Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[Nancy_Drew]

I only saw this last part. I figured the picture was blurry so no one would figure out what Jodi looked like and get past the guards and break into the jail to free her. Since I couldn't hear anything Wilmott said, I just figured out what made sense with the answers Jodi gave. I learned that she lost her virginity when she was 11, almost 12. (just kidding)

I have never heard of a person being a foreign exchange student for THREE WEEKS. When I was in high school in the 1960s, one of my classmates was an exchange student in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the whole year, I think. That girl was one of the smartest students in the entire school.

I lived in Argentina for almost 2yrs and LOVED it!!

 

[TartLemon]

I don't know how Travis stood being around JA for one second.....much less as long as he endured it.

She undoubtedly is one of the most boring people I have ever heard/seen speak. If I had been a juror on this case having to listen to her drone on about nothings....... I would have fallen asleep within minutes after she started.

I could only get through about 10 minutes of her on the stand drivel and turned it off.

IMO, Travis did turn it off. He told her it was OVER. Get lost! Do not ever return. Jodi had bought 2 bottles of sun screen expecting to change his mind with sex. He tried his best to tell her nicely. Finally, Travis told Jodi he wanted nothing more to do with her. Probably called her a few names to her face. I have heard no evidence, but believe she had a suitcase packed for the trip and passport in hand.

Jodi had no intention of allowing Travis to be with anyone else. Not another woman. Not a group of friends who genuinely loved him but didn't want any part of her.

 

[samspace070]

Speaking of weeds.... The only thing that matters to me is that she withheld vital information, aka lying. This means to me that she wanted to be on the jury. This makes her motivation suspect. She consorts with felons, a FACT. Her ex was prosecuted for murder by Juan, a FACT. She withheld during deliberations, a FACT, even if the criteria for deliberation were met. She now cries 'victim' and mistreatment and has LE protection. Her convicted felon hubby gives an interview and wants $$$. Meanwhile, there is NO evidence, NO proof thus far that she was ever the victim of DV. There is NO evidence of any credible death threats. But it's okay for people to find excuses for her even when there is no proof.

It's a shady DUCK, IMO. She's a lying liar who lies, a FACT, so why should I believe anything she says? If she were a witness in a trial I, as a juror, am allowed to put aside all her testimony if I catch her in a lie. I don't need to find excuses for her, or attempt to live inside her head for an explanation. It's her behaviour that matters. She is no victim.

One other thing, I particularly don't care for analysing her inner life unless there's a lot of information and behaviour and one is an expert. Just a pet peeve of mine, and not a reflection of this post. There's a lot, a LOT of ignorance out there thanks to pop psychology and the abuse excuse entrenched in society. I think sometimes we bend over backwards so much, our hearts bleed so much, that we abdicate all boundaries, and being a true victim has lost its meaning, and justice has been victimised to death.

Wonderful post, you sound just like Alan Dershowitz, an amazing Appellate Attorney. Some say he is a genius and you sound just like him. Thank you for posting that.

 

[RickshawFan]

But those reasons seem to be her outward-facing and manipulative reasons, in which she finds a way to one-up anyone opposed to her and claim they lost and she won. I think what I'm looking for is more inward focused reasons, involving her own life and situation. As I said, she may have wanted the DP for the advantages it would have given her in better chances for a successful appeal, but she may have wanted Life because her living conditions would be far better, and while the DP had advantages, a successful appeal was not a guarantee, and her life for many, many years to come would have been much harder. I know we can't actually get into her head, but I'm wondering if anyone has opinions on what they think she actually wanted for her life.

Are we positive JA's living conditions will really be far better with LWOP than with DP? It doesn't look like it to me. DP-ers can't get a job, but since when has JA liked to work? And have at least half her paycheck go to the Alexanders? Fun! Like LWOP-ers, DPers can also earn privileges. Plus, DPers get much more public attention than LWOPers who just disappear into the prison and out of sight.

