Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #10

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by samspace070:
"You are the second person today that described this monster perfectly. Kim Anne Whittemore, wrote an e-book about her and she describes her as average looking woman who knew how to use blond hair dye, breast implants, cosmetics and sexual acrobatics for maximum effect. Unlike the mass media portraying her as a beautiful photographer and bomb shell beauty, she was just a 32 year old average looking part time waitress from Yreka, CA that liked to take pictures of herself and edit them."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a perfect description. She is what my guy friends back in the college days would have called a "miler". She looks good from a mile away.

Or as I used to say, "good looking from a-far, but far from good looking".
 
beautiful pic :)

on the subject of the heat in PV:

CMJA should have little or no trouble dealing with the heat for two reasons,
1. she testified she had no trouble sleeping day or night in a car or UHall parked on the shoulder of a highway deep in the desert. Testifying to doing this on several occasions including the first week of June!

2. I strongly believe she is part lizard. lol Not trying to give lizards a bad name simply that her behavior can be characterized like that of a non human creature.

That whole story about sleeping on the side of the road always bothered me but perhaps someone more familiar with desert conditions can help me out. thanks.

Hmm, Arias testified to something and you believe her, why?

I think she will miss air conditioning very much- here in her own words:

ac.png

I do recognize the irony of me using her own words, because truly, nothing that she says or writes can be trusted to be the truth.
 
I, too, was trying to figure out the thinking behind swamp coolers. Coming from an area where summers are very hot and humid, I don't see how they can possibly do much to relieve the heat. Around here, 95 degrees and 90% humidity is really oppressive. Thus the saying, "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."

Water molecules HOLD heat. In the winter, I often leave a pot of water on the stove to keep the house warmer.

I guess I just don't fully understand arid conditions...

And here in Arizona the saying is "Yeah but it's a DRY heat" IMO, when it gets over a 100 or below zero you can't tell the difference. If it's over 100 it's just too darn hot! Same with below zero. I can't tell the difference between zero and 20 below. It's just freaking cold.
 
Does anyone think that if Travis was not LDS they would happily ever after?

*Random thought*
You are kidding, right? If it is a serious question..... the answer to any question that begins with
"If Travis" is rather easy.
No. Not at all. Mormonism is not what was wrong. Jodi Arias is what was wrong. She is a convicted murderer. She abused and likely killed animals dating back to childhood. According to her babysitter she was a bad seed and physically abusive to her little brother. It was so extreme the sitter could not leave Jodi alone in a room with the boy for fear of how badly she'd hurt him. She has been a complete jerk to her mother, even physically hitting her according to the records. She has had mental problems all of her life by all accounts. Her defense team had seven long years and they could not find ONE person willing to take the stand to vouch for her character. She was very likely about to go kill others with the Glock she had hidden in her rental car, along with huge knives. She is not even remotely sorry for the murder. One can discern that from the vile letter she wrote the family full of lies and by what she has done to try to hurt Travis' legacy, his family and Deanna for the last seven years. She lies and cheats and steals other people's thoughts and blogs and art and tries to present these as her own. There is not one redeeming quality in her. One could search high and one could search low.....there is none. Even the people fighting for her very life will stand in front of a jury and say "I don't like Jodi Arias". Her brothers and sisters have admitted in interviews with her doctors that she is a liar, manipulative, rude, not liked, or trusted. Her childhood friend describes her as "Someone who likes to play the victim". Her former lovers describe her as "volatile, bi-polar, suicidal, unhealthy, insecure, clingly........."
There is nothing that was ever going to make Jodi Arias into someone who Travis Alexander could love. SHE WAS THE PROBLEM. Jodi Arias would have been who she is no matter what religion Travis was, or even if he had none at all.

Jodi Arias would never be someone he liked, trusted and respected once her mask fell to the floor and he realized she was just pretending to , in her own words, "mirror and match" what she thought he wanted her to be.

When you look at the women Travis did love and respect like
Deanna
Linda
Lisa
Marie
you see he wanted someone he could aspire to be proud of, that was never going to be Jodi Arias. Not as LDS, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy....Jodi Arais was never going to be someone he would want long term. She has no value as person. We all know that. He had come to understand that even the great sex was not worth the torture having someone evil in his life was. He would have came to that same realization had he been Jewish, Catholoc or Agnostic. She wasn't bright, charming, inspiring or beautiful in any way that she thought or believed. She only tried to pretend to be.

She chased vampires and studied the occult with Bobby, she slept in tents and tried to be bohemian with Matt, with Daryl she played Suzie suburban, with Travis it was Molly Mormon. With the next guy it would have been whatever she thought he wanted. Travis would have figured her out, in time, regardless of his religion. Every other man in her life sure did. Despite her doing whatever they wanted....in the end they did not want her. Let that be your guide.

