Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Becky Sharp]

Totally. It's narcissistic rage.

Because I feel like I know all of you (and no irony intended with the "know"), I feel comfortable, even safe, telling you that I've had first-hand experience with living with a full-blown narcissist. I was once married to one and the damage that relationship caused to me and my son (I can't write the words "our son") is difficult to describe.

Luckily for me, he wasn't anything like BritsKate's psycho-ex. He wasn't physically violent. But he was sick. Like She-who-must-be-obeyed, he always believed he was the most intelligent person ever and had an unbelievable sense of entitlement; and like her, he lied, lied, lied, and then lied some more. He lied about anything and everything. It drove me crazy because, as a fairly rational person, I always assumed that a person will lie about something because the lie is somehow advantageous to them. Of course, many of his lies were motivated by that, but what really drove me nuts were his unnecessary lies. I finally realized that he lied simply because he enjoyed lying. It made him feel superior and in control.

But, when his lies and schemes were unmasked, when he was cornered into a position that he couldn't lie or manipulate himself out of, he exploded into a very scary rage. His eyes literally bulged and his entire body turned red. He then physically destroyed wherever he was, punching and kicking walls, smashing furniture and sometimes windows.

I guess that is one reason why I've followed this trial. It's somehow liberating for me to watch a narcissistic psychopath receive her well deserved judgment, both in court and here on WS.

 

[janx]

Thanks. Will work on the court docs....


Hypothetically....say it turns out she lied 6x over during voir dire about her ex. The question would still be why. She obviously shouldn't have been on the jury, and she had better be charged with perjury.

But....why? I trust that JM saw what he saw and knew what he knew. He thought she had been a victim of DV and was still too emotional about it to be objective. From what's been said about deliberations, that sounds accurate to me. Stealth in that she lied to get on, but I don't think it was a vendetta against JM.

Agreed. And it's probably not the first time something like this has happened in JM's career.

 

[Mindmatters]

Since so much is allegedly at stake in DP cases, and small errors could result in serious consequences, and in-depth investigation of jurors is difficult and time-consuming, and individuals with agendas can easily lie to get on juries, it seems to me that a simple solution that will cover an abundance of weak points in the system is to have a majority of, say, 9-3 be sufficient for a DP verdict. This way, it would require 4 stealth jurors instead of 1 to throw a verdict. It seems to me to have the entire system depend on the honesty of 1 random individual is taking an unnecessary risk.

Yes Steve, I absolutely agree that much of what happened in this trial could be remedied with a majority rather than unanimous vote. I have always thought that a unanimous vote is not actually the power of many, but instead could ultimately be the power of only one as seen in this retrial.

 

[turaj]

He had 10 total strikes the next day, and 45 jurors to evaluate. He had the opportunity, theoretically, but didn't use it. It must be the case 10 others were more of a concern to him.

Okay so that puts the ball back in his court again...i can only assume there were many anti dp.

 

[Hope4More]

i watched it a few times....

she doesnt just 'go against juan' she was so nonchalant about it as if they were discussing whether he should wear a blue tie or a salmon tie the next day. i expected to see her swoosh him away like a fly.

But JM didn't argue with her. He let it go pretty quickly. I don't know what options he had at that point, though. Would it have been a breach of protocol to voice his objection again if he still had reservations? Why is it that I can imagine that's exactly what Nurmi would have done.

 

[Hatfield]

Because I feel like I know all of you (and no irony intended with the "know"), I feel comfortable, even safe, telling you that I've had first-hand experience with living with a full-blown narcissist. I was once married to one and the damage that relationship caused to me and my son (I can't write the words "our son") is difficult to describe.

Luckily for me, he wasn't anything like BritsKate's psycho-ex. He wasn't physically violent. But he was sick. Like She-who-must-be-obeyed, he always believed he was the most intelligent person ever and had an unbelievable sense of entitlement; and like her, he lied, lied, lied, and then lied some more. He lied about anything and everything. It drove me crazy because, as a fairly rational person, I always assumed that a person will lie about something because the lie is somehow advantageous to them. Of course, many of his lies were motivated by that, but what really drove me nuts were his unnecessary lies. I finally realized that he lied simply because he enjoyed lying. It made him feel superior and in control.

