Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8

[oceanblueeyes]

Imo, about JSS, somewhere along the way she lost all objectivity.

I think she completely forgot that the state also had a right to a fair trial or she simply didn't care.

I even wonder if it was because of petty resentment on her part.

It was for certain JM knew more about the rule of law than any of the parties involved including JSS.

JSS didn't even understand the first CoA ruling with Juan having to explain it to her and the DT as well.

And now that the videos have been released that is more evident than ever before. Constantly Juan is having to cite case law and even after JSS reads them she seems very resentful when having to agree with Juan. And Juan only told her this to protect the case on appeal. She still seem to hate to give in to him even though he was correct. Being a family court Judge cannot compare to the knowledge a state attorney has who has tried cases in the adult criminal justice system for over 25 years.

And all the fanfare JSS did about the little murdering princess walking to the stand to be a witness is rather bizarre behavior by a Judge to say the least. IMO She seems to baby the defendant way way too much.

I think many of us had already felt there was glaring biases against the state by JSS but now that we are even privy to more information via the video footage I think it is even worse than some of us had speculated.

I really do hope there is a review board that will now look at all of the secretive sidebars/rulings in this case and will pull JSS in for a meeting and will tell her their negative opinions on how she presided in this case. Imo, she should never be given a death penalty case ever again.

I did hear some time ago from one of the reporters (maybe Troy Hayden) that he had heard from his sources that other Judges are going to look at how JSS handled this particular case. The wasted money, time spent unnecessarily because of JSS should be of interest to not only them but to AZ taxpayers as well. They should address the secretiveness of much of this trial too.

All Judges must be fair to BOTH sides for justice to prevail.

IMO

 

[RickshawFan]

Madeleine74, I know you are very fact based, but I don't think there is anything wrong with forming an opinion. It keeps us engaged.

Thanks, ElleElle. Sometimes I find that the most biased folks are the ones who say they only pay attention to facts. Often this is because they choose the facts they want to pay attention to. Not being open to new facts and how they come to bear on a conclusion is another red flag, IMO.

Someone who is adept at being mindful of the truth is generally willing to hear other people's opinions and other sources to see if there are any holes in the argument.

 

[Hez]

There is a disgusting JAII supporter claiming drug use by the Alexanders. Check out comments to this article.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...lub-worker-records-kids-supporting-jodi-arias

All I'm going to say is the person posting those comments looks like someone Nurmi will have to defend someday in his private practice. :silenced: The fact that the killer's supporters have no problems whatsoever with the exploitation of minors (the two 15 year old girls from Ohio and now these kids in Hawaii) says it all.

 

[La-Cooks]

:seeya: Agree ... the defense team and court's BIAS against Juan stood out like a sore thumb !

:gaah:

BBM -- totally agree with the one objection that instead of bias against "Juan" -- it was a bias against the truth.

 

[Shanie]

Thank you for the welcome..I'm amazed at all of you and how good you all are at this.

 

[franquerolane]

Juan's tie & Christine Beswick announced on twitter that something BIG is coming today.

 

[Steve44]

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

I don't think it is a lot of people. There is:
1) Some members of her family
2) Her defense team and expert witnesses
3) Those behind her radical and irrational support sites and those who sympathize with them.

If you strip away the outer veneer of 'support' you can see that each of these groups appear to have their own agenda connected associated with their support:

1) She's family, so some support is likely to be there no matter what (the degree and character of that support being up to the individual).
2) It's her defense teams job so their livelihood depends on appearing supportive, and the expert witnesses appear to be interested in using her gender to further a misandristic agenda relating to abuse.
3) Most of those behind her support sites (again, not large in number) appear to be psychologically drawn to an 'us vs. them' and conspiratorial mind set that puts them in the unique position of 'knowing' and 'getting' what the vast majority do not and cannot see because they lack the keen perception and ability to see a truth that only they can. Some of them may also have a strictly financial interest in exploiting such true believers.

 

[Cortne]

Oh goody!!

Juan's tie & Christine Beswick announced on twitter that something BIG is coming today.

 

[Ladylub]

I think it was best for the BGC to come out with a very generic statement to the public. Though I do hope that a more informed message went out to the parents of the kids. While highly annoyed that this went on I found it even more disturbing the comment if Jill loves you so do we. It also seemed forced for at least one kid.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Juan's tie & Christine Beswick announced on twitter that something BIG is coming today.

I am so excited by this .. my GUESS is it's got something to do with MDLR .. is that what everyone else thinks, should we open a book on it?

 

[Madeleine74]

Thanks, ElleElle. Sometimes I find that the most biased folks are the ones who say they only pay attention to facts. Often this is because they choose the facts they want to pay attention to. Not being open to new facts and how they come to bear on a conclusion is another red flag, IMO.

I pay attention to all facts and am always interested in learning more. I try, as much as possible, to think of cases the way they might be presented in a courtroom to a judge or looked at by a lawyer type because that's my specific area of interest. I tend to disregard speculation because speculation and feelings about possible evidence or imagining a connection to something is not considered evidence and they would not be allowed to be presented in a courtroom. I don't expect anyone else to look at a case the way I do, it's just my personal choice based on what intrigues me about criminal cases and how they are litigated.

 

[bronagh]

God, wonder what is going on? I saw this on Juan's Support site. Thanks Franquerolane.

 

[bronagh]

It could become a cult unless stopped.

 

[turaj]

Thanks everyone who's posting links to videos on this thread and in the thread dedicated to the retrial videos.

I didn't realize how very sick I am of this trial until I started fast forwarding through them. I'm curious about the audible sidebars though. The Twitter reports indicated that Dr. M-F was disrespectful and talked over Juan (and the judge) but to actually see it is something else. Skipping Neumeister. I wonder whether we'll get to see Pseudonym/John Smith?

what is the thread dedicated to the retrial videos? I am not finding that? Thanks.

 

[Mindmatters]

I'm not so sure Jodi is that great at identifying her potential victims. I just think she goes for a lot of "at bats". Who do we know that she thought she could manipulate and did her best to try, and it didn't work? Flores, JSS (I don't think she was blind to the manipulations, but had trouble meshing them with judicial necessity), Troy, Abe Abdelhadi, Deanna, Websleuthers, Sheriff Joe, the six swaggering armed-to-the teeth guards that marched her into the June 2013 hearing (this is almost as good as the Walmart smackdown, IMO, especially when you see who's laughing his *ss off in the video), the soon-to-come-into-her-life Big Bertha Gangbanger Max-ers at Perryville.....

Excellent points, Rickshawn. This is why I have predicted in the prison system she will be the recipient of restraints, pepper spray, tasers, and multiple stays in Ad Seg, because when all other tools of control fail she will be left with nothing other than her rage. Which will ultimately be her undoing in a prison setting.

 

[Moonchime]

Sooo...MDLR has deleted her twitter account? LOL! Too late!

Oh wow! I didn't know that. Yes, she is a bit late at deleting her account.

 

[east2west]

Wow. The cross of Fonseca is painful to watch (so many sidebars "yes you may" and objection/sustained). Poor Juan. Uphill battle from start to finish. btw, MF vocal intonations mirrors ALV imo.

http://youtu.be/DASqsVuK_aI

 

[franquerolane]

Manifesto on BK site!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Imo, about JSS, somewhere along the way she lost all objectivity.

I think she completely forgot that the state also had a right to a fair trial or she simply didn't care.

I even wonder if it was because of petty resentment on her part.

It was for certain JM knew more about the rule of law than any of the parties involved including JSS.

JSS didn't even understand the first CoA ruling with Juan having to explain it to her and the DT as well.

All Judges must be fair to BOTH sides for justice to prevail.

IMO

Respectfully Snipped:

:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

:cheers:

 

[turaj]

As JM pointed out to Dr. G, to know whether an answer is a lie we must know what the question was. For example, the questionnaire might have said "other than juvenile offenses,..."



I'm sure he was already living with her. It would be pretty typical for an existing living arrangement to be confirmed in probation conditions. Normally there would be no investigation of the person beyond a standard background check.



You just can't dismiss a juror for having felonious exes (Felonious Exes would be a good name for a band...).



I do think it is quite likely that juror 17 wanted to be on this jury and minimized or even lied about how closely she had followed it for that reason. I just can't buy the theory that she's a big anti-DP activist. From her interview, I doubt she's thought much about the DP or anything other than getting through life and dealing with her man problems. You may be right that the first time she REALLY thought about it was during deliberations.



Anyone but an appellate attorney might agree that JSS should have stricken juror 17 for having a DV history and being upset about it. But if you start striking people because they are too similar to what the defendant pretends to be, you are going to have a problem down the road.

The final strike procedure could not really be shown on camera because it is just attorneys silently crossing out names on a piece of paper. No discussion.

I was also really shocked throughout the trial by the unprofessional behavior, and by the fact that JSS would not address it unless someone actually objected.

so AZ....they just cross off 10 each and that leaves the required number? Do you then think that JM had 10 with such obvious anti dp opinions that he had no choice but to leave her...he knew for sure she was a problem . There were also a number of jurors that did not sound like they could follow a case of this length.