Jodi Arias Trial Watchers Thread #1

[popsicle]

Since she is claiming self-defense, I really don't see how she will be able to prove this no matter how much evidence she brings in, without testifying. moo

You can use deadly force or physical force against someone, without a duty to retreat, if and to the extent you reasonably believe that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure, burglary, kidnapping, manslaughter, second- or first-degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery or aggravated assault.

At your home, residence, place of business, land you own or lease, conveyance of any kind, vehicle or any other place in Arizona where you have a right to be.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/

 

[pip]

What bad choices did Travis make? He met Jodi and dated her, realized she wasn't the one and told her straight up. He told her he was dating others, was up front with her. It doesn't appear at this point that he lied to her or lead her on in any way. I don't think you can say he made a bad choice in dating her to begin with because you can't look at someone and know they are a sociopath that I am aware of. jmo

The only thing I see he did wrong for himself was to continue to have premarital sex that seemed to be a source of much of his internal/religious turmoil, and to continue to hook up with her when he knew she was the stalker type when he knew he didn't want to be more serious but she did. His weaknesses caused him grief and consequently death. Of course I agree, he had no way of knowing she was a psychopath.

 

[pip]

What bad choices did Travis make? He met Jodi and dated her, realized she wasn't the one and told her straight up. He told her he was dating others, was up front with her. It doesn't appear at this point that he lied to her or lead her on in any way. I don't think you can say he made a bad choice in dating her to begin with because you can't look at someone and know they are a sociopath that I am aware of. jmo

Umm actually, several years ago I met a man in the Army and we became involved in a relationship. He was stationed in CO at the time. We exchanged passwords, his idea, I believe to increase the trust in the relationship. I only used it once when he was in Iraq and I hadn't heard from him in awhile and was worried. (there was a info blackout) Now we talk thru facebook and we don't have each others passwords there. I would define us as FWB.

Your relationship is different. I don't see an issue with exchanging email passwords in your case.. not a big deal. But it is completely different with JA and TA given the nature and known history of their relationship. I don't believe her for a minute that it was a mutual password exchange.

 

[gitana1]

Umm actually, several years ago I met a man in the Army and we became involved in a relationship. He was stationed in CO at the time. We exchanged passwords, his idea, I believe to increase the trust in the relationship. I only used it once when he was in Iraq and I hadn't heard from him in awhile and was worried. (there was a info blackout) Now we talk thru facebook and we don't have each others passwords there. I would define us as FWB.

I think what the poster meant was who does that, who exchanges passwords at the end of the relationship? Because that is what apparently Jodi is claiming.

Besides Casey Anthony (who is someone some people find beautiful but many more do not), who else has "gotten away" with their crimes? I'm trying to recall and I cannot. I assume by "getting away" you mean they served no jail time.

Actually, I think women, at least, are likely to judge her more harshly if everyday life is any indicator - especially since she's promiscuous and full of herself, as well as an admitted liar to boot. If anyone is likely to be even slightly swayed by her appearance, imo, it's more likely to be a man. That said, I haven't seen too many people of either gender anywhere online or irl saying anything but she's guilty -- even if they also think she was "hot." I think she's okay looking, but no way that changes my opinion of her. Anyone who could do all the crazy chit she did and cap it with slicing someone's throat ear-to-ear becomes incredibly and irrevocably "unpretty" no matter what their outer appearance. And here, she's not even claiming she didn't do that.

She lost her job/vocation, has to register as a sex offender, was on probation for several years, husband divorced her, her record is for life. Is that "getting away" with a crime? Is she a danger to society now?

This is a response to the above three. I linked to an article about sentences disparity between genders. Since that apparently did not make enough of an impression, I will link to the study itself: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf

Research definitively shows that women receive lesser punishment for the same crimes as men. That's just a fact.

Regarding Debra La Favre, ANY man accused of committing similar crimes would have received prison time. But in her case, the defense argued she was too pretty for prison and the judge apparently agreed. Can you see that happening with a man?

Debra La Favre
casey anthony
Mary Winkler
Lorena Bobbit
Angelica Jimenez
Karen Pena

The list goes on and on. Of course, we can find cases where men got away with horrible crimes as well. However, as I have stated, studies show
that is much more likely and much more often the case with women.

Here is a link to a book called "When She Was bad: How and Why Women Get Away With Murder": http://books.google.com/books/about/When_she_was_bad.html?id=Zaw_AAAAMAAJ

 

[lonetraveler]

She lost her job/vocation, has to register as a sex offender, was on probation for several years, husband divorced her, her record is for life. Is that "getting away" with a crime? Is she a danger to society now?

She was considered as "Too pretty to spend time in prison". If she had been a male there would have been no question that she would have spent time in prison.

 

[popsicle]

Second degree burglary, defined in A.R.S. 13-1507, is committed “by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.” This is a class 3 felony in Arizona. It is important to note that the only difference is that a second degree burglary is committed on a residential structure, such as a person’s home.

Lastly, a first degree burglary is committed when a person commits either a second or third degree burglary and knowingly possesses explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument in the course of committing any theft or any felony as described in A.R.S. 13-1508. If the burglary was committed in the third degree pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1506, then the charge is upgraded to a class 3 felony in Arizona. If the burglary committed was second degree pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1507, the charge is upgraded to a class 2 felony.

http://www.arizonacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/what-is-the-crime-of-burglary-in-arizona/

This explains the Burglary charge. Does the bold part mean they will need to prove she wasn't invited that night and broke in? Will they be able to prove that? Not that it matters really. jmo

 

[Karmady]

I think what the poster meant was who does that, who exchanges passwords at the end of the relationship? Because that is what apparently Jodi is claiming.







This is a response to the above three. I linked to an article about sentences disparity between genders. Since that apparently did not make enough of an impression, I will link to the study itself: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf

Research definitively shows that women receive lesser punishment for the same crimes as men. That's just a fact.

Regarding Debra La Favre, ANY man accused of committing similar crimes would have received prison time. But in her case, the defense argued she was too pretty for prison and the judge apparently agreed. Can you see that happening with a man?

Debra La Favre
casey anthony
Mary Winkler
Lorena Bobbit
Angelica Jimenez
Karen Pena

The list goes on and on. Of course, we can find cases where men got away with horrible crimes as well. However, as I have stated, studies show
that is much more likely and much more often the case with women.

Here is a link to a book called "When She Was bad: How and Why Women Get Away With Murder": http://books.google.com/books/about/When_she_was_bad.html?id=Zaw_AAAAMAAJ

That study is from sentences 20 years ago or more and specifically excludes first offenders with a life sentence. So aside from the usual issues with statistics, it's completely irrelevant to a first offender facing life or the DP for murder 1. Is Jodi a repeat offender? Admittedly I may have missed that.

(1) The sentencing date was between October 1, 1991, and
September 30, 1994.40 (2) The offense(s) is (are) “new law” (all counts occurred after the November 1, 1987, SRA effectiveness date).41 (3) The offense is not classified as a petty offense.

In addition, I use the following selection criteria. First, offenders with a minimum life sentence and those sentenced to time served are excluded because these terms cannot be easily translated into a sentence length.

eta: and that's just first blush. I'm sure this "study" would be demolished with detailed attention. It looks like a grad thesis to me.

 

[gitana1]

That study is from sentences 20 years ago or more and specifically excludes first offenders with a life sentence. So aside from the usual issues with statistics, it's completely irrelevant to a first offender facing life or the DP for murder 1. Is Jodi a repeat offender? Admittedly I may have missed that.

(1) The sentencing date was between October 1, 1991, and
September 30, 1994.40 (2) The offense(s) is (are) “new law” (all counts occurred after the November 1, 1987, SRA effectiveness date).41 (3) The offense is not classified as a petty offense.

In addition, I use the following selection criteria. First, offenders with a minimum life sentence and those sentenced to time served are excluded because these terms cannot be easily translated into a sentence length.

eta: and that's just first blush. I'm sure this "study" would be demolished with detailed attention. It looks like a grad thesis to me.

That study is from 2001 and was published in the Journal of Law and Economics. The person who wrote it is a P.h.D. and a professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Gerogia. Here are his credentials and experience: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/

The article is widely cited by news organizations and by other, public research articles, having been cited 259 times by other, journal articles. It is considered a scientifically sound research paper with a sufficient research sample. I found the study through the Huffington Post. Not the Enquirer.

ETA: you misunderstand the article sample. It does not study just repeat offenders. It excludes first offenders sentenced under mandatory minimums of life.

But, there's more. Here's a 2012 University of Michigan Law School research paper that assesses gender disparity in federal cases only and finds that women receive 60% of the sentences men do, and that[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] women are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted: [/FONT]http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002##[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] [/FONT]

Here's a 2009 study by a Ph.D that examined data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) from 2001 to 2003, to determine why women tend to be treated more leniently than men at the sentencing stage (note the question is not "if" it's "why"): http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu1237482038

Here's a Denver Post articles finding a huge gender disparity in child sexual assault prosecutions: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18726100

Here's a recent study by Professor Steven Shatz of the University of San Francisco Law School and Naomi Shatz of the New York Civil Liberties Union that suggests that gender bias continues to exist in the application of the death penalty http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-gender-bias-death-sentencing

Seriously, I can find much, much more. But this is becoming silly to me. It is a well known fact that there is a huge gender disparity in sentences, convictions and even prosecutions. But, go ahead and argue away. However, I will not participate any longer in something that is not based in logic.

