Bravo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 20,354
- Reaction score
- 64,577
You get right on that LOL
Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
- Status
You get right on that LOL
FelicityLemon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,302
- Reaction score
- 5,970
Ha! cool, just learned how to do something by accident with a shortcut. I hit Ctrl I by accident (fat fingers on laptop) and it auto-inserted the code for Italics
I was wondering that myself about being allowed to background check potential jurors. Say, they're not allowed to. What if someone else does and gives the information to the attorney? How would that be handled? As the court saying goes: you can't unring a bell. The attorney would KNOW it, but could he use it or could he then use the fact that someone gave him information that could affect the case- use that to ask the court for permission to investigate further?
Great question ohreally!
FelicityLemon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,302
- Reaction score
- 5,970
LOL, I had sex with the prosecutor, but I didn't KNOW him.
I know. I've concluded (though I forget every other day) that the only way to live with the injustice of that (and so much else) is to know, 100% and absolutely, that there is no justice on earth that could be meted out to her that would be just enough. Nothing. Not death (I'm being cruel in saying that, not kind) and nothing short of death.
The very people we most want to punish and to suffer are the very people least likely to be genuinely affected by what we feel or what can be imposed upon them. Their inaccessibility is what maddens many of the rest of us.
What I also know for 100% though, for myself, is that the things that make these unusual people beyond reach are the same reasons they will NEVER feel actual joy, or love, or simple content. Is that good enough? Nah, but it's a start.
I'm pretty sure that was proven to be untrue. Likely a rumor spread for bad reasons....
cricket49
Loving Life!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 573
I wonder why JM would have brought it up in court? He of all people would have overlooked a statement that seemed to be a rumor.
Wing Ding
Trial Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 770
- Reaction score
- 298
Originally Posted by ScarlettScarpetta
I just can not for the life of me understand why The judge allowed the super secret testimony??? She was getting death threats from who??? The other inmates are not going to see her testimony. No one is going to kill her in the court room, So why would that even been considered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, just more fictitious people like all the other ones her entire life who have been grabbing her by the wrist, spinning her around and either holding a knife to her throat, choking her to the point of passing out, throwing her around into furniture, kicking her, body-slamming her, yelling at her or threatening to kill her or her family. She must be a magnet for that sort of treatment. I swear if the poor little princess didn't have any bad luck in her life, she wouldn't have any luck at all.
Speaking of kicking... she mentioned being kicked once or twice, but she's the one who likes to kick. I do like that she weaves some truthful elements of her life into her poorly fabricated tales of woe. It may take two years to figure it all out, but it's there. I wonder why ALV and Geff didn't see THAT pattern?
I just can not for the life of me understand why The judge allowed the super secret testimony??? She was getting death threats from who??? The other inmates are not going to see her testimony. No one is going to kill her in the court room, So why would that even been considered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, just more fictitious people like all the other ones her entire life who have been grabbing her by the wrist, spinning her around and either holding a knife to her throat, choking her to the point of passing out, throwing her around into furniture, kicking her, body-slamming her, yelling at her or threatening to kill her or her family. She must be a magnet for that sort of treatment. I swear if the poor little princess didn't have any bad luck in her life, she wouldn't have any luck at all.
Speaking of kicking... she mentioned being kicked once or twice, but she's the one who likes to kick. I do like that she weaves some truthful elements of her life into her poorly fabricated tales of woe. It may take two years to figure it all out, but it's there. I wonder why ALV and Geff didn't see THAT pattern?
In the Marc McGee hearing did JM mention MM had been online for a while and had been harassing people himself including making veiled threats towards JM?
Amster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 11,584
- Reaction score
- 4,443
After watching that.....and Juan guaranteeing he can prove that MM is a liar.....Sherry allows him to testify!!! Not in person, of course! My contempt for her grows daily....
Stab Juan 27 times!!!!! Was it Maria who said it?? Who is the judges assistant?? OMG
He did for sure? When? It's been too long ago that i read about it being a rumor. Have no memory of where I saw that, just that it seemed to be a reliable source. If JM did reference it then the source was mistaken.
SweetT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,939
- Reaction score
- 114
I call this the Clintonesque way of talking some folks are really good at it. "NO I never slept with that woman" Real meaning (We were up all night doing it so of course we didnt sleep). My ex was like this, you had to ask the correct way, with the correct words or it wasnt lying it was manipulating the words..I hate people like that.
cricket49
Loving Life!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 573
Here it is
http://bluesharp1911.wix.com/courtchatter#!jodi-arias-pretrial-hearing-10062014/c1bdz
It is located at the end of the video - last 10 minutes.
cricket49
Loving Life!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 573
No but he should have. I think JM does not like to get into the back and forth with Nurmi, seems childish to him.
