Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8

[ShadyLady]

Juan asked that something be put on the record about him not being snarky or something and JSS begrudging made a note of it. Also, Juan's boss being there...I think JA minions are attacking Juan left and right. Only conjecture here. Just too much of JA modus operandi going on. Including telling her cellmate she was going after Juan.

 

[MaLou]

17 says 4 Drs diag the murderer with PTSD

Not true

17 says BiPolar was mentioned

wow so no test results needed to prove it.

She imo is one messed up individual.

17 talks about MF and Gaffner

So she didn't hear what Dr Demarte said

17 says she doesn't know if she would want death if her son was murdered.

I really feel sorry for the 11 that had to deal with her, honestly I couldn't have done it

Thankfully she wasn't on 1st trial, no doubt in my mind there would not be a murder1 conviction.

Moo




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That says to me she is not DP qualified. She wanted to be a part of the sensationalism of this trial. She didn't care about justice.

 

[Hatfield]

IQ test is a little extreme due to prejudicial reasons, but at least a quiz on the basics of law. Not made for TV law.

For DP cases in jury selection I do think there needs to be 1 final step. Have each member of the potential jury pool meet with a professional that can really be sure they understand what they may be asked to do if the jury is leaning towards signing a DP form.

I think this last step would eliminate quite a few people that didnt think it through all the way to the very end. Its hard for normal folks to grasp what they may end up having to decide on and sign their name to.
I think having a last step like that would help to be sure the jury panel could fulfill their duties if the jury decides on a DP.

I think too many people think they can do it and at the very end they begin to struggle with it. Having a last step like this may help.

Also a unamimous verdict like 9-3 or more rather than total majority would go a long ways in helping the process. That alone would be a nice change to make and simple to make that change.

 

[ShadyLady]

I'd be one angry momma bear that my kids were even told some warped fiction about JA being a victim. I'd be angry if anyone at the B&GC were talking to my kids about sympathy toward ANY convicted murderer. Not even filmed or shared, just a discussion. It's nuts.

I wonder if this has anything to do with ALV's American Tour Lecture Series regarding how much of a bully Juan was. And how he took Slowflake down.



SNARK!!! Somewhat.

 

[daisydomino]

That says to me she is not DP qualified. She wanted to be a part of the sensationalism of this trial. She didn't care about justice.

I have gone back and forth on 17: what can be proved and what can't. I think this bold part says it all, though. I think that's right, even if nobody can prove it. And she's still digging it. I'm not giving her a second more of my attention.

The end result is okay. The Alexanders got the M1 especially cruel verdict justice. JA will wither away and die in Perryville.

 

[ElleElle]

That says to me she is not DP qualified. She wanted to be a part of the sensationalism of this trial. She didn't care about justice.

Thank you! You have hit the nail on the head on how I feel about J17. Her hidden agenda was to be on the JA case. That's it, that's all.

:cheers:

 

[Amster]

Is Flores still a detective? Was he when this retrial started?

 

[AZlawyer]

We were told early on that when a defense witness behaves badly.....it's Juans' fault. If he doesn't say anything, Sherrys hands are tied. Really :facepalm:

Well, I sure didn't say that, and I don't think anyone else did either. If there is disrespectful or unprofessional behavior going on, JSS can address it without the need for an objection. Now sometimes I think JM preferred to have the behavior continue, to make the witness in question look bad, but JSS had the power to thwart that strategy if she wanted to do so.

 

[daisydomino]

Is Flores still a detective? Was he when this retrial started?

No, he became the Mesa PD's public information officer before the retrial started.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ugh all they cared about was uploading it, not that she was teaching kids to sympathize with this killer.

Only violation of school policies are looked at in determining whether to fire someone. Sharing pictures or videos of students online, without specific permission to do so, are against their policies, so the teacher violated the policies and was fired. The content of the video was a secondary consideration but since the policy was broken that's all that was needed to get rid of the offending teacher.

 

[Kamille]

Thank you! You have hit the nail on the head on how I feel about J17. Her hidden agenda was to be on the JA case. That's it, that's all.

:cheers:

I'd still like to know what two of her biggest supporters were so happy about on Feb 23rd, which also happens to be the day two jurors were dismissed just before the lottery. My gut tells me that there is more to J17 and her connection to this case.

MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm trying to make sense of this in way that does not feel like the world is near broken and is hell bent on breaking the future of it too.

The world does not revolve around Jodi Arias and I bet there are people in the state of Hawaii who have no idea who she is and that probably includes people in the Boys & Girls Club. One teacher doing something stupid does not mean the entire world is near broken.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I'd still like to know what two of her biggest supporters were so happy about on Feb 23rd, which also happens to be the day two jurors were dismissed just before the lottery. My gut tells me that there is more to J17 and her connection to this case.

MOO

I understand where you are coming from on that, but I have always felt that was when they had the jury list in their hands.

 

[Mindmatters]

I haven't seen the video, but I am sure it would make me piping mad. This part of the trial seemed to be about attacking Juan. Plain and simple. And imo, JSS allowed it, from not permanently removing her assistant to refusing to rein in DT and hostile witnesses. Orchestrated by JA, and JSS allowed the manipulation. I really can't wait till JA goes to Perryville.

MindMatters, could you try to explain why it is so important for JA to control the people around her. It seems this is core to her personality. What could have been the childhood triggers...is it environment or heredity? It it psychopathy or what?

BBM- Shady, that is a very difficult thing to determine with any amount of confidence given the limited information and all the lies that have been told but I will give it a try.

From the limited information out there, in conjuction with the writings and behavioral observations of Travis' murderer, she is in fact a BPD. However, what was not allowed in but was indicated on MMPI subscales (as well as her observable behaviors/actions and the collateral reporting of others) is that she also had Narcisssistic traits. To say someone has "traits" of PD is very significant in the field, and honestly I'm not sure why a "Rule Out" of NPD wasn't included in her diagnostic evaluation. To diagnositically denote/document a Rule Out is the Clinician's way of saying that they see indications and are fairly convinced that this condition does exist, however the criteria was not fully met at the time of the evaluation.

In any event, it appears, based on what has been revealed, she has psychopathy, and a central feature of this condition is a complete disregard or concern for rights or feelings of others, as well as a profound lack of empathy in the pursuit of fulfilling their needs/wants/desires. They make their own rules. They feel entitled and important. Basically getting what they want at any cost. So the need for control in those with psychopathy is a means to an end.

In normal adult individuals who have a need to control, it is usually (but not always) a result of having little to no control in threatening or unhealthy environment--and the underlying issues of said environment go unresolved/not addressed. The one thing that could be considered as a possibility regarding Travis' murderer, is that given her promiscuity and use of sex as a means for control and manipulation, could indicate sexual abuse in childhood. Now, understand that I am in no way saying this is true, what I am saying is that any Clinician worth their salt would work to determine if there was.

And finally, as the to "nature vs. nurture" issue, it is my stance that nature and nurture enjoy an interdependent relationship in which each influences the other, but to what degree is debatable. For example, there have been numerous cases where a sibling group of 5 were exposed to substance abusing, violent parents and 3 of the children are emotionally damaged and highly dysfunctional, yet 2 of them grow up to be happy, successful, and well functioning adults.

 

[Hatfield]

IQ test is a little extreme due to prejudicial reasons, but at least a quiz on the basics of law. Not made for TV law.

Im sorry when I replied before to this post, I went on a tangent. I wanted to also say I agree with you here that there is room for improvement in general courtroom understanding for a jury.

They just kind of throw everyone in there and for lots of people it is all new and confusing.

Maybe a training session rather than a quiz. Maybe like Juror Training 101 sessions are needed once a jury pool is decided on.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't understand how anyone can opine they know what someone else is thinking, feeling, intending, wanting, wishing, dreaming or any of the other things imagined, without being told by the subject.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The jurors, in the post-trial press conference, were 100% wise to her antics. The DT thought they were controlling something, but they weren't. IMO (and I realize we don't agree, and that's fine—you know I respect your opinion) JSS was smart to let her continue to be a total jerk on the stand. Dr. M-F looked to the jury exactly as she looks to us: an unprofessional and weird bully.

"Objection: mischaracterization."
"Overruled"
"You're mischaracterizing, Mr. Marrrrrrrtinez!!!111!!!"

But you know what—the jury had the evidence in front of them. Dr. M-F could have been a perfect, respectful witness and she'd still have had no credibility once the jury looked at the complete emails, text messages, letters and journals.

I respectfully disagree.

Every Judge is suppose to have control over their courtroom and she is the only Judge I have ever seen that let it be a Jerry Springer free for all right inside of the courtroom. There was no excuse for it. If she had done her job she would have immediately told any witness that was acting disrespectful to any of the parties she was not going to allow that kind of behavior in her courtroom. It is her duty to control her courtroom... including witnesses and attorneys.

The only one she made it hard for was the very man seeking justice for the murdered victim. She tried her very best to cut Juan off at the pass in anyway she could think of doing.

I have never seen another death penalty Judge allow this kind of demeanor/behavior in a courtroom. They will 'rap the knuckles' of the guilty party and they rebuke them right in front of the jury. Once they make it clear those things aren't going to be tolerated then the decorum is returned to respectability. She has let the DT get away with so much and they are like a child. Once they get away with something they will do it over and over again because they knew she would allow such utter nonsense.

Its even a wonder Juan was able to convince 11 of the 12 jurors JA deserved death with the constant interruptions.......ruling against him......and letting the so called experts act like street thugs right to his face.

It shows what a horrible situation Juan found himself in for 7 years with having to deal with the DT, defendant, and JSS when she was assigned to this case. She tried to tie his hands behind his back yet the truth still came forth. It shows even the Judge and DT et al couldn't stop Juan Martinez no matter how hard they tried.

And then add to the fact that it was JSS who was insistent #17 would stay is even more egregious behavior from this one Judge.

Even other Judges have voiced their negative opinion about JSS and how she presided over this case.

I really hope she isn't reelected next year.

JSS let the prosecutorial misconduct go on right in front of the jurors knowing full well she was going to rule against KNs motion of misconduct. JSS let in things that had nothing to do with aggravators or mitigation.........even the jury said so. She not only allowed the DT to attack Travis continuously ...........she also allowed the DT to attack Juan and that is reprehensible and something I have never seen another death penalty Judge do.

IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Here's the Tweet from Cathy about the former Cougarlicious:

Cathy ‏@courtchatter · 18m18 minutes ago


MDLR has deleted her twitter account......again. #jodiarias


:thinking: I wonder IF she has a new account, because there is no way MDLR cannot keep her pie hole shut for long !

:gaah:

 

[ElleElle]

I'd still like to know what two of her biggest supporters were so happy about on Feb 23rd, which also happens to be the day two jurors were dismissed just before the lottery. My gut tells me that there is more to J17 and her connection to this case.

MOO

Ok, so now it could MDLR behind of all this. This other hidden agenda. I just read on Twitter MDLR deleted her Twitter account. Not sure if this is fact or not though.

 

[Mindmatters]

BBM- yes, this is THE great question that me, being so naïve about manipulators would also like to know. Also, to that "Why can the Killer so successfully get so many people to fall for her control with such a vengeance?" It's like a David Koresh (sp) thing or something? Hypnotize the masses? Thanks

MissHaley, another central feature of psychopathy is that these individual's can be incredibly charming, charismatic, and articulate. But what matters even more is that these individuals are SUPERB at identifying their victims--they are con's and a con always knows his mark. They have an almost innate ability to pick out those who are susceptible to their machinations.