Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[ShadyLady]

Black Sails is on so good night everyone that's still here.

I hope more info comes out, these hearings/court should never have been closed. Just goes to show!!!

 

[samspace070]

Whoever it was that said that JM needed to be stabbed 27 times, it might serve that person well to be stabbed 27 times so they know what Travis felt like and so they know not to open their mouth and show their stupidity, insensitivity and crudeness. I am not in favor of violence but when anyone is stupid enough and callous enough to make that statement, then they are the one who should feel the pain!

Can you imagine if they had said it about KN or JW? Those people would not have a job today. But since it was said about JM, the bit$$ still has her job. Go figure

 

[Bluewater_Girl]

Katiecool, so glad to see you! In my jurisdiction usually the court admin/clerk is really friendly On a personal level with the judge they're assigned to. Is This generally the case in maricopa? If so... Today is the ONLY time I've ever once considered JSS would give lwp. Ever.

BBM - IMO, it's not going to happen. JSS will give LWOP. After several years of interacting with the psychopath, JSS might have PTSD, but I believe she knows that CMJA is very dangerous. JSS will sentence for natural life, guaranteed.

 

[ZsaZsa]

OMG !

Just read this thread and saw the posts about JSS's "judicial assistant" :gaah:

Okay ... can someone help me out here, please

I want to make sure I got it right:

So this info about JSS's judicial assistant came out in the videos that were just released ?

And JSS's judicial assistant said that Juan should be stabbed ?

OMG ... what a [self imposed mod snip by DGC] because if I say anything else, I may be at lalala camp !

JMO but I have NEVER liked JSS and I have always felt she had an agenda. And I have no doubt that she knows about her "judicial assistant" ... hmmm ...

MOO and :moo:

Back to lurking on this thread ... for now ... lol

Are these comments recorded or just overheard by someone ?

 

[MeeBee]

Are these comments recorded or just overheard by someone ?

They were only over heard. That's why no action was taken, because she denied it and no one can say if it really happened.

 

[Amster]

So....JSS is saying the deputy is a liar? Figures

 

[MeeBee]

So....JSS is saying the deputy is a liar? Figures

No just that it can't be verified that she heard what she says she heard. It's hearsay. The judge can't do anything unless she sees/hears it herself or the assistant admits to it, which she didn't.

 

[Amster]

No just that it can't be verified that she heard what she says she heard. It's hearsay. The judge can't do anything unless she sees/hears it herself or the assistant admits to it, which she didn't.

And, of course the jury foreman isn't going to fess up....that's for sure. But, if true, why didn't he hang the jury?

 

[MeeBee]

And, of course the jury foreman isn't going to fess up....that's for sure. But, if true, why didn't he hang the jury?

I think his number one goal was to get everyone down to murder 2. But the evidence of premediation was too clear, even he knew it., and he was losing people. So I think he decided it was better to hang things up in the penalty phase, where he thought the automatic decision would be life if they hung. The fear was that another jury would come in and not only give her first degree but give her death as well. So he chose plan B.

That's my theory anyway.

 

[Amster]

I think his number one goal was to get everyone down to murder 2. But the evidence of premediation was too clear, even he knew it. So I think he decided it was better to hang things up in the penalty phase, where he thought the automatic decision would be life if they hung. The fear was that another jury would come in and not only give her first degree but give her death as well. So he chose plan B.

That's my theory anyway.

I believe you're correct....

Amazing that JA was able to manipulate....through her lawyers, court staff, the judge, at least 2 jurors....her way out of a death penalty. Just amazing and sickening

 

[WhoaIsMe]

No just that it can't be verified that she heard what she says she heard. It's hearsay. The judge can't do anything unless she sees/hears it herself or the assistant admits to it, which she didn't.

Right. But seems that Jennifer was confident about what she heard enough to approach Juan and then , according to KN, go into chambers with them about it. If she didn't really hear it she must hate jss assistant for real and/OR they have some serious workplace drama going on in there.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dr. Know?]

JA can size up a person in probably 10 seconds. She survives that way.

New judge for dp cases after leaving the assistant county attorney position, she gets a completly new staff. Maybe the court assistant doesn't like Juan's style? Maybe Juan doesn't like her style? Surely with her 25 years or so with Maricopa Courts they've crossed paths. Same with MK & MDLR.

Pretty sure it's all being investigated and connections are being found. Who released the jurors names to the public, why did Troy and others know about the verdict the evening before, who said what about stabbing Juan 27 times, who wanted 2nd degree murder or not & who's been online with who.

For $3 mil, I expect a thorough investigation as a resident & a muzzle on JA after sentencing. Nothing less.

jmo

 

[Val1]

Janet, the person who JSS identified as her "judicial assistant" is, how to say this delicately, not too popular with trial watchers or the first jury.

Isn't she the same person that was in charge of the jury and who sat where in the courthouse(ie.overflow or lottery seats)?

 

[La-Cooks]

So....JSS is saying the deputy is a liar? Figures

JSS didn't state that the judicial assistant was a liar; she just said, "She denies it, and I'm taking no stand."

 

[La-Cooks]

And that maybe would be ok, BUT YOU'RE A JUDGE! TAKE A STAND! That is what taxpayers pay you to do!

 

[Meemaw12]

Twitter is reporting #17 will be on 12news Sunday (tomorrow) nite at 10 pm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meemaw12]

ALL OF YOU!!! GOING ON AND ON ABOUT "JANET" BEING A TOAD ... SOMEONE IN THE DT'S BACK POCKET ....

Read the top of this thread or at least refer to quote above. Janet reported that a JUDICIAL ASST (un-named) made the alleged comments. Janet didn't make the statements. She REPORTED them.

If you can't take the time to get the facts straight -- even after several posters here proffered those facts -- then at least take the time to watch the video of the hearing.

Sorry. I don't go off very often, but it really frosts me when fellow posters get sloppy. This entire discussion about Janet Pittman being the person who SAID these inflammatory statements is based on ignorance.

Editing to add: This incident happened during the FIRST trial, not the sentencing trial.

My understanding from the tape is

Jennifer Pittman reported to JM the incidents.

The Janet that everyone is talking about is a judicial asst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowboy]

My understanding from the tape is

Jennifer Pittman reported to JM the incidents.

The Janet that everyone is talking about is a judicial asst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies. But several posters seemed to confuse the two as (evidently) did I.

So how, under WS TOS, are we able to "assume" a judicial asst. named "Janet" is to blame for the inflammatory remarks?

 

[Dr. Know?]

Haven't been around as often since the verdict but try to keep up. Maybe I'm wrong on who said what about stabbing Juan 27x. My apolgies. It will all wash out and there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it, unless...

Send her off. Silence her. That would be good news! I'd like to know the outcome of the judicial leak of jurors names though. That is a "source". Outta here source too! Makes for bad news. jmo

eta, I also have a good reason to demand an answer about juror #17 & any connetions to anyone in this trial, and it be given honestly to the public.

 

[Meemaw12]

My apologies. But several posters seemed to confuse the two as (evidently) did I.

So how, under WS TOS, are we able to "assume" a judicial asst. named "Janet" is to blame for the inflammatory remarks?

We don't know who the judicial asst is that Jennifer Pittman referred to.

Some are giving their opinions that it might be Janet W.

I honestly don't know and I guess JSS dismissed it after speaking with the asst. and asst. denied remarks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk