Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[Steve44]

Enjoy the Arpaio mystery loaf Arias

View attachment 71036#b&jspizza&wings

The inmates probably made a pretty good argument for that second cup of salad dressing; Arpaio may be tough, but he can be reasoned with.

 

[katiecoolady]

Some people view criticism as an attack on them personally. They shut themselves off and shut down because that may have been a dealing mechanism they acquired through the DV experience. jmo

I wonder if Juror 17 would have been more open to actually viewing all of the evidence and discussing it with her peers as they were doing with each other, explaining her position and dissecting all of the pieces of it, if she hadn't shut down for whatever reason but this could be part of it.

I'm not feeling much compassion for her at this moment though. If she were to come forward and explain why/just how she believes that Jodi's age, "mental illness" and "background" or whatever outweighs all the premeditation her other jurors saw, her lack of remorse the others saw and 29 stab wounds, a slit throat and prepared gunshot to the face, I could change my opinion. Just her thought process of how those apples outweigh those oranges imo.

Edited to add: if she EVER gets paid for her opinion or EVER asks for payment or EVER writes a book hoping to capitalize on this, all bets are off. As well as the gloves. That to me reeks of "stealth".

I've been on several shows: Dr. Drew, Ricki Lake, Hard Copy back in the day and never got one dime.

Also adding: Hello Lambchop! Nice to see you joining the discussion. :seeya:

 

[Gin]

Cathy ‏@courtchatter · 4m4 minutes ago
"@juanstie: So that's how MDLR does it. Thanks Pandora. SS sent to the IRS. pic.twitter.com/Y3IzfFojFO" #jodiarias

Clickable link:

https://twitter.com/juanstie/status/576421623596593152/photo/1

WOW! Cha Cha seems to be very busy.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Maybe they will have helicopters up in the sky filming the prison bus as it makes it's journey out to Perryville.
Jodi's followers and entourage will be mixed in with the highway patrol escorts as they slowly make the trip down the freeway. Some of them will probably be screaming, yelling, and waving and will most likely get themselves arrested.

Should be good, clean, wholesome family fun for everybody ! :happydance: :fence:

:seeya:

BBM: :hilarious:

I can just picture JA's supporters, probably all 10 of them :

No ... she can't go :behindbar: No :stay:

:whine: . . . :crying: . . . :whine: . . . :crying:

And then millions and millions of Travis' supporters:

:drumroll: Finally ! JA IS in Perryville :great: !

:happydance::happydance::happydance:

:toast::toast::toast:

:juanettes::juanettes:

 

[RadarLuv]

Some people hold grudges for a really long time. Like 15 years or so! ; ) *J17 sarcasm alert*

Some people view criticism as an attack on them personally. They shut themselves off and shut down because that may have been a dealing mechanism they acquired through the DV experience. jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

I place no blame on the state or the judge for not crossing her in the beginning. There was nothing to cross her for. You don't cross someone off for cause for having DV in their past if they say they can remain impartial about it. It's their word and you have to accept it. I don't think Juan was super concerned about DV victims, especially if there were more strike worthy candidates. He may have thought, like many of the posters here, that a true victim of DV might see through the lies. There was a male juror who had experience with DV in his past let on too. It's a crap shoot. And, again, doing in depth research into their backgrounds doesn't seem typical to me.

As far as Juan not doing more research on her ex husband, I don't think that is typical of research that the state does when vetting jurors and seriously, how would it ever cross his mind to look for that, especially when the juror does not appear to have disclosed his earlier first degree prosecution? The prosecution she did disclose to him would not have been prosecuted by him either, as he has been a homicide prosecutor for quite some time now. Was he even allowed to ask her for his name so he could research him? Sure a bunch of "grandma types" found the info, but, again, this isn't something the state will ususlly look for. There's an expectation of honesty when questioning jurors. I remember AZL saying during jury selection that the lawyers will look for things that will show them a juror was honest. This juror was forthcoming about her husbands' legal issues and that probably tipped to him that she was being transparent and didn't appear to be TRYING to get on the jury. He otherwise seems to have done a stellar job selecting the jury so it makes you wonder.

He did try and get her removed a couple times which is interesting. I'd like to know more about that. If the defense had asked for it she'd be gone in a New York minute.

Like I said before, I won't blame the state for someone else's deceit. Yes, deceit. She lied by ommission by not mentioning Juan was her ex husband's prosecutor. There's no way she didn't know this and no way she didn't know this was important information and no way she told them this and Juan let her stay on. If she comes out and offers some logical explanation for why she didn't reveal this info I will eat my words. But I'm not gonna pretend to be blind to what is in front of me.

