Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/10 - Break

Status
Not open for further replies.

franquerolane

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
That was so weird! It was kind of funny, but I was laughing *at* her. She was being so overtly maddening—trying to evade and maneuver around the obvious answers, which would have been "yes" or "no" if she'd been honest at all. It was a big manipulative fail, too, because she thought she would make Juan look bad since he was yelling at her. What a fruit loop. So glad she's not back (not that Geff and Dr. M-F are much better!)
I think that whole are you mad at me thing was a setup from the beginning. Her fan club from grade school instantly burst into loud laughter a nano second after she said it. They knew it was coming.
 

Cracka*Jaxx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
307
Have people considered that JSS is actually allowing the DT to object, approach, claim mistrials etc basically just to ensure that these things cannot be used to say CMJA didn't have a fair trial once she is sentenced? I don't think she is a bad judge at all. I think she is playing it wisely. She is allowing the DT to get all this out of the way now and then they can't say "the judge wasn't fair to us" on appeal. The only one thing I have against JSS is that she allows the DT to go over and over the same things with witnesses meaning they are on the stand far longer than needs be.

Yes, JSS is trying to do everything she can so the DT doesn't claim it wasn't a fair trial; except that, they will anyway! My question is, how long is she going to let them drag out this trial? There has got to be an ending. It isn't FAIR to anyone- neither the Alexanders nor the taxpayers. And after this, there's going to be an appeal! Someone has got to shut this circus down, one way or another.

Trials are supposed to bring out the truth of what happened. These days it's all about egos and playing a game. It's absurd, the things this DT is coming up with.
 

ScarlettScarpetta

When the going gets tough, drink coffee
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
123
AT this point I wish we had Judge Judy here..


I can see her saying to Nurmi.. : You are an idiot! Sit down.
 

TartLemon

Active Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
24
Would a mistrial FINALLY excuse Nurmi from the presence of JA or will it be retried?
 

Hope4More

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
13,101
Reaction score
13,476
OMG! Didn't know this. So Jodi actually did make some money off PPL, just not her own?? That's not how a pyramid scheme works.

FWIW.....Before it becomes conventional wisdom that JA diverted some of Travis' PPL sign ups into her own account. I've not only not heard of that, anywhere, but I also flat out don't believe it.

Not because she wouldn't be capable of it, but because there's zero reference to this in his journal, by his friends, or in the blow-up text on May 26.

Travis was meticulous with his business record keeping. He wouldn't have missed her stealing his sign ups, and he wouldn't have looked the other way.

Last, JA went to PPL meetings and conferences because that was fun. Other than that there is very little evidence she even pretended very hard she was actually trying to sell the product. Her mind just wasn't on PPL.
 

debidot

New Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Could be about Jodi not answering juror questions? Just thinking out loud.
 

Diggin

New Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
There are some specifics for Arizona in this regard.


http://www.maricopa.gov/pdweb/docs/2010/201002-04-ftd.pdf

I found a couple of things of interest in this. First, I now see why the DT is being so strident about JA not having a criminal history since "the age of the defendant is not a mitigating factor if the defendant has a history of crime or violence". Then, since State v Spears "held that 33 was too old" to be a mitigating factor, I can now see why the DT is trying to imply JA was younger at the time of the murder than she was--also why LKN was asking Dr. D about birth dates. The DT is desperate and needs every mitigator they can find so they are repeating that she was young at every opportunity.

She indeed does not have any arrests concerning 'criminal history', but people have testified as to her criminal acts that escaped notice by the police. Her history as a 'peeping Tom' (She's a 'peeping JAA'.), her sneaking into Travis' basement and turning off the circuit breakers (He found her there when he went to check the circuit breakers!), her slashing his tires TWICE (and the girl he was seeing once.)and she rung the doorbell each time to inform them that 'I'm here, and you'll soon know I was here.' Her entering his house so many times without his permission. Her stalking Travis, for over a year! She certainly has a criminal 'history'. Even in the 8th grade, her parents caught her and a friend growing marijuana on the roof and called the police. That law does not state 'no criminal CONVICTION'. It says, 'No Criminal HISTORY', which she does have!

And I agree, she was not a girl by years! She was almost 3 decades old.

As to her mental capacities at the time of the ambush and brutal murder...she's been found capable of standing trial or she would not be sitting in the court room in the defendant's chair! She was never mentally incompetent. Its the same as, say, someone who is diagnosed as a 'Pathological liar', but that does not give them a mitigation factor in any way. I can on;y hope there's not one pervert like the first jury foreman who made up his mind when he first saw her that she could not be sentenced to death. He based his decision on his OPINION and not the EVIDENCE in the jury room. And he had the upper hand, because he had managed to get himself elected as FOREMAN of that jury. I've often thought he may have even 'volunteered', since he had his own radio talk show in the area where people would call in and he would debate their opinions on issues. I am convinced that he influenced the other 3 jurors who did not vote death.)
 

KPinMN

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
503
Reaction score
1
I read in the comments on the State vs. Jodi FB page that there is NOT a psychologist on the jury. They are saying that someone on the jury has a MOTHER that is a psychologist but not the person on the jury. Not sure what to think in this trial by tweet.
Also can you picture this trial being gone over in years to come? It's probably one of the first "trial by twitter" and it definitely is trying to be the longest trial ever, and it definitely JMHO has the WORST lawyers ever and the worst defendant ever. And it's one of the first trials I have witnessed that has allowed SO much trashing of the dead victim it is disrespectful and disgusting. A lot of "firsts" in this trial. First trial to ignore the constitution. I am sure there are more.
I do remember hearing that one of the jurors had a parent that's a psychologist or psychiatrist...I'm thinking that's probably the case because if it were an actual psychiatrist or psychcologist I think the DT or less likely the PT would have made a big deal of it.
 

Hope4More

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
13,101
Reaction score
13,476
Juan fought to get in banking information during the trial but it was ruled too prejudicial. She hacked into his accounts. She illegally recorded him. She broke into his house. No one can prove she slit the tires, but most believe she did. She stole his diamond ring and his journals. If Juan could have brought to the jurors all the things she did that would have resulted in a criminal record then they would not have been able to present her as a law abiding citizen. Too bad they did not file all the charges against her before the murder trial. They probably could not.

Our Justice System needs an overhaul!

Virtually all that evidence has been introduced this time around. There have been hacked bank account rumors around since the first trial....not sure if they're true, and don't know how to begin figuring it out without knowing how Travis did his banking.

She isn't a genius hacker. She just snooped and found and/or figured out passwords to his online social accounts. That's pretty different than gaining access to his bank accounts.
 

holidayy

New Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
our Forefathers would cry if they could see this trial,cry I tell ya, plus whoever lies the best is the winner,really! Wow, How do you go from self defense to,oops that didn't work so we will try crazy, In the same darn trial,I am at a loss for any decent words for this trial.
 

Diggin

New Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
True. I believe someone with BPD may use manipulation tactics if they feel perceived abandonment.

ElleElle, or if they feel percieved rejection! In her mind, no one has the right to tell HER they do not want her in their life. On a scale of 1 to 10, she puts herself well above the 10 mark if that means perfection. I am convinced, it would not have mattered if Travis had been a married man. She would have still gone after him. She wanted to share his lifestyle. He was well liked, popular with both sexes, had a good income, a nice 5 bedroom home, he rented out rooms which probably lowered his payments, drove a nice car and traveled. That was what she wanted when she set her sights on Travis Alexander. And it would not have mattered if he was married...she would have merely eliminated the wife to have that kind of lifestyle.
 

Hope4More

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
13,101
Reaction score
13,476
She indeed does not have any arrests concerning 'criminal history', but people have testified as to her criminal acts that escaped notice by the police. Her history as a 'peeping Tom' (She's a 'peeping JAA'.), her sneaking into Travis' basement and turning off the circuit breakers (He found her there when he went to check the circuit breakers!), her slashing his tires TWICE (and the girl he was seeing once.)and she rung the doorbell each time to inform them that 'I'm here, and you'll soon know I was here.' Her entering his house so many times without his permission. Her stalking Travis, for over a year! She certainly has a criminal 'history'. Even in the 8th grade, her parents caught her and a friend growing marijuana on the roof and called the police. That law does not state 'no criminal CONVICTION'. It says, 'No Criminal HISTORY', which she does have!

And I agree, she was not a girl by years! She was almost 3 decades old.

As to her mental capacities at the time of the ambush and brutal murder...she's been found capable of standing trial or she would not be sitting in the court room in the defendant's chair! She was never mentally incompetent. Its the same as, say, someone who is diagnosed as a 'Pathological liar', but that does not give them a mitigation factor in any way. I can on;y hope there's not one pervert like the first jury foreman who made up his mind when he first saw her that she could not be sentenced to death. He based his decision on his OPINION and not the EVIDENCE in the jury room. And he had the upper hand, because he had managed to get himself elected as FOREMAN of that jury. I've often thought he may have even 'volunteered', since he had his own radio talk show in the area where people would call in and he would debate their opinions on issues. I am convinced that he influenced the other 3 jurors who did not vote death.)



She did not turn off his circuit breakers. That was erroneous information reported by Paul Sanders. T did not find her in the basement near circuit breakers. She was in the street level part of his house then fled.
 

geevee

Well-Known Stickie
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
17,320
Reaction score
13,512
I read in the comments on the State vs. Jodi FB page that there is NOT a psychologist on the jury. They are saying that someone on the jury has a MOTHER that is a psychologist but not the person on the jury. Not sure what to think in this trial by tweet.
Also can you picture this trial being gone over in years to come? It's probably one of the first "trial by twitter" and it definitely is trying to be the longest trial ever, and it definitely JMHO has the WORST lawyers ever and the worst defendant ever. And it's one of the first trials I have witnessed that has allowed SO much trashing of the dead victim it is disrespectful and disgusting. A lot of "firsts" in this trial. First trial to ignore the constitution. I am sure there are more.

I imagine once the videos come out we'll be thinking we're watching a whole other trial with only minor resemblances to the tweet trial we've all participated in. :facepalm:
 

ShadyLady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,608
I imagine once the videos come out we'll be thinking we're watching a whole other trial with only minor resemblances to the tweet trial we've all participated in. :facepalm:

I for one am anxious to see Juan in action. Not bored with trial, I want to see justice, just aggravated by Nurmi/wilmot delays and secrecy.
 

Truth Detector

Your Humble Observer
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
0
I imagine once the videos come out we'll be thinking we're watching a whole other trial with only minor resemblances to the tweet trial we've all participated in. :facepalm:

And I imagine there will be a number of video/audio pieces missing.
 

Diggin

New Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
Catching up again.

Wow. Good questions from jury and good answers from Demarte. I think someone on the jury is skilled the same as Demarte to be asking such touch questions. It makes me wonder if the juror was just testing Demarte to see if she knew some of the answers which she did.

Because they didnt ask Nurmis witnesses anything of the sort.

This is Paul Sanders take on yesterday. He writes from the perspective of a former Juror in the Marissa Davault trial. He goes into more specifics of the questions and answers by Dr. DeMarte. I like the way he did that. It gives more insight into the ‘questions’ than the tweets that we get and so appreciate. He tells more of her replies than the tweets, which are wonderful and I don’t know how they keep up as well as they do, but tweets don’t go into specifics like Paul does.

https://www.facebook.com/JuanMartinezProsecutorSupportPage/posts/350629588463957
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top