for Travis

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    MDLR could be the secret witness, but that wouldn't provide any explanation for the closed courtroom.
    JA would not have to testify first.
    Oh well, there goes my latest mystery witness guess - serves me right for trying to apply logic to something that is probably not logical. So perhaps it really is JA?

    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Nurmi already has a good point about the media videotaping MDLR speaking with JA. They shouldn't have been doing that, although to be fair the media perhaps didn't realize that MDLR would fit within the category of people they shouldn't tape, since the rule says "attorneys."
    I was thinking Nurmi was making the point because MDLR could be the witness, but based on your answers above, probably not. It looked to me as if the camera person tried to immediately pan away from the sidebar, and settled on JA's table while the sidebar was going on, like they did during trial (IIRC), basically just the back of JA's head, and the back of the guy sitting behind her, then MLDR when she arrives ( mostly obscured by the guys head), but the only one facing the back at times . Surely the guy seated there could easily have heard whatever was said, and any one there could see them chatting, maybe hear them as well.
    Does it become more of an issue because it was a hearing, or is Nurmi just trying to make it an issue now?

    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Sure, the (hypothetical) child or family could be called in rebuttal, and if they didn't want a closed courtroom I don't see why it would be closed.
    The thought that a hypothetical child, or their family could become involved for any reason is cringe inducing, and I really hope that is not the reason for secrecy. Even if any hypothetical person could testify that a suggestion is false, it would be a horrible position to put anyone in - especially in this case. I gather they would have to be questioned by Nurmi or Willmott as well?

    I truly hope that is in not part of the 'secret' - I don't imagine it would go well for the defendant, and would be in my opinion, an unspeakably cruel thing to do.
    Unfortunately, I can imagine JA trying to do that, but I hope I am way off.

    Court must be a very hard place to be at times. I thank you again AZL, for helping us all to understand things a little better. You are very kind to help in this way, and the thanks button is never enough (plus, it makes my screen freeze :-)

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    25
    If these have been asked and answered, my apologies. Is there someone JSS turns to for help with this case? Are judges not subject to oversight in the courtrooms? If JSS was doing something unlawful, wouldn't Juan be doing something about it? I personally think she doesn't know what she is doing but I am not a lawyer nor do I even begin to understand most of what has been going on. But following Websleuths, has led me to believe certain things about this case and it isn't good in her favor. I tried asking this kind of question right as there was something very pressing going on with this case and my questions got buried. Thanks for any and all answers.


    The above was posted on the Retrial for Sentencing page and it was suggested to put it here so I have. I hope this is all okay to post here. Thanks

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMyselfNEMore View Post
    Oh well, there goes my latest mystery witness guess - serves me right for trying to apply logic to something that is probably not logical. So perhaps it really is JA?

    I was thinking Nurmi was making the point because MDLR could be the witness, but based on your answers above, probably not. It looked to me as if the camera person tried to immediately pan away from the sidebar, and settled on JA's table while the sidebar was going on, like they did during trial (IIRC), basically just the back of JA's head, and the back of the guy sitting behind her, then MLDR when she arrives ( mostly obscured by the guys head), but the only one facing the back at times . Surely the guy seated there could easily have heard whatever was said, and any one there could see them chatting, maybe hear them as well.
    Does it become more of an issue because it was a hearing, or is Nurmi just trying to make it an issue now?

    The thought that a hypothetical child, or their family could become involved for any reason is cringe inducing, and I really hope that is not the reason for secrecy. Even if any hypothetical person could testify that a suggestion is false, it would be a horrible position to put anyone in - especially in this case. I gather they would have to be questioned by Nurmi or Willmott as well?

    I truly hope that is in not part of the 'secret' - I don't imagine it would go well for the defendant, and would be in my opinion, an unspeakably cruel thing to do.
    Unfortunately, I can imagine JA trying to do that, but I hope I am way off.

    Court must be a very hard place to be at times. I thank you again AZL, for helping us all to understand things a little better. You are very kind to help in this way, and the thanks button is never enough (plus, it makes my screen freeze :-)
    Questions BBM.

    1. Recording and broadcasting a privileged communication is a problem under the rule whether it's during a hearing or in the hallway on a break. Makes no difference.

    2. As well as whom? If there is such a person, they apparently have been called as a witness by the defense, so Nurmi/Willmott would be the primary questioners, and JM on cross.

    Quote Originally Posted by skab View Post
    If these have been asked and answered, my apologies. Is there someone JSS turns to for help with this case? Are judges not subject to oversight in the courtrooms? If JSS was doing something unlawful, wouldn't Juan be doing something about it? I personally think she doesn't know what she is doing but I am not a lawyer nor do I even begin to understand most of what has been going on. But following Websleuths, has led me to believe certain things about this case and it isn't good in her favor. I tried asking this kind of question right as there was something very pressing going on with this case and my questions got buried. Thanks for any and all answers.


    The above was posted on the Retrial for Sentencing page and it was suggested to put it here so I have. I hope this is all okay to post here. Thanks
    They are not really subject to oversight on an ongoing basis. There is an ethics committee that can discipline them if they violate an ethics rule. There are Judicial Performance Reviews that are compiled from comments solicited from parties and attorneys who appear before each judge. (JSS does well on these.) The presiding judge might call JSS if she seems to have veered away from settled court procedures.

    But what you do if a judge makes a bad legal ruling is to object--which Juan has done--and appeal if you care enough--which the media has done.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Colie View Post
    Any idea what this motion is for? Thanks

    11/5/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/6/2014
    NOTE: MOTION FOR JOINDER AND FOR OMNIBUS HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH PENALTY
    Was that in the Superior Court docket? If so, I suspect it's a request from Nurmi for the judge to hear all of his multiple motions to dismiss the death penalty at once--perhaps including motions already denied, on the ground that each single complaint might not be enough to justify dropping the death penalty but the sum of all the complaints together are enough.

    ETA: Apparently identical motions to dismiss the death penalty have been filed in multiple cases in Maricopa County--it sounds like this is actually a request to join that bandwagon. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6477369.pdf
    Last edited by AZlawyer; 11-06-2014 at 08:30 PM.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Was that in the Superior Court docket? If so, I suspect it's a request from Nurmi for the judge to hear all of his multiple motions to dismiss the death penalty at once--perhaps including motions already denied, on the ground that each single complaint might not be enough to justify dropping the death penalty but the sum of all the complaints together are enough.

    ETA: Apparently identical motions to dismiss the death penalty have been filed in multiple cases in Maricopa County--it sounds like this is actually a request to join that bandwagon. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6477369.pdf
    There is a lot of chatter on social media that this is exactly what she's trying to do - join a group of defendants to try to stop Ariz. from imposing the death penalty ('bandwagon').

    My question to you is this: if she is allowed to join that case, wouldn't her current penalty-phase trial still go ahead as planned, let the jury decide DP or not, and this issue would be decided at whatever date that motion goes before the court? It would make no sense to stop all progress in this trial for that, that would be a dangerous precedent, right?

    Re the omnibus motions to dismiss the DP: do you think this is just another desperate attempt to dismiss the DP, by lumping them all together, even though he's been rejected time after time? Isn't there some point at which the court should make him stop if he's not presenting different justifications?


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    209
    I think it may be the second.
    Do you know how often this is done and who pays for it?
    Thank You.
    Justice for Travis

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by shiloh42 View Post
    There is a lot of chatter on social media that this is exactly what she's trying to do - join a group of defendants to try to stop Ariz. from imposing the death penalty ('bandwagon').

    My question to you is this: if she is allowed to join that case, wouldn't her current penalty-phase trial still go ahead as planned, let the jury decide DP or not, and this issue would be decided at whatever date that motion goes before the court? It would make no sense to stop all progress in this trial for that, that would be a dangerous precedent, right?

    Re the omnibus motions to dismiss the DP: do you think this is just another desperate attempt to dismiss the DP, by lumping them all together, even though he's been rejected time after time? Isn't there some point at which the court should make him stop if he's not presenting different justifications?
    Oh, sure, I think the penalty phase will continue even while this motion is being decided.

    This seems to be a motion by numerous defendants in numerous cases, so it probably has nothing to do with JA's specific circumstances at all. In which case it's a different motion than Nurmi has filed before.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Colie View Post
    I think it may be the second.
    Do you know how often this is done and who pays for it?
    Thank You.
    The second what?

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    209
    Your second opinion about a group filing a motion. Sorry.
    Justice for Travis

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Colie View Post
    Your second opinion about a group filing a motion. Sorry.
    Oh! OK. Then I know it has happened several times in Maricopa County alone. Not too long ago the defense bar tried to get the entire County Attorney's office disqualified from all cases IIRC.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. *graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion**
    By TigerBalm in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1592
    Last Post: 07-06-2017, 08:37 PM
  2. Discussion thread for Jodi Arias Journals
    By Tricia in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 405
    Last Post: 03-27-2016, 03:49 AM
  3. Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion*
    By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 2446
    Last Post: 09-12-2014, 09:30 PM
  4. legal question and answer thread **no discussion**
    By nursebeeme in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 07:47 PM
  5. Question and Answer Thread **No Discussion**
    By kbl8201 in forum Jaycee Lee Dugard
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 12:21 AM

Tags for this Thread