Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/3/14 Hearing - Part 2

[Caylee Advocate]

Trust in Juan... He will fix this and Jodi will not walk.

I saw a pic of Juan with a caption saying, "DON'T WORRY, I GOT THIS CRAP" (insert expletive for "crap" though) I will see if I can find it, but I don't think I can post it here????? I have full confidence in him, and I know he will bring this around full circle.:happydance:

 

[JSR]

that's what I do not get,if she walks,she will be arrested again for the murder,right? she still committed a murder, if she walks pfft,if she does walk,it better be off to prison.

No, if her conviction is set aside then Jodi is a free woman. Double jeopardy will not allow anyone to be tried twice for the same crime. Of course the evidence that was allegedly erased must be exculpatory. This is also know as Brady violation. Brady was a landmark case.

 

[itzkatiex0]

I saw a pic of Juan with a caption saying, "DON'T WORRY, I GOT THIS CRAP" (insert expletive for "crap" though) I will see if I can find it, but I don't think I can post it here????? I have full confidence in him, and I know he will bring this around full circle.:happydance:

Juan has to work with these creeps all day every day.. He's prepared for their slimey moves.. He knows that the defense is gonna try to pull a rabbit out of a hat

 

[janx]

Please? He provided the court doc ... the full motion from the DT, with ALL of the "*advertiser censored* sites" listed, without black-outs. (You're maybe reading from "other" sites?)

Not going to provide the link. Go find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.”

I fail to see how Keifer is unethical. Nor, IMO, is he a shill for the defense. He is journalist, doing his job in this age of “get it first, in-the-moment.”

Listen. I have NO connection with Kiefer. But, as a former/and, now, semi-current journalist (30+years) and as a person with a Communications/Journalism degree, I’m in a position to offer some valid insights.

Throw tomatoes. I don’t care.

This trial will be notable for media and the public's right to know what is going on, undoubtedly. Kiefer obviously was NOT on Nurmi's side when it came to this last COA matter. Kiefer has been thorough--writing about prosecutorial misconduct not just in this case but in others, and maybe a bit sensational in that regard when it came to Juan Martinez. He could have pointed out, for instance, how often defense attorneys rely on such motions. Anecdotal evidence of the guy's motives doesn't prove much, although KCL's sentiments are understandable and probably very genuine.

 

[franquerolane]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...oyed-travis-alexander-computer-abrk/18828589/


There is a video after the third paragraph on this page that speaks about how Arias' parents posted an online video, and Michael Kefer talks about these *advertiser censored* allegations. Also comments from another reporter, William Pitts. - it won't let me 6back in since I am not a subscriber to AZ Central.

I'm a subscriber, I'll go look.

 

[daisydomino]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...oyed-travis-alexander-computer-abrk/18828589/


There is a video after the third paragraph on this page that speaks about how Arias' parents posted an online video, and Michael Kefer talks about these *advertiser censored* allegations. Also comments from another reporter, William Pitts. - it won't let me back in since I am not a subscriber to AZ Central.

If you can't see it on the azcentral.com website, looks like it's been re-blogged here: http://www.eversnark.com/azcentral-arias-news/ (the MK video plays second after the mom & dad infomercial report)

 

[janx]

If Kiefer wants to print his articles under the opinion section then his articles would be more appropriate. Journalism is supposed to be just about the FACTS pure and simple. FACTS. That's it. All of his articles reek of bias and agenda. When I read about articles on cases I just want to read about the facts and what happened not a philosophical diatribe.

He reported the motion. That was all. People became alarmed and wanted to shoot the messenger. The only problem that I had with it was that it was reported via Twitter. That leaves a lot to the imagination.

ETA: Twitter was first, AZCentral came later, but the AZCentral article didn't provide much more than the Tweet did.

 

[franquerolane]

I couldn't find what you described on that page. There was an article in this morning's Arizona Republic. All the articles on Arias are written by one reporter. You can guess who. 8

 

[krkrjx]

that's what I do not get,if she walks,she will be arrested again for the murder,right? she still committed a murder, if she walks pfft,if she does walk,it better be off to prison.

Well, Casey Anthony committed a murder and walked...and not off to prison. Our justice system often leaves much to be desired.

I obviously have nothing to offer to the current discussion; I am disgusted to the point of nausea and about the best I can do is vent. I tend to do so with sarcasm. Please do not take it personally if yours is the post I jump off of to vent--I am usually venting at the situation, not at a fellow poster.

 

[Nali87]

I hope this is resolved quickly because just thinking about Jodi Arias getting released makes me sick to my stomach. I can't take this tension. I am pretty confident that no one erased any evidence from that computer though. It's too stupid to contemplate.

 

[krkrjx]

I hope this is resolved quickly because just thinking about Jodi Arias getting released makes me sick to my stomach. I can't take this tension. I am pretty confident that no one erased any evidence from that computer though. It's too stupid to contemplate.

I don't think they did either. It makes no sense given the dates it was supposed to have happened. JMO

 

[Nali87]

I don't think they did either. It makes no sense given the dates it was supposed to have happened. JMO

If the evidence (if it exists) wasn't discovered by accident what are the consequences?

 

[krkrjx]

Do you mean if it was overlooked accidentally? By both sides? Probably not a big deal if something was on the computer and overlooked by both sides' examiners. The issue, if I understand correctly, is whether or not there was evidence tampering. And if it was accidentally overlooked that would not point to misconduct, just incompetence of the persons who examined the hard drive initially. IMO.

 

[ElleElle]

If the evidence (if it exists) wasn't discovered by accident what are the consequences?

I believe if it was accidental, it would still apply, because its up to the Prosecution to protect the evidence.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Nali87]

Do you mean if it was overlooked accidentally? By both sides?

Yes, that's what I mean.

 

[neesaki]

No, if her conviction is set aside then Jodi is a free woman. Double jeopardy will not allow anyone to be tried twice for the same crime. Of course the evidence that was allegedly erased must be exculpatory. This is also know as Brady violation. Brady was a landmark case.

But we're talking about evidence to exculpate, as in prove her innocent, i.e., prove that she really did not commit this brutal murder and is thus not guilty of it. The murder of Travis which is what she was tried and convicted for. So how can this so called alleged *advertiser censored* "evidence" even if it were true, qualify as that, or even come close ? Just... how ? I guess I just need help because I really don't get it. At. All.

 

[JSR]

But we're talking about evidence to exculpate, as in prove her innocent, i.e., prove that she really did not commit this brutal murder and is thus not guilty of it. The murder of Travis which is what she was tried and convicted for. So how can this so called alleged *advertiser censored* "evidence" even if it were true, qualify as that, or even come close ? Just... how ? I guess I just need help because I really don't get it. At. All.

Because it could be argued that it supports her claims of sexual abuse and the incident where he "broke her finger" because she walked in on him viewing kiddie *advertiser censored* and thus by extension her self defense claim.

ETA it's not a super strong argument but it could still be made.

 

[krkrjx]

So...why are so many here ready to believe this when all along any other times the DT threw spaghetti it was assumed (accurately) that they were grasping at straws?

I am all for not being over-confident but I don't think we need to throw in the towel just yet...

 

[elementary]

Please? He provided the court doc ... the full motion from the DT, with ALL of the "*advertiser censored* sites" listed, without black-outs. (You're maybe reading from "other" sites?)

Not going to provide the link. Go find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.”

I fail to see how Keifer is unethical. Nor, IMO, is he a shill for the defense. He is journalist, doing his job in this age of “get it first, in-the-moment.”

Listen. I have NO connection with Kiefer. But, as a former/and, now, semi-current journalist (30+years) and as a person with a Communications/Journalism degree, I’m in a position to offer some valid insights.

Throw tomatoes. I don’t care.

He absolutely is a scandal monger and a sensationalistic mouthpiece for the DT, IMO. His bias is patently clear. The fact that he gets his hands on info doesn't make him any less of a shill and in some cases, makes him suspect.

 

[MeeBee]

I believe if it was accidental, it would still apply, because its up to the Prosecution to protect the evidence.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think it would be misconduct if it was over looked accidentally but Jodi might be due a new trial if it's found to be important enough. Finding evidence of innocence is up to her attorneys, not the state.