But, when his lies and schemes were unmasked, when he was cornered into a position that he couldn't lie or manipulate himself out of, he exploded into a very scary rage. His eyes literally bulged and his entire body turned red. He then physically destroyed wherever he was, punching and kicking walls, smashing furniture and sometimes windows.

I guess that is one reason why I've followed this trial. It's somehow liberating for me to watch a narcissistic psychopath receive her well deserved judgment, both in court and here on WS.

Re BBM

I had shared before that I knew a person like that. It always fascinated me in a strange way. Luckily I barely knew the person. One day the person told me exactly what you are describing. He admitted to lying just for the sake of it. He admitted to lying about everything possible whether it mattered or not. It was so bizarre and foreign to me I didnt even know how to respond except to just kind of laugh it off.

I am sure the people that are close to the person are not laughing.

 

[GigiG]

I think he violated probation and was sent to prison. I find it impossible to believe JM was good with probation for 1st degree murder, and I find it difficult to the ex would have received probation for robbery after he's been up on a murder charge.

I'm assuming nobody answers the requests for facts because they're unknown. If folks do have facts and pieces of a chronology, could you please offer that up so Mrs G and I don't waste time researching what is already known?

-----------------------

Someone here very kindly wrote cliff notes to show the timeline, but i can't find it just now.

My understanding is that she married her first husband (after years of co-habitating) the day before he was sentenced in a trial which was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. He took a plea deal, but did do a few (3-4) months before being released under the condition that he would be living with her (j-17). After that, he violated parole and other crimes came into play which then led to his current incarceration (25+ years?).

Not vouching for any of this, just too tired to look it up...

 

[Mindmatters]

Because I feel like I know all of you (and no irony intended with the "know"), I feel comfortable, even safe, telling you that I've had first-hand experience with living with a full-blown narcissist. I was once married to one and the damage that relationship caused to me and my son (I can't write the words "our son") is difficult to describe.

Luckily for me, he wasn't anything like BritsKate's psycho-ex. He wasn't physically violent. But he was sick. Like She-who-must-be-obeyed, he always believed he was the most intelligent person ever and had an unbelievable sense of entitlement; and like her, he lied, lied, lied, and then lied some more. He lied about anything and everything. It drove me crazy because, as a fairly rational person, I always assumed that a person will lie about something because the lie is somehow advantageous to them. Of course, many of his lies were motivated by that, but what really drove me nuts were his unnecessary lies. I finally realized that he lied simply because he enjoyed lying. It made him feel superior and in control.

But, when his lies and schemes were unmasked, when he was cornered into a position that he couldn't lie or manipulate himself out of, he exploded into a very scary rage. His eyes literally bulged and his entire body turned red. He then physically destroyed wherever he was, punching and kicking walls, smashing furniture and sometimes windows.

I guess that is one reason why I've followed this trial. It's somehow liberating for me to watch a narcissistic psychopath receive her well deserved judgment, both in court and here on WS.

Becky, thanks for having the courage to share your experiences with others:hug:. It is good to know that you and your son are safe from such a person.

 

[Steve44]

Yes Steve, I absolutely agree that much of what happened in this trial could be remedied with a majority rather than unanimous vote. I have always thought that a unanimous vote is not actually the power of many, but instead could ultimately be the power of only one as seen in this retrial.

Exactly, and you still have all the benefits of a 12 member jury; 12 minds, 12 points of view, 12 people to discuss and convince their fellows, and one verdict delivered in the end. The only difference is the 3 potential dissenters will have to respect the 3 to 1 majority of the others, which any reasonable person should be ok with, and there is inherent protection against stealth jurors.

 

[Hope4More]

Listening to the way that J17 talks about her ex husband and then calls him an "idiot" in the video, backs up my feeing that she's not a DV victim...

None of what she said added up right. The pieces don't fit together. She was lying.

 

[Becky Sharp]

Re BBM

I had shared before that I knew a person like that. It always fascinated me in a strange way. Luckily I barely knew the person. One day the person told me exactly what you are describing. He admitted to lying just for the sake of it. He admitted to lying about everything possible whether it mattered or not. It was so bizarre and foreign to me I didnt even know how to respond except to just kind of laugh it off.

I am sure the people that are close to the person are not laughing.

Thanks, Hatfield.

What I also wanted to say was that I see a clear similarity between JA's inability to respect boundaries and his. He had no respect for social boundaries, professional boundaries, or even legal boundaries. Because--and I suspect this is true with her as well--he just didn't get it. If you're the centre of the universe then there is no such thing as boundaries.

His inability to respect such boundaries finally bit him in the bum: he was both fired and lost his professional standing.

Narcissists just don't get it. And, like her, he feels sorry for himself. He sees himself as a victim of some conspiracy of jealous colleagues and co-professionals. In other words, he was so awesome that a vast group of strangers came together to fabricate his "alleged" wrongdoing. Boohoo. Like her, he has the mindset of a three-year-old.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

MrsG and voir dire video watchers:

By court's end on October 7, 45 jurors, including #17, were deemed death qualified after individual voir dire. Their questionnaires were sealed.

Those 45 were the pool entering on October 8 who were subject to strike by counsel. Each side had 10 strikes.

That process was conducted behind closed doors.
MLFPBMTIMVTFAH.

RBBM: :stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad:

Unbelievable how much SECRECY there was in Judge Sherry "Secret" Stephens' courtroom :gaah:

:seeya: And Thank You, for this update !

 

[emilycat]

I wonder that too! You'll recognize me if you see me I have the same Twitter name as on here followed by a 23.

I just followed you on Twitter, MeeBee. My Twitter name is not the same as my name here, but it indicates my former career.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I looked up husband #2 and he has a record going back to juvie. I don't know #1's name.

Which I also read that she's "known" her first husband since GRADE SCHOOL!! Birds of a feather!! It's not like she accidentally met 2 felons and fell in love with them!!

 

[Hope4More]

-----------------------

Someone here very kindly wrote cliff notes to show the timeline, but i can't find it just now.

My understanding is that she married her first husband (after years of co-habitating) the day before he was sentenced in a trial which was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. He took a plea deal, but did do a few (3-4) months before being released under the condition that he would be living with her (j-17). After that, he violated parole and other crimes came into play which then led to his current incarceration (25+ years?).

Not vouching for any of this, just too tired to look it up...

The plea deal AND trial is what doesn't add up. Usually pleas deals are offered before trial. A plea deal and no trial would make it more plausible that 17 didn't know JM's name. But..it doesn't matter in one sense. Whether or not she knew JM, she for a fact did not tell JM the whole truth about her ex's charges when he asked. She lied by omission, and had to have flat out lied on the questionnaire or he would have asked her about that murder plea bargain thing. She would NOT have been on the jury.

 

[Hope4More]

-----------------------

Someone here very kindly wrote cliff notes to show the timeline, but i can't find it just now.

My understanding is that she married her first husband (after years of co-habitating) the day before he was sentenced in a trial which was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. He took a plea deal, but did do a few (3-4) months before being released under the condition that he would be living with her (j-17). After that, he violated parole and other crimes came into play which then led to his current incarceration (25+ years?).

Not vouching for any of this, just too tired to look it up...

I wrote cliff notes (and called them that) about jury deliberations, based on Jen-foreman interview. Is that what you're remembering?

 

[smeck]

Trying to catch up and from what I have read tonight, everything that has happened with #17 lays (or lies?) firmly on JSS weak shoulders.

 

[MeeBee]

-----------------------

Someone here very kindly wrote cliff notes to show the timeline, but i can't find it just now.

My understanding is that she married her first husband (after years of co-habitating) the day before he was sentenced in a trial which was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. He took a plea deal, but did do a few (3-4) months before being released under the condition that he would be living with her (j-17). After that, he violated parole and other crimes came into play which then led to his current incarceration (25+ years?).

Not vouching for any of this, just too tired to look it up...

Was it that there was a plea or did one simply reduce the charges? But yes this is how im remembering it too. The original charge was first degree murder and it was reduced. He wasn't in prison long before he was let out on probation and went to live with 17. A lot of people have already done this research and posted the links and the documents especially BTM.

 

[Mindmatters]

Just think had j17 been on the first case together with that foreman and ja could have walked.

You know, that thought is positively frightening in it's truth, Turaj.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Which I also read that she's "known" her first husband since GRADE SCHOOL!! Birds of a feather!! It's not like she accidentally met 2 felons and fell in love with them!!

Yet, when being questioned by Juan it sounds like a brief relationship which she quickly removed herself from .. UNREAL!