Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Oct 30, 2014.
Please continue to post here for the weekend.
Retrial date for Day 6 - Thursday, October 30, 2014 :websleuther:
Thread #6 (day 2)
Day 6, Part 1
I have several questions?
1. how will this affect closing statements.
2. if the defense had some super secret witness to something about Travis, wouldn't they have brought him/her into play during the actual guilt trial?
3. is it possible this is the person the defense claimed was afraid of threats to their life?
Here's a list of POSSIBLE individuals compiled from the previous thread who may be the "Mystery Witness" :
Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias
An Immediate Family Member : Mother, Father, Sister, Brother
The "elderly gentleman" who was in court today
An "unknown expert"
An "unknown individual"
And Finally: "a ninja, skateboarding Mormon Starbucks barista with a part time job at Wal Mart in cosmetology school"
Please feel free to add to the list if I missed anyone !
Either Team Jodi hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect, or they have and are trying to use it to their advantage somehow.
What a shocking day, but then again, what else should we expect these days. :banghead:
Lambchop, I love new threads, thanks!
Today, 08:59 PM#1178
Join DateJan 2009Posts64
Very disappointed that Nancy Grace did not even mention the re-trial at all tonight..not one word!
Maybe Drew will..up next
Brought the above over from last thread. OT, but Nancy did do a segment on a missing 22 yr. old from my general neighborhood. No loud shouting, gave a lot of good facts. I don't usually like her show, but this was appreciated a lot. (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-22-Frenchtown-Township-26-October-2014/page3)
I want to stop reading, but this case today has me so puzzled that I can't stay away. I hope we hear something over the weekend about the "secret witness" and media request. We can speculate until the cows come home, but I really, really want more transparency.
Good questions. JMO and Ill take a shot at them.
1-The affect on closing was what I bet the judge did not even consider. This decision could have very serious effects on this whole trial now.
I think it was wrong in the first place to not allow videos just like the first trial. Why do things differently and give the defense an argument that the 1st trial should not have had videos either. The judge could have/should have allowed video of the trial just like first phase because of the public's interest in the case. Public has a right to see the trial and video is not different than being present in a seat IMO.
Its only the jury that has to be directed to avoid media and discussions about the case.
Again, no different than other trials, so it should not be treated differently.
Judge could have sequestered the jury if she was so worried about stuff. Instead, she is sequestering the public.
2-Right, which is why I think the witness will be totally lying on the stand. Which is why it is even more important that the public gets to hear what is being said. Someone in the public may recognize they are lying and have PROOF of it being a lie.
Without being able to see or hear, the public is not able to uncover what could be outright lies from witness. And which could have resulted in perjury charges against the lying witness.
3-Yes, its possible. Although I think those "threats" were probably nothing more than internet gossip that the defense was trying to make a big deal over. Heck, I think Jodi herself threatened Juan's life according to a jail mate of Jodis if I am not mistaken.
Wasn't there a psy witness who wanted to testify under a pseudonym?
How about either 1 or both of that "couple" that testified during the 1st trial and were considered to be on Jodi's side. Remember, the male person who seemed to think of Travis in the same vein as Jodi did, and his girlfriend.
If the attorneys for the media get JSS' decision overturned and get the witness' name made public and maybe even the transcript of testimony, that would be textbook Streisand Effect.
I personally can't blame this witness wanting to remain anonymous. The torches and pitchforks that come out for any Tweet with the #jodiarias hashtag are really scary, IMO. What happened to ALV (don't get me wrong, I am not an ALV fan) should never happen to anyone.
I am sorry, but I don't remember who this person was ...
Maybe someone out there can help ?
Yes, I remember but I can't remember their names ...
Maybe someone out there can help ?
The harmless short Mexican man who gave her a ride so she can eat some pancakes and Travis was fuming with jealousy when he heard about it.
Well, no, people were posting bad reviews of her book on Amazon.com and phoning her office and so forth. It may not have really been credible death threats, but still.
I have my giant grain of salt handy here, but I can imagine even the chicken bone message being kinda upsetting.
Which is even more important not to allow secrecy because everyone will want the same benefit. The whole rest of the trial defense witnesses will want the same thing, and once she makes this exception, then any other witnesses will be able to ask for same privilege.
I would want to remain anonymous even if the trial was over stolen candy from a candy store. It is not uncommon to not want to get on the stand in a jury trial.
I think the short Mexican man drove a wrecker and Jodi wanted him to go out of his way for her to get pancakes. She was on her way to Travis's memorial and blew a tire.
Yes, that's true. And as someone commented in the previous thread, people have testified in mafia trials. Yep. You're right.
Maybe Jodi will fess up and tell the REAL story.
I can't picture anyone else.
Cheryl Karps. They (DT) wanted her brief sealed. There was a motion in Feb - I think - but I don't know what happened with the motion.
seems odd the motion would name her when she didn't want to use her real name? I'll try to find it in court records...don't hold your breath - i'm not too good at finding these things
Cheryl Karp. A motion was filed so she could testify under a pseudonym which was granted. She had interviewed CMJA earlier in her 6 years in jail.
Separate names with a comma.