 

[Justme84]

Personally I was not saying that the law is harder on women.
I was saying there is a double standard for assumptions about
responsibility of men when it pertains to sexual behavior.
If it came out in this case that he was desperately in love with
her and she did use him as a dildo with a heartbeat, she would be
a dirty *advertiser censored* but if he comes out as using her for sex it becomes
a boys will be boys scenario. She's a *advertiser censored* for letting herself get used
and he's just a man and couldn't help himself.

 

[Melanie]

watching trial day part 2 (3 hours) and just about everytime they pan to JA, she's writing. I gotta wonder what she's writing about?

Jodi Arias Trial Day 2 (Part1)

[video=youtube;Cpcc37rmk4A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpcc37rmk4A[/video]

 

[gitana1]

Personally I was not saying that the law is harder on women.
I was saying there is a double standard for assumptions about
responsibility of men when it pertains to sexual behavior.
If it came out in this case that he was desperately in love with
her and she did use him as a dildo with a heartbeat, she would be
a dirty *advertiser censored* but if he comes out as using her for sex it becomes
a boys will be boys scenario. She's a *advertiser censored* for letting herself get used
and he's just a man and couldn't help himself.

Listen, I'm a feminist so please don't saddle me with that boys will be boys nonsense. I explained, i hoped intelligently, how men are motivated differently when it comes to sex. But that is not a boys will be boys argument. It's reality.

And here's the thing, this is not about *advertiser censored* and users. You are trying to change the facts to fit the fiction that people's attitudes about her psychopathology and his innocence have to do with a double standard.

Shes no *advertiser censored*, she's a psychopath, IMO. And again, all he did we make the mistake of accepting sex from a sociopathic monster. She's no poor woman taken advantage of for goodness sake. He did not pursue her. He did not lie to her. He made no false promises. Theres no evidence of any of that. Accepting sex from a psychopath who is coldly using her sexuality to control the person and to possess that person, does not make a person a user, even if that person is a man.

See, I do think there is a double standard at play in the opinions of various posters, just the opposite of the way you claim.

 

[mrsu]

Listen, I'm a feminist so please don't saddle me with that boys will be boys nonsense. I explained, i hoped intelligently, how men are motivated differently when it comes to sex. But that is not a boys will be boys argument. It's reality.

And here's the thing, this is not about *advertiser censored* and users. You are trying to change the facts to fit the fiction that people's attitudes about her psychopathology and his innocence have to do with a double standard.

Shes no *advertiser censored*, she's a psychopath, IMO. And again, all he did we make the mistake of accepting sex from a sociopathic monster. She's no poor woman taken advantage of for goodness sake. He did not pursue her. He did not lie to her. He made no false promises. Theres no evidence of any of that. Accepting sex from a psychopath who is coldly using her sexuality to control the person and to possess that person, does not make a person a user, even if that person is a man.

See, I do think there is a double standard at play in the opinions of various posters, just the opposite of the way you claim.

I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think we know that he didn't pursue her. He very well could have, and could have done it without his friends knowing. If there are 82,000 messages going back and forth, he certainly gave her some kind of response. There is a photo of him kissing her. There are comments he made on her pics saying she was beautiful. He seemed interested in her at one time.

With that being said, WHO CARES? They could have dated and had crazy sex even though he was Mormon. He could have liked it even. He could have been using her. He could have come to the realization that what he was doing wasn't right and broke it off. He could even have been a jerk about it and had sex with her one last time. He could have done all that. It still does not make him abusive and it certainly doesn't warrant him getting gutted because she was obsessed and couldn't accept that he was done with her.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I disagree, there is no gun evidence that I know of, at least none that rises to beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Jodie is suspected of stealing her grandparents gun, not proven. So far no gun exists? I do not see self defense but a crime of passion yes. Who spends the night, then wakes up and has sex all afternoon and is like darn, I almost forgot I had plans to murder him so I will now carry it out after twelve hours.

Manzana, I would beg to differ. While there is no proof positive that Jodi stole the 25 caliber gun, it does add to the circumstantial evidence.

Even if Jodi didn't steal the gun, the fact that she admits to shooting Travis indicates she brought A gun with her. Still shows premeditation.

 

[BrownRice]

I find it interesting from a previous post on JA's biography that she never graduated high school and received her GED in jail. That's unusual and I see it with teen parents, kids that get into trouble at school. I wonder what her circumstances were.

My vacation is officially over and off to work I go. I will be depending on you guys for all my information since I won't be able to watch any of it on the computer.

Cheers!

 

[manzana]

Manzana, I would beg to differ. While there is no proof positive that Jodi stole the 25 caliber gun, it does add to the circumstantial evidence.

Even if Jodi didn't steal the gun, the fact that she admits to shooting Travis indicates she brought A gun with her. Still shows premeditation.

BBM
That I did not know, I am not sure what she has admitted to or not, I know she has admitted some things but has she given a full blown confession?

Everything has been so muddied with her stories, I figured the lawyers would attempt to tie them all together if they could weave it that way.I imagine we are going to hear a few whoppers before this is over, anything to confuse some of the jurors.

 

[BritsKate]

Seriously, I can find much, much more. But this is becoming silly to me. It is a well known fact that there is a huge gender disparity in sentences, convictions and even prosecutions. But, go ahead and argue away. However, I will not participate any longer in something that is not based in logic.

Respectfully snipped by me. Only slightly O/T...

I've been studying filicide cases - from motivating factors to conviction rates - for 25 years. Much of the research I have conducted confirms paternal filicides are usually met with harsher sentences than maternal filicides. Further, even historical data analyzed tends to indicate women of 'lesser means' or a lower social standing were more often convicted in their children's deaths than women with greater socio-economic means. We still see examples of it today. (Casey Anthony/Lauryn Dickens)

JMO and FWIW

 

[gitana1]

BBM
That I did not know, I am not sure what she has admitted to or not, I know she has admitted some things but has she given a full blown confession?

Everything has been so muddied with her stories, I figured the lawyers would attempt to tie them all together if they could weave it that way.I imagine we are going to hear a few whoppers before this is over, anything to confuse some of the jurors.

Well, her lawyers are asserting self defense and her sister has detailed why she feels it was self defense. But the bottom line is, if her team acknowledges that she killed him and it is a fact he was shot by the same caliber weapon she earlier claimed was stolen, how can there be reasonable doubt that she predicated this? Are you suggesting, in the absence of a specific admission that she shot him, that someone else did with coincidentally the same caliber weapon as the one that was "stolen"? Respectfully, that makes no sense.

Add in the rented car with the flipped plates and I really have an issue with reasonable doubt as to premeditated murder.

 

[manzana]

Are you suggesting, in the absence of a specific admission that she shot him, that someone else did with coincidentally the same caliber weapon as the one that was "stolen"? Respectfully, that makes no sense.

Add in the rented car with the flipped plates and I really have an issue with reasonable doubt as to premeditated murder.

Yeah actually I kinda am, no I do not think that is what happened but I would not be surprised that they actually try to weave all stories together, she did this but he was still alive, someone else came in and finished him off. I know it makes no sense but nothing else actually makes any sense about her crime either, especially not removing the sd card.

Were there actually two cameras? TA is said to have had a new camera but Jodie surely had one as well.

 

[Justme84]

Listen, I'm a feminist so please don't saddle me with that boys will be boys nonsense. I explained, i hoped intelligently, how men are motivated differently when it comes to sex. But that is not a boys will be boys argument. It's reality.

And here's the thing, this is not about *advertiser censored* and users. You are trying to change the facts to fit the fiction that people's attitudes about her psychopathology and his innocence have to do with a double standard.

Shes no *advertiser censored*, she's a psychopath, IMO. And again, all he did we make the mistake of accepting sex from a sociopathic monster. She's no poor woman taken advantage of for goodness sake. He did not pursue her. He did not lie to her. He made no false promises. Theres no evidence of any of that. Accepting sex from a psychopath who is coldly using her sexuality to control the person and to possess that person, does not make a person a user, even if that person is a man.

See, I do think there is a double standard at play in the opinions of various posters, just the opposite of the way you claim.

With all due respect I am in the middle of a psych degree .I am fully aware of the biological reasoning behind why men are more likely to be less emotionally invested when sex is involved and why women are more apt to think
twice. There being a reason for it does not change the fact that
it is present and because "it is reality", it is glazed over by society.

It is ok if he continues to bed a "psychopath" because he is a man and
cannot help himself? His sex drive is so strong that he can ignore
her slitting his tires, her threats to friends and her apparent breakins?

He did nothing but accept sex from a psychopath? So he didn't
talk to her on the phone as witness by phone records? He didn't email
back and forth with her as discussed in court already?
He did not enter into a financial contract with her also represented in court?
While I do not think she's innocent I do think there is more to the
story. For those who think its cut and dry and all he did was objectify
the woman and that's fine. That's where I see a double standard.

Oh poor guy all he did was have sex with an unstable woman and pull her strings. While we are talking about biology I guess that means if she killed him out of jealousy ( a biologically motivated response as well) then she is hardly
responsible for her actions.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Anyone watching inSession? Recapping opening statements.

Talking about the photos. Didn't know about the bottle of lube.

smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk