Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[wendiesan]

Jodi's defense cost 3 million dollars wheread the state paid around $125,000 iirc. .

Exactly. What is the breakdown of that c. 3 mill?
What was KN's fee? JW's fee? PI#1? PI#2? MdlR? each of the computer experts? each of the sexperts?
What were transcription costs? transportation costs? parking costs? clothing allowance? secretarial costs?
What were the court costs for each motion?
What were the honoraria given to each juror for his/her service?
What other costs were involved?

This was public money being spent on a less than transparent public trial, and, JMO, the State Auditor should be able to explain to the public the imbalance of funding given to JA's team. The Auditor should be able to have access to all documentation.

I'm just not sure if such an analysis would be carried out, and then made public.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

LOL @ the straw man posts.

 

[Madeleine74]

she made sure it was clear that both husbands only had criminal cases either before or after she was with them.

And she said her ex had ONE case, in 2008.

He had a case that involved crimes from 1997 that went on for 3 years and for which Juan was the prosecutor and which included a 1st degree murder charge. The same charge as Jodi; the same prosecutor as Jodi. And they were together all during that time period from 1997 until their wedding on the eve of his sentencing. I truly don't understand how this doesn't qualify as lying to some people. To me, it takes more than "splitting hairs" to not see the deliberate falsehood here.

In your post you actually point to something real -- her response to a specific and verifiable question. Bravo! And yes, if she gave a false answer, that is a lie. Thank you for posting that.

My post was only addressing one specific issue that J17 "knows" Juan. Not "knows who Juan is" or "knows Juan is a prosecutor and remembers Juan prosecuted her ex-husband," or "is pizzed that Juan was the prosecutor who convicted her now ex-hub when they were together," which are not the exact same thing but are being argued as if they were. If one follows that logic then everyone who has seen anything about the case or watched the news where the Arias case was discussed and pictures of the players were shown can (and should have) claim(ed) they "know" the people in this trial when they were being questioned during voir dire.

Hey I know who Brad Pitt is and I know the names of a bunch of his movies. Do I "know" Brad Pitt? No. I've never talked to him.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

A woman prisoner described the conditions:

“We work eight hours regardless of conditions …. We work in the fields ** hoeing** …

No way!!! There you go!!! That's is right up Jodi's alley even more so than the print shop!!!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The 1998 case actually went on for 5 years. In Sept 2003 there was an order of discharge from probation. And yes, Juan is listed as representing the state on that as well. Her ex-husband had a direct affiliation with Juan for 5 years. They were newlyweds at the time. I think it's fair to assume she was present at each and every court date.

And aside from withholding all information regarding that case, she also lied about the one she did divulge. First of all it wasn't just burglary, it was also three counts of aggravated assault and misconduct involving weapons. And acording to BK's notes, #17 claimed he was sent to prison when they were separated. Well, his sentencing hearing was in June 2008. In black and white, the minutes clearly state that #17 made a statement to the court on his behalf.

Oh she did? LOL!! There it is then Do you have a link for that, I'd like to see it, and I am interested about looking into this case / situation a bit more .. TIA!!

I still think a few more probing questions from the state at jury selection would have unearthed all this and she would have been dismissed for cause. If that sounds like I'm blaming the state for not being thorough enough then so be it.

 

[elementary]

Yes! Yes! YES!!! You NAILED it!!! All JA has ever wanted is VALIDATION and RECOGNITION.... and she doesn't care WHERE it comes from or WHAT she has to do to get it!! (actually, this is how she got her 3-hole wonder nickname!! ;0)

Oh woe is she, a lonely, misunderstood psychopath

 

[elementary]

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

Oh, totally, in her case.

 

[MeeBee]

Oh she did? LOL!! There it is then Do you have a link for that, I'd like to see it, and I am interested about looking into this case / situation a bit more .. TIA!!

I still think a few more probing questions from the state at jury selection would have unearthed all this and she would have been dismissed for cause. If that sounds like I'm blaming the state for not being thorough enough then so be it.

It sounds like he did ask the probing questions and she lied.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Oh she did? LOL!! There it is then Do you have a link for that, I'd like to see it, and I am interested about looking into this case / situation a bit more .. TIA!!

I still think a few more probing questions from the state at jury selection would have unearthed all this and she would have been dismissed for cause. If that sounds like I'm blaming the state for not being thorough enough then so be it.

I pasted all the case numbers for you earlier today when you were asking about them. I went and read them b/c I wanted to know the facts too. (Wasn't it you that asked about them earlier before you had to run out?)

I learned a lot today. And all of it makes me think that J17 really wanted on the Jury, and that she knows how to work the system.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

If you google "Maricopa County Public Court records" it will take you to the Superior Court records website.. Then search for records for "Santino Alejandro". After the list comes up, and you click on the case number there will be a place in the upper right hand corner where you can click "court minutes"...

 

[katydid23]

I hope i'm wrong---but I don't think they will do anything about J17 and her lying manipulative ways. I think that ship has sailed. I think it was up to the state to look deeper into her past, and it didn't get done. JMO :cow:

 

[elementary]

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.

If you want to split hairs then I can accommodate. I did not state that she withheld vital information as a fact. Even so, how can you doubt that she would have been ditched as a juror if that fact had come to light in voir dire? It's logical to infer that.

As for consorting with felons, my point is one has to be naive/uninformed to believe that she is not involved in the criminal culture and all that means. There is such a thing as a sociopathic family mindset, rather like the Mafia. I have no evidence to believe differently. That she got on the jury mentioning that she consorted with felons- she minimised the kind of felony happening there, and forgot things like hubby with murder 1.

'She withheld in deliberations' means that she held back any explanation for voting the way she did. The rest of the jurors did not get any explanation nor were given any argument to persuade them to her understanding and conviction.

Yes, she is crying 'victim'. My opinion. Never said it was a fact. In totality, to me it seems shady. But I'm thinking now, that if she were on trial she would get off given the prevalent 'abuse excuse' culture.

Her felon husband wants money and this is not suspect? 'Okay, and'? Again it's the totality of a criminal culture and mindset that I see. It's a duck.

As for the elephant in the room, lying about being a victim of DV. Why ever not suspect that, suspect that she has an agenda, like maybe revenge, sticking it to the man and that whole criminal culture? I don't know if she has been a victim, and maybe she has, but in her case, especially given that other victims of DV are not seeing her reaction as valid, and regarding the totality of her behaviour, it's not looking good for her in terms of truth. I also want proof of the 'overwhelming consensus that the very fact of being a victim of DV was reason to disqualify her' because as I recall, victims of DV were accepted on the jury.

Yes, people are finding excuses for J17,IMO.

There are indeed, people analysing her inner life. Proof is in the posts.

No, being a true victim has been blurred by relativism. Generally. Happily it has not lost its meaning here, overall. But not totally. IMO.

 

[MeeBee]

If you want to split hairs then I can accommodate. I did not state that she withheld vital information as a fact. Even so, how can you doubt that she would have been ditched as a juror if that fact had come to light in voir dire? It's logical to infer that.

As for consorting with felons, my point is one has to be naive/uninformed to believe that she is not involved in the criminal culture and all that means. There is such a thing as a sociopathic family mindset, rather like the Mafia. I have no evidence to believe differently. That she got on the jury mentioning that she consorted with felons- she minimised the kind of felony happening there, and forgot things like hubby with murder 1.

'She withheld in deliberations' means that she held back any explanation for voting the way she did. The rest of the jurors did not get any explanation nor were given any argument to persuade them to her understanding and conviction.

Yes, she is crying 'victim'. My opinion. Never said it was a fact. In totality, to me it seems shady. But I'm thinking now, that if she were on trial she would get off given the prevalent 'abuse excuse' culture.

Her felon husband wants money and this is not suspect? 'Okay, and'? Again it's the totality of a criminal culture and mindset that I see. It's a duck.

As for the elephant in the room, lying about being a victim of DV. Why ever not suspect that, suspect that she has an agenda, like maybe revenge, sticking it to the man and that whole criminal culture? I don't know if she has been a victim, and maybe she has, but in her case, especially given that other victims of DV are not seeing her reaction as valid, and regarding the totality of her behaviour, it's not looking good for her in terms of truth. I also want proof of the 'overwhelming consensus that the very fact of being a victim of DV was reason to disqualify her'. And as I recall, victims of DV were accepted on the jury.

Yes, people are finding excuses for J17,IMO.

There are indeed, people analysing her inner life. Proof is in the posts.

No, being a true victim has been blurred by relativism. Generally. Happily it has not lost its meaning here, overall. But not totally. IMO.

Yes a man who experienced DV was also on the jury. It is not an automatic disqualifier in the least.

Jodi decides to give ill advised interviews and that is Juan's fault. The media becomes enamored with the trial, that too is Juan's fault. The defense takes too long getting evidence to Juan, that's his fault. The defense chooses to hand a motion over to the press and neglects to give one to Juan. Why that too is Juan's fault. A juror with a vendetta lied to get on the jury and that is also Juan's fault.

When are we going to expect people to take responsibility for their own actions? Why is jury bashing ok as it relates to the other jurors who have as yet not been caught lying in voir dire but #17 is off limits? My God, don't you dare call a spade a spade, you hater.

 

[elementary]

Meh.

JA is locked down, Perryville looms, LWOP was the perfect verdict that wouldn't have happened without a 17 or something comparable, the Alexanders will win their civil suit and deprive JA of her blood money, and this horror story is all but over. Good enough for me. Peace out.

Honestly? I'm gobsmacked. So J17 is an anti- hero of some sort? Some karmic avenger?

Seems to me like a tainted verdict. I could live with LWOP if it had been achieved honestly. This makes everything suspect and depressing about the justice system as well. So who won? J17?

 

[elementary]

she made sure it was clear that both husbands only had criminal cases either before or after she was with them.

And she said her ex had ONE case, in 2008.

He had a case that involved crimes from 1997 that went on for 3 years and for which Juan was the prosecutor and which included a 1st degree murder charge. The same charge as Jodi; the same prosecutor as Jodi. And they were together all during that time period from 1997 until their wedding on the eve of his sentencing. I truly don't understand how this doesn't qualify as lying to some people. To me, it takes more than "splitting hairs" to not see the deliberate falsehood here.

This is worth repeating, IMO. I don't get how the facts and lies are not obvious. It's a scary thought, to be honest.

 

[elementary]

https://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/arizona-female-prisoners-need-help/
For almost 20 years, in compliance with state law, companies such as Martori Farms, Wal-Mart’s vendor, pay Perryville women two dollars per hour, not including travel time. They have no choice: state law mandates that all able-bodied inmates work.
A woman prisoner who worked at Martori Farms described the conditions:

“We work eight hours regardless of conditions …. We work in the fields hoeing weeds and thinning plants … Currently we are forced to work in the blazing sun for eight hours. We run out of water several times a day. We ran out of sunscreen several times a week. They don’t check medical backgrounds or ages before they pull women for these jobs. Many of us cannot do it! If we stop working and sit on the bus or even just take an unauthorized break we get a MAJOR ticket which takes away our ‘good time’!!! We are told we get ‘two’ 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch like a normal job but it’s more like 10 minutes and 20 minutes. They constantly yell at us we are too slow and to speed up because we are costing $150 an acre in labor and that’s not acceptable… In addition, the prison has sent women to work on the farms regardless of their medical conditions.”

Sounds like a couple of jobs I've had while I was younger, barring the heat.

 

[mugwump*]

This is also from the same "STEALTH JUROR" Wikipedia page... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_juror

In June 2008, after a judge dismissed a juror, during deliberations in a “gang murder” trial, who was found to have falsely denied her gang affiliation on a jury selection questionnaire, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said: “It is our subjective opinion that she was a stealth juror, that she specifically wanted to be on this jury.”[10] Juror dishonesty on questionnaires threatened the six-month-long federal corruption trial of former Illinois Governor George Ryan.[7]

The more I read, the more I wonder about "Bill" Arias and his Mexican mafia possible connections to protect his "little girl". She has even indicated such.

 

[Val1]

Maybe, maybe not .. And could you believe him? Worth a shot though for them, he'd be the one that would know and know if she had strong feelings about the prosecutor in general.

Not verified but rumour vis a vis tweets has it that she had a couple of children with the first hb before they got married, so not only is it likely she was miffed about JM putting him in prison the day after their wedding(putting the whole burden of a family on her alone), but that her and her first hb have had some kind of ongoing contact re the children. I actually wouldn't be surprised if that's two(children and just married) of the mitigating factors in how he got his plea deal, it would be interesting to know but I'm trying not to sleuth this case anymore...

 

[Val1]

Thank you!! I needed that!! ...you are so right, the look on her face...and she even made a little gasp...

I wondered if perhaps her guard had given her a little warning jolt... either pre-planned by her DT to make sure she didn't freak out, or maybe the guard just reacted to the verdict him/herself.:jail:

 

[Val1]

Oh she did? LOL!! There it is then Do you have a link for that, I'd like to see it, and I am interested about looking into this case / situation a bit more .. TIA!!

I still think a few more probing questions from the state at jury selection would have unearthed all this and she would have been dismissed for cause. If that sounds like I'm blaming the state for not being thorough enough then so be it.

If you haven't seen this yet you may be interested. https://twitter.com/jmartinezupdate/status/576683428696834048