He definitely did. Everyone already knew who witness #1 was before his affidavit was even read due to him being from New Zealand. Nurmi knows this and knew he could use it after the affidavid was read. JM just helped it along by accidentally blurting his name out.
cricket49
Loving Life!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 573
B&RSBM: The killer will always be a victim when she doesn't get her way, imo. That's just how narcissists roll. Interestingly, you pose a very real possibility in J17. IF what we've read about her is accurate, and I'm staying open-minded for now, you may just have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
The thing with narcissists is they will inevitably portray themselves as the martyr, the sufferer. What better way to gain the limelight and the sympathy of the masses than to be the one lone holdout on a high profile jury; a matter of life or death? And then go very public with the trauma they endured because of their unpopular decision? This reeks of the ultimate manipulation.
I will say though, it could be the husband who is at the root of this, but I'm skeptical of J17's actions in the deliberation room. Why the separate note to JSS? Instead of working with her counterparts, she chose to set herself apart from them, and make herself the sacrifice. I think she way underestimated though the backlash and possible legal ramifications of her not so well thought out choice.
Here's an article on narcissists playing victims of narcissists, A couple of good articles imbedded within, too.
https://anupturnedsoul.wordpress.co...victims-of-narcissists-who-is-the-narcissist/
Boytwnmom
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 297
just like a case with circumstantial evidence. We often criticize juries who can't put the pieces together. Same thing here with #17. You can't isolate one part. Like, well, after the judge talked to her she did deliberate. Why would anyone believe she did? I don't because it's one piece of the puzzle.
You start from the beginning. She lied, misled and deceived the court regarding her history with the prosecutor, with felons, with criminal activity by romantic partners etc. Why did she do it? Well, in this context it can only be because she wanted on the jury and knew if she disclosed too much of the truth she would be dismissed.
Why did she want to be on the jury? Should we believe it was because she had such a strong desire to fulfill her civic duty? No, because if duty were relevant she wouldn't have lied as she also had an overriding duty to be truthful and withhold nothing that might impact her fitness for service. So, she had some other reason she wanted to be on the jury and she lied to make it happen as there was no other reason to lie. So, none of this leads to a logical conclusion that she merely wanted to deliberate just like the other jurors did.
And, lo and behold, all the other jurors and the alternates evaluated the evidence differently than her. OK, that could happen without malfeasance. But, all the jurors in the room felt from the beginning she had her mind made up, that she refused to discuss the evidence, aggravating factors, how the mitigating weighed against the aggravating. She separated herself from the group, refused to explain her reasoning. Again, this could happen without wrongdoing. But, when you put the whole picture together and not each element in isolation, I feel pretty much hit upside the head with the conclusion she had an agenda from the time she was called for jury service or at least from the time she knew it was for the JA trial.
IMO, to conclude that this was all completely kosher and this poor juror just came to a different, but equally valid conclusion from the other 11 + the alternates, requires me to suspend the kind of disbelief I only suspend for fiction. And this was all too real. And after following this 7 year extravaganza of manipulation I am not going to now fall for juror #17's follow up manipulation.
I don't pretend to know the why. Whether it's because she likes Jodi, hates the DP, hates Juan, hates society for sending felons to jail, is manipulated by her current felon husband, is delusional and has visions, I don't know or care. All I know is what the circumstantial evidence tells me. The kind of evidence that is all that is usually available to convict someone and I trust circumstantial evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence.
You start from the beginning. She lied, misled and deceived the court regarding her history with the prosecutor, with felons, with criminal activity by romantic partners etc. Why did she do it? Well, in this context it can only be because she wanted on the jury and knew if she disclosed too much of the truth she would be dismissed.
Why did she want to be on the jury? Should we believe it was because she had such a strong desire to fulfill her civic duty? No, because if duty were relevant she wouldn't have lied as she also had an overriding duty to be truthful and withhold nothing that might impact her fitness for service. So, she had some other reason she wanted to be on the jury and she lied to make it happen as there was no other reason to lie. So, none of this leads to a logical conclusion that she merely wanted to deliberate just like the other jurors did.
And, lo and behold, all the other jurors and the alternates evaluated the evidence differently than her. OK, that could happen without malfeasance. But, all the jurors in the room felt from the beginning she had her mind made up, that she refused to discuss the evidence, aggravating factors, how the mitigating weighed against the aggravating. She separated herself from the group, refused to explain her reasoning. Again, this could happen without wrongdoing. But, when you put the whole picture together and not each element in isolation, I feel pretty much hit upside the head with the conclusion she had an agenda from the time she was called for jury service or at least from the time she knew it was for the JA trial.
IMO, to conclude that this was all completely kosher and this poor juror just came to a different, but equally valid conclusion from the other 11 + the alternates, requires me to suspend the kind of disbelief I only suspend for fiction. And this was all too real. And after following this 7 year extravaganza of manipulation I am not going to now fall for juror #17's follow up manipulation.
I don't pretend to know the why. Whether it's because she likes Jodi, hates the DP, hates Juan, hates society for sending felons to jail, is manipulated by her current felon husband, is delusional and has visions, I don't know or care. All I know is what the circumstantial evidence tells me. The kind of evidence that is all that is usually available to convict someone and I trust circumstantial evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence.
Amster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 11,584
- Reaction score
- 4,443
So....some nice company bought the trial tapes is allowing everyone to use them? Awesome!!
- Status