Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8

[Mindmatters]

Yes she did. So she recognized him from TV, according to what she said. And at least 30 other people also recognized JM and other court players from TV but not one of them raised their hands when asked if they knew any of the people introduced. But that as cited as proof that J17 lied. What about the others who also didn't raise their hands either? Wouldn't the same rules apply to them too? Didn't they also lie by not raising their hands? And this still doesn't provide circumstantial proof that she recognized JM because of the ex-husband's conviction many years before.

Just answering your specific question, i.e., "About knowing and remembering JM? What's the circumstantial evidence?"

 

[Madeleine74]

Just answering your specific question, i.e., "About knowing and remembering JM? What's the circumstantial evidence?"

Seeing JM on TV is the same as everyone else who recognized JM from seeing him on TV. This is not circumstantial proof of J17 knowing/remembering JM from husband's prior conviction. <mod snip>

 

[Mindmatters]

I think the one question we should ask regarding J17 is why does she have a 2 lawyers? I think the answer to this will reveal all that is needed to understand about what she did or didn't do and why.

 

[ParrotGal]

Why would a "mental breakdown" prevent a person from getting sentenced? We're not determining guilt or innocence or life/death penalty. JSS has seen plenty enough to make a decision and she has been quite clear that JA has passed up her opportunity for expressing remorse or offering anything mitigating from her own mouth. So, JSS gives her LWOP.... Like, Jodi's going to be able to appeal that, with 11 jurors voting for death? When the appeals court does its quick once over of the whole shebang, they're going to go "Whoah, wait a minute", on the LWOP sentence? Snowball's chance in hell, methinkith....

This, by the way, is my favorite video of Jodi in stripes. Also note, this hearing was open to the public (3 of the first trial jurors were there). Look who's smirking now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkU_K5eIek

Lord, help us! The way she oogles folks on the way in is so dang creepy.
I LOVE her in stripes, but orange is really her color.

 

[neesaki]

Troy also saying he has one very good source saying CMJA had a mental breakdown but jail won't talk about it due to HIPPA

Oh , so in other words she threw a Hissy Fit.... Ah, Diddums! :boohoo:

 

[ZsaZsa]

All the Jodi supporters on her site JAII are thanking the teacher and making comments like Oh this is wonderful. It's so cute. And that awful mother of her Sandy, personally thanks the teacher for doing this. This organization gets 70% of their funding from the government. I have already sent a letter to the National Office and sent one to Macy's and Walgreens. They support them too. I no longer have any sympathy for the mother.

YOU can reach the director of Maui Boys and Girls clubs at zakp@mauibgc.org.......... Zach Pacholl


ETA I just wrote to him.

 

[RickshawFan]

Thanks, Bernina, for your spectacular input on inmate classification, etc.

Something was wrong with the link to the official regs (most pages were missing), so I thought I'd post one that's complete:

https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/800/0801.pdf

Note: per these regs, Jodi, being a lifer, would be in Max for at least 2 years, followed by Close Custody for another 3.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Random thoughts.

I believe that it's meltdown is genuine. Explosive anger, tantrum, meltdown is how she murdered Travis Alexander so brutally, so completely. Anger is a powerful stimulant and can give one incredible strength. I'm actually surprised that she didn't go somewhere to sleep it off out of sheer exhaustion afterwards.

Is it odd that I feel sympathy (maybe even compassion) for Aileen Wuornos? Her life was barbaric from the beginning. She fully accepted responsibility for what she did and said she needed to be put to death because she'd do it again if she was free. She was so matter of fact about things and I didn't get that she was boasting she'd kill again, just that she assumed she would. I haven't seen everything about her or read everything about her, but hers was a tragic life. I know lots of people have tragic lives and don't do what she did, but she accepted responsibility.

It, IT will never take responsibility for anything she's ever done. It's a smug and I don't foresee her living out her life sentence. LOL, but then again, I guess that really would be the meaning of 'life sentence.'

bbl, Justin Hayward (Moody Blues) on PBS - gonna go get me some!


ETA: I don't want to be misunderstood - this was no heat of the moment killing. While I believe the meltdown is how she able to so completely destroy him, there's absolutely no doubt it was coolly, calmly premeditated down to the last detail as thoroughly as she could. Had he caved in and taken it to Cancun that weekend, I don't think it would have murdered him at that time, but it would have killed him eventually. No doubt.

 

[Amster]

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

Thank you!!! Maybe in Arizona it's impossible to remove a juror....unless the defense demands it

Actually, I believe there is a lot going on behind the scenes...to rehabilitate J17 so Sherry doesn't look so incompetent. The excuses made for this judge and her horrible handling of her courtroom is unbelievable! We're all supposed to just accept that the other jurors lied about their experience with J17......the deputy lied about Janet saying Juan should be stabbed and her chatting with the 1st jury foreman! Sherry made a ruling that was unconstitutional and yet.....it doesn't matter. Don't tip over the apple cart....don't look behind the curtain.....and ignore that elephant in the middle of the room! I won't even get into how the Alexander family has been mistreated. For years.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

About her wanting to walk to the witness stand for her secret testimony........

Why on earth should THE DEFENDANT 'look like any other witness'???? She's the defendant. Martinez has the patience of a saint to have lived through all this crap to get justice for Travis.

ETA: Why not ask if she can sit somewhere other than at the defense table and act like she's a spectator? Ugh.

Heaven forbid that she might look like "monster" and have justice served!! THAT'S WHY!!

It's so unbelievable that criminals get catered to this way!! No wonder there are so many repeat offenders... For once in their lives they get to feel special!!!

 

[LinasK]

Doesn't she have to be present in court for her sentencing?

Provided she's "sane" enough to understand what's happening, they can bring her in in chains/restraints/face masks to prevent biting/spitting, whatever...

 

[samspace070]

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

Scott Peterson was also convicted on circumstancial evidence, with a magic dog evidence never before accepted in court. He probably did it but I don't think they proved it like JA case. She admitted it and all the evidence was hard evidence. So if he hasn't had an appeal yet, and all DP cases get a free one and he is in the 9th circuit territory, then something is wrong with the system.

 

[samspace070]

The only time I have ever heard the word 'revenge' used with the death penalty is from those who are anti-death penalty to start with.

Imo, she went in knowing she wasn't going to vote for death.

Nothing will convince me she went into this case with an open and unbiased mind.

Like one of the jurors stated (paraphrasing) In the end it had become more about her stubbornness to not give in to the majority rather than actually looking at the horrific aggravating factors in the case that substantially outweighed the mitigating factors.

Iirc one of them said even when she looked at the autopsy photos they didn't seem to faze her and all the rest commented how they will never be able to get those images out of their mind and its changed their lives forever. They even stated they had suffered from nightmares because of them.

Nothing will be done to her but to me she was a stealth juror from the beginning.

IMO

I am with you all the way Oceanblueeyes, she never intended to give the DP from the get go.

 

[Val1]

Seeing JM on TV is the same as everyone else who recognized JM from seeing him on TV. This is not circumstantial proof of J17 knowing/remembering JM from husband's prior conviction. I know you want to make that inference, but it just doesn't work to connect it circumstantially.

So you don't think that a person claiming to try and be the best she could be at whatever she does(with apparently a great memory, as per the foreman of the jury), would have some memory of who the prosecutor was that made the plea agreement and was basically responsible for her soon to be husband(and iirc the father of her children) being released into her custody(thus saddling her with babysitting a grown man, I bet he didn't like that...)?

I would be very surprised if she didn't have documents, call cards, etc, if only because she must have had to sign something to agree to this man(who she wasn't yet even married to) being forced to live with her. Would she not have had to meet with the State to set that up and therefore would need all the paperwork in order to expedite matters?

Also, since the records show that she did give statements at least twice regarding her first hb, do you think that just maybe she had been interviewed regarding the drive by shooting and theft, if only to clear herself from any involvement with the crime before her home(and her specifically) was designated to be the one this man was being released to? Anyway, I'm done with trying to show my viewpoint on this, if someone doesn't want to see that there is just cause for suspicion, then I guess they won't.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052000/m0139919.pdf
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
05/03/2000
STATE OF/ARIZONA
JUAN M MARTINEZ
v.
SANTINO/ALEJANDRO
DANIEL B PATTERSON

PLEA AGREEMENT/CHANGE OF PLEA
10:55 a.m. State is represented by Juan M. Martinez
"The Defendant is released subject to the supervision of the
Pretrial Services Agency of the Superior Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant shall reside with ....."

 

[neesaki]

She needs the Hannibal Lecter muzzle too. Now that would be grand.

How did you guess what I was thinking, ShadyLady ?

http://www.wigsrika.com/bmz_cache/d/da359d2118cdeff119236990e941975d.image.276x300.jpg

 

[krkrjx]

I am with you all the way Oceanblueeyes, she never intended to give the DP from the get go.

Agree.

That she could give DP was her biggest lie.

I do not believe she ever deliberated. Perhaps after she was called out by the others and talked to by the judge, she came back a bit more cooperative to a small degree--just enough for the others to notice a difference, and with that the foreman reported later that she did deliberate a bit. But really, she didn't. Not even a bit. IMO, foreman was speaking honestly that she had a slight change of attitude but at the same time he was a bit confused about her motive for the change after the talking-to.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Just read an old article about the jury selection. They were given so many opportunities to get out of it.. J17 has NO excuse for complaining.


"Some had work conflicts; many said they were not willing to give up TV news and newspapers for the duration of the trial. A few told the judge that they didn't speak English — in English, or elementary Spanish.

Nearly one quarter of the prospective jurors said they could not be impartial in the sentencing retrial given what they know about Arias"

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...rias-jury-selection-retrial-arizona/16444399/

 

[krkrjx]

That Hannibal pic scares up the hairs on the back of my neck every time I see it! Even after all these years!

 

[Nancy_Drew]

BBM ~ Exactly. I am going with she is not highly intelligent and it was nearly 15 years ago since Juan IF she even saw him before this trial. JMO

It's truly gut wrenching that someone with her level of intelligence is able to dictate the fate of a convicted murderer!

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

It's truly gut wrenching that someone with her level of intelligence is able to dictate the fate of a convicted murderer!

What was her level of intelligence? I didn't know an IQ test was a prerequisite.