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

[grammieto5]

Let me start off by stating I am not a professional anything BUT seriously, “Sort of”. What professional answers a question using the words “Sort of” WTH, “Sort Of” woman you’re in a courtroom, you’re a professional expert, and you answer a question with “sort of” WOW! I don’t know why, but this witness really bugs me! If there were 31 boxes why did this professional expert go through only 30??? If misogyny defines men who are hateful of women, what defines women who hate men? I truly believe this witness, along with that other professional expert from the first trial hate men, especially Travis. I don’t care how many days nurmi keeps this witness on the stand or what other BS lies he and her come up with; nothing will undo what Juan Martinez has accomplished in just a matter of hours. God bless Travis and his family!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Oh I apologize. I went back and read through the thread and see that information about the 13th juror, Paul Sanders, was already posted. It was so wonderful to read someone who writes in such detail.

Juan did a great job yesterday and I don't see where he needs to recross Dr. cuckoo. She is really mentally ill herself and should seek some help. And her little girl whining needs to stop! She lost all credibility and Kirk Nurmi should have sent her home. I don't know if this is someone Jodi found or this was KN's doing, but hiring this woman was a major screw up.

On another topic, KCL, love that picture you have with Mr. Juanderful! I am beyond jealous.

Hope we hear from COA today!!!!

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Let me start off by stating I am not a professional anything BUT seriously, “Sort of”. What professional answers a question using the words “Sort of” WTH, “Sort Of” woman you’re in a courtroom, you’re a professional expert, and you answer a question with “sort of” WOW! I don’t know why, but this witness really bugs me! If there were 31 boxes why did this professional expert go through only 30??? If misogyny defines men who are hateful of women, what defines women who hate men? I truly believe this witness, along with that other professional expert from the first trial hate men, especially Travis. I don’t care how many days nurmi keeps this witness on the stand or what other BS lies he and her come up with; nothing will undo what Juan Martinez has accomplished in just a matter of hours. God bless Travis and his family!

BBM

In case no one else has posted this:

A misogynist is a man who hates women. A woman who hates men can be described as a misandrist, and the corresponding noun is misandry. But however prevalent the attitudes described by these words may be, the words themselves aren't common. There are currently only 23 examples of misandrist in the Oxford English Corpus, while misogynist appears more than 1,200 times; 37 uses of misandry are overshadowed by 1,592 examples of misogyny.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/what-is-the-female-equivalent-of-a-misogynist

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Morning, Y'all !

Checking in to see if the Court of Appeal's ruling came down, but I guess not.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeal is working today [unlike some other courts], and we will have a ruling some time today !

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
I just want to give an opinion again regarding "witness-for-hires" like this one we have seen.

They are so very very dangerous because of how they can slant their testimony just because they are being paid to do so. That is just so outrageous to me.

Even though we see this person may have testified for the prosecution in other cases to help put bad people in prison it still is not right if they are twisting their testimony to one side just because of money. I am all for justice so long as people uphold their oath on the stand to be totally honest and tell the truth when testifying.

If people are sent to prison based on sketchy slanted opinions that were given because a paycheck came their way then that is just wrong.

If someone is guilty of a crime then LE should be able to prosecute based on true evidence. However if the evidence is being generated then that is plain wrong.
People can be sent to prison by mistake when they are not guilty as we have seen numerous examples of this happening.

It saddens me that there are whole careers to be made just to testify for whatever side is willing to pay. I dont know how people that do this career can sleep at night if they are not testifying to their honest opinion.

I question some of the testimony given by this person in this case. Was it really their honest opinion that Travis was the true manipulator in this relationship?
Or was a paycheck swaying the testimony?

It saddens me to think of all the people sent to prison partly based on testimony from witness-for-hire witnesses.

It is not right no matter which side a witness is testifying for. If they are totally honest then it is fine however i have to question the honesty of some of the opinions we heard.
There is a built in danger to want to make the side happy that are giving the money.

Perhaps the whole thing can be made illegal and just use supeonas to force anyone to testify that are needed.

