Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I read that, MDLR joined Twitter at the same time Jodi's first trial started. Wonder if there's any connection?

To monitor social media, to put out feelers (under a different name?) to try and do damage control or try to control info being out out there, to PUT OUT MISINFORMATION? The old saying of "can't unring a bell" - maybe ideas like that. :/ It's hard for most of us to know what goes on in the mind's of people who place less value on the truth, justice, morals and ethics. Thank heavens for that (not being able to imagine)
 
This is what Jodi has to look forward to....

Pamela Smart "It's hard for people to understand that this really means life," she said. "It's a very serious sentence, and honestly, I think it's worse than the death penalty. It is, because even the death penalty has an end."
 
One of my favorites was when JM said he wouldn't want to be married to JW. This was in a sidebar. He also said something about how JW needed to go back to school.
 
Oh, and then there was the one when Nurmi said New Zealand was in Europe, and JM said "Objection: geography."
 
I don't understand what ja supporters get out of trashing the family of a murder victim? I really don't get it and I have a good imagination. Anybody have insight into that?

My honest answer?? To even be a jodi supporter there must be some level of mental or emotional disturbance and that's where They are working from. Unbalanced mentally or emotionally disturbed people following a narcissistic sociopath.
 

OMG! That was painful to watch and listen to, but also very elucidating as to what went on in those endless sidebars. My heart goes out to Juan Martinez. I am amazed at his patience as Willmott and Nurmi play word games and do their best to delay things. Nurmi and Willmott both act as if the judge asking them to do their jobs in a timely manner is an outrageous request. They throw every excuse possible out there to try to convince the judge that -- basically -- there aren't enough hours in the day (even given a range of days) to get things done. WTF?

Especially concerning was near the end where Willmott claims hardship because her childcare arrangements have changed. Sorry, not sorry, given that she hit the cash cow with this case. Anyone can get after-hours childcare given enough money. Plus, she has a husband. I know families with much fewer resources who could figure out how to make alternative arrangements should circumstances necessitate it. Considering that Willmott is doing something as important as defending a murderer in a death penalty case, I don't see anything to suggest that it's not reasonable for her to be expected to do so.

I also found it fascinating that if you watch/listen to the video until the end, you can see/hear judicial assistant Janet talking to Willmott. She comes off as sounding really rough around the edges as she acquiesces to Willmott's request to get the list of the final potential jurors. Admittedly, a subjective observation on my part, but it made me more likely to believe Martinez' claim in that pretrial clip where he states that Jennifer Pittman related to him that -- among other egregious things (like that Juan should have been stabbed 27 times) -- she (Janet) related to the first jury's foreman that it should have been 2nd degree murder at most. I find it totally believable that she had a bias towards the defense.

But again, the thing that struck me the most after watching/listening to this sidebar is that Juan Martinez is a saint. He's not only acting as the voice of Travis Alexander and seeking justice for the real victim here; he's continually having to deal with all this BS the defense team keeps throwing out there. I don't know how he does it. I think many of us lesser humans might have exploded (or imploded) having to deal with all that carp.

JMO
 
Oh, and then there was the one when Nurmi said New Zealand was in Europe, and JM said "Objection: geography."

Ha ha - I missed that one. So Nurmi really said that? As an Australian I am embarassed for Nurmi for being such a drongo!
 
One of my favorite lines from Mr. Martinez during the guilt phase.

"There's no guessing here now! Uh uh!"
 
Regarding the desire to deliberately cause pain to a murder victim's family while trying to shore up sympathy for the murderer: foolish.

From the beginning, a clever bit of manipulation (like the entire defense) of the murderer's camp would have been to show nothing by sympathy and kindness and support for the family and friends of their heroine murderer's victim. I see it all the time and it's genuine. NORMAL parents of a murderer can be just as devastated for the parents of their child's victim. I may not be explaining it well, but showing what MOST OF SOCIETY does and show respect for those innocent family members and friends and try to understand what they've been through not only by having their loved one murdered in the way he was killed, but also the horror of what they have to go through every day even when court isn't in session.

I was going to talk about the age level and immaturity of the fan base, but remembered MDLR's advanced age and laughed at myself. MDLR is a perfect example of one's age having nothing to do with level of maturity or emotional intelligence (is that the right term?) I'm the first to admit I'm less than mature considering my age (I love SouthPark and laugh till I have to grab my inhaler!) but I'm not representing such serious matters as a mitigation specialist.

Braaaaaaaaap!
 
When is the sentencing hearing, anyone know? Will it be televised, I want to watch it.
 
My honest answer?? To even be a jodi supporter there must be some level of mental or emotional disturbance and that's where They are working from. Unbalanced mentally or emotionally disturbed people following a narcissistic sociopath.

It's an infectious disease called Victim Mentality!!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality

Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to think, speak and act as if that were the case — even in the absence of clear evidence. It depends on habitual thought processes and attribution.

Victim mentality is primarily learned, for example, from family members and situations during childhood. It contrasts with the psychologically better-researched traits of neuroticism and psychoticism, both of which have a stronger biological or genetic basis. Neuroticism may be defined as general emotional instability or a generally enhanced tendency to experience negative emotions. Psychoticism is characterised by hostility and aggression.

What victim mentality, neuroticism and psychoticism have in common is a relatively high frequency of negative emotional states such as anger, sadness, and fear. But these three traits are also partially independent: for example a given individual may have a high degree of victim mentality and a low degree of neuroticism, in which case a clinical psychologist is unlikely to regard her or him as needing treatment. Conversely, a given individual may have a high degree of neuroticism and a low degree of victim mentality.

In the most general sense, a victim is anyone who experiences injury, loss, or misfortune as a result of some event or series of events.[1]

This experience, however, is insufficient for the emergence of a sense of victimhood. It has been suggested that individuals define themselves as a victim if they believe that:

* they were harmed;
* they were not responsible for the occurrence of the harmful act;
* they were under no obligation to prevent the harm;
* the harm constituted an injustice in that it violated their rights (if inflicted by a person) and/or in that they possessed qualities (e.g., strength or goodness of character) making them persons whom that harm did not befit
* they deserve sympathy.[2]

The desire of sympathy is crucial in that the mere experience of a harmful event is not enough for the emergence of the sense of being a victim. In order to have this sense there is the need to perceive the harm as undeserved, unjust and immoral, an act that could not be prevented by the victim. The need to obtain empathy can then emerge.[3]

Behaviors or ways of thinking and talking:

* Blaming others for a situation that one has created oneself or significantly contributed to.

* Failing or being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own actions or actions to which one has contributed or for taking action to ameliorate the situation.

* Ascribing non-existent negative intentions to other people (similar to paranoia).

* Believing that other people are generally or fundamentally luckier and happier ("Why me?").

* Gaining short-term pleasure from feeling sorry for oneself or eliciting pity from others. Eliciting sympathy by telling exaggerated stories about bad deeds of other people (e.g. during gossip).

People with victim mentality may develop convincing and sophisticated arguments in support of such ideas, which they then use to convince themselves and others of their victim status.

* People with victim mentality may also be generally: Negative, with a general tendency to focus on bad rather than good aspects of a situation. A glass that is half full is considered half empty. A person with a high standard of living complains about not having enough money. A healthy person complains of minor health problems that others would ignore (cf. hypochondriasis).

* Self-absorbed: Unable or reluctant to consider a situation from the point of view of other people or to "walk a mile in their shoes".

* Defensive: In conversation, reading a non-existent negative intention into a neutral question and reacting with a corresponding accusation, hindering the collective solution of problems and instead creating unnecessary conflict.

* Categorizing: Tending to divide people into "goodies" and "baddies" with no gray zone between them.

* Unadventurous: Generally unwilling to take risks; exaggerating the importance or likelihood of possible negative outcomes.

* Exhibiting learned helplessness: Underestimating one's ability or influence in a given situation; feeling powerless.

* Stubborn: Tending to reject suggestions or constructive criticism from others who listen and care; unable or reluctant to implement the suggestions of others for one's own benefit.

* Self-abasing: Putting oneself down even further than others are supposedly doing.

A victim mentality may be reflected by linguistic markers or habits, such as pretending

* not to be able to do something ("I can't..."),
* not to have choices ("I must..."), or
* not to know the answer to a question ("I don't know").
 
I don't understand what ja supporters get out of trashing the family of a murder victim? I really don't get it and I have a good imagination. Anybody have insight into that?

I'm guessing they must be crazy or evil OR... crazy and evil. (Because healthy sane people who have a conscience and compassion just Don't behave that way) JMO
 
When is the sentencing hearing, anyone know? Will it be televised, I want to watch it.

April 13th. PT/DT have until March 28th (iirc) to get in their objections regarding the live broadcast of the sentencing. Sigh. If everything is over but the fat lady singing/sentencing, there should be no reason why the sentence can't be broadcast live AND the convicted killer can't be in her stripes. However, I have no clue how JSS will see it...

ETA: Can Nurmi actually put in writing that either of these 2 things will create a bias for JSS??? :gaah:
 
Which adds to my confusion.

" Quote Originally Posted by La-Cooks View Post
One would think... but iirc the foreman stated in his interview that Dr. F came off as credible.

In the group jury interview, one juror said that they discounted Dr. F's testimony. The later interview with the foreman only provides his own personal opinion and perspective. His opinions obviously can't be taken as speaking on behalf of all jurors. I wish we could hear more from all jurors.
 
Anyone think the reason JA wanted the court room emptied was to strengthen Dr. F's assertions that Jodi was not a shy, non-aggressive person easily manipulated by TA?
 
Yep. In the Jodifesto she doesn't mention the oral sex after Travis gives her the Book of Mormon at Starbucks. It was simply a sweet conversation and Napoleon was there on his leash.
Nor is there any sex after her baptism. She says it was a very great day for her

It's obvious she added the sex to these events that would be sacred to Travis. To hurt his reputation and to hurt his family. And to punish them for not pressing Juan to accept her plea to 2nd degree

So why wasn't the manifesto entered into evidence to refute her claims of sex and other lies?
 
Omg!! What was your employment if you dont mind. That is horrifying to experience ON VIDEO too did they use the spray that causes you to lose control of your mucus? Too much!!

That reminds me of my gas mask training, with real tear gas! No vids tho. :thinking:
 
My favourite line has always been "All right. So why is it, why is it then, ma`am, that you showed up with three gas cans in Salt Lake City?" :drumroll: I've watched it hundreds of times. :blushing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,122
Total visitors
2,261

Forum statistics

Threads
601,209
Messages
18,120,587
Members
230,996
Latest member
MiaCarmela
Back
Top