Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #4

[dog.gone.cute]

I agree, but in prison reputation is everything.
If Jodi offers any challenge to Angela's dominance, prison law dictates Jodi must be dealt with harshly.
Jodi is used to dealing out the harshness, not having it thrown upon her.

And I sure hope we hear about it

:seeya:

 

[WhoaIsMe]

IIRC, CMJA is also part of that suit alleging the DP is unconstitutional. Since she was not given the DP, would she still be part of that suit? And is that considered a civil suit?

I would think she no longer has standing in that suit. JMO

 

[tlckgram]

Think that was in one of the articles, but I have to think they got something confused. She'll go to Perryville when sentenced and brought back if necessary, IMO.



What I wondered is why she would still have the copy in her cell. It says she gave it to her visitor, but I wouldn't think she'd have access to a copier...

I don't know that it happened this way, but if her visitor had a cell phone they could take a picture of the list with the phone camera. They aren't allowed in jails, but we know visitors have taken at least a couple of pics of Jodi with cell phone cameras in the past.

 

[Wing Ding]

Brace yourselves:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JodiAnnArias/tweets

"People see others how they themselves are. That's why to Juan, everyone's a liar -- because HE's a liar." -- Jennifer Willmott

So according to Willmott's way of thinking... by her calling JM a liar, that really makes HER the liar, right?

Regardless, she's got a lot of nerve to talk about the Prosecutor like that. She hardly proved herself to be honest and truthful. Just the opposite, in fact. And she knows it.
I wonder if she was always this pathetic, or just after Jodi came along? And why lash out at Juan at all? Didn't she "win"? Or is she still bitter about what Juan said about
wanting to kill himself if they were married?

 

[Steve44]

My guess is when she used the JA movie as part of her reasoning, that's when the other jurors really became concerned. Let's turn the tables and imagine if 11 had voted for death b/c they had seen the movie and thought she was a monster b/c of it AND refused to discuss the evidence. That would be ridiculous. Juror #17 should have referred to the evidence, not a TV biopic (one that she shouldn't have watched, then served as juror with an "open" mind).

That said, as I stated before, I think it'll better for the Alexander family in the long run to not have to face her in appeals so they can heal.

The fact that she brought up the movie, and actually wanted to use it as an argument while sitting in the midst of all that actual evidence, and having sat through months of the actual trial, means she was reaching for straws, knew she had no real argument, and was determined to keep her mind closed. It's very strange.

 

[katiecoolady]

I get that people are passionate about this case and thought JA should get the DP. But I don't understand the speculation and hate towards Juror 17. I haven't seen all the negative things being said backed up in MSM. jmo

I did listen to the audio interview of the jurors. I realize some have said this juror refused to deliberate but I also heard "this juror led the way and wanted to focus on the journals". When the interviewer asked if they thought this juror violated their oath the answer was uhnooooo. They also said the juror had her mind made up from the beginning and if I recall the 11 had their minds made up from the beginning or by the second day.

Well they also said that when they tried to ask her to convince them why she thought the mitigators outweighed the aggravators she would shut down and talk about how she felt, the Lifetime movie and refuse to discuss the actual evidence. THEY said that she wouldn't deliberate, that she was basing her decision on how Jodi looked in court vs. how she expected due to the Lifetime Movie, THEY felt so frustrated with her stonewalling that they went to the Judge claiming she wasn't following the rules asking her to be removed. That was one thing they all agreed on: that she wasn't participating as a juror. At least that's what I heard.

And no, they were split 6/6 when they went in, started going over the actual evidence meaning mitigators vs. aggravators. 5 moved over to DP and she , refusing to engage in the discussions, stayed staunch with her original "feeling". She wouldn't even engage in trying to convince them to come to her side...she was just stuck holding firm there no matter what.

 

[GigiG]

omg, I was clueless and googled arias mother donations apple latte fund - and got nuttin'! ROFL! :shame:

On the other hand, I do believe she should be soliciting donations for her eye implant surgery - this photo is from the hln website - yeeeeeeks!

View attachment 70771

OMG, not to be mean, but why doesn't Jodi Arias' mother have any white in her eyes? The blackness is weird! (Maybe a bad pic? if so, sorry.)

 

[sammie]

I don't know that it happened this way, but if her visitor had a cell phone they could take a picture of the list with the phone camera. They aren't allowed in jails, but we know visitors have taken at least a couple of pics of Jodi with cell phone cameras in the past.

I read the article and thought I read something about video chats? Could she have shown the list to the person that way?

 

[sammie]

OMG, not to be mean, but why doesn't Jodi Arias' mother have any white in her eyes? The blackness is weird! (Maybe a bad pic? if so, sorry.)

Look at Jodi's eyes...that will be her in 20+ years. Scary.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

All I can tell you is a certain local reporter thought this should have been plead out as a 2nd degree murder. He expressed thinking TA was a "" and that he believed a 2nd degree conviction would come in which would allow him to walk up to Juan Martinez and tell him to "shove it up his *advertiser censored**". I had the opportunity to relate that information to Mr. Martinez who replied "I'm still waiting". lol

But does that sound non biased? This is why I referred to the defense as having a "media arm". Because they did.

Surely not, LMAO. I wonder where he has been lately? Remember this?

 

[Shelby1]

Is the killer allowed to visit some sort of library in the jail right now or do they only have those in prison? Just curious.

 

[sammie]

Bit of comic relief:

[video=youtube;LFcunNV3DHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFcunNV3DHk[/video]

Bump for those that missed it. I think Jodi and Hitler would get along well together.

 

[I'mjazzed]

OMG, not to be mean, but why doesn't Jodi Arias' mother have any white in her eyes? The blackness is weird! (Maybe a bad pic? if so, sorry.)

Totally Creepy!!!!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I don't know that it happened this way, but if her visitor had a cell phone they could take a picture of the list with the phone camera. They aren't allowed in jails, but we know visitors have taken at least a couple of pics of Jodi with cell phone cameras in the past.

Jodi is privy to everything in both trials. She's had that info all along. Unfortunately those juror's that used their heads and could follow a logical thought process and see through her will be her target. She'll hound them just like everyone else - if we're lucky someone will end this for us one day. Prison fights and killing happen all the time - no big deal.

 

[katiecoolady]

Surely not, LMAO. I wonder where he has been lately? Remember this?



View attachment 70789

That absolutely kills me. It's the Anti "My Favorite Things". lol My Unfavorite Things?

 

[Steve44]

Well they also said that when they tried to ask her to convince them why she thought the mitigators outweighed the aggravators she would shut down and talk about how she felt, the Lifetime movie and refuse to discuss the actual evidence. THEY said that she wouldn't deliberate, that she was basing her decision on how Jodi looked in court vs. how she expected due to the Lifetime Movie, THEY felt so frustrated with her stonewalling that they went to the Judge claiming she wasn't following the rules asking her to be removed. That was one thing they all agreed on: that she wasn't participating as a juror. At least that's what I heard.

And no, they were split 6/6 when they went in, started going over the actual evidence meaning mitigators vs. aggravators. 5 moved over to DP and she , refusing to engage in the discussions, stayed staunch with her original "feeling". She wouldn't even engage in trying to convince them to come to her side...she was just stuck holding firm there no matter what.

It looks a lot like outside influence to me. The intellectual unpreparedness doesn't match the resolute stubbornness over the same issue. The intellectual unpreparedness was obviously hers, the other one can't be, unless she's really unintelligent and substitutes feeling for thinking as a character trait.

 

[ohreally]

Think that was in one of the articles, but I have to think they got something confused. She'll go to Perryville when sentenced and brought back if necessary, IMO.



What I wondered is why she would still have the copy in her cell. It says she gave it to her visitor, but I wouldn't think she'd have access to a copier...

Good point about giving her copy to the visitor.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Well they also said that when they tried to ask her to convince them why she thought the mitigators outweighed the aggravators she would shut down and talk about how she felt, the Lifetime movie and refuse to discuss the actual evidence. THEY said that she wouldn't deliberate, that she was basing her decision on how Jodi looked in court vs. how she expected due to the Lifetime Movie, THEY felt so frustrated with her stonewalling that they went to the Judge claiming she wasn't following the rules asking her to be removed. That was one thing they all agreed on: that she wasn't participating as a juror. At least that's what I heard.

And no, they were split 6/6 when they went in, started going over the actual evidence meaning mitigators vs. aggravators. 5 moved over to DP and she , refusing to engage in the discussions, stayed staunch with her original "feeling". She wouldn't even engage in trying to convince them to come to her side...she was just stuck holding firm there no matter what.

And don't forget her falling back on shaming them for the conclusions they had reached after deliberating, she accused them of wanting revenge.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Before the penalty phase retrial began, Nurmi asked for the Twitter accounts of all prospective jurors. He didn't get them, did he?

I remember, at the time, thinking that was being way too intrusive into their privacy. In light of the stuff that was turned up about juror 17 in the past few days (granted, I think much of it was hoax material) do you think that investigating prospective juror's social media is a bad idea now? I still do, but I'm less sure about my opinion now.

:seeya:

I agree it is "intrusive" ... BUT, people can be dishonest ... you can learn a lot about a person following their social media trails.

And in this day and age of social media, I think the prosecutor and defense attorney should be able to ask potential jurors if they have accounts with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., especially if the jury is NOT going to be sequestered.

IMO, this is no different than a potential employer asking if you have a FB, Twitter, etc. account so that they can investigate your background. After all, jurors have a job to do and it should be taken seriously.

JMO and :moo:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

That absolutely kills me. It's the Anti "My Favorite Things". lol My Unfavorite Things?

Dammit, I just realized there is not a cougar present. :happydance: