Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[TorisMom003]

Ignorant question: Who is Pandora?

An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.

 

[MeeBee]

I know you feel very passionately about this and I understand your viewpoint totally. However, it is not up to any potential juror to anticipate the information the state or defense needs and to premtively and proactively make sure everyone in that courtroom knows, ahead of even being asked, nor at the time of being asked, about a potential factor that wasn't asked about that might cause them to be excused.

The public does not have the burden of being legal experts. Their only burden is showing up on time, answering the questions asked, and being truthful in their answers. That's it. They do not have the burden of anticipating what either side should ask or should have asked nor do they have the burden of construing additional meanings that the person questioning might be or should be inferring but hasn't articulated. That burden rests on the attorneys conducting the voir dire (as well as the judge). If the questions are general and do not provide enough context and specificity to elicit information needed to properly vett a potential juror, that is totally on the backs of the attorneys.

Asking a juror if they "know" someone on either side in the case is not the same as asking a potential juror if they or someone they know has been previously arrested, convicted or sentenced within that jurisdiction (or even within the entire state) nor is it the same as asking a potential juror "have you ever met, spoken with, or had any personal dealings with anyone on either side in this case, including the prosecutors, the defense, the judge, or anyone else involved in this case? It just isn't the same no matter how much twisting others have done to try and make it so.

I'm not saying Juror 17 didn't lie and she well might have. However, no one has pointed us to a source providing proof of this from her voir dire. In the absence of proof I'm not going to conclude she's a lying liar who lied during voir dire. I certainly wouldn't want someone thinking that of me were I in that situation, and absolutely not without evidence and proof.

She was aksed if she knew any of the players from this trial. And she said nothing. She is a liar. If I did what she did I would expect to be called a liar too.

We can try and play semantics. We can try and pass the blame around. But it is a straight forward question that seems pretty easy to understand for most people.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Awww her fans from other Countries will not be able to send the "Goddess" a care package :giggle:

PAYMENT: We accept Visa, MasterCard and Discover credit / debit cards and prepaid cards (that have a verifiable United States address). When paying by credit card be sure
to include the card number, expiration date, card verification number (3 digit card verification number found on the back of the card), card member’s name, address and phone
number. We do not accept prepaid credit cards that lack the ability to assign a valid United States address to the card holder.

https://www.accesscatalog.com/downloads/OrderForms/AZ_DOC_2015_OF.pdf

Unfortunately, criminals like these (commit a crime, you're a criminal) who use false id to commit another crime (video chat with an inmate), etc. will have little problems finding other like-minded individuals States-side to do their bidding. Add to criminals willing to help, there are plenty of weak-minded, weak-willed people willing to risk.

For the above reason, I believe that was part of the plan for DT request of 30 days before sentencing. Those are some of the affairs to get in order, as others here have said.

All kinds of wrong people will be happy to try and circumvent the law.

 

[TorisMom003]

We don't know what kind of knife she had , do we? If it was a machete it doesn't take much to wield it across someones neck....

Based on the autopsy we know that it wasn't a machete that JA used. However, we also know from crime scene photos that Travis was already very weak from blood loss before JA slit his throat at the end of the bathroom hallway into the bedroom.

MOO

 

[katiecoolady]

An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.

LOL...UP. Ok, I'm so out of that loop and I think I will keep it that way. (I don't even know who SJ is but was wondering if one of them was MDLR)

 

[katiecoolady]

She was aksed if she knew any of the players from this trial. And she said nothing. She is a liar. If I did what she did I would expect to be called a liar too.

We can try and play semantics. We can try and pass the blame around. But it is a straight forward question that seems pretty easy to understand for most people.

I think it would be interesting to see the rationalization for the answer to "Do you know the prosecutor?" (if that was asked of course) and the prosecutor had prosecuted your husband who landed in jail as "no". "No, I know who he is and I've seen him before but I don't really 'know' him"?? I guess a person could go all existential on it "does anybody ever really know anyone else?". Arrrrgh

I will add that once the JUDGE asked me if I knew any of the parties and I raised my hand, he then asked me to clarify "how do you know this person?". If I got tossed over a pseudo-Trading Spaces project I'm pretty sure "he prosecuted my husband" would be grounds for removal. Just sayin.

 

[Gin]

An (unusual person) that is very friendly with SJ (the owner/operator of JAII site) and that is a JA supporter.

Seems to be kind of a... detail person. It's helpful she outlines the money trails. Keep those tweets and emails coming, Pandy. :happydance:

 

[Madeleine74]

She was aksed if she knew any of the players from this trial. And she said nothing. She is a liar. If I did what she did I would expect to be called a liar too.

We can try and play semantics. We can try and pass the blame around. But it is a straight forward question that seems pretty easy to understand for most people.

Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.

I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.

I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.

But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.

So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.

And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.

 

[Hope4More]

You know Lambchop, I was thinking about that too. After the foreman sent the note to JSS, J17 sent her note as well, and we don't know what she said. After JSS spoke to 2 of the 11 DP jurors, and J17, J17 started "particpating" (which could just mean she was going through the motions as a CYA).

IMHO, Jodi did feel abused by Travis in her warped perception of reality. Most of us see that she wasn't abused, but thankfully we don't think like her. Travis did not want to share his life with her, and leading up to his death, he started calling her out on her escalating intrusive behavior. She felt extremely threatened that Travis would expose the person she really is to the world, and her mind, killing him was justified.

What if J17 relates to that, as in she thinks the same way as Jodi? We're already hearing she feels attacked and assaulted, with no credible threats against her. She doesn't like people questioning her thought processes, or motivations, even though her posture and words while deliberating are suspcious. I would have been angry if I was one of the other jurors. If you are going to hang a jury, you had better be able to give some valid reasons why. She couldn't think of one scenario where she could give the death penalty!? If asked, the first one on my list would be a pedophile that raped and murdered a child. IMO, she played the judge and the rest of the jury. She knew she had to pretend she was open to discussing a possible DP verdict, and she did just that, knowing she would not vote for death. She is anti-DP, and if she didn't realize that going into the trial, she should have known it when she couldn't provide an example of where she thought it was justified, and asked the judge to be removed from deliberations. She wants to be a victim now, but IMO she is devious. It's all for naught now, but that's my opinion with what we know at present.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute. Willing to dodge the rotten apples or oranges


Let's give 17 the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say she wasn't a stealth juror, and by that I mean she didn't try to get on the jury just to hang it. She thought she'd walk in and see a "monster," but instead who she saw and heard was a woman she could relate to about being abused. She was predisposed to believing DV, and when it was presented to her, she believed it.

She wanted to focus on the mitigators because that's what she thought she was supposed to do. Early on, she was not alone in her vote against the DP. One by one the other dissenters swung to the DP and then she was very alone. Eleven to 1. Five jurors walked back to deliberations and immediately voted death. That's strong conviction, and it doesn't sound like they were the quiet types. The others who swung to death were persuaded by deliberations, were not coerced, had to overcome personal religious beliefs (at least some of them), and were not going to be persuaded back or allies of the 1.

17 wanted to focus on the journals because she believed the journals best reflected who JA really was and what she thought. JA speaks about suicide a lot in those journals, and I'm willing to bet those entries about depression and suicide rang some bell in 17. 17 felt sympathy for her, believed what she read about JA's pain, connected it to DV, and thought it was important for the other jurors to understand just that. They didn't.

17 attached her beliefs to mitigators. She was offended the other jurors didn't believe JA, and felt personally attacked when the jurors stated their disbelief, especially as their disbeleif became loud and felt hostile.

When asked....or, rather, when the 11 DEMANDED she tell them of a scenario in which she imagine giving the DP, she didn't answer because she thought that whatever she said would be used against her somehow. She didn't see the question as straightforward... she felt the 11 weren't interested in her opinions- they'd been rejected, but just another way to beat her down until she agreed with them. So she didn't answer.


That is one scenario, anyway.

 

[TorisMom003]

LOL...UP. Ok, I'm so out of that loop and I think I will keep it that way. (I don't even know who SJ is but was wondering if one of them was MDLR)

Pandora and apparently SJ as well are both friendly with MDLR and are in contact with MDLR about the "art" site and the funds that are collected from it. SJ was talked about during that three way call that MDLR set up for JA. SJ also owns/operates the Casey Anthony (CAII) site as well.

 

[Moonchime]

That's why the DT always had her sit in a kiddy chair.

Her hands are so huge. They seem too huge for her body.

 

[Kamille]

No, I have not seen JA on person. I am just going by the picture of her covering her face after the hung jury. TH was just towering over her. I believe some people (Foreman #1) and others (my brother) just cannot fathom how a woman of smaller build can take on a guy TAs size. That's all. All JMO.

I don't think TA was much taller than JA. Maybe a couple of inches? And while he looks "stocky" in a lot of his photos, he apparently had lost a lot of weight prior to his murder. So he may have been about 5'9" and 170lbs? JA was about 5'7" and probably about 140lbs. Add in the adrenalin and a couple of deadly weapons with preplanning on her side and the element of total surprise on his and you've got an uneven match that favours her IMO.

 

[MeeBee]

I think it would be interesting to see the rationalization for the answer to "Do you know the prosecutor?" (if that was asked of course) and the prosecutor had prosecuted your husband who landed in jail as "no". "No, I know who he is and I've seen him before but I don't really 'know' him"?? I guess a person could go all existential on it "does anybody ever really know anyone else?". Arrrrgh

I was perusing the q and a thread and here was AZL's explanation of the question posed;


"Really, wow. Yes, that would be a big deal--jurors are always asked in voir dire if they know the attorneys or have had any prior experience with them. I had a potential juror once who was CEO of a company against which I had just won a big judgment. He claimed he didn't remember me and felt he could be fair."

BBM: know them or had any past experiences with them. Past experience, like my husband was prosecuted by him. One would really need to rationalize away knowing (well, we aren't, like, friends, or anything) him to feel they didn't think the info was worth mentioning. It is possible she was even contacted or questioned by Juan because of her relationship with the criminal. She also did not disclose his first degree prosecution or the pleaded down crimes. If Juan knew of any of his dealings with her or he true nature of his previous violent crimes it would have been bye bye.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ead-*no-discussion*-2&p=11565059#post11565059

 

[Kamille]

Then we've got the likes of Alyce LaViolette (sorry to even bring up that name) who specializes in DV and "abuse" yet claimed HER life was threatened and she was being "stalked and harrassed" while she waltzed in to a fast food Asian restaurant openly discussing the case DURING her days of testimony and got her pic tweeted. That to her was "stalking" and "harassment".

Then a couple days later, after claiming she was so "traumatized" by the "threats" she received, she waltzed in to the Palomar to dine literally past all the media who stay there and , ahem, utilize the bar area liberally. The bar area you have to walk THRU to get to the restaurant. She was baiting it/loving it while claming abuse/harassment and no she gets no passes from me. The one example she used was someone emailing her or whatever saying they hoped she choked on a chicken bone. And she parlayed that in to a death threat and she KNOWS what a death threat is by people she's supposed to champion. Please!

Then she used all of it to get out of testilying again. Oh and let's not forget her approach on Samantha in front of my face. All of this "abuse" and "threats" turned inside out is very very disturbing and insulting to true DV victims who live in fear who it is ACTUALLY happening to.

I imagine she could and would parlay my little apples/oranges analogy into some kind of "death threat". This kind of thinking is very very disturbing to me.

BBM

Well there is that whole Snow White angle. :giggle:

 

[steelman]

Is laundering money for clients part of MDLR's job description ?

I wonder if she skims a little money out of the account herself to pay for her "administrative fees".

You know.....Jodi didn't get sentenced to the death penalty much to the dismay of many of us in here. But .......seeing MDLR in handcuffs being escorted into the courthouse would be almost as good.

 

[katiecoolady]

Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.

I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.

I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.

But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.

So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.

And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.

I wonder if she attended any of that trial or if her then husband spoke to her about who was prosecuting him. I would think it would be normal to assume either of those would be true. Did she testify in it?

I'll tell you this--none of the players in my sister's case will ever forget the name Cathy Hughes. Of this, I'm certain.

 

[Gin]

Is laundering money for clients part of MDLR's job description ?

I wonder if she skims a little money out of the account herself to pay for her "administrative fees".

You know.....Jodi didn't get sentenced to the death penalty much to the dismay of many of us in here, but seeing MDLR in handcuffs being escorted into the courthouse would be almost as good.

JMO--Please tell me that there is a decent chance that someone in AZ (with the power to do something) will care about this. It is beyond the pale.

 

[TorisMom003]

I wonder if she attended any of that trial or if her then husband spoke to her about who was prosecuting him. I would think it would be normal to assume either of those would be true. Did she testify in it?

I'll tell you this--none of the players in my sister's case will ever forget the name Cathy Hughes. Of this, I'm certain.

She married the man the day before he was sentenced, if I remember correctly. So would a "new bride" not attend the sentencing of her "new husband" the day after they married?

 

[katiecoolady]

Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.

I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.

I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.

But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.

So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.

And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.

How about "are you acquainted with?". I think AZL's comment about having any past dealings pretty much covers this whole thing though, IF that was asked.

 

[Mindmatters]

She can also flip it and say she was not on her meds the day she chose to not allocate also, therefore was not in the right frame of mind.

ITA Elle. When JSS asked her this my concern WAS NOT if she was on any medications but if she WASN'T on them--while no one knows with 100% certainty, it seems likely she is prescribed medication for psychological reasons, therefore NOT being on them is more likely than not to have been an issue on appeal, which was probably Travis' murderer's back up plan IMO