Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/17-11/18/14 In recess

[Susza]

Holy crap! I just walked into my office and you were completely serious! I assumed this was a "virtual" Edible Arrangement but here it is!! :great: Thank you so much!!! :loveyou:

Wait - some of the people here sent you this sweet bouquet for real???
That's wonderful and really a brilliant idea. Would have liked so much to participate. (Zuri, is it still possible?)

 

[atthelake]

No, we're thinking three way calling on Maria's cellphone, it was made during a time they were in court IIRC.

Three way calling and taping without the knowledge of the other person - is that legal in a court of law when done surreptitiously? - that someone would tape a conversation without a knowing it was happening, and having a third party also involved? and then throwing it out on the internet gawd forbid for all to see? :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :findinglink:

:tos:

Deja vu perhaps

:bling: :bling:

awwwww... must be done in a state that allows that.

 

[katydid23]

The way I figure it is like this. If you polled the Casey Anthony jurors and asked how many of them factored in the "fact" that she had been sexually molested by her father, then I bet several of them will say it affected their vote. So the bottom line is that it only matters what seeds the DT can plant in the jurors minds regardless of whether they are true or even whether legally they were considered to be evidence presented in the trial.

That is all true. However the state in the Anthony case IGNORED the ugly accusations made by Baez.

Juan is not one to ignore false accusations. :hero:

 

[Meemaw12]

Does anyone know how long a person is on death row before their first appeal is heard? In AZ

Thank you

 

[katiecoolady]

OT - sorry!

Katie - Our doggie is a cockapoo. Best Dog Ever!! Sweet, smart, easy, easy, easy. And she follows us everywhere even in the house! Post a picture when you get yours! We got her because I kept visiting her at the pet store and she was on sale and every week they would mark her down some more because no one bought her. I finally caved when she hit $199.00 (from $1200.00 :fear because I was afraid for her. (And we hadn't had a dog in 15 years.) She was four months old and had spent her entire life in a cage. One of the BEST things I ever did!

I know this is off the case topic but I was so happy to read this! I'll meet you over on the Sidebar to continue

 

[Hez]

The way I see it is she is an independent contractor. . . . her contract is with Maricopa County, which pays her salary, she merely confers with the DT and responds accordingly. I suspect if she is reported as doing something illegal or outside the terms of her contract, depending on the infraction her contract can be terminated and/or other sanctions applied as deemed appropriate, moo.

She was briefly banned from the jail for pinwheel-gate, but only for about a week. Of course she failed to learn any lessons from that because she has continued acting as Jodi's 'business manager'. :facepalm: According to this article, the infamous pinwheel drawing was going to be used in mitigation. It's going to be hard to use it now, since it was auctioned off in October for $1,500.00, most likely with the help of MDLR. :gaah:

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/25033376/jail-ban-lifted-for-a-member-of-arias-defense-team

 

[Susza]

You're amazing.

So are you, kcl! :yourock:

 

[atthelake]

Here's a good one, Arias answering Detective Flores: "I've actually looked into handguns because I have lists of things I'm really scared of...I'm trying to overcome and that's one of them. I'm looking into that, because handguns are expensive. You know, it's not really in my price range right now." This was in a phone call on the morning of June 25, mutually agreed upon. a. Denial of familiarity with guns. b. Not something I would buy. c. If I wanted one, I would be buying it. d. Someone frightened of guns would not have used one to kill Travis. She did also buy a 9 mm., as we know.

Earlier, also at 10 a.m. on June 10, she claims, "And as far as ever getting into his emails, that never happened." Flores replies, "We are getting a search warrant for his email but we can tell where those things were accessed from. I just wanna make it clear that if you did access it from somewhere else at a certain time, we're gonna know." {Brain Scramble} Arias says, "I'll tell you right now that I did. He gave me his passwords...but I only accessed Gmail and My Space because those were the only passwords." Never mind that she had just stated she used his passwords for Facebook.

If at any time, she thought of sending the Compaq Presario an infected or salacious email, nothing prevented the attempt. Spybot, of course, was watching.

Now add to the list Compaq, spybot and Dell to other stuff the trial made infamous with reference. :shame: I purchased a really big Toberlone at HomeGoods the other day and ate a gazillion calories..

 

[katiecoolady]

Does anyone know how long a person is on death row before their first appeal is heard? In AZ

Thank you

It takes awhile because they have to get all the transcripts first I'm told which is lengthy. I think our first one was about two years after sentencing.

 

[Zuri]

Wait - some of the people here sent you this sweet bouquet for real???
That's wonderful and really a brilliant idea. Would have liked so much to participate. (Zuri, is it still possible?)

You already did!

 

[Hez]

I'm listening right now and she's claiming about ppl "lying". OMG, this is classic sociopathy. And why does she keep selling this "appeals fund" when she DAMN WELL KNOWS her appeals will be amply provided by the taxpayers. "Appeals fund" means "I want as much money in my expense acct in prison as possible".

A number of us have deduced/speculated that 'appeals fund' is actually code for 'family travel expenses fund'. Those tickets to the State Fair don't pay for themselves you know. :shame:

 

[katiecoolady]

Ok, here's a hot topic for ya that something on the Sidebar spurred. In our trials, in sentencing, aside from Death, Life with parole to be served consecutively (which is kind of funny if funny even applies here), they were SENTENCED to remuneration to our family. I literally had to compile a list of expenses such as funeral costs and lost wages and a number was applied. Which of course we never expected to get and never received a dime nor will we.

BUT Jodi Arias is soliciting $ and selling artwork. Let's see how that gets maneuvered a la OJ hiding is $ when he lost the civil case, and what wheels are already in motion. Because she could very likely be ORDERED to pay restitution to the family.

Thoughts?

 

[Nali87]

It takes awhile because they have to get all the transcripts first I'm told which is lengthy. I think our first one was about two years after sentencing.

"First one"? Gaaahh.

 

[elementary]

Yes, I agree with you zuri. While what she is saying is...off, several people who are there, including Jen and Beth Karas, say she comes off as professional. So I think we're missing something in these tweets that's not coming through to us. She may well be coming off well, when you take her off the wall interpretations out of it. It won't be hard for Juan to destroy her credibility. But no sign that she comes off as an ALV, either, in outward appearances, at least. We'll see.

And I too try (not always great at it, I admit) and keep my emotions out of things and see them as they are. There's this interpretation that in doing so that places you on the "wrong" side of the truth.

Not sure that I understand. Pragmatism has nothing to do with truth. Pragmatism also allows someone to deliberately damage another's reputation with impunity all in the name of 'truth', and in essence, murder their soul all for the sake of winning. IMO, that is definitely the 'wrong' side of truth. A lie is definitely on the wrong side of truth.

Clearly the DT has found someone who projects and maintains a professional presence and demenour (so far). Just another way to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, IMO, especially given the crazy things that come out of Fonseca's mouth. It still amazes me that the DT had to go to California to find an 'expert'.

 

[katiecoolady]

A number of us have deduced/speculated that 'appeals fund' is actually code for 'family travel expenses fund'. Those tickets to the State Fair don't pay for themselves you know. :shame:

I actually don't have a problem with that. Just call it what it is. I do have a problem though if she has money and she is ordered to pay restitution to the family and isn't doing it. That's not on the table yet but wonder if Juan will be asking for that.

 

[atthelake]

Anyone can testify about things he did, if they're relevant. And anyone can testify about things he said, if they're not hearsay and are relevant. In the penalty phase, they can even be hearsay.

Lots of things that seem like hearsay are not actually hearsay, because there are so many exclusions and exceptions to the hearsay rule. Also, the definition of hearsay includes that the information is being offered for "the truth of the matter asserted." So, for example, if Jodi says, "Travis called me a *advertiser censored*," she's not saying that to prove that she really WAS a *advertiser censored*, so it's not hearsay.

I believe the good doctor said *shank* 3 times :floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry. This relates to nothing currently under discussion ... I’m trying to figure out how “claims” of *advertiser censored* on TA’s computer and “claims” of pedophilia help bolster the 9 Mitigating Factors the DT laid out. Here are those factors again:

No prior criminal history
Just 27 years old when she committed her offense
Remorseful for her conduct
Suffered both physical and emotional abuse as a child
Ditto, during her relationship with Mr. Alexander
Abusive nature of the relationship caused Ms. Arias to suffer extreme emotional stress at the time of the incident
Diagnosed with PTSD
Diagnosed with BPD
Psychological makeup impaired her ability to cope with tumultuous relationship with M. Alexander

I mean, even KN HAS to know JM will rip the *advertiser censored* and kiddie-stuff to shreds. JM will do the same with the PTSD claim. Why isn’t the DT working harder to show JA’s mental illness? It’s not a defense, but it’s a mitigator … right? IMO, that remorseless Whack Job JA is driving the DT bus again. Hopefully Einstein will drive it off a cliff.

The supposed purpose for the evidence is to show the level of "stress" Jodi was experiencing. Here she was, a sexually naive sweet young girl just trying to overcome the fact that her parents and boyfriends kept abusing her, trapped in a sexually deviant relationship with a verbally, physically and emotionally abusive master of manipulation and deceit who insisted on keeping their relationship secret and contacted her only in the dead of night. Then Jodi, to her horror, discovered that he was a pedophile and the relationship deteriorated horribly, aggravating Jodi's preexisting mental illness and forcing her, from a psychological viewpoint, to plan Travis's suffering and death, a result that was practically a foregone conclusion for such star-crossed lovers with the theme of death constantly swirling in the air. Tragic, yes, but not her fault really. Right?

Well, they are far from done with their testimony, but I think they're laying all their eggs in one particular basket; "Are you really going to give this young girl the death penalthy for killing her abuser, who was also a sick pedophile?".

I agree this is the real strategy.

Three way calling and taping without the knowledge of the other person - is that legal in a court of law when done surreptitiously? - that someone would tape a conversation without a knowing it was happening, and having a third party also involved? and then throwing it out on the internet gawd forbid for all to see? :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :findinglink:

Deja vu perhaps

:bling: :bling:

awwwww... must be done in a state that allows that.

Yes, AZ is a one-party consent state for recording calls. In other words, as long as one person participating in the conversation knows it's being recorded, it's OK.

That is all true. However the state in the Anthony case IGNORED the ugly accusations made by Baez.

Juan is not one to ignore false accusations. :hero:

The prosecutors in the Anthony case should have asked for Baez's remarks to be stricken from the record after Casey decided not to testify. Maybe they did--I don't remember. Of course, the jury would have been instructed that attorney statements are not "evidence," but something more needed to be said in that case given the inflammatory nature of the remarks and the fact that they were totally improper unless Baez genuinely believed Casey was going to testify.

Does anyone know how long a person is on death row before their first appeal is heard? In AZ

Thank you

Well, it's FILED pretty much right away, but won't be DECIDED for a year or two usually.

 

[Ransom]

I don't think it's not allowed. But not normal. And not too professional IMO if it's true

Here's more on that ... IF TRUE:
http://www.examiner.com/article/jod...plus-the-truth-about-her-rose-colored-glasses

 

[katiecoolady]

"First one"? Gaaahh.

They have been appealing for over 2 decades. One of them got off Death Row on one of those appeals in 2009. There have been MANY appeals to the tune of tens of millions in taxpayer $$$. Just for each killer alone!

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/07/retarded_german_killer_rudi_ap.php

 

[MeeBee]

Not sure that I understand. Pragmatism has nothing to do with truth. Pragmatism also allows someone to deliberately damage another's reputation with impunity all in the name of 'truth', and in essence, murder their soul all for the sake of winning. IMO, that is definitely the 'wrong' side of truth. A lie is definitely on the wrong side of truth.

Clearly the DT has found someone who projects and maintains a professional presence and demenour (so far). Just another way to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, IMO, especially given the crazy things that come out of Fonseca's mouth. It still amazes me that the DT had to go to California to find an 'expert'.

I think you extracted more meaning from my sentence than was actually there. I'm talking in reference to this board. There's this idea that if you hold an opinion that doesn't jel with the minority or express a theory doesn't paint a picture everyone else wants painted, you are "on the wrong side of the truth." That's silly. There are facts and there are opinions. Seems an attitude to debate is only tolerated when it supports the majority consensus. Otherwise, look out.