Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arias throwing tantrums is to be expected I think. She's running out of options. Whether they call it a "meltdown" or "mental break" or "some mental health issue" or "breakdown" or whatever term they use, she is throwing a fit of some level and some duration. Who knows...maybe she wants to be drugged or maybe she has some other plan in mind. It doesn't matter, really. Some inmates have tantrums and if she pulls those at Perryville she might end up in AgSeg or something. A prison's goal is to control their inmates for the safety of everyone. They will do whatever is needed to control Arias.
 
I hear the buzzing, but she's coming across clearly. What a crock anyway...she really isn't a very good actress.

ETA: and JW- really?? After you did this "bad thing"??? Seriously?!

The "bad thing" JW asked CMJA if she did -- that just royally ticked me off, too. A "bad thing"... SHDH
 
If JSS had kicked her off for "not deliberating" and the jury had then reached a death verdict, an appeal would have been successful IMO. Anything later learned about the juror would not have been part of the record so could not have been raised on appeal.

BTW I'm not aware of any evidence that she watched news coverage about the case during trial, wrote an anti-death penalty paper (which would not be cause for dismissal anyway unless she said she would be unable to vote for the death penalty in this case), or posted on pro-Jodi sites. And at this point, we have no evidence that she remembered JM was the prosecutor on her ex's juvenile case.
These are rumors, I don't now that any have been varified. Thank you for your response. I had forgotten that appeals are onlyheard on what is on record.
 
I'm curious; to anyone who doesn't believe there was some dishonesty involved with J17, why do you speculate she voted against the DP?

I don't think we have enough information yet to say if there was any dishonesty involved. But if not, I think a good theory is that she was swayed by the mental illness mitigating factor (which was never in dispute) as well as by JA's stories of domestic violence.
 
I'm curious; to anyone who doesn't believe there was some dishonesty involved with J17, why do you speculate she voted against the DP?

I believe she felt sorry for JA and it was "put my in her shoes" type situation. I also think she believed there was strong mitigating factors. She had her mind made up and would not be swayed. JMO
 
Bernina, do you think her celebrity status will be bane or boon to her social standing?

She'll be a target for someone wanting to "raise in the ranks". She's a liar, has diarrhea of the mouth, a snitch, and she doesn't have a problem throwing anyone under the bus. Bad traits for someone headed to prison. And she FULL of herself.

None of those inmates had over $3 million spent on their defense, and there they sit, locked up for years because they had a Public Defender who didn't have a blank check.

That's got to REALLY piss a lot of them off.
 
Though I don't believe a minute of it. She threw a tantrum to get out of solitary. It worked and she is holed up in a nice psych ward probably getting some pretty B*tchin sedatives to help her through the next 40 days and 40 nights.

Wonder if they could have J. Demarte go in and evaluate??? Hmmmmm.
 
Answering question from previous thread:

*In jail you have the inmates waiting trial, the sentenced inmates waiting for transport, and the sentenced inmates that will do 2 years or less at that facility, which may include work furlough, "chain gang", or jobs at or through the jail.
Inmates waiting for trial are segregated by the severity of their offense and criminal back ground/gang affiliations they have. They are indoors in the pods. Depending on the charge, they may or may not get time outside.
Inmates who are sentenced to "county time" usually end up in "tent city", unless they have a medical condition. These are "low risk" inmates who just want to do their time and get out, DUI's, low felonies like trespassing, failure to pay fines, etc.
Inmates awaiting transfer either have a hold from a different jurisdiction (in or out of the State) or are being moved to a State Prison. They are segregated by risk, crime convicted on, gang affiliation. Inmates sentenced to State Prison with no hold are transported out within 48 hours, most immediately out of the courthouse.

>For the most part, affiliations are put to the side, inmates are either short timers or segregated from their rivals<

*In prison: Usually the inmate's "jacket", (everything that's been compiled on the inmate from time of arrest to sentencing, and previous convictions/incarcerations, affiliations) is sent to the prison before the inmate arrives, 30 days or more.
All go through an evaluation that takes from 30-90 days before they are placed in their specific areas. (I don't know if an evaluation will be done on CMJA because she's been under a microscope for 7 years) Again, current conviction, previous conviction(s), flight risk, protensity to violence, drug/alcohol issues, gang affiliation, general psych eval.,etc. This is where the admins get the inmates "Custody" level (copy/paste from ADOC):



More on Custody and Classification:
https://d1wcbusvvegbrh.cloudfront.n...100511_inmate_classification_notification.pdf (DNHW= don not house with)

And this is were inmates can "work the system" to get to a higher a lower custody level to be with their peeps, ie, gang, "crew", or a group that will "protect them". It's a game. "Kites" are sent out to find out where someone or some group is and the inmate works towards that custody level.
Here is where I'll explain "kites", they are a coded message system used throughout the entire prison system, not only in the prison one is in, but also prisons in and out of the state. It can be handed off from one inmate to another, an inmate who is being transferred to another facility or sent to people outside who re-send the contents to the appropriate inmate at their prison location. Codes are constantly changing because of cell searches. They can be as simple as the first letter of every 3rd word, a template that is placed over the text, or complicated codes taken from the military. When kites are found by the guards, they will be handed over for admin to "crack" or wait until a cell is tossed and a code "breaker" is found. Sometimes the codes are found in the gang bylaws or organization documents.

These are the dominating factors involved in prison gangs/groups:
  • Blood in/Blood out
  • Identifiable leadership
  • By Laws, written rules, Organization Structure (para military)
  • Racial
  • Traditionally prison originated
  • Criminally sophisticated

^There's where the issues start^
Those are the dynamics in prison regardless of what DOC states.
#1 with a bullet. To get respect, to get in a crew, you need to hurt someone, badly (infirmary), and quite possibly kill them. If you're affiliated outside, you probably already have to your credit hurting or taking someone out by doing the same on the streets, ie "street cred". But it's got to be with the gang's blessing. Random murders don't count.

You can not do hard time in max or med w/o affiliation. If not, you will either be in protective custody or constantly victimized, you are a target.

My ex had already done time in Florence, Az, and then Milpitas, California. He became a made member of the old "Mexican Mafia" (eMe) at Florence by taking someone out for the eMe. His brother in law was Nuestra Familia, and had status, so when the ex got convicted in Ca, the La Nuestra Familia (NF) accepted him. This is HIGHLY unusual, the 2 gangs are rivals. The ex was part of a heroin ring run by his BIL in Cali so he had already "paid" into NF by his activity.

There are very few western US Hispanic gangs that honor other Hispanic gangs from another State. The Aryan Brotherhood is nationwide. African American gangs have solid alliances and hatred among there own, not based on State, while Native Americans are Tribal based. Then there's a lot of little groups who just exist because they're not worth bothering with. MS-13's are a whole different deal, immigrants from San Salvador, many which continue to be deported as they get got. But they are allies with eMe.

Prison gangs are equal opportunity, men and women.

So, you walk into Perryville, the "trustees", inmates with privileges to work in office type settings, have already read your jacket, including ALL the infractions you had in jail. You're a new fish, and everyone of any importance to your survival knows everything they need to know. When a fight happened did you keep your mouth shut? Did you blame someone else for something you did? Did you play by the rules or were you a loose cannon? Did you do harm to a child? By criminal standards, is the crime you perpetrated justified? Are you "crazy" as in mental? And what kind of financial resources do you have access to? Did you disrespect one of their own? Are you a first timer? Are you a hater of your own race?

The inmates already know all that before you even step through the gate.

In jail, you could say you killed the Pope, and no one would really take notice, it's just a "human transfer station". Nobody is rarely around for more than 2 years, so no one cares.

Reality check: CMJA is bi-racial, she made every attempt to "pass" as white, no convict in their right mind would ever believe she committed a "justified killing" (even hard core criminals have their own standards/morals, she'd be considered a "punk"), she used "defending herself" in a jail fight (snitch), she openly violated jail rules which put other inmates under more intense scrutiny, she craves the spotlight, and threw everyone who ever cared for her under the bus including her family with no hesitation. And her best friend throughout all this is gay.

Can't think of any group in there that would want to do any with her but make her life a very painful, living hell.

And the guards? CMJA killed the brother of an LE officer. They're NOT going to be easy on her.

That's just dealing with the people at prison..............

Wow!!! Thank you!! THANK YOU!!

This is all so interesting... I can't believe how knowledgeable you are with all of this. You answered so many questions that we have all been wondering!!!


About CMJA's hidden money. Is this something that the gang leaders inside the prison will try an access? If they find out where it is and who has it would that person be in any danger? Like her aunt (if her aunt is really the one who is hiding all of "Jodi's money"??!
 
I hadn't realized JSS provided more information about juror #17 in this minute entry: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032015/m6734039.pdf. I assume you all have discussed this already while I was out of the country last week, but I thought it was interesting that the foreman and another juror said juror #17 did start deliberating after the modified impasse instruction was given. (The judge didn't question the other jurors, no doubt because a dismissal of juror #17 for failure to deliberate would never have held up on appeal if anyone thought she was genuinely deliberating.)

Actually, they said she was able to, not that she did.
 
The "bad thing" JW asked CMJA if she did -- that just royally ticked me off, too. A "bad thing"... SHDH

I also hate when CMJA and or the defense team says "when Travis died". He was murdered, brutally by CMJA - he did not just die.
 
I don't think we have enough information yet to say if there was any dishonesty involved. But if not, I think a good theory is that she was swayed by the mental illness mitigating factor (which was never in dispute) as well as by JA's stories of domestic violence.

A logical, rational, knowledgable and calm voice of reason is so appreciated.
 
I am just over people saying JSS hands were tied. BS. She could have been a judge who knew the law and clamped down on outrageous defense that cost the taxpayers over $3 million dollars. If she's not smart enough in law to handle it, she should have never been handed the case.
 
If JSS had kicked her off for "not deliberating" and the jury had then reached a death verdict, an appeal would have been successful IMO. Anything later learned about the juror would not have been part of the record so could not have been raised on appeal.

BTW I'm not aware of any evidence that she watched news coverage about the case during trial, wrote an anti-death penalty paper (which would not be cause for dismissal anyway unless she said she would be unable to vote for the death penalty in this case), or posted on pro-Jodi sites. And at this point, we have no evidence that she remembered JM was the prosecutor on her ex's juvenile case.

Can you tell me what is the difference in these two cases?

In Scott Peterson's case a juror was removed at the 11th hour of deliberations (days in) for refusing to deliberate with the other jurors. When the Judge removed him is when 'Strawberry Shortcake' (as she was known back then) replaced this juror who iirc was the Foreman. After then they unanimously voted for death. From what I remember the dismissed foreman was the one lone hold out leaning more toward LWOP.

As far as I am aware SPs case has not been overturned on appeal and he has been incarcerated for many years now. Possibly since 2004?

So why would the Arias case end in a successful appeal and SPs same set of circumstances evidently has not resulted in a successful appeal in ten years or more even though he has appealed his case?

tia
 
My goodness that is one of the most heavily edited pieces I've ever seen. The viewer just gets tiny snippets of comments from J17 with exposition comprising about 95% of it from the interviewer.

When she said, "I didn't ask for it, I just showed up for jury duty." She could not have known or foreseen this in advance. A summons for jury duty does not tell you what case you might get called for, just that you are to report to jury duty and the date and time. There were other cases occurring at the same time and jury summons could have been for any case on the docket.

When she said, "people are getting attacked..." she was referring to verbally. The editing showed some screen shots of comments, albeit very quickly and scrolling by in the background. They were indeed various comments from FB & Twitter and I saw words that made me think someone would feel like they were under verbal attack. One comment said something about the devil and she'll be punished (referring to J17) and she better watch out.

She said she recognized JM from TV.... and so did at least 30 other people in her same pool grouping, and probably more than that. Those are just the ones who said they could not follow the court's admonition to not use anything they heard or knew about the case. No one raised their hand when JSS had asked if any of them knew JM, not one person. Yet clearly a whole bunch of them did know who JM was and one guy even told JSS he "was just so sick of this case and didn't want to hear or see anymore of it."

Did she recognize JM from ex-husband's prior conviction? She said she didn't. HOW can it be proved she was lying? Where's the proof of this? Feelings do not equal proof.

I'm not going to believe conspiracy until I see some proof.

BIB - She never even mentioned that case at all. She only disclosed the 2008 case that he is currently serving a prison sentence for. She lied by omitting he was arrested for 1st degree murder that was pleaded down to attempted burglary. Do you truly think it's a coincidence that the case she failed to disclose also happens to be the case JM was the prosecutor?

Sometimes you just have to connect the dots.
 
Just my opinion but I do not think anything Travis' murderer does will delay sentencing. Joe Arpaio has always had her number and the minute that death was off the table he was able to treat her just like any other inmate. Any meltdown would be accurately assessed within the framework of the many infractions she has committed in the jail, along with the recent restrictions/consequences she incurred so I think there is zero chance she will be placed under watch or in a hospitalization setting.

In Texas she would be put in a suicide suit and remanded to her cell under constant watch--if she went the suicide route. But I really believe, given her BPD and narcissistic traits, that what happened was a rage filled tantrum that probably resulted in a big fat nothing that she was hoping for. Of course I could be totally wrong.
 
I don't think we have enough information yet to say if there was any dishonesty involved. But if not, I think a good theory is that she was swayed by the mental illness mitigating factor (which was never in dispute) as well as by JA's stories of domestic violence.

AZ...do you think that a juror who really is swayed by those things would refuse to elaborate on why when given the chance in deliberations and instead accuse the other deliberating jurors of seeking revenge by voting for death?

I mean, I understand there is not enough actual proof to do anything about J17, and also that maybe she is somewhat intellectually challenged and as such not able to clearly express herself verbally but...an accusation of revenge hurled against the other jurors says things about her that I am really uncomfortable with. Like perhaps she was less swayed by the "mitigators" and more determined to send an anti-DP message.

I don't want a do-over but I would like to see some procedural changes implemented to dissuade what I see as dishonesty without consequences. I see J17 as not honest from the start. I would like to see that made more difficult in the future because what's the point of having a jury trial if the jury process has such major flaws, other than it is mandated by the Constitution. If there is no other reason, it is one big time-consuming formality that really serves no purpose as far as justice is concerned.
 
BIB - She never even mentioned that case at all. She only disclosed the 2008 case that he is currently serving a prison sentence for. She lied by omitting he was arrested for 1st degree murder that was pleaded down to attempted burglary. Do you truly think it's a coincidence that the case she failed to disclose also happens to be the case JM was the prosecutor?

Sometimes you just have to connect the dots.

Sometimes you need to see the evidence and not make assumptions in order to connect the dots. In fact, not just sometimes. You are using her not disclosing the 2008 case to answer my question of "did she recognize JM from ex-husband's prior conviction." What you said does not prove she recognized JM. Again, I'll wait to see some proof.
 
12 News @12News ·
&#8234;#&#8206;Juror17&#8236; says the &#8234;#&#8206;JodiArias&#8236; jury was not instructed to stay off social media. She talks about her choice tonight

:liar: :liar:

:gaah: :gaah:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,473
Total visitors
2,584

Forum statistics

Threads
601,026
Messages
18,117,358
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top