 

[Steve44]

re: Juan's cross

The contrast between her testimony under direct and her attempts to legitimize it under claims of professional objectivity while at the same time Juan was showing with hard facts just how unfairly biased she was, was undoubtedly eye-opening to the jury. Jodi isn't the only one with slime on her face. Thanks Juan!

 

[Steve44]

:seeya: Morning, Y'all !

Checking in to see if the Court of Appeal's ruling came down, but I guess not.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeal is working today [unlike some other courts], and we will have a ruling some time today !

I'm guessing today or Monday at the latest, but before the trial re-starts, or before the re-trial re-starts, or before the re-trial re-re-starts. Oh never mind.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

JMO
I just want to give an opinion again regarding "witness-for-hires" like this one we have seen.

They are so very very dangerous because of how they can slant their testimony just because they are being paid to do so. That is just so outrageous to me.

Even though we see this person may have testified for the prosecution in other cases to help put bad people in prison it still is not right if they are twisting their testimony to one side just because of money. I am all for justice so long as people uphold their oath on the stand to be totally honest and tell the truth when testifying.

If people are sent to prison based on sketchy slanted opinions that were given because a paycheck came their way then that is just wrong.

If someone is guilty of a crime then LE should be able to prosecute based on true evidence. However if the evidence is being generated then that is plain wrong.
People can be sent to prison by mistake when they are not guilty as we have seen numerous examples of this happening.

It saddens me that there are whole careers to be made just to testify for whatever side is willing to pay. I dont know how people that do this career can sleep at night if they are not testifying to their honest opinion.

I question some of the testimony given by this person in this case. Was it really their honest opinion that Travis was the true manipulator in this relationship?
Or was a paycheck swaying the testimony?

It saddens me to think of all the people sent to prison partly based on testimony from witness-for-hire witnesses.

It is not right no matter which side a witness is testifying for. If they are totally honest then it is fine however i have to question the honesty of some of the opinions we heard.
There is a built in danger to want to make the side happy that are giving the money.

Perhaps the whole thing can be made illegal and just use supeonas to force anyone to testify that are needed.

I appreciate your wonderful analysis. I am glad to say, however, it is not always like this. In the Mark Jensen trial for the murder of his wife, Julie, the defense brought up a "suicidologist" to testify that she had killed herself. On direct, he was presented with facts by the defense. All the facts came from Mark's family. His analysis was that she was suicidal.

Prosecution attorney Jambois then did the cross. He presented information from Julie's family and friends. When finally asked his opinion, he said that IF he had known the information from her family as well as the information from the defendant's family, he would have decided that Julie Jensen was NOT suicidal.

There is an honest defense witness.

When I saw that Fonseca was wiffling and waffling with vague language, when she suffered from a poor memory for dates, events, and facts, I could not help of think of the Jensen case. She was presented with facts that totally contradicted her conclusions, she crumbled. Her voluminous documentation became a paltry few pages, Travis became NOT a pedophile, and JA became "intrusive" (cough, stalking). BUT, she would not admit she was wrong! Go figure!

 

[daisydomino]

Whether or not Miccio-Fonseca is an ethically foggy ALV II misandrist, she did say that she thought TA was never a pedophile. That's so great. I'm pretty sure Nurmi and Wilmott imported her from California to say the opposite.

 

[Steve44]

A Scenario...

It's the day after Thanksgiving, three years post-sentencing for Jodi Arias. She wakes up in her cell on Death Row and plans the days activities. The ever-present dampness of the environment is not so noticeable anymore, but now she must work on the smell. She's heard from the prison brain-trust that a sinus rinse with a weak bleach and water solution will deaden her sense of smell permanently. It will also kill her sense of taste, but with the food they serve in this place, does it really matter? She will have to give it careful consideration. After composing her letter to prison officials complaining that her Thanksgiving biscuit was moldy, she receives notice that there has been a ruling on her first appeal for a re-trial. She's handed a manilla envelope by the prison mail carrier and tears into it, hopeful, almost certain, that the beginnings of her richly deserved freedom are contained within its folds. As she reads, though, her cell begins once again to close in on her, the dampness is felt keenly now, and the smell is worse than ever. It reads:

"We find no reason to grant the motion for a re-trial in this case, since the convict has already received eight re-trials the first time around."

 

[grammieto5]

I have a few questions, for those who know. Could an expert witness ask for and receive evidence from both sides? Are all expert witnesses paid? Thanks

 

[grammieto5]

Steve44, I love your posts! #87 is very funny!

 

[Steve44]

I have a few questions, for those who know. Could an expert witness ask for and receive evidence from both sides? Are all expert witnesses paid? Thanks

They'd probably receive a notice from the defense that their services are no longer required in the same mail, but I'm guessing.

 

[G&AMom]

I have a few questions, for those who know. Could an expert witness ask for and receive evidence from both sides? Are all expert witnesses paid? Thanks

A witness like this one doesn't need to ask the other side for evidence. By law, the prosecution has to give copies to the defense of everything they have. That's why this witness is so ridiculous. Wilmott and Nurmi had copies of all the documents JM showed her, they just chose to withhold them.

As to your other question, I assume they are always paid unless for some reason they decline their fee. I doubt if it happens very often. Maybe AZ Lawyer has a better idea.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Love Never Fails]

JMO
I just want to give an opinion again regarding "witness-for-hires" like this one we have seen.

They are so very very dangerous because of how they can slant their testimony just because they are being paid to do so. That is just so outrageous to me.

Even though we see this person may have testified for the prosecution in other cases to help put bad people in prison it still is not right if they are twisting their testimony to one side just because of money. I am all for justice so long as people uphold their oath on the stand to be totally honest and tell the truth when testifying.

If people are sent to prison based on sketchy slanted opinions that were given because a paycheck came their way then that is just wrong.

If someone is guilty of a crime then LE should be able to prosecute based on true evidence. However if the evidence is being generated then that is plain wrong.
People can be sent to prison by mistake when they are not guilty as we have seen numerous examples of this happening.

It saddens me that there are whole careers to be made just to testify for whatever side is willing to pay. I dont know how people that do this career can sleep at night if they are not testifying to their honest opinion.

I question some of the testimony given by this person in this case. Was it really their honest opinion that Travis was the true manipulator in this relationship?
Or was a paycheck swaying the testimony?

It saddens me to think of all the people sent to prison partly based on testimony from witness-for-hire witnesses.

It is not right no matter which side a witness is testifying for. If they are totally honest then it is fine however i have to question the honesty of some of the opinions we heard.
There is a built in danger to want to make the side happy that are giving the money.

Perhaps the whole thing can be made illegal and just use supeonas to force anyone to testify that are needed.

Ditto. Entire post.

 

[Zuri]

Me too Katie. Thank you. We are sisters in a club no one ever wants to be in.

ETA: Don't feel sheepish. You are a beautiful tiger for victims, and Juan knows that!

Hugs to you bznbear. I feel your pain and I am so sorry you experienced this in the therapist's office. Over the past 32 years, I have been to several therapists, seeking help for what I know now is PTSD. I finally found an expert in the field of PTSD and he has helped my brain re-format the trauma. I hope you can find the "right" person to help you. Xo

 

[janx]

Do we have a decision from the COA yet?

 

[Nosey Parker]

This is a wee bit OT, waiting for the COA decision, but apparently there's a tweet from Jodi's 'magpie' this week that says she is being disciplined for passing food to a 'hungry inmate'. Is this a lie? For what purpose? I thought Arias was confined to her cell, except for exercise, showers and visitors. How could she be passing food to another? How can she be disciplined in her cell? Deprived of a dinner?

Could someone please fill me in on Arias' actual living conditions at the moment. TIA.

 

[Steve44]

Do we have a decision from the COA yet?

Not yet, but few people can see any reason they would side with Nurmi &Co.

 

[Susza]

I looked up unconventional sex studies and what that relates to. It's a pretty broad term. One man's "unconventional" is another man's Friday night lol. It's a bit subjective and to be honest seems a bit of an antiquated area of study.

RSBM

BBM - :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: