The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #18 *ADULT CONTENT*

[Boodles]

Drew is just jealous cuz HunkaHunka Mark does a much better job interviewing guests than Drew and his co-anchors. Last night I was screaming at my TV, "Shut up Drew and let Mark question this guy!!"

But I think Drew is absolutely frustrated by the "co-hosts" who seem to have been thrust upon him against his will. He's become so cranky since these women have appeared. And these women are annoying, constantly talking over others.

I don't normally watch him. When did the guest cohost women come along?

 

[Linda7NJ]

:what: I don't know about you guys,,,,,but if it were not for the camera in the courtroom, I would have a very skewed view of what went on based on the coverage on Jane VM and Nancy G.

(What happened to Jean C??? It's like she is on the DT payroll.)

Huge waste watching these shows, mostly.

jmo

That's why I never watch, I record dr drew to fast forward to mark.... Then I shut it off!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

I think even her defense attorneys knew they had been had and believed Jodi's lies. They withdrew because they knew they cant put in forged documents.

I hope they do come in at the sentencing phase though. It will let the jury know what lengths she went to in order to tarnish Travis trying to get away with murder.

IMO

^ That

 

[gitana1]

I really hope you are right. However, if/when she does testify, Websleuths will probably crash!

I;m actually terrified that she will. I think sociopaths are very adept at charming people. It can take months or years to figure out they are not who they claim to be. I do NOT want her to testify.

I really don't know. That's why I'm extremely interested in this part of the case. I searched the minute entries and found only that the motion to exclude them was granted because it was withdrawn. Assuming they're the same letter(s) though, then why were they allowed at the hearing at all and why is Nurmi saying an expert has said they were likely written by Travis. Like I said, I've never seen a case where the court excluded evidence where experts disagreed over its validity unless there was some other reason to exclude it (btw, I realize the jury wasn't there -- undue prejudice was just an example)

The letters are not in evidence at all. However, they were referenced at a hearing regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Those are two different issues. They were referenced in an attempt to impeach Chris Hughes, IIRC, not as evidence of something Travis may have written. The context is totally different.

 

[Karmady]

Incorrect. And Nurmi did not say that a letter about Travis' deviant sexual proclivities was determined by an expert to have been probably written by Travis.

Nurmi said, "did you know that an expert determined that "this" was probably authored by Travis" or words to that effect ..For all we know he could have been holding a Mother's Day card Travis sent his mum 7 years ago.

Attorneys play tricks like that, especially when the cameras are rolling.

okay...agree to disagree. I'd bet a million dollars that's not what happened.

 

[PASA]

I really hope you are right. However, if/when she does testify, Websleuths will probably crash!

We're gonna need a bigger server. LOL!

 

[LotusPawprint]

Just wanted to say thank you for so perfectly and respectfully articulating the above view. IMO you have explained perfectly how many feel, view, and exactly why or where that view or opinion originated.

IMO the notion of many of us, strong, proud, intelligent, and caring women of all different ages and walks of life to be painted with a broad brush a color that in truth does not even begin to match with what many have expressed and articulated throughout this trial about both the victim and defendant being inappropriate, uncalled for, and even hateful is just not even near factual.. not even near the truth of what and why our opinions and views are and continue to be expressed.

Of course its to each our own in what we feel, think, opine, or state about this defendant and the route in which SHE, AND SHE ALONE is choosing to present as the just cause for her slaughtering a man who had an entire life left to live, who had a magnetism within himself that people literally were drawn to(both male and female), who was striving to find his path in life of being the best man he could be in all aspects, with Mormonism being important to him, and his learning how to incorporate all of these aspects into himself and the life he was striving towards making for himself.

Was Travis the perfect Godly man? No, and to my knowledge he, nor anyone else has ever claimed that he was such.. Travis was nothing more than a human being, a young man trying to figure out that perfect balance of all aspects incorporated into his life..with his religion being of great importance in finding the perfect fit for making it a personal priority in his life.

For a young man with charisma and personality to which women were drawn to and to which he enjoyed, for him to be attempted to be painted with the brush that he was an abusive monster and sexual deviant is THE ROUTE IN WHICH ARIAS HAS CHOSEN!.. and she's done a piss poor job of in any way whatsoever fleshing out this evil persona she's created of the victim..

