Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #4

[dog.gone.cute]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq · 12h12 hours ago

#JodiArias will lose her stripes soon & move up to state prison

spring, summer, fall & winter collections

:hilarious: Well, Jen and the former Cougarlicious won't have to worry about JA's wardrobe or dry-cleaning any more !

 

[FelicityLemon]

Do any of you know how accurate or trustworthy the information on this site is:

https://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Home

I just found it and before I invest two seconds of my time and emotions reading anything on it, I wanted to ask you guys first.

Is this one of those sites where anyone can add or delete things? That would make me nervous and unlikely to believe what's there.

I only recently started even looking at ja trial stuff this time around because I couldn't stand the aggravation and emotion from the first trial. I had gotten hooked through Wild about trial - that guy absolutely cracked me up...knooter and all :drumroll: and that's where I first encountered reading lovely katiecoolady :loveyou:

 

[daisydomino]

As I recall Juror 17 said she saw bits and pieces of the Lifetime movie and also some news. I believe the question was asked during jury selection and some jurors stated they had either read or watched something about the case. It is not known if Juror 17 watched anything during the trial. In the interview one juror says "I think she came in thinking she was going to see a monster because that's what she had seen in the movie" We don't know if these were Juror 17's words because the juror says they can't say what she was thinking.

I could hear the frustration in the jurors' voices. It was especially heartbreaking to hear the juror say that she had to leave because her mother passed away. JMO but maybe Juror 17 is shy or not an eloquent speaker and therefore has trouble expressing herself. The attorneys should have done a better job of vetting potential jurors. You can't kick someone off a jury because they have a different opinion.

As for the split, in the beginning of the interview one juror said "we have been 11-1 since the beginning". Later in the interview, when questioned, he says they took a count on the first day and were 50/50 by the next day they were 11-1. They came to their decision early on IMO.

JMO but I don't see this as a reason for hatred or unsubstantiated claims about Juror 17.

Thank you BayouBelle_LA! You said it better than I could.

 

[Ladylub]

Do any of you know how accurate or trustworthy the information on this site is:

https://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Home

I just found it and before I invest two seconds of my time and emotions reading anything on it, I wanted to ask you guys first.

Is this one of those sites where anyone can add or delete things? That would make me nervous and unlikely to believe what's there.

I only recently started even looking at ja trial stuff this time around because I couldn't stand the aggravation and emotion from the first trial. I had gotten hooked through Wild about trial - that guy absolutely cracked me up...knooter and all :drumroll: and that's where I first encountered reading lovely katiecoolady :loveyou:

I personally wouldn't pay much attention to that link myself. I glanced at it and saw one of the titles reads why the verdict was wrong. Just with that tidbit I'm not reading anymore and staying far away before I punch my screen.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

That is the question everyone is now asking.....why was she not dismissed based on all her close relationships with violent criminals?

:seeya:

Just thought of something going back to your original post and question regarding #17:

WHY wasn't #17 dismissed for "cause" -- which there is no number limit on strikes/challenges of a juror for "cause."

There is NO way Juan would have wanted this juror -- a juror with a DV background [per #17], ex-husband with a criminal record ...

So my question is:

Does the JUDGE have to grant or deny the challenge for "cause" ? And if so, that may well be the answer WHY this juror was not dismissed !

Question: Is it possible that the judge said no, it was not enough to dismiss the juror for cause ?

And another question: Did JM ask to have this juror removed for "cause"?

JMO and MOO !


ETA: I know the Statute here in Louisiana, and the judge has to grant or deny the challenge for cause. It is not a "given " if there is a potential conflict with the juror.

 

[zoomom]

Depending on their level of intelligence, they learn to mimic. They watch and learn what's an expected appropriate response. At least the successful psychopaths do.


You know, like apes and monkey. Except that I hate to disparage apes and monkeys :/

AND like certain species of parrots - they learn to "say" certain things and phrases....but they don't actually understand what they are saying. They do it for the attention and response from people.

ok. off track...but this is how I understand it.

 

[turaj]

Right. And as I posted previously, the announcement about juror 17 being Dr. Drew came after the 17 in this trial was told to stay behind. The people on Dr. Drew said it could not have been that. If you check the time on the tweet they are right.

so if that timing is true then thee was something with this juror 17....I refuse to believe that she did not give any indications throughout all these months of inappropriate knowledge or history of her husband etc. at some lunch or break with the others...JSS may well have dealt with her long before deliberations....I am thinking we will never know

 

[Mrs G Norris]

No, they took $600,000 from Dr Phil and closed the acct.

That's right .. not that he paid them or anything .. ooooh noooo. Anyway, I'm sure the 'donation' he made to the 'Caylee fund' is being put to good use, in their hunt for the REAL KILLER, I hear that killer resides on a golf course in Florida somewhere, because that's where OJ went looking too, I'm sure they'll get lucky sooner or later.

 

[Buttercup117]

So did Wilmott actually say this? I think I would be surprised but then again, I probably shouldn't.

