a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #6

[polleypockets]

listening right now - KCL you are a badass!!

 

[rose222]

I don't know how the jury interacts when they are out of the courtroom. Inside the courtroom I've seen Maureen and Ponytail chit-chat and laugh.
I've not seen any of the other jurors interact with each other that I can recall. They file in, and out. Looking ahead or down. Rarely looking at the gallery, and never at ja as they leave or enter.
Those are just the days I've been there.

I think HW has always taken notes. Some days more than others depending on who's on the stand and if Juan is doing the questioning.

The DT would love a split jury, but I don't see it. Even if they aren't buddy-buddy with one another they don't believe the self-defense BS story the defense is shoving down their throats.

2nd degree murder is not an option at this point. It's either self-defense or murder 1. ja and her attorney LKN sent an offer for a plea to 2nd degree. It was also said if the prosecution didn't agree to it that Travis would be dragged through the mud... so to speak. The prosecution rejected it.
There was a link to it somewhere here on WS.
Found it:
http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf

Yep. This is addressed in the State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."

 

[marciec]

I think the Judge would and did admonish/instruct the witness to not behave in such deplorable ways in the courtroom.

I adore AZ Lawyer and respect her knowledge completely and I'm just speaking as a lay person who has been on the receiving end of something like this. But she knows what she's talking about. I just know I was instructed that I had the legal right to not be contacted and when that (horrible, lying) investigator for the Legal Defender's office ambushed me in my home I said to her "isn't it illegal for you to be approaching me like this?" (once I came to and realized what was going on...how disorienting, I assumed of course she was representing OUR side when she showed up unannounced on my doorstep 2 weeks before the anniversary of Cindy's death). She immediately responded with some law, some loophole she knew and had calculated that she was slipping through.

She lied to my face saying if I helped with this "retardation" argument (um why WOULD I?) that he would get Life without Parole. That was never, not once on the table as it wasn't an option when he was convicted so not an option now. She had been working on the case for years so of course knew this important FACT. We were talking life WITH parole which would have had him go from Death Row to eligibility for parole in 5 years...FIVE YEARS.

I knew she was lying or at best uninformed. Then I interrupted her and said "really what has happened to you in your life that youv'e become a person who would walk in to my house, right before Christmas which is the anniversary of my sister's murder and stir all this up for me thinking I'd cooperate with you? What is wrong with you?" (obviously I was pissed)

She started crying and said "I'm sorry I'm tearing up, I don't know why I'm reacting this way" and I said "you are reacting this way because you are having a normal human emotion to a true victim, ME, not the man you are championing. ME who was going to decorate my house for Christmas today, can you imagine what this is doing to me? In fact you need to get out of my house". Then I walked out of the room and in to my kitchen, shaking, and said "you can let yourself out the door you came in". Then she left her card saying "well here's my card, you can contact me anytime" to which I said "oh I will use that card to contact someone about you, you can be sure of that" and kicked her out of my house.

I immediately called Cathy Hughes our prosecutor who put me in touch with Keli Luther who was then with the AZ Crime Victims Legal Assistance Project and represented me in this and got that loop hole at the legislative level changed. She wrote me back that very day and said she'd been waiting for a case to take to argue this and she used this incident.

My friend then came over to go to brunch with me and said I was shaking hours later. And I"m a very strong person. 18 years later this got me shaking for hours. That's what these people do to victims.

You can see why i feel so strongly about this.

Sitting here crying reading this & picturing what an unforgettably terrible moment it was to realize who she was & what she was asking of you. There are no words.. I'm so sorry.

It can't be a coincidence this trial is in Phoenix, or that you're in that courtroom & available to Travis' family. So often the people that comfort us the most are the ones who've paved the trail we're on. God bless you, Katie..

 

[magpie]

She said on the stand that she has not been privy to the trial testimony HOWEVER that conflicts with a couple of slip ups she made on the stand. For example, one time she said " In her testimony...I mean....she reported that..."

So I have no doubt that she has been watching the trial, at least parts of it.

