Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ShadyLady said:
And huge problem as I see it, is that Arizona legal system thought this case was important enough to let JA have the lawyers she wanted, let her have delays and allow her to spend millions on her case.....and what is the outcome?

One juror was able to make a mockery of the judicial system. I am sure this is being noticed across the land....can't hide this case under a rock. jmo.
Click to expand...



Honestly, the AZ legal system was being ridiculed and mocked for this trial long before 17. Throw in the toughest sheriff in America allowing an all-but-convicted killer to chat for 9 hours at a stretch while she dined on $100 a week commissary, and, well.......
 
Hope4More said:
Honestly, the AZ legal system was being ridiculed and mocked for this trial long before 17. Throw in the toughest sheriff in America allowing an all-but-convicted killer to chat for 9 hours at a stretch while she dined on $100 a week commissary, and, well.......
Click to expand...

I was Facetiming with my fiance this morning and thinking this convicted murderer was getting NINE HOURS of that. It's just mind boggling and the only satisfaction about it is the cliff she just fell off of and the withdrawals she will definitely experience. But still......
 
Madeleine74 said:
For those saying J17 did not deliberate, then why did the foreman and juror 18 both eventually tell the judge that J17 was deliberating, that things had "gotten better," that they both felt J17 could deliberate? It's in the court transcript of the 3/3/15 secret meetings. Should we discard the things they said directly to the judge and only take their media comments as the truth?
Click to expand...

Juror 18 did not say that. She simply said juror 17 was doing better. As for foreman, he seems to be a guy who wanted to be in balance and be for both sides of the argument. Good for him. Doesn't mean he felt she was deliberating in good faith.
 
katiecoolady said:
I would absolutely "know" the attorneys the men who defended the men who killed my sister- something that close to home. I'm sure the men who killed my sister will never forget the name Cathy Hughes, nor will the women who still were attached to them (true story).

That is what is reasonable in my mind. The fact she didn't even identify she knew who he was and had THAT kind of close and "loaded" connection to Martinez who is VERY memorable, to me, is telling. Of what/why I don't know. It's just telling of something.
Click to expand...

I can very definitely call juror 17 a liar and feel good about it.
 
Feebot said:
Can someone tell me how to contact a mod?
Click to expand...

If you want to alert on a post you hit that little triangle at the left bottom of each post with the exclamation point. Lambchop is the mod for this forum so you could contact her I guess (sorry if that's not the correct protocol).
 
katiecoolady said:
Indeed. I have my own theory, which involves an understanding of codependence and having a speculative opinion on if a person like this, living with a felon who has dealt with the "system" in a high profile trial, would actually have the ego strength to maintain for months total silence about their involvement in the trial. I'll just leave it at that, for now. His seeking $ for interviews sounds, to me, opportunistic. I can see someone seeing, rather $eeing a lucrative opportunity for being involved in a unique and $pecial way like this trial down the road. And I'm not talking about Juror 17 in my speculation about $eeing.
Click to expand...

I believe juror 17's husband, being a felon himself, told her to vote for life. Period. She is a liar.
 
Madeleine74 said:
But first it required you to make the judgement call of "knowing" the prosecutor and you made it based on your criteria, and it met and maybe exceeded your criteria: interacting directly with the prosecutor during a social weekend. And I would answer the same way as you.

Now, if you had never interacted directly with the prosecutor and not been in a social setting with the prosecutor, but knew who he/she was and what they did and could recognize them and someone in your family or a loved one had dealings with that person (but you did not have dealings with that prosecutor), would you still have answered "yes" to knowing that person? If someone else answered "no" to the same question (same scenario) would they be lying?
Click to expand...

I would have answered honestly "yes" because I know WHY they're asking and so did the jurors unless they're of subnormal intelligence.
By answering "yes", I would then be asked to elaborate and the attorneys would make their decision on whether it was important.

I rabidly dislike the game of semantics. LOL, not with you Madeleine74, you told me before that you enjoy debating :D

I'm stuck with an in-law family member who is a pathological liar and lives with that daily game of semantics.

Q: "Did you see that someone cut off the plug to my lamp?"
A: "No, I did not see anyone cut off the plug to your lamp."

Reality: SHE was the one who cut the plug off my lamp. My fault for trying to be non-confrontational by not asking the question correctly because (at the time) I didn't know who and what I was dealing with.

In my case, she understood the question and answered truthfully as the question was asked. BUT she knew the meaning behind it.
 
LOL. My mother was called for jury duty. When asked if she knew any of the players she said "Well, I know Mr. Peroni (the defense attorney) from church, but I'm not sure he'd know me. I also know that he is a prestigious defense attorney and if Sam Peroni is representing you then...." EXCUSED!
 
Curious in Indiana said:
I am sorry. :(
Yes I was really angry after verdict. Guess stress was a contributor but i hurt my back. Been down and in pain. Will come and go and post, but cannot sit for long. I miss the posters.

Let me just say that I was fine with Life. What made me angry was that eleven people decided for death and felt one had an agenda. I was mad at JSS, the defense, and juror 17. I was even upset at Juan's closing. Who cares about the moon landing almost fifty years later?

As for Jodi, all I wanted was to see her sit in a cell, alone, for the remainder of her life with no outside or human contact. Some have said if she got the DP, she would never have been executed. Whether she is executed was never a deal breaker for me. I just want to see her live in hell on earth. Was that too much to ask? Because she is a psychopath, she will do well in general population once she has been beat a few times and we will likely never hear of that.
Click to expand...



(((Curious))))) I love that we can disagree as often as we do and it still ends up with only good feelings. What you wanted for JA is what I feel safe in saying is what virtually everyone here wants for her. Wish you'd been in the other thread when roaches and all other manner of bad things were being wished upon her. It may not have been pretty, but it sure felt good. :)

I hope you're wrong about her doing well in general pop. I can see it going either way, but I tend towards seeing it as something she won't survive. That woman has a solid track record of never knowing when to keep her mouth shut, and of loudly blaming others for her own bad acts. Neither of those unfortunate character traits is going to serve her well in general pop, among women, who are really not her strong suit. :)
 
ohreally said:
Do we even know if it was legal for Juan to background check prospective jurors without court permission? I have been trying to research this and cannot come up with an answer. From what I have found it seems (but I haven't found the actual law) that in federal cases the judge has to give the ok for attorneys to do a background check. I have also seen where in state courts problems have come about by doing background checks on jurors such as discrimination issues. I am wondering what the law is in Arizona. Just my guess, but I think we will find that attorneys need permission from the court to do so.
Click to expand...

In addition, a background check on her would not have revealed this infornation since she is not the one with the record.
 
Soulsad said:
This first video release kind of puts the soullessness of these girls front and center.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wisconsin-slender-man-20150313-story.html

There was a also a 20/20 full episode called 'OUT OF THE WOODS'

also this - http://perezhilton.com/perezitos/20...yton-leutner-speaks-out?from=engagement_links

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/22/girls-who-tried-kill-slender-man-264218.html
Payton Leutner survived is doing remarkably well.

Lambchop please forgive this off-topic. I will stay to the arias news here from this post forward.
Click to expand...

Soulless is a great word, especially for Morgan. Talking about stabbing her friend: "It didn't feel like anything. It was like air". "People who trust you become very gullible. It was sort of sad."

Morgan is the leader, I'm guessing?
 
image.jpg

Hey, Arias.. Beautiful day on Padre Island
Have fun in Perryville dust bowl asap
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 94 more.
Total: 316 (members: 95, guests: 221)

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
221
Total visitors
316
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,353
Messages
18,238,133
Members
234,351
Latest member
nh_lopez
Back
Top