Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/26 -12/02/14 In recess

[newsjunkie]

As usual, I am a couple hours behind the thread. Someone upthread was talking about the pics of Travis in the shower. A thought came to me that I hadn't considered this whole time and wanted to see what you guys thought. What if Travis was complying with the stupid photo shoot because she had his dog in her hands along with one of her weapons. Threatening his dog may have made him agree just to get the stupid thing over with, not knowing the next step in her plan was to turn the weapons on him.

 

[Frigga]

Thanks wenwe- I couldn't remember!

Hope everyone here had a fantastic Thanksgiving. I know Arias didn't. Poor thing. Not!

 

[AZlawyer]

Az, isn't there a hearing today??

I don't think so.

 

[bsk]

Sometimes they take weeks or months to issue opinions after an order like this one.



No, the judge could technically grant the motion. Most likely the defense is twisting JSS's prior words against her. She probably said something on the record when she made the original ruling about JA not being able to present a complete defense without the secrecy order. :facepalm:



IMO she can't refuse to be cross-examined if she's already testified.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM - I guess she can't refuse to go on the stand and be asked questions but she can refuse to answer them right? What's JSS to do, find her in contempt and put her in jail until she relents? Of course if she refuses to answer then it seems that JSS would have no choice but to strike all of her earlier testimony and instruct the jury to disregard it. That wouldn't be fair to the state, but if she refuses to be crossed in front of the jury then that tells the jury all they need to know.

What do you think KN will do? Argue that given the unfair and improper COA ruling that it should be counted as her allocution instead? Except he wouldn't say that - he'd say it only counts as part one of it and she gets to continue after Juan is finished with his case. No way that would pass muster with JSS I would hope.

 

[Steve44]

No, the judge could technically grant the motion. Most likely the defense is twisting JSS's prior words against her. She probably said something on the record when she made the original ruling about JA not being able to present a complete defense without the secrecy order. :facepalm:

But, she is not legally bound be her previous decision, is she? I mean she can change her mind in light of a different perspective, or further consideration, etc. etc., can't she?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I believe that she had NO ONE to stand up for her,

so she wanted to Plead her case to the jury without the outside world seeing it, seeing her at her worst (according to CMJA), and this is the only way she would be able to talk to the Jury without being observed by others.

RBBM:

:seeya: BINGO ! Exactly !

And not even her momma took the stand last time for her ... it's going to be interesting to see IF she or anyone else from her family doesso this time ...

:moo:

 

[TexMex]

No court today - but there is tomorrow

But no court on Thursday June 4 because juror had previous appointment

 

[Dmacky]

Interesting to see CMJA use the word "misogyny" in her guest blog on Sept. 4. She also uses the word "closeted"

Hi garth ~ I can't find this guest blog. Do you have a link?
Sounds really interesting

 

[bsk]

Az, isn't there a hearing today??

Thursday they are supposed to continue with B "I see *advertiser censored* in the reflection in the screen" N and that stupid motion.

 

[daisydomino]

Most defendants don't speak at all!! This murderer can't keep her mouth shut. Who gets on the stand for 19 plus days!!!

(Like I said before, I think she is afraid of Juan's cross)

Yep, yep! You're right—she did not have to testify at all: not in public, not in secret, ever! This is goofy.

I quickly browsed through the YouTube archives of this phase last year. Nurmi and Wilmott used the same reason (inability to present a complete case) to try to withdraw as her attorneys right after Patricia Womack did not testify. JSS, without batting an eye or even showing the slightest bit of annoyance, instantly denied that.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

But no court on Thursday June 4 because juror had previous appointment

:seeya: Hi TexMex, I think you meant December 4, so you may want to fix your original post.

But then again, this re-trial MAY go into next year -- June of 2015 !

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - I guess she can't refuse to go on the stand and be asked questions but she can refuse to answer them right? What's JSS to do, find her in contempt and put her in jail until she relents? Of course if she refuses to answer then it seems that JSS would have no choice but to strike all of her earlier testimony and instruct the jury to disregard it. That wouldn't be fair to the state, but if she refuses to be crossed in front of the jury then that tells the jury all they need to know.

What do you think KN will do? Argue that given the unfair and improper COA ruling that it should be counted as her allocution instead? Except he wouldn't say that - he'd say it only counts as part one of it and she gets to continue after Juan is finished with his case. No way that would pass muster with JSS I would hope.

KN could argue that her testimony should be treated as allocution, and that might work.

Otherwise, JSS could instruct the jury to disregard her testimony, or could tell Jodi that any refusal to answer a proper question on cross may be held against her by the jury since she's waived her right to remain silent.

But, she is not legally bound be her previous decision, is she? I mean she can change her mind in light of a different perspective, or further consideration, etc. etc., can't she?

Yes. IMO she should just say that she thought it would impair JA's defense but the Ct App obviously disagrees or they would have upheld her order.

 

[lilyet]

Good Morning, hope everyone had a super great Thanksgiving!!!

Happy that Steven's closed court is now open. Jodi will be fuming, I suspect. Like everyone, cannot wait to read the testimony from the not secret witness. Am disappointed no court today. Will be here bright and early tomorrow eagerly awaiting to see what more the Doc can say to further her incredibility. Hope the jurors are well rested and clear headed.

 

[Dmacky]

No, the judge could technically grant the motion. Most likely the defense is twisting JSS's prior words against her. She probably said something on the record when she made the original ruling about JA not being able to present a complete defense without the secrecy order. :facepalm:


BBM

IIRC KN kept saying to JSS "just like you said , it would be problematic "

 

[geevee]

I don't understand where people want to go with this theory, that the pictures weren't really from that day. Take it to the limit, paint your scenario, what conclusion do you draw? Keep in mind she was there thirteen hours, what's this theory, that trumps the consensus?

As a card carrying member of The Club*, I admire JM as much as the next Juanette but as a sleuther I have some questions that haven't been adequately answered. Whether the nudies were made that afternoon or at any other time doesn't change anything really, I just want the truth of the whole matter and there is enough about them that gives me pause.

Frankly some of the prosecution's theory does as well, as in - why did they have the gunshot first all the way up until close to trial, what changed in their mind to go with stabbing first and gunshot last? Why didn't they study the pictures close enough to see in the very last one it isn't the back of his neck you see (as JM compared the red streak pattern to the photo before) but rather someone's hand? And why have they always said the photo before (pant leg pic) is JA dragging Travis when the timestamps clearly show there wasn't enough time for him to be dead and dragged by that point and if he were, how could he hold his head up that high? And how can they say the last pic was the camera on the floor and upside down when it's clear something is moving just under the lens of the camera?

It just seems to me they barely looked at those pics at all to deduce content and rather said there's blood, what looks like the back of his head and arm, his tile floor, lots of red in the last pic, there you have it! Have what? You have the pics, you have the technology - figure out exactly what is in them and then draw your conclusions and theories.

Anyways, those are some of my concerns.

:juanettes:*

 

[Steve44]

No, the judge could technically grant the motion. Most likely the defense is twisting JSS's prior words against her. She probably said something on the record when she made the original ruling about JA not being able to present a complete defense without the secrecy order. :facepalm:


BBM

IIRC KN kept saying to JSS "just like you said , it would be problematic "

I think it's about now that JSS would like to earn her 'choke her into unconsciousness' club membership card.

 

[Dmacky]

The COA order didn't cover this issue, perhaps because Bodney hadn't asked JSS first (which he was required to do). I noticed that he immediately filed a motion to obtain the transcript after the COA ruling was issued. It could take weeks to get a decision, although JSS might just hold a quick oral argument and grant it ASAP just to get Bodney off her case.

Geez, now they'll be filing a motion or a mistrial for that as well

 

[LambChop]

I have a new thread for today. This thread will close in 10 minutes:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-Sentencing-of-Jodi-Arias-12-01-14-In-recess

 

[mydirtysecret]

As a card carrying member of The Club*, I admire JM as much as the next Juanette but as a sleuther I have some questions that haven't been adequately answered. Whether the nudies were made that afternoon or at any other time doesn't change anything really, I just want the truth of the whole matter and there is enough about them that gives me pause.

Frankly some of the prosecution's theory does as well, as in - why did they have the gunshot first all the way up until close to trial, what changed in their mind to go with stabbing first and gunshot last? Why didn't they study the pictures close enough to see in the very last one it isn't the back of his neck you see (as JM compared the red streak pattern to the photo before) but rather someone's hand? And why have they always said the photo before (pant leg pic) is JA dragging Travis when the timestamps clearly show there wasn't enough time for him to be dead and dragged by that point and if he were, how could he hold his head up that high? And how can they say the last pic was the camera on the floor and upside down when it's clear something is moving just under the lens of the camera?

It just seems to me they barely looked at those pics at all to deduce content and rather said there's blood, what looks like the back of his head and arm, his tile floor, lots of red in the last pic, there you have it! Have what? You have the pics, you have the technology - figure out exactly what is in them and then draw your conclusions and theories.

Anyways, those are some of my concerns.

:juanettes:*

Geevee, I also have some unanswered questions about the theory of wounds and when they were inflicted. I also am interested in the photos, but lest us say we are interested just based on the mere fact of being sleuthers. JMs job is/was to convince the jury of premed M1 with aggravating factors(which we know he proved) I believe what is left is conjecture, and likely answers we will never receive. RE: Pictures, they (the state) doesnt actually have a CSI type of forensics at their disposal the evidence would have had to of been sent off to the FBI or other type of facility for further enhancing. He'd need a reason to use up those departments valuable resources, time and money. In the end, the photos enhanced wouldnt have been a make/break for the state. Its more of a curiosity to those of us who love to over-analyze. Secondly, I really honestly do not understand why Dr.Horn changed his theory thus the state changing it. I have to assume we are all entitled to change our opinions, since that is all they are. Opinions based on the evidence we may have countered with our experience. He never said they circumstances of the gun/knife were medical facts or even probability, just his medical opinion. But, I like you would love to know that answer at a later date (Book please JM??)

 

[MeeBee]

Geevee, I also have some unanswered questions about the theory of wounds and when they were inflicted. I also am interested in the photos, but lest us say we are interested just based on the mere fact of being sleuthers. JMs job is/was to convince the jury of premed M1 with aggravating factors(which we know he proved) I believe what is left is conjecture, and likely answers we will never receive. RE: Pictures, they (the state) doesnt actually have a CSI type of forensics at their disposal the evidence would have had to of been sent off to the FBI or other type of facility for further enhancing. He'd need a reason to use up those departments valuable resources, time and money. In the end, the photos enhanced wouldnt have been a make/break for the state. Its more of a curiosity to those of us who love to over-analyze. Secondly, I really honestly do not understand why Dr.Horn changed his theory thus the state changing it. I have to assume we are all entitled to change our opinions, since that is all they are. Opinions based on the evidence we may have countered with our experience. He never said they circumstances of the gun/knife were medical facts or even probability, just his medical opinion. But, I like you would love to know that answer at a later date (Book please JM??)

I agree. When it comes to the pictures, Juan's guess is as good as any of ours. Many of us look at that picture and the others see different things. Just because they are pros doesn't mean they'll ever have the answers or they'd have presented it. All they can do is what they've done, which is put the pics up and try and fill in the gaps or present theories and allow you to fill in your own gaps. Like you said, it's not like we will ever understand them.

My understanding of Dr. Horn's change in opinion is that he never actually did change his opinion nor did he have an opinion on the order of the wounds until the defense started making a big deal about the order of them at one point to get the death penalty off the table. When asked, he only said one thing: in his opinions, the gun came last. His reasoning for this makes logical sense. He's just going on what he sees.

The state had their theory before that, again, because they can only go with what the know. In two separate stories Jodi told a story of how the gunshot came first. And that's what they knew. But the defense started making an issue of it so the state asked Dr. Horn for his opinion. So when he gave it they were forced to change their theory about order of wounds. Something similar happened in the Pistorius trial. They'd had a theory that Oscar was on his prosthetics when he shot Reeva until their own ballistics expert found otherwise. So they has to change their case. You have to go with what the facts and what your experts are telling you.

But that's just my understanding of it.