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

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya:

Just checking back in since it was very strange how court ended this afternoon ...

:waitasec: Well, not really "strange" for this court ... just the "norm" !

So ...

- Any "leaks" as to why Court is cancelled for tomorrow ?

- Any "leaks" as to why JSS questioned each jury individual in chambers ?

:notgood: :notgood: :notgood:

 

[ElleElle]

My thinking is they want to know if they can trust Dr. DM's opinions/conclusions as they may have reason to suspect Fonseca's and Geffner's.

Yes, something as simple as calling her bluff.

I'm more concerned about JSS questioning each juror. Maybe something got leaked out? Maybe a juror did some "googling".

:gaah:

 

[Becky Sharp]

Yes, something as simple as calling her bluff.

I'm more concerned about JSS questioning each juror. Maybe something got leaked out? Maybe a juror did some "googling".

:gaah:

Maybe one of the jurors wrote something inappropriate or troubling for the question box instead of a question?

 

[TexMex]

O/T
If you followed the trial of Robert Durst, there is a great documentary series on HBO. Chapter one aired last night. A dismembered body washes up in Galveston Bay in 2001. Evidence leads to a dingy apartment which is being rented by a "middle aged mute woman". Turns out the "woman" is Robert Durst, a member of one of the wealthiest families in New York City (over $4 billion in real estate in NYC alone). He's on the run after an investigation is renewed into the disappearance of his wife in 1982.
He hires Dick Deguerin and Mike Ramsey, the top defense attorneys in Texas...part two next Sunday.
It's very good

 

[rose222]

:seeya:

Just checking back in since it was very strange how court ended this afternoon ...

:waitasec: Well, not really "strange" for this court ... just the "norm" !

So ...

- Any "leaks" as to why Court is cancelled for tomorrow ?

- Any "leaks" as to why JSS questioned each jury individual in chambers ?

:notgood: :notgood: :notgood:

No news, my friend.

This is very, very hard. I'm surprised that so many of us are still following this never-ever-ever-ending trial.

 

[Hope4More]

My thinking is they want to know if they can trust Dr. DM's opinions/conclusions as they may have reason to suspect Fonseca's and Geffner's.

Yes they may.

Conventional wisdom is that dueling experts cancel each other out. Sadly for JA, if that's what happens, her mitigation case will rest upon a DT computer hack, a faceless annoymous witness whose credibility was demolished, and her own remorseless interrupted day and a half on the stand.

Good luck with that, JA.

 

[casesensitive]

This is a blunt question. Why would the prosecution hire such a young psychologist who had only been licensed to practise four years earlier? Surely JM could have predicted that this would give the DT reason to discredit her. Why take that chance?

As good as Dr. DM is, her years of experience, in comparison to Dr. Geffner, has indeed allowed the DT to capitalize on this.

Unfortunately, imo, the jurors questions about her "stated" experience (before being licensed) and her discrediting Dr. Geffner's testing, wouldn't have been such an "issue" with an older expert with many years of practise.

Anyway, this is something that I was concerned about in the original trial, and although ALV and Samuels were totally discredited, this jury missed how pathetic the DT experts were, despite their years of experience.

 

[ElleElle]

O/T
If you followed the trial of Robert Durst, there is a great documentary series on HBO. Chapter one aired last night. A dismembered body washes up in Galveston Bay. Evidence leads to a dingy apartment which is being rented by a "middle aged mute woman". Turns out the "woman" is Robert Durst, a member of one of the wealthiest families in New York City (over $4 billion in real estate in NYC alone). He's on the run after being charged in the disappearance of his wife.
He hires Dick Deguerin and Mike Ramsey, the top defense attorneys in Texas...part two next Sunday.
It's very good

:wave: I posted this last night! Thanks TexMex. It's on HBO and I a PVR'd it and watching it before bed tonight after Gotham.

 

[ilovewings]

I am not disturbed at all by the juror questions. Nor by DM's responses.

We are here for the pursuit of truth and justice, are we not? I believe DeMarte to be highly qualified in her field and very professional in her testimony. There may be a fact or two that I did not like hearing as it made JA sound more human but, really, I can live with that because it is truly refreshing to see a witness who does not mince words, does not follow a script, and does not say only what she thinks people want to hear. DeMarte says what she believes to be true, period. If her testimony made a juror or two think--really think--about their task at hand, so be it.

I would rather have the murderer sentenced to Life through proper means than sentenced to Death because a prosecution witness was dishonest or biased in their testimony. After all, wasn't such bias our biggest gripe about the defense witnesses?

Arias will never get out of prison alive. At the end of it all, that will be the only thing that matters.

What a great post---thank you---isn't it refreshing to have an expert tell the truth because that is what she is sworn to do

I don't believe JA will get death and i wish this circus of sentencing trial was not happening--- it gives that vile murderer
Everything she craves--THE STAGE

 

[LinasK]

:seeya:

Just checking back in since it was very strange how court ended this afternoon ...

:waitasec: Well, not really "strange" for this court ... just the "norm" !

So ...

- Any "leaks" as to why Court is cancelled for tomorrow ?

- Any "leaks" as to why JSS questioned each jury individual in chambers ?

:notgood: :notgood: :notgood:

Guessing tomorrow is because of whatever affected Wilmott. Maybe she has a funeral to attend. Guessing the jurors asked about something they were not supposed to know about.

 

[little ole me]

Maybe one of the jurors wrote something inappropriate or troubling for the question box instead of a question?

so when the questions go in they do not have to identify who is asking the question?

 

[GigiG]

No, but it did sound like whatever it was it was a shock to her. Someone mentioned she said OMG and JA patted her on the back.

Still, it was unclear from the tweets whether Willmott came back to court after the noon recess. Does anyone know?

 

[LinasK]

What a great post---thank you---isn't it refreshing to have an expert tell the truth because that is what she is sworn to do

I don't believe JA will get death and i wish this circus of sentencing trial was not happening--- it gives that vile murderer
Everything she craves--THE STAGE

I do believe she will get the Death Sentence. Juan is very, very good and I have absolute faith in him, and I trust JSS is doing the right thing.
Although I don't like the victim bashing and dragging others under the bus as well, this is Jodi's last hurrah. And she wasn't too mentally ill to testify on the stand for 18 days the last time.:twocents:

 

[LinasK]

Still, it was unclear from the tweets whether Willmott came back to court after the noon recess. Does anyone know?

Doesn't sound like she did. Noone reported seeing her there.

 

[AngelWings444]

This is a blunt question. Why would the prosecution hire such a young psychologist who had only been licensed to practise four years earlier? Surely JM could have predicted that this would give the DT reason to discredit her. Why take that chance?

As good as Dr. DM is, her years of experience, in comparison to Dr. Geffner, has indeed allowed the DT to capitalize on this.

Unfortunately, imo, the jurors questions about her "stated" experience (before being licensed) and her discrediting Dr. Geffner's testing, wouldn't have been such an "issue" with an older expert with many years of practise.

Anyway, this is something that I was concerned about in the original trial, and although ALV and Samuels were totally discredited, this jury missed how pathetic the DT experts were, despite their years of experience.

You have to start somewhere and Dr. D is very good! 4 years of experience plus 4 years of working under somebody else, not too shabby. She certainly comes across better than the hired guns. There is not another Dr. who could have done better in this case, IMHO. She is very, very professional. Personally, if we had someone like Geff, Samuels or ALV, I would not like it at all. JA is getting a fair shake, by a professional. Let the cards fall where they may.

 

[Diggin]

This is interesting. If you scroll down, an analysis is given for each 'expert witness' and their performance as 'experts'. The whole article is interesting, but its nice to see it written out what they did right OR wrong.

The Jodi Arias Trial, A Case Study in Experts, Witness …or Witless?
http://www.a2lc.com/blog/bid/64719/The-Jodi-Arias-Trial-A-Case-Study-in-Experts-Witness-or-Witless

 

[LinasK]

This is a blunt question. Why would the prosecution hire such a young psychologist who had only been licensed to practise four years earlier? Surely JM could have predicted that this would give the DT reason to discredit her. Why take that chance?

As good as Dr. DM is, her years of experience, in comparison to Dr. Geffner, has indeed allowed the DT to capitalize on this.

Unfortunately, imo, the jurors questions about her "stated" experience (before being licensed) and her discrediting Dr. Geffner's testing, wouldn't have been such an "issue" with an older expert with many years of practise.

Anyway, this is something that I was concerned about in the original trial, and although ALV and Samuels were totally discredited, this jury missed how pathetic the DT experts were, despite their years of experience.

BBM. Because she's very very good. She held her own. And years of experience sometimes mean you are out-of-date in your field. Just look at ALV's outdated beliefs for example. As for me personally, I'd rather go to a brand new grad out of medical school, current on the latest knowledge, than some old coot who started practicing in the days of Louis Pasteur. Juan knew to expect this.

 

[Truth Detector]

Maybe one of the jurors wrote something inappropriate or troubling for the question box instead of a question?

Or perhaps they were very good questions, but JSKS sustained the DT's objections thereto.

For example:

"Dr. DeMarte, does the killer appear to derive pleasure from her recollections of the murder details? Would euphoric be too strong a term to describe this pleasure?"

"Dr. DeMarte, are you familiar with the term psychological projection? Based on your professional experience, what meaning do you attach to Mr. Nurmi's apoplexy when he screams the phrase, "Lying to the Lord"?

"Dr. DeMarte, in your professional opinion, how many times is Arias likely to murder again over the next decade?"

 

[TexMex]

:wave: I posted this last night! Thanks TexMex. It's on HBO and I a PVR'd it and watching it before bed tonight after

I just watched the replay. It was a good trial.

Deguerin is a legend in Houston and Ramsey is top shelf. Chip Lewis was on the team too and he's no slouch.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/verdict

Durst ran after he posted bail in Galveston and was arrested in PA after he shoplifted a chicken salad sandwich from a grocery store. He had $500 in his pocket and $39,000 in the trunk of his car :thinking:

 

[GigiG]

This is interesting. If you scroll down, an analysis is given for each 'expert witness' and their performance as 'experts'. The whole article is interesting, but its nice to see it written out what they did right OR wrong.

The Jodi Arias Trial, A Case Study in Experts, Witness …or Witless?
http://www.a2lc.com/blog/bid/64719/The-Jodi-Arias-Trial-A-Case-Study-in-Experts-Witness-or-Witless

I'd have to say that's a fair assessment of the expert witnesses in this case. Let's hope the jury sees things the same way.