Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #3

[Madeleine74]

The "issue" is that CMJA is "using" these great organizations as "evidence" for her "philanthropic" albeit "Mother Teresa" act to sway the jury in finding those donations mitigating factors to save her azz.

I, and everyone else here, are well aware of the underlying issue and the motive for JA to donate monies. Do you not think Juan M. is competent enough to see that for himself and to bring that to the jury's attention at the appropriate time? I'd say it's a foregone conclusion he will and he will make sure the jury understands exactly the intent.

Still, and that said, the nonprofits are not to blame and they should not be held accountable because the public doesn't like who donated.

 

[Madeleine74]

Those private (DM) messages on Mrs. Flores' Twitter account are very interesting. The posts I saw were not private, obviously, since they appeared in my Twitter stream and were there for anyone to read at the time.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes, she should have refrained. But...did she tweet SEALED info? That's what's being claimed, isn't it?

Exactly, is is questionable. One of the things in the motion they say was sealed that she tweeted is something we found out when it happened because the dismissed juror gave an interview. Mrs. Flores probably heard about that joke the same way all of us did:

http://archive.kare11.com/video/2282538061001/1/Jodi-Arias-trials-dismissed-juror-breaks-her-silence

It was reported by the media.

 

[krkrjx]

I have been looking at some of the defense motion. She is claiming that the state is being unfair by not letting her show evidence of some of her mitigating factors.

-she was physically and mentally abused by travis

-she was beaten as a child

-she has BPD, PTSD

Basicly, if she isn't allowed to represent her side of things (lies and all), in its entirety, she is being denied her mitigation factors. It is as if she should get to present Samuels and LaViolets testimony as experts without cross. I feel that Martinez successfully impeached both of them. Thiss could really go on and on.......

The state would not try to stop Arias from showing evidence proving any kind of abuse by family, friends, boyfriends, including TA. The problem is she has no such evidence. She says it happened, but saying it is not proof in most people's minds. As for the BPD, it was a state expert who claimed Arias tested positive for that so I doubt the state would prevent additional evidence that further proves it. PTSD was not proven but if proof exists it would no doubt be allowed into the record.

If she has witnesses, she should bring them. But the state is entitled to know who those witnesses are and what they will testify about. As I understand it, Arias did not want to provide the state with that info prior to trial so the state wanted those witnesses precluded.

No party gets to spring a surprise witness on the other party. If the state were wanting to do so you can bet the DT would scream about it. So why should they expect to be allowed to do it?

 

[turaj]

Wilmott wrote it didn't she? Her signature is at the end.

I think at this point Wilmott is doing most of the work...Nurmi does not want to be there and probably has little to no contact with her...Wilmott is no doubt still talking to her and taking direction from her.

 

[turaj]

*Sigh* I'm disappointed to read this. She definitely should have known better.

It is rather pathetic for her to have done this...your husband is involved in this case day in and day out...it is really all consuming and I would think she would be busy leading her own life. Don't know anything about her but it is rather juvenile. Most of these allegations from the Jodi camp are senseless but I have to say it may not rise to any real concern for the court but makes me wonder.

 

[turaj]

I am not sure JA figures it's impossible for her to get a death sentence. She thought it for sure for awhile but I am not sure she really believes it now. And...if the state took the DP off the table now, the judge could decide the sentence. No penalty retrial would be necessary and no mitigation would happen because there would be nothing remaining to mitigate.

I think the state could end this circus at this point, but only the state--unless judge finds reason to dismiss DP. But I am guessing there.

Don't know much about how this works but in this case I'm not sure we will ever really know what JM and the state really wanted to do as far as going ahead with round 2 on the dp...I think the family was crystal clear on what they wanted and JM and state felt it important to honor that.

 

[Bernina]

There are more than 3.942 million (2012) people living in Maricopa County, Arizona. http://www.city-data.com/county/Maricopa_County-AZ.html

The defense cost of this trial has been currently shown as $2.5 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/jodi-arias-defense-cost_n_5912400.html

Do the math..........just off the top of my head, that's apprx. $6.34 per person, over a 5-6 year period, a bit over a $1 @ year.

Sure, there's the cost of the jail, (relatively cheap thanks to Joe), the prosecution, judge, etc., etc., but it's NOT enough to throw a fit about.

CMJA's funding projects should be thrown into a refund account for the defense. She's not indigent if she's making money, no matter how little.

 

[Nali87]

I do not care who spoke to who. I could care less. Did the tweets affect the jurors? Or the case? No? Then let's move on. The defense introduced this motion just to make this all public lol. Let's get on with the trial and get the convict sentenced!

 

[MsJosie]

The "issue" is that CMJA is "using" these great organizations as "evidence" for her "philanthropic" albeit "Mother Teresa" act to sway the jury in finding those donations mitigating factors to save her azz.

It's all "Show and No Go". Her minions have only made these "donations" in the last month: if court had proceeded on the original start date, none of this would have taken place, thus the motion to represent herself and the delay.

There is a method to her madness. She's never given to charities before, this is all a show for the retrial.

As she has shown in the past, she leaves a wake of destruction in her path. She is a sociopath, it's NOT what she can do for you, it's what you can do for her.

Can the prosecution bring up these 'donations' and how she is going about getting her art work out of the jail, selling it on her website and then donating the monies when she is suppose to be broke? She brought it up in the first trial when she said she was selling her shirts...if I am right. Any input please? Thanks

 

[MeeBee]

I do not care who spoke to who. I could care less. This the tweets affect the jurors? Or the case? No then let's move on. The defense introduced this motion just to make this all public lol. Let's get on with the trial and get the convict sentenced!

And to tattle on Mrs. Flores.

 

[LambChop]

Policemens' wives can and do talk about a public trial. Her views are her own and the incident that was suppose to be sealed was revealed by the juror herself, which had nothing to do with Jodi. Just because Jodi does not like some of the comments that were made does not mean Jodi can control them. The detective's wife owes Jodi nothing.

Plus I don't think Mrs. Flores was saying anything that we weren't already saying. LOL jmo

 

[daisydomino]

Where are the rest of the tweets? These are only one person. Was she tweeting to herself or were others involved in the conversation(s)?

Heck, for all I know the situation might be even more supportive of the defense when taken in context.

But good or bad, the entire conversation (all tweeters involved and what each tweeted) need to be part of the Exhibit or it is not a complete and accurate account of what occurred. IMO.

To me it's not that much different than all the other #jodiarias noise on Twitter. I don't see anything in here that anybody following this trial closely wouldn't have known about anyway. Big deal.

 

[Zuri]

Where are the rest of the tweets? These are only one person. Was she tweeting to herself or were others involved in the conversation(s)?

Heck, for all I know the situation might be even more supportive of the defense when taken in context.

But good or bad, the entire conversation (all tweeters involved and what each tweeted) need to be part of the Exhibit or it is not a complete and accurate account of what occurred. IMO.

This is exactly the question I raised last night. The other person is not identified in this Direct Conversation. Hardly seems fair to post one side. Would the other person's comments have been redacted? There are no black marks?

 

[Nosey Parker]

@presumably Corinna Flores:

@whomever Corinna Flores

I don't know the first thing about twitter, and have never wanted to, but aren't these handles strange? Who would put 'presumably' in front of their name? I think I smell a rat!

 

[LambChop]

I just removed a group of posts that had the "tweets" from Det. Flores' wife because they are not confirmed. The site they were on is a support site for Jodi Arias so we need to wait before posting. We are all aware of Jodi's creative writing abilities.

 

[daisydomino]

That was me, Nosey Parker. Sorry for the confusion. I don't know what the Twitter handles are. I think the one that was supposedly Corinna Flores is (or was) @imbosslikethat or something.

Edited to add: We do not know for sure if it was really Mrs. Flores in the first place.

 

[Bernina]

I, and everyone else here, are well aware of the underlying issue and the motive for JA to donate monies. Do you not think Juan M. is competent enough to see that for himself and to bring that to the jury's attention at the appropriate time? I'd say it's a foregone conclusion he will and he will make sure the jury understands exactly the intent.

Still, and that said, the nonprofits are not to blame and they should not be held accountable because the public doesn't like who donated.

Who is blaming the non-profits? I surely am not. They're just another "victim" of CMJA.
JM has several weeks/months BEFORE he can address those donations, and in the meantime, public awareness of the said donations will only hurt the charities through outrage from certain sectors of the public.
Not everyone is on WS's, or has followed this case from the beginning, so underlying issues and motives aside, these charities WILL be effected by the public "fringe", Tweeters, Facebook, etc.
I have followed this case since TA's body was found: Arizona is my State, Mesa is an old stomping ground, my brother was a Mormon is Mesa at the time, I'm an ex-Mormon, and crimes to this degree were NOT common, if totally non-existent, in that particular community.

BTW: JM cannot "cross" CMJA during her mitigation stand up routine.

 

[krkrjx]

There are more than 3.942 million (2012) people living in Maricopa County, Arizona. http://www.city-data.com/county/Maricopa_County-AZ.html

The defense cost of this trial has been currently shown as $2.5 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/jodi-arias-defense-cost_n_5912400.html

Do the math..........just off the top of my head, that's apprx. $6.34 per person, over a 5-6 year period, a bit over a $1 @ year.

Sure, there's the cost of the jail, (relatively cheap thanks to Joe), the prosecution, judge, etc., etc., but it's NOT enough to throw a fit about.

CMJA's funding projects should be thrown into a refund account for the defense. She's not indigent if she's making money, no matter how little.

Makes a big difference when seen in perspective. You should post this info in response to the article that yammers about the cost, since I think that part of the article was intended mainly to incite.

 

[Nosey Parker]

That was me. Sorry for the confusion. I don't know what the Twitter handles are. I think the one that was supposedly Corinna Flores is (or was) @imbosslikethat or something.

LOL! Oops :blushing: Thanks for setting me straight daisydomino.