While on the other hand again it is SHE, AND SHE ALONE whose chosen a complete opposite brush of which to paint herself as a delicate, virginal, naive victim of the evil persona AKA the real victim, Travis.. and has done a piss poor job as well in her attempt at painting this false version of herself..

These choices by JODI ARIAS have backfired on her and the truth has fortunately emerged thru any of the BS she's attempted to sell.. That truth showing and IMO proving much the opposite of what she attempted to paint in truth being she is the evil, sexual deviant who very much used sex, sex, and more sex as her main weapons against men, specifically the victim, Travis.

It is she who has brought forth the entire prevalent issue regarding SEX.. and IMO any/all opinions and views expressed toward her and her use of sex are obviously and only directed at Jodi Arias!. IMO that has been crystal clear and IMO impossible to misconstrue or be interpreted toward ANY OTHER FEMALE IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD...IMO ITS STRICTLY DUE TO JODI, AND JODI ALONE as to why there is even a sexual component involved for us to even have as a topic of discussion.

WITHOUT JODI ARIAS THERE WOULD BE NO SEXUAL COMPONENT TO BE DISCUSSED.<<--This point alone is the only proof necessary to clearly define the who/what/why there is even the "sexual" discussion.

And just to be clear I personally don't believe that there is anything to be "shamed" regarding sex, sexual activity, sexual preferences, etc..

THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ME IS WHEN SEX IS USED TO HARM, HURT, MANIPULATE OTHERS!..and without doubt its exactly that, that Jodi Arias has done!

All jmo.

I really REALLY like how you articulated this, you completely took my thoughts and spun them into something that reads much clearer! Especially the BBM, you got to the heart of the issue IMO. Darn you're good ! :great:

 

[kkdj]

11 men on the jury? Just heard it on Dr Drew.

Remember there's 6 alternates so we don't know yet the ratio that will be deliberating. Right?

 

[Love Never Fails]

I have been a jury coordinator for sequestered juries where the death penalty was possible. It was a unique experience that will always mean alot to me. Viewing juries from the outside is different from getting to be with them 24/7. I was in charge of their hotels, meals, entertainment. After listening to disturbing testimony all day, it is important for juries to get a break. You can't get a fair verdict if you have a strung out, irritable jury. One thing I learned from watching my juries was this - it is easy (relatively easy) for most of us to say we are for or against the death penalty when asked as potential jurors. Virtually everyone knows where they stand on that. On the juries I served with, people were not picked to serve if they could not at least consider the death penalty an option - meaning that they were not picked if they would ALWAYS vote no on the death penalty no matter what the evidence or how heinous the crime. So, my juries had 100% members who said they could at least consider the option if the evidence warranted it. Despite that fact, as I watched my juries, I learned that it was an entirely different thing, no matter how heinous the crime, to be one of twelve people basically putting someone to death. A person who is "for" the death penalty and could sit watching a trial on TV, begging for the death penalty, could have a very, very difficult time when they were asked to be the one to sign someone's death warrant. Basically, each juror always could feel that if he/she held out, the defendant would not die. To take that further, a jury member often feels the very personal weight of deciding whether someone should die. Those people who find the crime so heinous are then put in a position to exact justice by killing someone else.

It is interesting to watch. I was never in jury deliberations and my jurors always followed the rules and did not talk about the case (that was part of my job to make sure of that). But, over time, I could see their personalities. By watching them, I could see the weight over them. I could see how careful they were to follow the rules and how carefully they listened to the evidence.

It was one of the highlights of my career to get to work with sequestered juries. But, since that time, I have become much more compassionate for what individual jurors go through. To find someone guilty based on evidence is one thing. But, the penalty phase brings an entirely different responsibility which, I believe, is acutely felt by anyone who takes their responsibility seriously as a juror.

I am not offering this for debate - whether it is right or wrong - or whether that should be the case in this case or not. But, I am mindful that as I sit here feeling like I know what the penalty should be, that there are 12 people sitting there who, if they find her guilty, will have an awful weight on their shoulders if they ultimately reach the question of whether JA should be put to death.

Since that time, I have felt great respect and tremendous compassion for how jurors lives are altered by seeing these pictures, listening to this evidence, and having the weight of it all on them at the end of the trial. It is a tremendous responsibility. And, I am fortunate to have been blessed by working with jurors who took those responsibilities very seriously.

Thank you. It must be extremely hard for them. I have said she is guilty, in my opinion, of first degree, felony murder and deserves what she gets. However, to be in the jury room, life without possibility of parole would be fine with me. I am always hopeful someone will repent of what they have done. But I also feel she should never be around another human being, even in jail, and be allowed to possibly hurt them too. Must be an awful weight on the jury! Agree with your post.

 

[Karmady]

I;m actually terrified that she will. I think sociopaths are very adept at charming people. It can take months or years to figure out they are not who they claim to be. I do NOT want her to testify.



The letters are not in evidence at all. However, they were referenced at a hearing regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Those are two different issues. They were referenced in an attempt to impeach Chris Hughes, IIRC, not as evidence of something Travis may have written. The context is totally different.

Agree that they're two totally different contexts. But, nonetheless, I think the context is irrelevant to my questions. Which are (1) do you think that Nurmi referenced letters at an evidentiary hearing which were previously found by the court to be phony and excluded on that basis (which I seriously doubt) and/or (2) do you think that Nurmi doesn't have an expert report that says they're likely legit and disagree that the court would NEVER exclude evidence with conflicting expert reports in a capital case unless there was some other reason?

Thanks, gitana. I appreciate your input and please take these questions in the spirit they are asked. I'm sincere in my belief that there's something going on with the letter(s)

 

[thefragile7393]

But I think Drew is absolutely frustrated by the "co-hosts" who seem to have been thrust upon him against his will. He's become so cranky since these women have appeared. And these women are annoying, constantly talking over others.

I don't normally watch him. When did the guest cohost women come along?

I loved him on loveline with Adam Corolla. He's jumped the shark so many times since then

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PASA]

And CourtTV was around.....I didn't appreciate their coverage enough when they were not TruTV

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

I miss the old Court TV.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I;m actually terrified that she will. I think sociopaths are very adept at charming people. It can take months or years to figure out they are not who they claim to be. I do NOT want her to testify.


I can understand your fear of that. I think it is just my personal faith/trust in JM that makes me feel comfortable with her testifying and JM just pointing out every lie...every one of them! I do agree with you though that people like Jodi are very dangerous indeed....in many ways.

 

[kscornfed]

Yes, and so does the prosecution pay for their opinions. That said, being a verified attorney, would you not agree that where there are competing experts reaching opposite conclusions about the authenticity of documents, especially in a death penalty case, that the court allows the trier of fact to decide? And wouldn't you also agree that if the court has already ruled that the letters are "phony," Nurmi would not have mentioned the letter, much less brought it up in open court at the evidentiary hearing?

Imo, something's up with that letter.

Wasn't it the FBI who said they were fake?

 

[human]

I am confused.

There are the letters that were penned by Jodi showing that TA was a pedo. Wasn't she in jail when those showed up?

Wasn't Chris Hughes questioned about some emails?

To me those are totally different things.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Gotta love this place! Only here can regular folk disagree with professionals and actually feel like they are right!

 

[thefragile7393]

Thank you. It must be extremely hard for them. I have said she is guilty, in my opinion, of first degree, felony murder and deserves what she gets. However, to be in the jury room, life without possibility of parole would be fine with me. I am always hopeful someone will repent of what they have done. But I also feel she should never be around another human being, even in jail, and be allowed to possibly hurt them too. Must be an awful weight on the jury! Agree with your post.

sociopaths and true psychopaths aren't capable of full remorse. They first have to experience emotions like a normal person....and it isn't going to happen. Ted Bundy, Diane Downs, Scott Peterson, OJ, Casey Anthony, John Gacy, Richard Ramirez, Betty Broderick, Drew Peterson......JA belongs among them. And they have no real souls at all.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[human]

I am confused.

There are the letters that were penned by Jodi showing that TA was a pedo. Wasn't she in jail when those showed up?

Wasn't Chris Hughes questioned about some emails?

To me those are totally different things.

 

[LaneGirl]

Remember there's 6 alternates so we don't know yet the ratio that will be deliberating. Right?

Right they are chosen by lot just before deliberation. I didn't know that when I posted the above.

 

[Karmady]

Wasn't it the FBI who said they were fake?

I don't know who said they were fake, but I'm assuming the State's expert whoever that might be, including possibly the FBI, said so. My point is that Nurmi wouldn't be standing up there in front of the court referencing documents in an evidentiary hearing that were previously ruled to be fake by the court OR lying about whether he had an expert report to the contrary when the court clearly would have seen the expert reports and been acutely aware of the ruling, if not having made it herself.