I would hope Jennifer would know better.. I bet Jennifer would be shocked and UPSET to see that !

 

[Gilligan]

Nobody knows if she watched 2 minutes or 87. The fact that she used that as her basis for her vote for "life" is what's scary. And as far as "useful." it was useful enough for her to state it as her reasoning and attribute to the jury being hung.

I could be wrong, but what I thought was said by the other jurors, she had watched bits and pieces of the movie and from that her impression was Jodi was a monster. After seeing Jodi in court her opinion changed and thought Jodi's mental problems could not handle her relationship with Travis.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK juror #17 in chambers with JSS .. this was because Nurmi saw that a Juror #17 from the JA case was going on HLN, this was actually juror #17 from the guilt phase .. this is the story I've been hearing for the last couple days.

 

[Buttercup117]

I don't know...she's given the credit whether she wants it or not

I don't think she did...

 

[FelicityLemon]

If a trust fund is legally in her name and she has access to the funds then she won't be considered indigent. Indigent is a descriptor/status as a result of not having money (with which to fund a defense.) However, if there is a trust fund and that fund is in someone else's name and JA cannot access those monies and (probably some other legalstuffrequirements related to trusts), then Arias might still be considered indigent. Depends how the trust was set up, what kind of trust it is, and lots of other factors that go into the legal structure of the trust. Bet the state will be looking at that funding account.

Thank you for explaining this. It helped me understand And because I'm pesty, I have more to grump about. The following are just my opinions, I have no legal knowledge whatsoever, I just want to throw these out there and see what happens. I'll do some googling later, but for now here's what I'm thinking about.


Example: the murderer's family solicit funds specifically and solely to use for her appeal. Miraculously, receive $300,000 *huge belly laughs*. The trust account is (supposedly) not in her name. I assume they'll try to contort and twist to circumvent rules, we'll see.

1) Because people were told they were donating specifically to her appeal fund, legally (morality and ethics don't exist for ja) would it have to be used only for that or they could be charged with fraud if it's used for other things not directly related to the appeal? *see Item 2

2) Items such as: murderer's court clothes, hair, makeup, hotels, meals, travel for parents, friends, website fees and admin, fees to Trust Administrator, etc. would those be considered part of the Appeal? I've seen some creative accounting in my time - grrrrrr!

3) Even though it's not in her name, because the ADVERTISED GOAL of the funds is for the murderer's benefit, wouldn't it be considered part of her net worth (not sure if that's correct term) Similar to if someone has a conservatorship, even though they don't have actual control over their own money, it IS their own money.





------------------------------------------------
The above comments are just my opinions and not accusations. I have a "what if" brain and like to ask.

 

[deedee21]

My sense is that it will be years before she is a medium security inmate, and she can never be minimum security. She can evidently be in max and be in a general population of max-ers. Inmates with 16+ years left are housed together, as far as I can tell. The regulations seem quite complicated.

My least favorite feature of any of the regulations is that they can have $60+ to spent every month in commissary and extra at Christmas. They can even buy makeup; this seems to me completely unnecessary.

I believe that money would be attached if she loses a civil case. No tootsie pops for Jodi.

 

[katydid23]

So much about this trial, killing, the after math, the brutality/method of the killing of Travis Alexander, bothers me, still.

I am not one who can reason that people are just evil. Not with babies born so tender and I believe innocent. For me and my reasoning "evil" is created. And I am left wondering how a JA was created. What happened, what was the road that lead to someone being able to do what she did? For me such violence goes against everything inside of me.

All that aside. Can you imagine: cleaning a man's house you used to date, supposedly loved, are still having sex with. While he gets ready and goes out on a date with another woman. She says she laid down and fell asleep, and in doing so was there when he got back. Right , one can see thru that that she was waiting. Your self respect has to be so low to do that .

All of the spying, retaliation, plotting, wanting his friends for her friends. How desperate, crazy, and exhausting.

Crossing so many boundaries, into the man's emails, bank accounts, Facebook.

It sickens me to imagine/think of it.

All the way thru all of this crap to killing him, not just killing him, but over and over and over. Who can stab someone 29 times, let alone what she did to his throat?

Now sitting in jail she cannot stop, even from there.

I know she is not worth me giving this my thoughts. But, it all haunts me.

The under currents of life.

Being a person, a human, a woman, I just don't understand it.

I think there are such things as 'bad seeds.' Babies are innocent at birth, probably 99% of the time. But I do believe that every one has a soul and that soul has it's own essence, it's own past, it's own memories. JA's parents raised several kids and none of the others slit anyones throat.

I think JA is one of a very rare breed---an evil seed. JMO :devil:

 

[deedee21]

In addition to post #393. Has Aunt Sue reported the donations to the IRS?

 

[MaLou]

Someone had mentioned this earlier on here and I can't find the post, so I want to reintroduce the info. I just watched Beth Karas' most recent video and Beth said that she had pulled up J17's Facebook page while waiting for the press conference with the jurors to begin (how did she get her name?). Beth said that a lot of J17's info was public and she "liked" we already know The Secret and Nancy Grace, BUT, she also "liked" a group that was anti-Sheriff Arpaio. I think that's significant as it's a little more evidence of a "stick it to the man" kind of mentality, OR, a fan of JA.

This is all so bizarre...

 

[RickshawFan]

Thank you for explaining this. It helped me understand And because I'm pesty, I have more to grump about. The following are just my opinions, I have no legal knowledge whatsoever, I just want to throw these out there and see what happens. I'll do some googling later, but for now here's what I'm thinking about.


Example: the murderer's family solicit funds specifically and solely to use for her appeal. Miraculously, receive $300,000 *huge belly laughs*. The trust account is (supposedly) not in her name. I assume they'll try to contort and twist to circumvent rules, we'll see.

1) Because people were told they were donating specifically to her appeal fund, legally (morality and ethics don't exist for ja) would it have to be used only for that or they could be charged with fraud if it's used for other things not directly related to the appeal? *see Item 2

2) Items such as: murderer's court clothes, hair, makeup, hotels, meals, travel for parents, friends, website fees and admin, fees to Trust Administrator, etc. would those be considered part of the Appeal? I've seen some creative accounting in my time - grrrrrr!

3) Even though it's not in her name, because the ADVERTISED GOAL of the funds is for the murderer's benefit, wouldn't it be considered part of her net worth (not sure if that's correct term) Similar to if someone has a conservatorship, even though they don't have actual control over their own money, it IS their own money.





------------------------------------------------
The above comments are just my opinions and not accusations. I have a "what if" brain and like to ask.

I wanted to add some thoughts/questions:

1. if the money is held in trust for Jodi (her name would be on there "in the name of"), wouldn't it be included in her assets and subject to civil lawsuit claims?

2. If the money isn't at all in her name, presumably the crooks she associates with will help themselves. Boohoo!

3. If Jodi has money in accounts, she would not be considered indigent, and therefore would not be entitled to an appeals attorney at state cost. Does anyone know what the threshold for "indigent" is?

3b. If Jodi has money for a private attorney, she's not indigent, surely, by definition?

3c. Jodi would have to pay liabilities to the Alexanders in priority over paying for an appeals attorney?

4. Can Jodi's prison earnings be attached as restitution to the Alexanders, e.g. by JSS? She'd then be working for the next 50 years without keeping a cent? This would be a fate far worse than the DP, LMAO.

5. Can a person have plenty of money for commissary and still be declared indigent? $250+ per month, with no expenses for basic necessities doesn't sound like "indigent" to me.

6. If JA's mom is holding JA's money for her, presumably it would be counted in the Arias' assets for the purposes of the bankruptcy (which no doubt they filed for the purpose of wiping the slate clean so they could keep any profits from books/interviews).

 

[FelicityLemon]

And there you have it!

They set up the trust fund so she could sell artwork and take donations and who knows what else, with no one able to touch her. I am not saying they might not fund some of her legal stuff with it but I do not for a minute believe they intend to use those funds solely for that, regardless of what they say.

Remember, the Anthonys had a Caylee trust fund for the purpose of finding missing kids. The trusts are closed now and funds all used up. Has anyone heard they ever found or aided in a search for any missing child?

The IRS or anyone else in charge didn't care what the Anthonys did with trust funds; I see no reason to believe they will care enough to monitor Arias trusts.

I wonder why there was no investigation into the use of the trust fund?

If someone is soliciting funds for a specific cause and the funds aren't used for that purpose - I think it's called fraud, or at the very least embezzlement? I could be totally wrong, maybe the fraud part is only if you site a specific cause knowing that you'll use the money for other things. I know there's a legal issue regarding how solicited funds are used.

 

[wendiesan]

FWIW, some interesting information regarding the cost of the trial of Travis Alexander's murderer.

http://www.examiner.com/article/jod...-being-investigated-post-verdict-juror-17-und

The expense of this trial has become one “character” in the dramatic cast of the Jodi Arias show. Let’s follow the money for a bit, as this is a very good point. The prosecution released their costs after the verdict last week. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said the prosecution costs were in the $132 thousand dollar range.

That’s not too bad for a trial that has dominated Arizona headlines for years. And it’s really interesting that this number is what it is, since, the defense costs have been reported in the millions, and counting, as the trial goes on. Has anybody stopped to ask or question these huge discrepancies?

Why has it cost the defense millions, but not the State? Once again we have Team Jodi holding a big pile of money. And Team Juan is holding…what? An arrest warrant for juror misconduct? Maybe not yet, but it sounds like that, or something like that, is in development.

But the defense bill is something Arizona wants to also ask about. Both teams have been to court the exact same number of days, and hours even. Nurmi files a motion, and Juan responds. So even their paperwork time should be very similar, or at least comparable. Granted, most of Nurmi’s motions are scores of pages longer than Juan’s responses.