And I bet that she is sitting home this weekend frantically watching the cross examination of Doc Samuels too....anic: anic: anic:

I totally agree! After the way this defense team and it's "experts" have trashed the victim, Travis Alexander, in the courtroom and in front of the entire world (thanks to the internet) I have no doubt that ALV is on the internet watching as much trial coverage as she could possibly consume in her 3 days off.

ALV says she doesn't understand all the new technology, and IF this was the entire truth, I'm sure the laughing ladies who accompanied her to court on Thursday would have been glad to give her some internet finesse pointers.

After all, Ms. LaViolette's "speaking engagement" on the 6th, which was no doubt to promote her new book release, was cancelled due to people wanting their money back having seen/heard ALV's testimony in this trial for the past, what is it now (?), 7 days.

Panic anic: is right!

 

[marciec]

Thank you Snow White.,,and now that I've been Disney certified...I feel like a Princess in Training. :great:

Well, she's right, and she speaks for so many of us who feel the same way! We just love you to death, and if that's weird well, so be it ~ Miss Coolady, you have burrowed your way into the hearts of people you may never meet this side of Heaven. There's a whole lotta love & respect for you out here..

 

[bsk]

Yep. This is addressed in the State v. Andriano, STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wendi Elizabeth ANDRIANO, Appellant.

"We held in State v. Celaya that “where the sole defense is self-defense so that the evidence requires either conviction or acquittal, any instruction on any other grade would be impermissible.”  135 Ariz. 248, 255, 660 P.2d 849, 856 (1983);  see also State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 6, ¶ 29, 126 P.3d 148, 153 (2006) (noting that when defendant asserts an “all-or-nothing” defense, the record usually will not support the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction);  State v. Jones, 109 Ariz. 80, 81-82, 505 P.2d 251, 252-53 (1973) (holding that lesser-included offense instructions were not required where evidence at trial and defendant's self-defense theory presented an “either-or” situation requiring either first degree murder conviction or acquittal)."

This is the best thing I've read all weekend! I pray the judge follows this. There has been zero evidence or testimony that it was a crime of passion. Nurmi hopes to have 2nd as a compromise point for the jury, whereas Juan would prefer it to be LWOP.

 

[marciec]

Thanks for posting.

Oh my gosh, if I was a juror, I would be irate by now. And judging by some of the notes, some of the jurors are downright PO'd (CEO, in particular seems very impatient and just...angry).

From an expert witness, you expect a level of professionalism and honesty. I would. I think Juan made it pretty clear that Samuels and the DT tried to play them for idiots. And now they are keeping the farce going with ALV. I wouldn't care if ALV was the most honest and trustworthy expert witness in the world, they have already betrayed my trust and my ability to remain objective. I wouldn't trust anyone they put on the stand from that point onward. Jodi also lied herself. To me, the only honest person in the room would seem to be the prosecutor. He's the only one I would trust with the truth.

ITA! Really looking forward to Juan putting on Dr. DeMarte. IIRC, she does have a PHD, and the only one of the 3 "experts" who does. Pretty sure she's gonna be a powerful witness. I'll bet she's the last in his rebuttal, right before he gives closing arguments, but who knows?

 

[rose222]

ITA! Really looking forward to Juan putting on Dr. DeMarte. IIRC, she does have a PHD, and the only one of the 3 "experts" who does. Pretty sure she's gonna be a powerful witness. I'll bet she's the last in his rebuttal, right before he gives closing arguments, but who knows?

I'd like JM to put Dr. DeMarte on first. Get that out of the way and the focus on pre-meditation. The medical examiner should be last.

But....JM knows best so I trust whatever he does.

 

[gauntlet]

I'd like JM to put Dr. DeMarte on first. Get that out of the way and the focus on pre-meditation. The medical examiner should be last.

But....JM knows best so I trust whatever he does.

ITA! Really looking forward to Juan putting on Dr. DeMarte. IIRC, she does have a PHD, and the only one of the 3 "experts" who does. Pretty sure she's gonna be a powerful witness. I'll bet she's the last in his rebuttal, right before he gives closing arguments, but who knows?

I see this court case as not about JA's mental health but rather the murder not being self-defense.

The jurors will still be aware Dr D is a Prosecution witness so she's being paid to be up there. JM blew virtually all of RS's testiphony out of the water and he'll do the same with ALV by the the time she is off the stand. JM has made comments to both witnesses about how many paid hours they spent reviewing JA's diaries etc so there'll probably be something in that. I also guess Dr D can help to support the non-diagnosis though with a medical opinion. I don't see how Dr D having a PHD makes that much difference apart from the advantages of the qualification ie reading tests/ prescribing meds but if Dr D is as professional as Dr Horn and she will be, Dr D will be streets ahead of the last two.

I am more looking forward to the witnesses who can back up the premeditation such the Computer Forensics guy, and the two who will prove Jodie is lying about the petrol and Walmart transactions. And then the Blood Splatter specialist will tie everything up into one tidy conviction.

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

Ok I just taped this off my tv with my iphone and let's see if it works here.

Katiecoolady abc15 - YouTube

Awesome interview, KCL! I'm so sorry to hear about your sister, and greatly admire how you've channeled your grief into something so positive for Travis' family. I'm new here, but have quickly gathered that your contributions to this world are immeasurable. Thanks so much for all you do!!!
:tyou: :yourock:

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I think it was a joke, someone posted about a business card. It may have been mistaken as fact.

There was no business card to my knowledge.

HTH

Again... I want to clear up any confusion...

In an earlier post I gave the example of ALV presenting Samantha with a business card as a creepy possibility...

This scenario of ALV handing Samantha a business card did NOT occur (as far as I know) ...

And I apologize for the confusion... :blushing:

 

[BunnyHop]

I want to give all you strong, beautiful, dedicated women a HUGE thank you for all you do. I can't keep up with it all, I'm overwhelmed.

Thank you for your courage, honor, strength, integrity, honesty and courage.

Looking forward to Juan today. :great:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5ZjrGdlNDo

 

[Abe Froman]

I wonder.

That was A LOT of harsh (well, not even harsh describes how horrified and disgusted Travis was) harsh words Travis said to Jody. If someone had taped me and said they were going to go public with it, I would say *advertiser censored** You, Go Ahead You Will Never Hear From Me Again. I don't think I would call someone who did that a sociopath, or go on for hours and pages. I think he was utterly consumed, disgusted and scared with whatever he found out. And Jody decided right then to kill him I think, as she came up with a plan and stole the gun 2 days later. He had threatened to tell her parents, friends whatever with what he knew. I just don't think Jodi would kill him because he was going to tell people she taped their phone sex. Actually, I think she would like it. People would finally know they were having sex. No, this was not about phone sex. Jodi was determined to stop him from telling something about her, and Travis was absolutely freaked out about whatever it was. I think it was something about as horrendous as his own murder was. Something she would kill to protect and something that convinced Travis she was a monster.

Nope, I don't believe it was the sex tape. And I don't believe it was because she couldn't have him. She was desperate to keep something hidden. I have thought about what could be that bad, that you would kill someone to keep quiet.

The only thing I can think of is she has killed before. She loves taking pictures, and I think she was taking trophy pictures of killing Travis. She may have done it before. Maybe he saw the pictures. I know that this is a far-reaching and way out there idea, but it had to be something that big to decide to kill him.

Didn't she say that her hard drive was destroyed or something? Maybe she did that after Travis found something on her PC and then she destroyed it because he said he would talk.

Edited to add: Did I read somewhere that defense had managed to get her computer records sealed?

Sorry, I'm on my iPad and can't figure out how to bold just one section, but my next comments reference your paragraph about her killing before.

When I first started watching this trial, I just thought Jodi was a woman scorned with the "if I can't have him then no other woman can have him either" mentality to justify her murder of TA. However, during Jodi's "performance" (sorry, I can't refer to that spectacle as testimony) on the stand, she made a comment along the lines of "I've never killed anyone before" or something to that effect. I remember my immediate reaction was "yes you have." Just something about the way she made that comment made me think that she was lying her fool head off again.

 

[nursebeeme]

Move on over to the new thread:

:cheer: :thewave: :cheer:​

a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #7 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community