Not only would they not have been happily ever after, it is quite the opposite.....if Travis didn't think of sex as taboo as he did, I think he would have been done with the forbidden fruit rather quickly. She would have been forgotten as fast as the name of a stripper at a bachelor party in Vegas.
 
Doubtful that Arias spent time reading anything except fashion mags. Diane Downs used the "bushy haired stranger on a dark road" excuse, not ninjas. In her case Diane Downs oldest daughter, who survived being shot, along with her brother, testified that it was her mother who shot her. Kinda hard to get around that one when one or more of your victims are left alive and able to tell the jury it was you, while on the stand.








Downs is more similar to Susan Smith than Arias, in that she wanted to get rid of her kids to try and capture a man who apparently was not interested in children, with whom she was having an affair with. Same motive as Susan Smith.

Her crime was similar to Susan Smiths just as you say but when you hear her talk she sounds just like JA. She twists everything that is asked of her and she invents stories. She told the police that it was a bushy haired stranger at first, then said it was two masked men (ninja's) then even tried to implicate her ex husband. That is what I was talking about. The videos of this woman are on YouTube.
 
Hmm, Arias testified to something and you believe her, why?

I think she will miss air conditioning very much- here in her own words:

View attachment 72803

I do recognize the irony of me using her own words, because truly, nothing that she says or writes can be trusted to be the truth.

hahahaha you hit the nail right on the head.

Last night I decided to investigate all of ALV testimony and found it to be sad and frustrating. Finding an expert witness so lacking in judgement and professionalism was shocking. She denied a pattern of lies in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary, relying instead on the 44hours of contact with CMJA never realizing that she was being manipulated like so many others including TA.

I find Juan Martinez fascinating for his strategy, word usage, tenacity, and single minded devotion to exposing the true nature of the murderer and the crime.
Although at first he scared me! lol. I had never seen such kinetic energy in any other prosecutor, and I've seen loads of them. JM's use of his body, hands, motion, and vocal inflection was mesmerizing.
 
I went and Googled that book and it does sound interesting and I remember something about that case. Unfortunately reading the reviews let me know the outcome and also that Bugliosi worked at defending one of the accused which puts me off a little, especially knowing that outcome is not one I think I would find satisfying. I also agree with one of the reviewer's that he has a huge ego. I loved (not quite the right word I know) Helter Skelter when I first read it and have re-read it since. There's a recent biography of Manson that is also a good read. Though I don't subscribe to the 'my awful upbringing made me do it', he had an awful and very sad childhood. Wooden spoons have nothing on it. Further/later reading convinced me that 'helter skelter' wasn't the motive at all. Used to galvanise the more impressionable followers for sure, but the real reason IMO is much more ordinary - plain old bitterness.

I'm making my way through some anthologies of the best American crime writing, which is where I read that Trial by Fire that I mentioned in an earlier post. Just finished a story on the Beslan school siege in Russia that was heartbreakingly sad but really well written. They are really good anthologies though sadly 2010 seems the most recent. and it's not all murder and heartbreak - there have been a few good conman/women ones thrown in, for some 'light relief' I suspect.

To get back on topic, I think and hope that Arias will get LWOP. Hopefully JSS is in the majority of the more she got to know her, the less she liked her. I know that shouldn't play any part in her decision but even without any personal feelings, the crime itself and her post-arrest behaviour warrants such a sentence IMO.

Absolutely, Bugliosi's got a huge ego, and it's something to keep in mind while reading (hard to ignore in places, lol), but it didn't detract from the overall. :D The age-old argument of "nature vs nurture" is always so interesting and frustrating! I agree that a criminal's upbringing isn't 100% of cause like defense lawyers would love to shove down our throats. Society would be truly horrifying if that were true. I think that would have been an excellent point to bring up in this court case: an "alleged" smack with a wooden spoon versus the genuinely abusive childhoods of kidlets with sadistic parents. Genuinely tortured children who have become phenomenal human beings doing great works for others. Then there are the people who are whiners and walking pity-parties about how "my parents didn't appreciate my art and it caused me such distress that I had to butcher someone who tried to help me and uplift me".

I know what you mean about Bugliosi being the defense lawyer for the female, I was so disappointed at first! When I bought the book, I had assumed he was the prosecutor, but got so hooked on the people it that I had to keep reading.

I do wish that when people wrote reviews - they'd actually review the book or movie instead of writing a freaking junior high school book report that gives away every important detail much information and spoils it!!! :gaah: It absolutely drives me nuts! I want to read what a book or movie is ABOUT, not the story itself - that's one reason *why* we read books and watch movies- to make our own discoveries!
 
I thought for sure you guys would be talking about this motion to strike juror 17 trial video... JM present JSS with j17's Facebook info. I watched it tonight and there are so many disturbing things in it.

Here is what I find so disturbing;

1) Why is the DT working so hard to keep j17? Especially if it's not know which way she will vote. Was someone in the jury room communicating with the DT?
2) JM is on to j17, he's concerned about her. He knew she was lying and something wasn't right.
3) How does Nurmi's know which way the 11 to 1 split is swinging at this point if the Forman hadn't written the note to JSS yet? (and j17 hadn't texted the bailiff yet)
4) At this point had JM figured out that he had prosecuted j17's husband?
5) I wish JSS would have ok'd a search warrant for j17's full Facebook records.




If you haven't watched it, here it is. I would love to know what you think!

MOTION TO STRIKE JUROR 17 - 3/4/15
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGHcu4Al08w&feature=youtu.be&a=

I don't know what to say other than I wholeheartedly agree with you! :gaah:

I wondered the same thing: how did Nurmi know? Had a split been reported by the jury yet? Had the jury actually said the vote was 11 to 1?
 
Personally I feel that juries are not given all the information they need to decide on cases. Most of them don't know what will happen if they hang, like in the first penalty phase trial they thought that if they hung the judge would sentence her and that was incorrect. I think they should be informed about the whole process and I don't understand why they don't educate them more properly. A lot of people don't understand reasonable doubt. They think they have to have NO doubt. And there are all kinds of other things they should be informed on but they sadly are not. If they were, or we had educated paid juries, maybe we wouldn't have so many shocking outcomes. Also I don't think lawyers should be allowed to lie in court just because they are tasked with defending the undefendable.
 
I don't know what to say other than I wholeheartedly agree with you! :gaah:

I wondered the same thing: how did Nurmi know? Had a split been reported by the jury yet? Had the jury actually said the vote was 11 to 1?

no he just assumed that based on what they said in the note. They did not disclose the count, but said something to the effect of "the other 10 people feel..."
 
I never understood the descriptions of Jodi that referred to her as a great beauty. I always thought she was kind of average looking. It was the same with Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox. I didn't find any of these women to be exceptionally good looking by any stretch. All 3 seemed pretty average to me. :twocents:

Sad thing is, that bleach blond hair and makeup appeal to a lot of men. To a lot of men, almost every woman will look a "stunner" with blonde hair and lots of makeup... even me. Sorry, not man-bashing, just my personal experience. When my hair was blonde and I wore (too much) makeup, I got all kinds of attention that I didn't get as a brunette. LOL! It was fun being blonde, but it was superficial and I found the type of man I attracted was looking for a good time rather than getting to know me. I look better as a brunette, but guys liked the blonde. Oh, well. As a brunette, I was moo'd at, barfing noises made at me, I've had things thrown at my while waiting for the bus, told I looked great from behind but from the front, I should wear a bag over my head... I've heard it all and some from grown men in their 40's. :(

Obviously, I'm no beauty, but the blonde seemed to work. Pffft!
 
:seeya: Good Morning, Y'all !
:drumroll::drumroll::drumroll: 3

:drumroll::drumroll::drumroll: 2

:drumroll::drumroll::drumroll: 1

until Sentencing Day !



I'm not allowing myself to get even the slightest bit excited. Nothing about this ridiculously long, drawn out trial has gone as it should have.

Anyone have an opinion on what might delay things this time? Will it be that Arias suddenly becomes ill and can't appear in court? Will the DT come up with another trick? Or will JSS put off her decision- after all, there's no reason she couldn't have done this immediately after the deadlock was announced.
 
Personally I feel that juries are not given all the information they need to decide on cases. Most of them don't know what will happen if they hang, like in the first penalty phase trial they thought that if they hung the judge would sentence her and that was incorrect. I think they should be informed about the whole process and I don't understand why they don't educate them more properly. A lot of people don't understand reasonable doubt. They think they have to have NO doubt. And there are all kinds of other things they should be informed on but they sadly are not. If they were, or we had educated paid juries, maybe we wouldn't have so many shocking outcomes. Also I don't think lawyers should be allowed to lie in court just because they are tasked with defending the undefendable.

I'm still not 100% sure what the rule is regarding what lawyers, defence or prosecution, can say in terms of what they know to be true or false. During the Oscar Pistorius trial a South African lawyer told us that they cannot knowingly lie to the court but also pointed out how can you prove they are lying or that they know for sure their client's innocence or guilt. In one of the stories I read in those anthologies I mentioned there is a bit where the defence lawyer first says 'My client did not commit this crime' and the journalist says he then changed it to the unperjurial 'The evidence will show my client did not commit this crime' though the distinction between the two is beyond me. All I know is that defence lawyers who get people off on technicalities or have an 'ends justifies the means' approach, as happened in the Arias trial, or prosecutors who go ahead knowing that the defendant is likely innocent are IMO completely amoral. On one level I find them worse than the people they are defending or prosecuting - at least the defendants have a motive for deception that goes deeper than money or their career.

BTW, paid professional juries are a good idea IMO. The law is a complex and confusing web so it would be a step forward to have people who are more familiar with it than the likes of I. We don't use our peers for medical or educational decisions yet we do for legal ones, which can have even more far-reaching consequences. I'm not the first to say this but if I were guilty of a crime I reckon I'd like to take my chances with a jury and if innocent, I'll take the judge.
 
I thought for sure you guys would be talking about this motion to strike juror 17 trial video... JM present JSS with j17's Facebook info. I watched it tonight and there are so many disturbing things in it.

Here is what I find so disturbing;

1) Why is the DT working so hard to keep j17? Especially if it's not know which way she will vote. Was someone in the jury room communicating with the DT?
2) JM is on to j17, he's concerned about her. He knew she was lying and something wasn't right.
3) How does Nurmi's know which way the 11 to 1 split is swinging at this point if the Forman hadn't written the note to JSS yet? (and j17 hadn't texted the bailiff yet)
4) At this point had JM figured out that he had prosecuted j17's husband?
5) I wish JSS would have ok'd a search warrant for j17's full Facebook records.




If you haven't watched it, here it is. I would love to know what you think!

MOTION TO STRIKE JUROR 17 - 3/4/15
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGHcu4Al08w&feature=youtu.be&a=

As Martinez pointed out to JSS, keeping the juror could raise an issue for appeal. This said all I needed to hear to understand why the defense would fight having her dismissed. Because the State brought the motion, essentially it was a win-win for the DT.
 
I'm still not 100% sure what the rule is regarding what lawyers, defence or prosecution, can say in terms of what they know to be true or false. During the Oscar Pistorius trial a South African lawyer told us that they cannot knowingly lie to the court but also pointed out how can you prove they are lying or that they know for sure their client's innocence or guilt. In one of the stories I read in those anthologies I mentioned there is a bit where the defence lawyer first says 'My client did not commit this crime' and the journalist says he then changed it to the unperjurial 'The evidence will show my client did not commit this crime' though the distinction between the two is beyond me. All I know is that defence lawyers who get people off on technicalities or have an 'ends justifies the means' approach, as happened in the Arias trial, or prosecutors who go ahead knowing that the defendant is likely innocent are IMO completely amoral. On one level I find them worse than the people they are defending or prosecuting - at least the defendants have a motive for deception that goes deeper than money or their career.

BTW, paid professional juries are a good idea IMO. The law is a complex and confusing web so it would be a step forward to have people who are more familiar with it than the likes of I. We don't use our peers for medical or educational decisions yet we do for legal ones, which can have even more far-reaching consequences. I'm not the first to say this but if I were guilty of a crime I reckon I'd like to take my chances with a jury and if innocent, I'll take the judge.

While it is true that you cannot prove if the lawyers are actually lying or not, but it would seem that lawyers, whether defense or prosecution should have a high moral standard and integrity. I don't see integrity from a lot of defense lawyers and some prosecution lawyers even. Still there are some decent defense lawyers that have integrity. What is sad is that many times when complaints are filed to the bar association still nothing happens to the lawyers.
 
I never understood the descriptions of Jodi that referred to her as a great beauty. I always thought she was kind of average looking. It was the same with Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox. I didn't find any of these women to be exceptionally good looking by any stretch. All 3 seemed pretty average to me. :twocents:

I never understood this either. For one thing, all her photos are photo-shopped, so what you see there is not reality. I find her features disproportionate, her eyes alarming, and the blonde hair a bunch of floozy. I can't stand her face: I actually find it so disproportionate, it's like chalk on a blackboard, and that's even from years ago, way before this trial began.

Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox are more "all-American" type girls. I can understand that they are deemed to be attractive at first. But CA is just so "off" and AK I really don't have much of an opinion about.

Of course, "beauty" may refer to less obvious body parts and have different meanings for different genders and orientations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,809

Forum statistics

Threads
601,050
Messages
18,117,807
Members
230,996
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top