02-14-2015, 03:34 AM
The jury has been instructed that they must accept this was a premeditated murder.
So when I think of premeditated, I think of Arias admitting to the jurors that she lied to cover up her crime - but is that the same as admitting to premeditation? I don't believe it is, because she denied that...strike one. I'm grateful that the first jury didn't accept her web of lies during testimony - to which Arias had stated she was now telling the truth. "He attacked me (pause) and I defended myself." This phase however, the same reasoning is being used, she committed a crime because......
This "secret testimony" now coming to light appears cloaked, you'd think Arias would be her best defense in mitigation since no one else can vouch for her - fail. Strike two. To me, it seems more like an allocution, a slow regurgitation of non-facts, as they're not related to premeditation as much as they're relateable to an excuse for the heinous act of slaughtering Travis.
I don't see one question by Willmott nor Nurmi, leading Arias to speak of sincere remorse. That says to me there isn't any reason for her to be sorry even though she's capable of mimicking that response - because, after all, have pity, there are justifications for her actions - says the defense and Arias. They continued to lead her down the path she chose and try as I might, I cannot fathom the defense team believed her about anything and if they did...strike three. I've often wondered why her defense didn't forgo the obvious, lie after lie after lie...and advise their client at the onset to plea life, without chance for parole. Death, potentially, now looms at her door.
It all seems in vain now - filing after filing for mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct and demands to remove the death penalty from the table, citations without clear and convincing facts in law and with only one motive at the forefront, to remove the death penalty - it seems more on a personal level than where the law stands at this time in the state of Arizona. She was justifiably convicted.
The death penalty, by the way, is on the ballot to be abolished in AZ, it will be voted on during the general elections this year. With the new governor, Doug Ducey, it's anyone's guess whether somewhere down the road he would commute Arias' sentence if she receives death. He's Roman Catholic with several ties in the community and local organizations. He's also the former State Treasurer and former founder and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery. Presently, the state is in financial straights, Ducey is looking to rob Peter to pay Paul in every corner that he can. That means cuts. The state has not revealed their costs but we do know the defense has netted some serious money as the penalty phase appears to be nearing the same amount of time that the trial lasted.
I found it interesting that Arpaio endorsed Ducey, as did Jan Brewer...along with some heavy hitters out of Florida. So it remains to be seen where Ducey's loyalty resides. Personally, I could not find a single mention of Ducey's position on the death penalty. The ADPIC of course took notice of Zervakos' opinion on the death penalty during his interview with the Arizona Republic and one of my least favorites, Keifer who reports for the AZR. His dissertation last year on the DP and dislike for Juan Martinez and overall office of the prosecutor is no surprise. Misconduct was a running theme throughout his lengthy article.
I don't believe anything about Arias' testimony regarding her parents and their "drug" preferences. In fact, when Flores did the interview with Arias' father, I was taken by this one statement, which I'm paraphrasing; 'she would yell at my wife.' I saw that as her parents being united, not against Arias, but because of her behaviors. Especially her lying, deceptions, secrecy and tendency to violent outbursts. I think they were afraid of her on some level. I don't believe Arias has been 'normal' for a long time. It's anyone's guess, but I'm thinking since early childhood.
I do have empathy for Arias' family, though like a lot of dysfunctional environments, the results are the consequences that often play out in the worst possible scenarios. Listening to Arias' mother during the interview with Flores, her disbelief in Arias' behavior when she returned home said a lot to me. It does boggle the mind that Arias' display was one of having had a good time - and the chilling interaction of their having gotten along better than they ever had before. It's sad.
I actually feel there's a lot more about each boyfriend Arias was with, and this is just a personal opinion, but I think Arias had something on each one that she held over their heads to use against them should she need to at any time. Could this possibly get any worse as we get further into her secret testimony? Seems to me, the chaos, drama and financial upheavals individuals faced after encountering Arias were enough to make anyone run for their life. Travis wasn't fortunate enough.
I'm also thinking about the allocution, whether Arias will take advantage of this because what I do find laughable is that Nurmi defends "mental illness" as reasoning for Arias not returning to the stand to testify...what are the jurors left with to imagine... that her allocution will somehow sound rational and sane? I think Nurmi chewed off the rest of his remaining foot with that premature comment. It will be interesting to see if Arias does present her allocution.
So when I think of premeditated, I think of Arias admitting to the jurors that she lied to cover up her crime - but is that the same as admitting to premeditation? I don't believe it is, because she denied that...strike one. I'm grateful that the first jury didn't accept her web of lies during testimony - to which Arias had stated she was now telling the truth. "He attacked me (pause) and I defended myself." This phase however, the same reasoning is being used, she committed a crime because......
This "secret testimony" now coming to light appears cloaked, you'd think Arias would be her best defense in mitigation since no one else can vouch for her - fail. Strike two. To me, it seems more like an allocution, a slow regurgitation of non-facts, as they're not related to premeditation as much as they're relateable to an excuse for the heinous act of slaughtering Travis.
I don't see one question by Willmott nor Nurmi, leading Arias to speak of sincere remorse. That says to me there isn't any reason for her to be sorry even though she's capable of mimicking that response - because, after all, have pity, there are justifications for her actions - says the defense and Arias. They continued to lead her down the path she chose and try as I might, I cannot fathom the defense team believed her about anything and if they did...strike three. I've often wondered why her defense didn't forgo the obvious, lie after lie after lie...and advise their client at the onset to plea life, without chance for parole. Death, potentially, now looms at her door.
It all seems in vain now - filing after filing for mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct and demands to remove the death penalty from the table, citations without clear and convincing facts in law and with only one motive at the forefront, to remove the death penalty - it seems more on a personal level than where the law stands at this time in the state of Arizona. She was justifiably convicted.
The death penalty, by the way, is on the ballot to be abolished in AZ, it will be voted on during the general elections this year. With the new governor, Doug Ducey, it's anyone's guess whether somewhere down the road he would commute Arias' sentence if she receives death. He's Roman Catholic with several ties in the community and local organizations. He's also the former State Treasurer and former founder and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery. Presently, the state is in financial straights, Ducey is looking to rob Peter to pay Paul in every corner that he can. That means cuts. The state has not revealed their costs but we do know the defense has netted some serious money as the penalty phase appears to be nearing the same amount of time that the trial lasted.
I found it interesting that Arpaio endorsed Ducey, as did Jan Brewer...along with some heavy hitters out of Florida. So it remains to be seen where Ducey's loyalty resides. Personally, I could not find a single mention of Ducey's position on the death penalty. The ADPIC of course took notice of Zervakos' opinion on the death penalty during his interview with the Arizona Republic and one of my least favorites, Keifer who reports for the AZR. His dissertation last year on the DP and dislike for Juan Martinez and overall office of the prosecutor is no surprise. Misconduct was a running theme throughout his lengthy article.
I don't believe anything about Arias' testimony regarding her parents and their "drug" preferences. In fact, when Flores did the interview with Arias' father, I was taken by this one statement, which I'm paraphrasing; 'she would yell at my wife.' I saw that as her parents being united, not against Arias, but because of her behaviors. Especially her lying, deceptions, secrecy and tendency to violent outbursts. I think they were afraid of her on some level. I don't believe Arias has been 'normal' for a long time. It's anyone's guess, but I'm thinking since early childhood.
I do have empathy for Arias' family, though like a lot of dysfunctional environments, the results are the consequences that often play out in the worst possible scenarios. Listening to Arias' mother during the interview with Flores, her disbelief in Arias' behavior when she returned home said a lot to me. It does boggle the mind that Arias' display was one of having had a good time - and the chilling interaction of their having gotten along better than they ever had before. It's sad.
I actually feel there's a lot more about each boyfriend Arias was with, and this is just a personal opinion, but I think Arias had something on each one that she held over their heads to use against them should she need to at any time. Could this possibly get any worse as we get further into her secret testimony? Seems to me, the chaos, drama and financial upheavals individuals faced after encountering Arias were enough to make anyone run for their life. Travis wasn't fortunate enough.
I'm also thinking about the allocution, whether Arias will take advantage of this because what I do find laughable is that Nurmi defends "mental illness" as reasoning for Arias not returning to the stand to testify...what are the jurors left with to imagine... that her allocution will somehow sound rational and sane? I think Nurmi chewed off the rest of his remaining foot with that premature comment. It will be interesting to see if Arias does present her allocution.