Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/17-11/18/14 In recess

[Dr. Know?]

AZL, I posted this Nov. 17th as how the docket read.

11/14/2014 8:00 Oral Argument
11/17/2014 9:30 Trial
11/18/2014 9:30 Trial
11/21/2014 10:29 Evidentiary Hearing
1/23/2015 13:30 Status Conference
2/6/2015 13:30 Oral Argument

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...17-11-18-14-In-recess&p=11213074#post11213074

(post #11)

and this is how the docket reads this morning

11/19/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/19/2014
11/18/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/19/2014
NOTE: MOTION TO STRIKE (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)
11/18/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 094 - ME: Oral Argument Set - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/17/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/17/2014
11/16/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/17/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

 

[TartLemon]

it would seem to me that the State should concentrate on the large glaring lies and skip over the small stuff. I think the jury would tune out completely if every little lie were exposed. It shouldn't appear that the State is picking on this woman and by limiting her answers to true or not true, it won't alienate the jury. By the time the state is up, the jury will be fed up and disgusted with the antic of the defense. If the State keeps it direct and simple, the state would make their point easier than it would were it to hammer her with the lies.

I'm not a legal eagle, but it seems to me the jury is the one to decide which evidence is believable or not.

 

[Hope4More]

Hope I have to go back and read it again. I thought JSS set up the evidentiary hearing before getting the sanctions request from Juan. If so, is it possible she just left the date as is to hear them both at the same time? She still has time to change the hearing date or change her mind, doesn't she?

It appears so, Curious!

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, I posted this Nov. 17th as how the docket read.

11/14/2014 8:00 Oral Argument
11/17/2014 9:30 Trial
11/18/2014 9:30 Trial
11/21/2014 10:29 Evidentiary Hearing
1/23/2015 13:30 Status Conference
2/6/2015 13:30 Oral Argument

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...17-11-18-14-In-recess&p=11213074#post11213074

(post #11)

and this is how the docket reads this morning

11/19/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/19/2014
11/18/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/19/2014
NOTE: MOTION TO STRIKE (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)
11/18/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 094 - ME: Oral Argument Set - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/17/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/17/2014
11/16/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/17/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

Those are two different parts of the docket. The first is the list of hearings, the second is the list of filed documents.

 

[Dr. Know?]

:seeya: Good Morning, Y'all !

So ... has there been any news on WHY court was delayed yesterday and today ?

Has anything "leaked out" ? :waitasec: Has anyone checked the obits ? I know, but inquiring minds would like to know ...

This has got to be the longgggggggggggggggggggggggest Sentencing Phase in the history of mankind !

:seeya:

No but poking around AZ Superior Court Calendar JSS had nothing scheduled yesterday and today. She does other cases even when JA's scheduled so I would assume something personal came up.

 

[Hatfield]

Some of my favorite posts too are from Nore and Hatfield and many others but they are expressing the desire to shut this trial down and sentence this killer to LWOP. I disagree completely about shutting down the trial and LWOP.

There is just a tad bit of revenge inside of me (yes I know that's not a good thing) and I want to see it through so Juan can slice and dice these people. No one should be allowed to humiliate and threaten and hurt the victims family the way they have done and get away with it.

She doesn't deserve LWOP. She deserves to be locked away in a very tiny concrete cell, no tv, no radio, no art papers, no AC, no heat, nothing but her own mind to remember what she has done. Let that be her death penalty. Death comes eventually to all. But she sure doesn't deserve to be placed in general population. That's a picnic compared to what Travis went through. JMO. MOO

Hello Curious,

If you are referring to recent posts from me, I wasnt actually expressing wanting to just stop and shut down the trial and go with LWOP. I was discussing with someone else regarding whether the delay could be related to maybe the family changing their mind and perhaps that is what they wanted to do. Below is the actual post I made:
It was just an idea that was brought up by someone else of maybe a reason for the delay.

"It would be so understandable if they finally had enough and want to give up pursuing the DP. Even as a remote spectator, it is very difficult to handle this trial. I cant even imagine what it would be like to be there and be one of the family. I feel terrible for them."

For me personally, I may have flip-flopped in the past because this trial is quite difficult to endure, but I seem to recall I have most of the time always been wanting DP too. I do want to go on record that I mainly want whatever the family wishes.
If they want to continue to pursue DP, then I am all for it and will stand by them every step of the way. Even if these steps continually get harder to endure.

I do agree with you that we cannot just leave things where they stand now. Juan has to get his chance to undo some of the damage from this witness. It would not be good to just end this now at this point.

Before the trial started, we had some good debates about the pros + cons of DP versus LWOP. Those were some good and interesting discussions.

Anwyay, just wanted to clear up my views.

 

[Hope4More]

AZL, I posted this Nov. 17th as how the docket read.

11/14/2014 8:00 Oral Argument
11/17/2014 9:30 Trial
11/18/2014 9:30 Trial
11/21/2014 10:29 Evidentiary Hearing
1/23/2015 13:30 Status Conference
2/6/2015 13:30 Oral Argument

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...17-11-18-14-In-recess&p=11213074#post11213074

(post #11)

and this is how the docket reads this morning

11/19/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/19/2014
11/18/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/19/2014
NOTE: MOTION TO STRIKE (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)
11/18/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 094 - ME: Oral Argument Set - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated - Party (001) 11/18/2014
11/17/2014 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 11/17/2014
11/16/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 11/17/2014
NOTE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER)

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021

OMG.....just saw the January 2015 status conference. Say it ain't so, JSs. Perhaps that relates to her joining of class action suit?

 

[AZlawyer]

OMG.....just saw the January 2015 status conference. Say it ain't so, JSs. Perhaps that relates to her joining of class action suit?

It's not a class action, but yes, the 2015 dates have to do with the group motion.

 

[Hope4More]

Those are two different parts of the docket. The first is the list of hearings, the second is the list of filed documents.

This is why we pay you the big bucks, AZL.

 

[bznbear]

LOL......perfect. She makes all grannies look bad.We're supposed to offer up cookies and hugs, not lies and make -believe perverts.

I think Nurmi should have definitely read the jury better as far as this witness goes. She seems totally disconnected from today's societal norms. I'm no spring chicken by a long shot, and I find her thinking terribly antiquated, especially in terms of her profession.

 

[Hope4More]

It's not a class action, but yes, the 2015 dates have to do with the group motion.

My bad. Layman's term....or, more precisely, reflexive terminology by the wife of a civil plaintiff attorney specializing in class action lawsuits.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

No but poking around AZ Superior Court Calendar JSS had nothing scheduled yesterday and today. She does other cases even when JA's scheduled so I would assume something personal came up.

:seeya: You're a good sleuther, Dr. Know !

And luv it -- "poking around" :hilarious:

:cheers:

 

[daisydomino]

Just adding an extra thank you to AZLawyer here. Thanks everyone, really. This would all be a big incomprehensible mystery to me without you all.

 

[Zuri]

If any of you have ever had a Worker's Comp claim, the Defense sends you to their experts for an evaluation. Their experts are being paid to find some reason to say you can work, even when you were crawling into their office in pain.

I don't see much difference here with Dr. Fonseca. She is being paid to look at voluminous amounts of material to frame the relationship between TA and CMJA with a bias for the Defendant. She is being paid to find some mitigators for CMJA and that obviously means victimizing TA.

I have faith that JM will show the other side of the story. He speaks for Travis and the truth as we see it. I can't bash the witness for doing her job. Do I think some of what she is saying is misguided? Yes. But she is doing her job. So is Nurmi. I have a feeling she will concede certain points to JM, unlike ALV, who was too busy being right. JMV IMO

 

[Hatfield]

:seeya: You're a good sleuther, Dr. Know !

And luv it -- "poking around" :hilarious:

:cheers:

DITTO
Great sleuthing, Dr. Know !

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Just adding an extra thank you to AZLawyer here.

Thanks everyone, really.

This would all be a big incomprehensible mystery to me without you all.

:seeya: I second all of the above ! This is a :great: group !

:cheers:

 

[bznbear]

If any of you have ever had a Worker's Comp claim, the Defense sends you to their experts for an evaluation. Their experts are being paid to find some reason to say you can work, even when you were crawling into their office in pain.

I don't see much difference here with Dr. Fonseca. She is being paid to look at voluminous amounts of material to frame the relationship between TA and CMJA with a bias for the Defendant. She is being paid to find some mitigators for CMJA and that obviously means victimizing TA.

I have faith that JM will show the other side of the story. He speaks for Travis and the truth as we see it. I can't bash the witness for doing her job. Do I think some of what she is saying is misguided? Yes. But she is doing her job. So is Nurmi. I have a feeling she will concede certain points to JM, unlike ALV, who was too busy being right. JMV IMO

Zuri, you are right about Juan, and you're being very kind as far as Dr. F goes. I think she's more than misguided. At best, she wasn't shown all the evidence or missed some critical points in the huge amount of evidence she studied. At worst, she knowingly excluded and twisted much of it. An example is the email from the young girl's father where he requested folks stop emailing her. She stated she wasn't sure if it was a mass mailing after insinuating the father sent that message to Travis alone. She meant the jury to believe Travis was "interested" in young girls. I believe she knows absolutely the pedo claims are gross canards (ugly and untruthful ducks, lol).

 

[LinTX]

AZLawyer, I believe the last JM motion that we had prior to today was his Motion for Sanctions, it was dated the 16th. The Motion to Strike, dated on the 18th is a new one I think. Wish these filings were labeled as to the party filing them. Also, have been meaning to ask if anyone knows what those code numbers indicate?

 

[Zuri]

Zuri, you are right about Juan, and you're being very kind as far as Dr. F goes. I think she's more than misguided. At best, she wasn't shown all the evidence or missed some critical points in the huge amount of evidence she studied. At worst, she knowingly excluded and twisted much of it. An example is the email from the young girl's father where he requested folks stop emailing her. She stated she wasn't sure if it was a mass mailing after insinuating the father sent that message to Travis alone. She meant the jury to believe Travis was "interested" in young girls. I believe she knows absolutely the pedo claims are gross canards (ugly and untruthful ducks, lol).

I totally agree. This is the bias I spoke of. I don't know how much she truly believes, but she is being PAID to twist things up. She looks like a decent person which makes me believe she will concede some things to JM. I don't think she is going to commit professional suicide like ALV did. I may be totally wrong. Maybe I am hoping too much that common decency will prevail and be triumphant over all that is sordid and twisted in this trial that is CMJA.

 

[bznbear]

Has this been posted before? JA and Lisa Schilling phone call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xWv_ebKxgs&feature=youtu.be