Said it before and I"ll say it again. I was IN that courthouse appearing for jury duty on a sex abuse case. VERY FIRST question asked of our group was "do you know any of the parties involved?". Then the Judge said raise your hand if you know, as he went one by one: the defendant, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, "me" (meaning himself). I raised my hand that I knew the prosecutor. I knew her very casually from and I quote myself "I once did a Trading Spaces bathroom remodel with her on a team over a weekend at another prosecutor's house" which now cracks me up. I literally said "Trading Spaces" to the Judge.

HE dismissed me then and there over that. BOOM. I seriously doubt that basic question was never posed to her.

 

[Bluewater_Girl]

Some people view criticism as an attack on them personally. They shut themselves off and shut down because that may have been a dealing mechanism they acquired through the DV experience. jmo

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.

 

[ElleElle]

After further analysis it's a stunning example of manipulation in that it externalizes what is properly only her own internal decision. In externalizing it, it places the burden on others to decide, and gives a chance for them to fall on the side of faulty logic to her advantage. In the end the confusion she sought to create was not substantial enough to obscure the law. It was clever enough to fool JSS, but not so the COA. It was a stunning attempt to exploit any ambiguity in the minds of those forced to make the decision for her, and indicates what she is capable of when it comes to manipulation.

ETA: During her questioning of Arias about her decision not to allocute, JSS asked her if she was on any medication. This question, seemingly out of left field, was extremely smart of JSS to ask. It prevented any future claims by Arias that her decision was based on flawed thinking secondary to the influence of any mind-altering drugs such as antidepressants. It placed the burden of the decision back squarely where it belonged, in Arias' own mind, and put on record that her mind was as clear as possible and not under the influence of anything that Arias could later use to shirk the responsibility for her decision, and therefore demand a second chance with a mind not so influenced. It shows that at least by that time JSS was onto her, and anticipated her further manipulation.

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.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

WOW! Cha Cha seems to be very busy.

:seeya: Yep ... she's been "very busy" performing tasks other than "mitigation" ...

NOT 1 person testified on behalf of JA ... NOT her mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, family, friends, ex's ...

Nobody ... No one !

Oh, and those "Affidavits" :gaah: Seriously, not worth the paper they were written on, IMO!

MLDR was too busy managing the :jail: so-called "artwork," her $$$$$, her Social Media Accounts, her "Wardrobe and Make-Up" ...

:gaah:

 

[krkrjx]

I think it's strictly and exclusively to set up an appeal issue. By splitting her will into two - "I want to, but I don't want to" it creates the closest thing possible to genuine legal ambiguity for future review. It's too clever by half. Her problem now is that by being overruled by the COA and then upheld by the ASC the first time, it has already brought a higher authority into the equation, and not on the side of Arias; she was hoping the higher authority would come in much later, and land on her side, too late for that now. The fact that she kept with the same strategy for her allocution means the strategy was extremely important to her, but again the fact that the higher courts have already ruled against her means it's already a lost cause, just not enough for her to give up on completely.

The issue for appeal was to be that sealed testimony was necessary for her. Once two higher courts said no to this, the new issue for appeal will be allocution is not testimony but rather her opportunity to beg for mercy and show remorse, and the judge did not allow her to do that in secret. She will argue that since it was not "testimony" it is not covered by either higher court ruling. I believe this was all designed be used to overturn a death sentence. But now things have changed in that there is no death sentence to overturn.

Jodi will not let this go, though, because it is not in her nature to let things go. She will appeal it as planned, pro se if necessary. I just wonder what ruling she hopes for now. If she wins and a new trial is ordered she could actually get the death penalty this time. And if it is not possible for that to be on the table again, there would be no need for a redo of the mitigation phase because mitigation only happens when death is a possibility. So, what other remedy could be ordered?

I think many of the killer's plans went down the toilet when she did not get the death sentence she was positive she would get.

 

[katiecoolady]

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.

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.

 

[ElleElle]

I could understand her mindset going in regarding under what circumstances would a woman kill a man and abuse is certainly a strong reason. Usually that doesn't involve premeditation but sometimes it could if the fear was so great they needed to plan their actions well. However, I am not able to understand how that mindset could not be changed once in the company of other jurors deliberating on the evidence. It has been said the vote was something like 6-6 in the beginning. What made those others change their minds and not this one juror?

Even with all that considered, this jury was to weigh aggravtors vs mitigators. No one has reported, that I am aware of, that J17 gave reasons for her belief that the mitigator of abuse was so strong that it trumped all else. I personally do not think she believed that herself, but rather she had an agenda and stood her ground in order to carry that out.

Finally, Elle...have you ever seen Jodi in person? I am just wondering because I have seen you post other times about how tiny she is. What about her makes her appear tiny to you? Don't forget they had her chair way down almost to the floor to make her look small--are you thinking that someone seeing her sitting that way in person might think she is tiny? Because I don't think the killer is tiny at all--every description I have seen of her says she is average to slightly above average height and normal weight for her height. IOW, not tiny.

J17 reportedly did say she saw a normal girl where she expected to see a monster.

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

Like I said before, I won't blame the state for someone else's deceit. Yes, deceit. She lied by ommission by not mentioning Juan was her ex husband's prosecutor. There's no way she didn't know this and no way she didn't know this was important information and no way she told them this and Juan let her stay on. If she comes out and offers some logical explanation for why she didn't reveal this info I will eat my words. But I'm not gonna pretend to be blind to what is in front of me.

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 preemtively and proactively make sure everyone in that courtroom knows, ahead of even being asked, or 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 or anyone in your family or anyone you know 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.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

IMO there was an interesting difference though- from what I read Juror 17 sent her note secretly to the Judge, said nothing to the others.
When the Foreman sent his note to the Judge he did so openly, explained to Juror 17 what he had written and why.......

 

[FelicityLemon]

Perryville Print Shop. Quite the business they have there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP73c8CexHc

Thank you for this - I find it really interesting and a little hopeful for inmates to be doing something worthwhile. I couldn't imagine the boredom without being able to have a job of some sort. Your link also showed lots of other videos about jail/prison life and it's all interesting.

It's sad to know that people who have been incarcerated and know what a terrible life it is, they continue to commit crimes knowing the probability that they'll be going back.

Also interesting to see the differences between prisons.

I never want to go to jail or prison.

 

[katiecoolady]

The issue for appeal was to be that sealed testimony was necessary for her. Once two higher courts said no to this, the new issue for appeal will be allocution is not testimony but rather her opportunity to beg for mercy and show remorse, and the judge did not allow her to do that in secret. She will argue that since it was not "testimony" it is not covered by either higher court ruling. I believe this was all designed be used to overturn a death sentence. But now things have changed in that there is no death sentence to overturn.

Jodi will not let this go, though, because it is not in her nature to let things go. She will appeal it as planned, pro se if necessary. I just wonder what ruling she hopes for now. If she wins and a new trial is ordered she could actually get the death penalty this time. And if it is not possible for that to be on the table again, there would be no need for a redo of the mitigation phase because mitigation only happens when death is a possibility. So, what other remedy could be ordered?

I think many of the killer's plans went down the toilet when she did not get the death sentence she was positive she would get.

LWOP is really the only or closest to "lock em up and throw away the key" sentence we have. No one is gonna dive in pro bono to help a lifer like her get a new trial over her allocution games but DP opponents would and will use anything absolutely ANYTHING to grasp at to argue that. She kind of got screwed not getting the DP and she will wither and die, largely unnoticed, now. Good.

 

[MeeBee]

Said it before and I"ll say it again. I was IN that courthouse appearing for jury duty on a sex abuse case. VERY FIRST question asked of our group was "do you know any of the parties involved?". Then the Judge said raise your hand if you know, as he went one by one: the defendant, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, "me" (meaning himself). I raised my hand that I knew the prosecutor. I knew her very casually from and I quote myself "I once did a Trading Spaces bathroom remodel with her on a team over a weekend at another prosecutor's house" which now cracks me up. I literally said "Trading Spaces" to the Judge.

HE dismissed me then and there over that. BOOM. I seriously doubt that basic question was never posed to her.

She was absolutely asked this question. I remember one juror was excused for knowing Jennifer Willmott. They ask everyone for this very reason, there's a strong potential for bias. Juror #17 knows what she was aksed and I just don't believe that she does not remmeber Juan. I really don't. You don't forget your fiancé at the time's prosecutor, especially Juan. IMO, it was an outright lie on her part.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

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....

 

[katiecoolady]

Ignorant question: Who is Pandora?

 

[katiecoolady]

She was absolutely asked this question. I remember one juror was excused for knowing Jennifer Willmott. They ask everyone for this very reason, there's a strong potential for bias. Juror #17 knows what she was aksed and I just don't believe that she does not remmeber Juan. I really don't. You don't forget your fiancé at the time's prosecutor, especially Juan. IMO, it was an outright lie on her part.

What is really bothersome, to me, is if something even lesser than this was uncovered over one of the jurors and JA got Death, this would be grounds for an appeal and likely a new trial. The skewing is just so nauseating sometimes.
It is NOT easy to get a murderer convicted and sentenced even when they've admitted it like JA. We're just all lucky she actually was convicted on 1st degree.