Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #3
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #8- Latest: Olivier La Buse
- Status
Becky Sharp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 10
Well, hey! I get to be the first to plunk myself down into a front-row seat. Shall I get out the cocktail shaker? Drinks are on me, folks!
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:seeya:
Just marking my spot so I do not miss a thing !
lease:lease:lease: Justice for Travis !
Just marking my spot so I do not miss a thing !
lease:lease:lease: Justice for Travis !
T-4-2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 6
I've never smelled decomp, but evidently it's both horrible and distinctive. If I shared a house with someone and I noticed an increasingly awful smell coming from behind their locked door and permeating the entire house, I seriously doubt I'd think dead body right off the bat, if at all. I read somewhere (who knows if it's true) that the space cadet housemates thought Napoleon must have pooped in Travis' bedroom and that Travis left for Cancun without cleaning it up. Right. That sounds likely. No one would leave a pile of poop on their bedroom floor and just take off. Especially not a neatnik like Travis. And dog poop would smell less over time, not more. They have my sympathy, but they should have realized that something was way wrong in that room and gotten that door open way sooner. Maybe the toilet was backing up in some spectacular way -- that's not something you'd let continue! Maybe they did start thinking that something had died in there. Maybe a raccoon or a rat fell through a ceiling tile. But you don't just leave it there to ripen! I bet Jodi was counting on the housemates' "hear nothing, see nothing, speak nothing, and SMELL nothing" attitude -- this would buy her more time.
But that brings up another mystery: why the heck didn't she just skedaddle out of Dodge ASAP? Doesn't the Murder For Dummies book have a chapter about the importance of not hanging out at your grandparents' house for a couple of weeks post-murder? Maybe she was trying not to attract attention -- for only the second time in her life. If that were the case, she should maybe have skipped the memorial service and she should have skipped calling Det. Flores. Just not her style I guess.
T-4-2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 6
Too bad they're not in the shaker. (ba-dum-dum)
Here are my questions/opinions/pea-brained thoughts.
“Can you be impartial?” is, IMO, a perfectly logical ‘weeding’ question. That’s all. Given the publicity of the conviction trial and given the requests for change of venue … I’m a fool (and not a lawyer), but this “first blush” questioning seems judicially sound.
One (ME!) wouldn’t want Nurmi to claim ‘prejudicial’ questions arising during the first phase of jury selection.
The following weeks will tell the real tale, as the UNdismissed jurors fill out their (not-to-be-revealed-to-the-public) questionnaires.
Peace out.
“Can you be impartial?” is, IMO, a perfectly logical ‘weeding’ question. That’s all. Given the publicity of the conviction trial and given the requests for change of venue … I’m a fool (and not a lawyer), but this “first blush” questioning seems judicially sound.
One (ME!) wouldn’t want Nurmi to claim ‘prejudicial’ questions arising during the first phase of jury selection.
The following weeks will tell the real tale, as the UNdismissed jurors fill out their (not-to-be-revealed-to-the-public) questionnaires.
Peace out.
T-4-2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 6
What's this spot marking business? Why do people mark spots? Thanks.
TartLemon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,723
- Reaction score
- 124
I'm resigned Jodi will never see the light of day as a free woman. Totally agree with that, too. My fascination is with the AZ trial system and how they will bring a new jury up to speed on the guilt portion of the trial. Since the jury deliberation process is done in secret, revealed only by those jurors who choose to speak about it, this is just weird to me that a new jury can decide the life/death of a defendant they did not even deem guilty.
Becky Sharp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 10
Hi everyone,
It's good to be back to WS and read all your thoughts. While I'm busy mixing your fancy drinks (dang! I just ran out of those little paper parasols), can I please share some of my thoughts about today's posts on this thread? I really, really don't intend to criticize anyone, but I'm troubled by all the criticism of Judge Stephens, in particular, and the justice system in general.
The judge has frequently been criticized as too lenient and/or too cautious. And the judicial process has been criticized as too slow. And some have even suggested Judge Stephens is therefore incompetent. But I think she's being very careful to foreclose any future appeals from the DT. In other words, she wants this trial to be concluded with no grounds for appeal. And that necessarily means a lengthy trial with drawn out and tedious processes. Shouldn't we respect that? And shouldn't we also applaud her efforts to see that JA has no grounds for appeal?
I was also troubled by the eye-rolls today about the judge's scheduling. Some here seem to assume that the JA trial is her only trial and therefore assume that she must devote all of her time to it. Others, who recognize that she is busy with other trials as well as JA's, seem angry that she "quits" at 4:00 and does nothing on Fridays. C'mon. As AZLawyer has repeatedly pointed out, much of her work is done in chambers. That is, just because she is not sitting at her official judicial bench, in her judicial robes, doesn't mean she's not working or that the legal process has the day off. In fact, I suspect she works well beyond a "regular" 40-hour week (or even a 60-hour week).
In other words, Judge Stephens strikes me as a very competent judge who knows the law and knows the legal system. She deserves our respect, not our scorn.
I didn't intend this as a pro-JSS post, but I get very troubled when citizens vacate their civic duty by not pausing to think.
It's good to be back to WS and read all your thoughts. While I'm busy mixing your fancy drinks (dang! I just ran out of those little paper parasols), can I please share some of my thoughts about today's posts on this thread? I really, really don't intend to criticize anyone, but I'm troubled by all the criticism of Judge Stephens, in particular, and the justice system in general.
The judge has frequently been criticized as too lenient and/or too cautious. And the judicial process has been criticized as too slow. And some have even suggested Judge Stephens is therefore incompetent. But I think she's being very careful to foreclose any future appeals from the DT. In other words, she wants this trial to be concluded with no grounds for appeal. And that necessarily means a lengthy trial with drawn out and tedious processes. Shouldn't we respect that? And shouldn't we also applaud her efforts to see that JA has no grounds for appeal?
I was also troubled by the eye-rolls today about the judge's scheduling. Some here seem to assume that the JA trial is her only trial and therefore assume that she must devote all of her time to it. Others, who recognize that she is busy with other trials as well as JA's, seem angry that she "quits" at 4:00 and does nothing on Fridays. C'mon. As AZLawyer has repeatedly pointed out, much of her work is done in chambers. That is, just because she is not sitting at her official judicial bench, in her judicial robes, doesn't mean she's not working or that the legal process has the day off. In fact, I suspect she works well beyond a "regular" 40-hour week (or even a 60-hour week).
In other words, Judge Stephens strikes me as a very competent judge who knows the law and knows the legal system. She deserves our respect, not our scorn.
I didn't intend this as a pro-JSS post, but I get very troubled when citizens vacate their civic duty by not pausing to think.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
I do it so I can "subscribe" to the thread ... then it is added to "Quick Links" which has a list of all the threads I am following.
It makes it so much easier to find the forums and cases that are of interest, and you don't have to search through the various forums.
:seeya: I hope this helps !
Renee110
Stop letting criminals off the Hook!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reaction score
- 230
AZLawyer, or any other lawyers or anyone who knows about these things:
Ok…I've been watching the Jeff Gold Spreecast, which you can see here http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-arias-retrial
Around the 3:00 minute mark, he talks about JSS dismissing jurors. Here is what he said….
"Because the questions that are being asked about fairness, the same questions that you would ask in any trial, Can you be fair? And it's a little different, this is a very unusual case. This is a case where, the issue of guilt is over with. It has been decided that Jodi Arias is a convicted murderer. So that's not before this jury. And yet, at least half of the jurors were excluded in my opinion, for what's called CAUSE, meaning the judge can allow out any number of jurors without it ever getting to the parties to make objections; those are called preemptories, they can make them for any reason as well other than race, but they never got to that yet. We are not at that point yet. The only thing that's happening now is that jurors are being excused for CAUSE, because the judge recognizes that they can't be fair, or that they can't be there because they have to be somewhere else."
To me that sounds like Juan CAN'T object yet. Is that right?
Ok…I've been watching the Jeff Gold Spreecast, which you can see here http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-arias-retrial
Around the 3:00 minute mark, he talks about JSS dismissing jurors. Here is what he said….
"Because the questions that are being asked about fairness, the same questions that you would ask in any trial, Can you be fair? And it's a little different, this is a very unusual case. This is a case where, the issue of guilt is over with. It has been decided that Jodi Arias is a convicted murderer. So that's not before this jury. And yet, at least half of the jurors were excluded in my opinion, for what's called CAUSE, meaning the judge can allow out any number of jurors without it ever getting to the parties to make objections; those are called preemptories, they can make them for any reason as well other than race, but they never got to that yet. We are not at that point yet. The only thing that's happening now is that jurors are being excused for CAUSE, because the judge recognizes that they can't be fair, or that they can't be there because they have to be somewhere else."
To me that sounds like Juan CAN'T object yet. Is that right?
nyvictoria
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 27,002
Many thanks to all tweeters and posters!
I was under the impression that it is not only 'ok' for potential jurors to believe that Arias is guilty but that they should. Or at least accept the verdict of first-degree murder. How can jurors who don't believe that Arias is guilty be expected to sentence her to death? It may be legally acceptable for the Judge to phrase the instructions so vaguely but I don't think it's sound. We'll end up with jurors who don't believe very strongly in Arias' guilt or an appropriate punishment. The last thing we need is a wishy-washy jury. I remember Judge Perry keeping a juror (in spite of objections from Ashton) who specifically stated that she could not judge others. Knowing Juan is around is reassuring since he knows everything about everything but my faith in this Judge wanes. My biggest fear, if the Judge gets to decide the punishment, is that she will go for the middle-ground (as she is known to do) and give Arias LWP (or the equivalent in Arizona). It will be a tremendous win for Arias if she is given even the remotest hope of getting out of prison one day.
I Object!
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 133
Hmmm... wouldn't middle ground be Life WITHOUT parole? I actually have more faith in Judge Stevens than I do in 12 random AZ citizens...
josie1986
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,862
- Reaction score
- 53
Marking my spot.
I hope we get some clarity on this whole impartial thing.
Surely when they jury is picked JSS will have to tell them that they have to accept the last juries verdicts of guilty and especially cruel.
Everything seems to be being made so complicated here.
I hope we get some clarity on this whole impartial thing.
Surely when they jury is picked JSS will have to tell them that they have to accept the last juries verdicts of guilty and especially cruel.
Everything seems to be being made so complicated here.
If the jury is unable to vote for death then the Judge gets to sentence Arias. 'Natural life' or (life without parole) would be the maximum sentence.
YESorNO
The Queen (aka "mrsmuir") SWBB
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 34,377
- Reaction score
- 68,991
Good morning :seeya:
-------------------------------
Court Minutes
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/30/2014 8:00 AM
09/26/2014
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092014/m6504977.pdf
--------------------------------
MaryEllen Resendez ‏@maryellenabc15 7h7 hours ago
#JodiArias defense has cost Co. taxpayers 2.5 Million #abc15
MaryEllen Resendez @maryellenabc15 · 16h 16 hours ago
Just spoke 2former #JodiArias juror: seeing it all over the news is gut wrenching - same as when they were deliberating #deathpenalty #abc15
-------------------------------
Court Minutes
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/30/2014 8:00 AM
09/26/2014
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092014/m6504977.pdf
--------------------------------
MaryEllen Resendez ‏@maryellenabc15 7h7 hours ago
#JodiArias defense has cost Co. taxpayers 2.5 Million #abc15
MaryEllen Resendez @maryellenabc15 · 16h 16 hours ago
Just spoke 2former #JodiArias juror: seeing it all over the news is gut wrenching - same as when they were deliberating #deathpenalty #abc15
blefuscu
Bsc (hons) Criminology
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,997
- Reaction score
- 102
I've just sat and read through yesterday's jury selection posts. Is it wrong that I burst out laughing several times while reading about the selection of a jury to decide on the life or death fate for a convicted murderer?
How come the jury selection isn't back on before Wednesday? The way they are dropping court bailiffs will be driving around Arizona in cattle trucks rustling people off the streets to be on the jury!
How come the jury selection isn't back on before Wednesday? The way they are dropping court bailiffs will be driving around Arizona in cattle trucks rustling people off the streets to be on the jury!
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:seeya: Hi Rose !
BBM: Exactly ... these are excellent points !
CMJA has already been found GUILTY, so I do NOT understand WHY that is not being properly explained to potential jurors that CMJA has been found GUILTY and you are here to decide ONLY HER SENTENCE ... and this sentence is the DP ...
IMO, that sounds real simple -- so WHY all this confusion ?
The ONLY PERSON I have faith in in that courtroom is Juan Martinez, and I am certain that he knows what is going on ...
But as to JSS ... well, I want to be here to see CMJA sentenced to DP so I better zip it !
:moo:
- Status