 

[samspace070]

I lived in Argentina for almost 2yrs and LOVED it!!

The foreign exchange student business was just another of JA's lies. This girl lies about everything. Has anyone noticed JA doesn't write, she prints like a child not an accomplished adult. I found that interesting. My uncle was a draftsmen and he printed almost everything but his signature. I think it was a habit with him from his work, and he printed beautifully. Much better than JA.

 

[east2west]

I turned it off too. She is so flat. A very poor actress. She can't even pretend to show emotion. Such an empty soul.

all that yakking about school, grades, favorite subjects, wooden spoons, cocaine, friends up and down the state of California, boyfriends that she dumped.......

a bunch of made up tales poorly rehearsed in her cell and brought to the stage with Wilmott as the Director.

 

[FelicityLemon]

*snort* I was just reading some quotes that ja likes to put at the end of her messages to her (pidgeons) fans.

Nietzsche, oh brother. It figures.

Oh, well. There's always this one I'll bet she doesn't pass along...

 

[Shadowboy]

But those reasons seem to be her outward-facing and manipulative reasons, in which she finds a way to one-up anyone opposed to her and claim they lost and she won. I think what I'm looking for is more inward focused reasons, involving her own life and situation. As I said, she may have wanted the DP for the advantages it would have given her in better chances for a successful appeal, but she may have wanted Life because her living conditions would be far better, and while the DP had advantages, a successful appeal was not a guarantee, and her life for many, many years to come would have been much harder. I know we can't actually get into her head, but I'm wondering if anyone has opinions on what they think she actually wanted for her life.

Steve I think this still doesn't answer your question though now that I'm thinking about it. I think you're wondering what Jodi genuinely wanted for her life deep inside.

I think she really wanted life. I think she really wanted to win that. I think she would have viewed the death penalty as being as bad as the guilty verdict. It wasn't just about saving her life. It was about winning.

But I think the death penalty would have given her the opportunity to play martyr. I think she would have been ok with it in time as she convinced herself it was better.

I don't know if I'm making sense lol.

Meebee, you make perfect sense. (BBM) Being a martyr to domestic violence was her 'BIG final move' in the sentencing, post-guilt phase (We all remember the "Survivor" T-shirt.) Jury said: We don't believe you. But ...???

During the 2nd sentencing trial, martyr/victim evidently, remained JA's main mitigator, as evidenced with the stupid "bad boyfriend who screwed with my 'snowflake' head. Jury said: We don't believe you. But ....?

Anyway, Meebee ... IMO, JA -- in her twisted little brain, surrounded by 'adoring friends' -- STILL lives in her own Private Idaho. She thinks she won.

Steve ... What does JA want?

IMO, the same thing she wanted when she contorted (and invented) her relationship with TA: Validation. Recognition. Proof she has a role in the bigger scheme of life.

Thus far in the process, she has, sadly, received the first two: Validation and recognition. From the media. From the social media. From her cyber "friends."

She's about to get proof POSITIVE she has no role in the bigger scheme of life, ... or love, or law. But, IMO, JA doesn't yet understand this.

She invented much of her relationship with TA, and she continues to invent her life in prison. She has no idea ....

 

[elementary]

Possibly.

But if so, I am still totally shocked that anyone who had truly suffered from abuse would fall for JAs claims. Its mind boggling to me and I have seen several cases where jurors were abuse survivors. In fact every time I serve on a jury I have to go into great detail about being abused by my ex-husband and I have been selected 5 times to serve. Not once did my own experience enter my verdict or deliberations. I looked at the totality of evidence searching for substantiations for any claims made.

There was a case in NC where a female murdered her husband who was divorcing her. She claimed he had abused her for 20 years. I remember there was at least one on the jury that either had suffered from abuse or had a family member who had. Not one person on that jury believed the defendant. In fact they felt she was the one who had tormented him before she wound up murdering him. Just because a juror has abuse in their past isn't a surety they are going to fall for the female defendant's pack of lies. I would say #17 is a rarity instead of the norm. Or I hope like hell she is.

But I guess there really are some people that simply believe abuse claims if they have been abused themselves. I cant wrap my mind around that though because domestic violence survivors usually have a keen sense when hearing false claims of abuse and can smell the BS a mile away.

If she was going to look at the case fairly she should have removed her own abuse history from deliberations and shouldn't have let it cloud her vision.

Even JAs claims of abuse had no ring of truth to them. When looking at them overall ...even including both claims of abuse by Travis, and her family.. they were very shallow claims, and had inconsistencies all in them.

I truly hope she is never on another jury. Many brutal murderers suffer from some type of personality disorder... yet certainly know right from wrong, and may also deserve death like JA. If we start excusing murderers with personality disorders then victims are going to continue to be shortchanged when it comes to the just and correct punishment.........just like Travis was, imo.

I still find this juror very immature. What difference does it make what JA looks like? Does #17 really believe that premeditated murderers must look like a monster? I find that ridiculous. Didn't she even realize like the others that JA was trying to manipulate the jury into believing she was one way instead of the true monster she really is? She sure played right into JAs hands.

Its interesting that out of all the people that I have talked with about this case in the past few years who are genuine survivors of abuse..........not ONE has ever believed JA suffered from abuse. They don't even believe she suffered abuse at the hands of her family.

And we all know by now when JA testifies it is in that full flat affect of hers exhibiting no emotion or genuine truthfulness. Why juror #17 didn't pick up on that is odd because when a survivor is talking about real abuse they have experienced in their lives the tone and inflection is raw with emotions. Yet #17 bought it even though she even admitted that she saw no remorse from Arias.

Yeah, I'm not buying J17 suffered abuse unless I see proof. Some have also suggested she may be not very bright. Well, then there should be a means test for the ability to use and apply common sense and some logic and the ability to communicate on a basic level. If she was mentally incapable of deliberation, then she shouldn't have been on a jury due to mental insufficiency.

 

[Hope4More]

Speaking of weeds.... The only thing that matters to me is that she withheld vital information, aka lying. This means to me that she wanted to be on the jury. This makes her motivation suspect. She consorts with felons, a FACT. Her ex was prosecuted for murder by Juan, a FACT. She withheld during deliberations, a FACT, even if the criteria for deliberation were met. She now cries 'victim' and mistreatment and has LE protection. Her convicted felon hubby gives an interview and wants $$$. Meanwhile, there is NO evidence, NO proof thus far that she was ever the victim of DV. There is NO evidence of any credible death threats. But it's okay for people to find excuses for her even when there is no proof.

It's a shady DUCK, IMO. She's a lying liar who lies, a FACT, so why should I believe anything she says? If she were a witness in a trial I, as a juror, am allowed to put aside all her testimony if I catch her in a lie. I don't need to find excuses for her, or attempt to live inside her head for an explanation. It's her behaviour that matters. She is no victim.

One other thing, I particularly don't care for analysing her inner life unless there's a lot of information and behaviour and one is an expert. Just a pet peeve of mine, and not a reflection of this post. There's a lot, a LOT of ignorance out there thanks to pop psychology and the abuse excuse entrenched in society. I think sometimes we bend over backwards so much, our hearts bleed so much, that we abdicate all boundaries/crtical faculties, and being a true victim has lost its meaning, and justice has been victimised to death.

Elementary, It is not a fact that she withheld vital information. We don't know that. We don't have the information to know one way or another. Yes, she consorted with felons. Two of them. Married both. What's your point? She revealed that in voir dire and yet made it onto the jury. She withheld in deliberations. What does that mean? She is now crying victim? She is? How do you know that as fact? Her felon husband wants money for an interview. OK. And?

There is no proof she was ever a victim of DV. Wow. Really? I'll pass on that one except to say it makes zero sense for her to lie about being a victim of DV to get on this jury, especially given the overwhelming consensus that the very fact of being a victim of DV was reason to disqualify her. People finding excuses for her? I don't see any of those people here. Who are you referring to?

Analyzing her inner life? Who is doing that? Last, being a true victim has definitely not lost its meaning here, so I'm guessing you mean that more generally.

 

[Paintr]

Speaking of weeds.... The only thing that matters to me is that she withheld vital information, aka lying. This means to me that she wanted to be on the jury. This makes her motivation suspect. She consorts with felons, a FACT. Her ex was prosecuted for murder by Juan, a FACT. She withheld during deliberations, a FACT, even if the criteria for deliberation were met. She now cries 'victim' and mistreatment and has LE protection. Her convicted felon hubby gives an interview and wants $$$. Meanwhile, there is NO evidence, NO proof thus far that she was ever the victim of DV. There is NO evidence of any credible death threats. But it's okay for people to find excuses for her even when there is no proof.

It's a shady DUCK, IMO. She's a lying liar who lies, a FACT, so why should I believe anything she says? If she were a witness in a trial I, as a juror, am allowed to put aside all her testimony if I catch her in a lie. I don't need to find excuses for her, or attempt to live inside her head for an explanation. It's her behaviour that matters. She is no victim.

One other thing, I particularly don't care for analysing her inner life unless there's a lot of information and behaviour and one is an expert. Just a pet peeve of mine, and not a reflection of this post. There's a lot, a LOT of ignorance out there thanks to pop psychology and the abuse excuse entrenched in society. I think sometimes we bend over backwards so much, our hearts bleed so much, that we abdicate all boundaries/critical faculties, and being a true victim has lost its meaning, and justice has been victimised to death.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[samspace070]

There are some supporters on her JAII site that kept saying it was better if she got the DP. And for some of the reasons you posted. She could appeal easier and cheaper, supposedly if she was doing so from death row. More help available from anti-DP attorneys and more money offered to help DP victims.According to that group of Einsteins anyway.

Exactly, with the DP she is automatically guaranteed an appeal but with life, she can only ask for one and most of the time it is not granted. 1st degree murder convictions are only overturned 1% of the time according to Judge SteinleIII and DP verdicts are overturned 70% of the time. So she is not sitting in the cat bird seat. And considering her defense was over 3 million, I don't think the appellate court is going to look near as favorable to her as someone who didn't get a fraction of that amount for their defense. I understand from Internet searches an appeal for a LWOP sentence can cost in the 100's of thousands of dollars to be successful. And this time the state isn't paying that huge tab. She won't get the big DP Attorneys. And I don't believe AZ will pay KN and JW the big bucks to file the appeal. Besides they are not appellate lawyers. That state is pi$$ed to the max about the money spent on this woman. Alan Dershowitz would not take her case because he hates the ABUSE excuse, when the inmate is lying. He is one of the best appellate lawyers in America. I heard she has already written to the Innocence Project. I thought they only handled DP cases but I could be wrong. I don't think they would touch this LWOP on JA for anything. Too much evidence against her, she admitted killing him.

 

[Hope4More]

Are we positive JA's living conditions will really be far better with LWOP than with DP? It doesn't look like it to me. DP-ers can't get a job, but since when has JA liked to work? And have at least half her paycheck go to the Alexanders? Fun! Like LWOP-ers, DPers can also earn privileges. Plus, DPers get much more public attention than LWOPers who just disappear into the prison and out of sight.

The most important difference between LWOP and DP at Perryville is that at some point not all that far down the line she'll be living in a dorm cell-pod. Depending on her survival skills, that could be an advantage or a very very bad thing.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Exactly, with the DP she is automatically guaranteed an appeal but with life, she can only ask for one and most of the time it is not granted. 1st degree murder convictions are only overturned 1% of the time according to Judge SteinleIII and DP verdicts are overturned 70% of the time. So she is not sitting in the cat bird seat. And considering her defense was over 3 million, I don't think the appellate court is going to look near as favorable to her as someone who didn't get a fraction of that amount for their defense. I understand from Internet searches an appeal for a LWOP sentence can cost in the 100's of thousands of dollars to be successful. And this time the state isn't paying that huge tab. She won't get the big DP Attorneys. And I don't believe AZ will pay KN and JW the big bucks to file the appeal. Besides they are not appellate lawyers. That state is pi$$ed to the max about the money spent on this woman. Alan Dershowitz would not take her case because he hates the ABUSE excuse, when the inmate is lying. He is one of the best appellate lawyers in America. I heard she has already written to the Innocence Project. I thought they only handled DP cases but I could be wrong. I don't think they would touch this LWOP on JA for anything. Too much evidence against her, she admitted killing him.

There was a quote from the Innocence project the other day........ it said "Jodi Arias is not on our short list - she is not on our long list either".....

 

[elementary]

All I get from all three of the "news"/editorials is that azcentral is most definitely anti-DP.

Not a single one of the three mentioned that the pro-JA sites had posted all of the other jurors names(including middle initials and some webpages), and what did they post for #17, why just a bolded "JUROR THAT SAVED JODI'S LIFE".... as for how juror 17's name got out there, that's the crux of the matter imo.

As for people angry about the millions literally wasted over a trial that got hung, let alone that it was also the victim's family that wanted a different outcome, because of one person that is seen to have "slipped under the radar", what did they expect, of course people are going to vent.

As to whether she was stealth or not, a proper review of what was asked and answered should reveal that(I don't see any harm in people here speculating as to how or why, it's not like we have any clout or this case would have been finished as quickly as the majority of murders with not only pretty hard circumstantial evidence but also a confession, that means weeks and not years).

Finally, if it is found that this juror subverted justice for her own ends, then in the name of Justice, she should face some consequences. Subverting justice is not the way to change law, all that does is make it even more irrelevant to those who already have a disregard for it and encourages people to take the law into their own hands, something that the system is supposed to prevent.:moo:

Beautiful.

 

[MeeBee]

There was a quote from the Innocence project the other day........ it said "Jodi Arias is not on our short list - she is not on our long list either".....

This is awesome.

Eta: if it's real, I can tell with you guys sometimes lol.

 

[elementary]

I can see her Not knowing if. ..
On a traffic ticket? Sure i can see it. DWI? Yup. A MURDER 1 charge? But again she married him the day before he was to be sentenced on a plea deal. She was either blissfully ignorant and a complete coincidence that they were married then OR she was very much aware of his case, knew the game on his time he was facing and knew what being a wife meant to marry him before he pulled chain on his murder plea. I'm going with she was aware and actively participating in his case

I imagine she was living with him for years. Which means she would have seen him through his trial. Yet she doesn't remember Juan? Pull the other one.

 

[elementary]

You know who would definitely know if J17 attended her ex-husband's trial and was aware of Juan or not?

Her ex-husband.

No reason to think he wouldn't be honest about it, there may be no love lost between them now that she's remarried etc.

Unless there is honour among thieves. Would he snitch?

 

[Hope4More]

Yeah, I'm not buying J17 suffered abuse unless I see proof. Some have also suggested she may be not very bright. Well, then there should be a means test for the ability to use and apply common sense and some logic and the ability to communicate on a basic level. If she was mentally incapable of deliberation, then she shouldn't have been on a jury due to mental insufficiency.

Are you really saying that 17 owes it to you or to anyone else to provide evidence she was a victim of domestic violence?

 

[Val1]

Apparently he is real so I guess this happened. But again I doubt it was an exchange program. Could be wrong though.

At the age she was at and the way things were allegedly going at home, perhaps this exchange program is the new "going to Paris" or "gone to visit relatives"? That might also explain why Victor allegedly asked her to marry him so quickly as well as his jealousy, the sudden family move to northern CA and possibly the mean comments those two girls had made to her in grade 11? It could also maybe explain her "need" for a boob job and what some of us saw in those bedroom pics...:scared: