Oh my, that was hilarious. Arias, on the other hand, probably thought it was (truly) debasing and would rather not do it again. Maybe part of the fog lifted, and she's remembered it differently. Because fogs are like that. Very accommodating.
Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 3
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
New Posts
-
KY- I-75 Active Shooter Targeting Vehicles
- Latest: Simply Southern
- Status
Oh my, that was hilarious. Arias, on the other hand, probably thought it was (truly) debasing and would rather not do it again. Maybe part of the fog lifted, and she's remembered it differently. Because fogs are like that. Very accommodating.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,714
If the DT can argue she has remorse then Juan should be able to bring in evidence that refutes that.
JS seems to try her very best to hamstring Juan in everyway she can.
I suppose what she means is JA has a right to bring in that she has remorse but Juan does not have a right to counter it since Arias is saying she did this in self defense.
That is another thing that is so strange in this case among many other things. Usually when the jury finds they didn't believe the self defense argument the defendant is not able to tell the next jury it was self defense. How is that taking accountability and respecting the jury's verdict? That is like dismissing what the first jury has already determined, unanimously.
The defendant usually does better if they admit to the crimes that the jury believes they have done but with Arias JS is still allowing her to claim it was self defense. Which makes my head spin trying to understand her rulings because if she is saying she has remorse for killing Travis then that means she is admitting she did something very wrong. If she had no choice like she likes to say when she bald face lies then why interject remorse as a mitigating factor?
It is so confusing and so many things counter oppose each other and trying to understand why JS rules the way she does is unobtainable for me to understand, anyway. None of it has any rhyme or reasoning to it.
IMO
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
These are excellent! Thank you thank you!
Reagan
New Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 1
I know this is an incredibly unpopular opinion, but it has always bothered me since the first trial. I personally believe the gunshot came first. Yes I am aware of what the State alleges, as well as Det Flores' and Dr Horns' testimony, but something about it still bothers me.
When JA told the intruder story to Det. Flores, she had stated how Travis was shot, and expressed surprise how he was still alive, on his hands and knees, moaning. It was haunting. Then when the non existent intruders went to shoot her, the gun jammed (i believe that is what happened when she tried to shoot him a second time, and that's when the stabbing began). I know, I know...she's a lying liar face, but it felt like she was trying to fit a few truths in with those lies during that interview.
Then there was Travis' defense wounds but the lack of jodis injuries. He fought, he grabbed the knife in defense, but I believe he would have easily over taken her after a stab wound to the chest, even if it was inevitably fatal....unless he was otherwise stunned by a gunshot wound. I don't believe he stood a chance after that. I also believe that's why he was standing at the mirror, because he was stunned, but not completely incapacitated yet. And that's when she started stabbing him in a frenzy...because he just wouldn't die.
He wasn't even fighting her, he was trying to escape down the hall. Even after 25+ stab wounds he was alive, and that's when she slit his throat.
If he was in fact stabbed first, and not shot, I believe he would have had so many more defensive wounds, and she would have been injured as well, besides the injury she got stabbing him.
The state alleges that it was cruel to shoot him after he was dead (i think this is pertaining to the law and the death penalty?), but I see nothing more cruel than shooting someone, and upon realizing that they aren't dead, stabbing them as they try to crawl to freedom, only to have their throat slit.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Martinez and think he is an incredibly amazing prosecutor. I very much respect the work of det Flores and the medical examiner too....these are just my person beliefs. Regardless, I still think it is a crime that warrants death. I think if anyone deserves death, it's Jodi arias. So please don't be too hard on me. These are just thoughts that I've had, and probably haven't expressed them as eloquently as I would have liked.
Eta excuse any typos. It is very hard to post from a smartphone that's not all that smart
When JA told the intruder story to Det. Flores, she had stated how Travis was shot, and expressed surprise how he was still alive, on his hands and knees, moaning. It was haunting. Then when the non existent intruders went to shoot her, the gun jammed (i believe that is what happened when she tried to shoot him a second time, and that's when the stabbing began). I know, I know...she's a lying liar face, but it felt like she was trying to fit a few truths in with those lies during that interview.
Then there was Travis' defense wounds but the lack of jodis injuries. He fought, he grabbed the knife in defense, but I believe he would have easily over taken her after a stab wound to the chest, even if it was inevitably fatal....unless he was otherwise stunned by a gunshot wound. I don't believe he stood a chance after that. I also believe that's why he was standing at the mirror, because he was stunned, but not completely incapacitated yet. And that's when she started stabbing him in a frenzy...because he just wouldn't die.
He wasn't even fighting her, he was trying to escape down the hall. Even after 25+ stab wounds he was alive, and that's when she slit his throat.
If he was in fact stabbed first, and not shot, I believe he would have had so many more defensive wounds, and she would have been injured as well, besides the injury she got stabbing him.
The state alleges that it was cruel to shoot him after he was dead (i think this is pertaining to the law and the death penalty?), but I see nothing more cruel than shooting someone, and upon realizing that they aren't dead, stabbing them as they try to crawl to freedom, only to have their throat slit.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Martinez and think he is an incredibly amazing prosecutor. I very much respect the work of det Flores and the medical examiner too....these are just my person beliefs. Regardless, I still think it is a crime that warrants death. I think if anyone deserves death, it's Jodi arias. So please don't be too hard on me. These are just thoughts that I've had, and probably haven't expressed them as eloquently as I would have liked.
Eta excuse any typos. It is very hard to post from a smartphone that's not all that smart
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,010
Madeline, did you see my response above? Just curious...
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,010
I used to think so when I heard Det. Flores say it, but it can't have for two important reasons: 1) The bullet casing is lying on top of a large pool of congealed blood. It would've been covered in blood if he was shot first. 2)If he was shot first he never would have made it out of the shower. He would've been unconscious/incapacitated.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
<modsnip>
When I read the descriptions provided by the source sites, at no point did I read anything that described other people's beliefs or imaginations as the legal test. Everything I read that involved either forgery or plagiarism (and plagiarism is often about the written word in academic settings) had to do with taking someone else's work or written words and then passing them off as one's own. From what I read it is not definitive that making a drawing based on a photograph, which is what Arias does, is either forgery or plagiarism. In fact each source I referenced said it may or may not be. Someone else thinking, believing, or assuming a pencil drawing is conceived in the mind of the artist and is not based on anything else or any other art the artist may have seen is not necessarily plagiarism, no matter how much the "artist" is despised. It all depends on the situation and is something that would be decided by a judge. That's what I was able to find when I did some research.
ETA: And your definition of an artist is quite limited in scope, and certainly not what represents reality. I have a cousin who makes her living as an artist, displays all over the country and teaches at the university level. Her medium is painting and she likes to do landscapes as one area of subject matter. She will use a photograph as her inspiration. She'll also travel to see various landscapes, take pictures and then paint using photographs as inspiration or to provide context in lighting or the colors she saw.
Reagan
New Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 1
Youd think any gunshot wound to the head would be incapacitating, but that is not always the case, and a .25 caliber isn't very strong, but you bring up a very good point. The very clean and pristine gun casing is something I definitely can't explain in my scenario. Unless it got kicked around? I don't know.
I am just explaining my beliefs and things that have bothered me. Hell, this whole case and the ruthlessness of it bothers me in general
Eta- arghh I was trying to quote you LinasK.
I am just explaining my beliefs and things that have bothered me. Hell, this whole case and the ruthlessness of it bothers me in general
Eta- arghh I was trying to quote you LinasK.
spcagrl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 668
No, I think you're spot on!
To me, it doesn't matter what the legal definition is or isn't or of she could successfully sued for stealing work. That's just noise. But the fact is she has taken other ideas that weren't her own and is passing them off as her own. She has given no credit to them. It's not just about looking at a work and determining it wasn't theirs. Jodi is passing the work off as her own and selling it. That is plagiarism.
And Jodi hasn't just used them for an idea for her own art. They are not an homage. She has copied them, point for point, shadow for shadow, and IMO, traced some of it. And I do believe she has traced. Especially that Guess ad.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Based on the following links, which I have supplied in my earlier post as well:
www.plagiarism.org
wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery
In my research I did not find anything that specified a drawing made of a photograph, which is the type of art that Arias creates, was definitively considered either forgery or plagiarism. In fact, it appears to be a fuzzy gray legal area and is not clearly defined, based on what I was able to read. It would be up to a judge to decide.
A person looking at a drawing and believing, thinking, or assuming the artist created the image from nothing other than their own imagination is not the legal definition of plageurism or forgery. Regardless of how much the "artist" is hated and despised, that isn't the test for determining legality around art works. Plageurism is most often used when someone is taking someone else's work and passing it off as their own (like copying sections of someone's writing and claiming authorship of it, as often happens in academic settings).
One can believe whatever they want, of course, but legally it simply is not quite that clear, especially when one is talking about making a drawing from a photograph. And to me it is important to understand the legal boundaries because that's why we follow cases... legal cases.
But plagiarism isn't even illegal. It's an ethical issue. It's about the ethics of stealing someone else' work. I promise, this isn't just about Jodi. I have always felt that way. I think it is wrong for anyone to steal anyone's artistic vision and pass it off as their own. It bother me and there have been cases where someone has used someome else's work and had to pay heavily for it.
I also promise this is not about denigrating the work of someone just because they are hated. It's not to say, "oh, wel they copied so they have no talent." I have always been willing to give Jodi credit where it's due. She is beautiful, she is charismatic, she does have a way with the written word. Again, there is talent there, I have always thought this (though nothing really special in my humble opinion. I went to an art magnet in middle school. I've seen better). But even talented people steal. And before I learned her work was a fraud, I thought some of the things were pretty cool and interesting. Knowing she stole them denotes her vision in my mind.
So now we've gone off on a thing about plagiarisms and the legality of it. Again, it's not about that to me. It's just the principle. I would feel this way about anyone else who wasn't Jodi Arias if they did this.
And now, some links on artistic plagiarism:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
http://faculty.academyart.edu/resource/tips/1768.html
http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/a_case_of_art_plagiarism
http://sacredflamingheart.deviantart.com/journal/What-Is-Art-Plagiarism-READ-THIS-234951828
"Posting screencaptures saying that you "took them yourself" as though they were photographs, when in fact, those still images already existed--it's called a FRAME.
Adding text, clip art or other images to a piece. Putting a witty word bubble or a sprite on something doesn't make it yours.
Piecing together multiple images. No matter how cool it looks, Frankensteining multiple sprites together to make one sprite is direct art theft.
Drawing on top of someone else's already existing image.
Applying filters to an image, changing colors, or inverting its colors.
Tracing is defined as blatantly copying the composition and structure of a work with little or no alteration, with the intent of claiming the by-product as your own. You "went through the motions" of reproducing the image, but the composition is identical to the original, with the intent for it to be identical. Examples of tracing include, but aren't limited to:
Tracing the original piece. Including photographs. No, changing what media a work is presented in doesn't change the fact that you traced it.
Tracing the original piece and coloring it. Yes, even applying different colors makes it art theft.
Tracing the original piece and flipping it backwards. And then coloring it.
Tracing the original piece and altering minor details, but leaving the same general composition. This last example leads into the concept of paraphrasing, so let's go on to that.
Let's go back to the example of what written paraphrased plagiarism is. You're still stealing artwork if you keep the same composition and specific details/arrangement, even *if* you changed which characters are portrayed and even *if* you drew the lines without tracing them. The specific combination of elements that together combine to form the overall composition of a work is the intellectual property of the original creator."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
http://faculty.academyart.edu/resource/tips/1768.html
http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/a_case_of_art_plagiarism
http://sacredflamingheart.deviantart.com/journal/What-Is-Art-Plagiarism-READ-THIS-234951828
"Posting screencaptures saying that you "took them yourself" as though they were photographs, when in fact, those still images already existed--it's called a FRAME.
Adding text, clip art or other images to a piece. Putting a witty word bubble or a sprite on something doesn't make it yours.
Piecing together multiple images. No matter how cool it looks, Frankensteining multiple sprites together to make one sprite is direct art theft.
Drawing on top of someone else's already existing image.
Applying filters to an image, changing colors, or inverting its colors.
Tracing is defined as blatantly copying the composition and structure of a work with little or no alteration, with the intent of claiming the by-product as your own. You "went through the motions" of reproducing the image, but the composition is identical to the original, with the intent for it to be identical. Examples of tracing include, but aren't limited to:
Tracing the original piece. Including photographs. No, changing what media a work is presented in doesn't change the fact that you traced it.
Tracing the original piece and coloring it. Yes, even applying different colors makes it art theft.
Tracing the original piece and flipping it backwards. And then coloring it.
Tracing the original piece and altering minor details, but leaving the same general composition. This last example leads into the concept of paraphrasing, so let's go on to that.
Let's go back to the example of what written paraphrased plagiarism is. You're still stealing artwork if you keep the same composition and specific details/arrangement, even *if* you changed which characters are portrayed and even *if* you drew the lines without tracing them. The specific combination of elements that together combine to form the overall composition of a work is the intellectual property of the original creator."
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
I happen to think she does have artistic talent or at least what could be a foundation of budding talent with appropriate study but then again, she threw that all away when she murdered Travis.
What I saw weren't tracings. The dimensions are not the same and the perspective in several of the pieces I looked at were different. In some of the drawings, the details aren't even the same (shape of the mouth or eyes as 2 examples). Similar, yes. Exact, no.
The artwork I've seen has only been since she was incarcerated. I would be surprised to see art that shows jail cells, or the exercise yard/cages, or of B&W striped jail duds, which is what her current views consist of and have for the last 6 years (which she deserves, of course). She does not have access to paint, canvasses or other materials other than pencils, so that is the medium used. Visual inspiration comes from images seen in publications. Whether it's considered junk, trash, uninspired, childish, stupid, unoriginal or whatever other adjective is used, it doesn't make it necessarily illegal. And that's the point. Just saying something is "plagiarism" or a "forgery" doesn't mean it is. I have yet to see any of those advertising agencies or photographers sue her to prevent her from selling her wares. I will wait to see if this gets tested in a courtroom in front of a judge. And to be clear, I'm not saying it isn't plagiarism, I'm saying it's not definitive based on what I was able to find by reading plagiarism.org.
What I saw weren't tracings. The dimensions are not the same and the perspective in several of the pieces I looked at were different. In some of the drawings, the details aren't even the same (shape of the mouth or eyes as 2 examples). Similar, yes. Exact, no.
The artwork I've seen has only been since she was incarcerated. I would be surprised to see art that shows jail cells, or the exercise yard/cages, or of B&W striped jail duds, which is what her current views consist of and have for the last 6 years (which she deserves, of course). She does not have access to paint, canvasses or other materials other than pencils, so that is the medium used. Visual inspiration comes from images seen in publications. Whether it's considered junk, trash, uninspired, childish, stupid, unoriginal or whatever other adjective is used, it doesn't make it necessarily illegal. And that's the point. Just saying something is "plagiarism" or a "forgery" doesn't mean it is. I have yet to see any of those advertising agencies or photographers sue her to prevent her from selling her wares. I will wait to see if this gets tested in a courtroom in front of a judge. And to be clear, I'm not saying it isn't plagiarism, I'm saying it's not definitive based on what I was able to find by reading plagiarism.org.
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 30
Plagiarism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism
Copyright
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/
The rules for copyright material is that we can quote 10% and the rest must be linked. All material in magazines are automatically are a copyright. It is always best to as for permission to copy a picture, articles, etc. before you put it up for sale as original art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission
I do not believe she has done any more drawings from magazines once the article was in the paper regarding her tracing from ads. Anyone remember that???
So does anyone think Jodi asked for permission?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism
Copyright
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/
The rules for copyright material is that we can quote 10% and the rest must be linked. All material in magazines are automatically are a copyright. It is always best to as for permission to copy a picture, articles, etc. before you put it up for sale as original art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission
I do not believe she has done any more drawings from magazines once the article was in the paper regarding her tracing from ads. Anyone remember that???
So does anyone think Jodi asked for permission?
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm not sure about the law on this, but if you want to look into it, I think the terms you should be using are derivative and transformative works.
The famous Shepard Fairey, a talented graphic artist whose work you will recognize as soon as you see it, has been sued for this at least once. See this Mother Jones article
http://www.motherjones.com/riff/2009/01/mystery-solved-whered-shepard-fairey-get-his-obama-headshot
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_"Hope"_poster
I'm still undecided on this. I am sure that Arias was armed with both the gun and the knife. She did not have time to go get a knife after shooting him once. I am inclined to believe that she had planned on using both the gun and the knife. She needed that gun to control and overpower Travis. She could not have forced Travis to sit down in the shower if she had had only a knife. A standing Travis would have easily defended himself against a knife (only) wielding Arias. The gun gave Arias a tremendous advantage. She did use the knife as well as she clearly wanted to make Travis suffer. Also, in her mind, two murder weapons = two murderers.
I'm sure this video has been posted but I'll do so again as it's interesting. The guy is quite opinionated though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlb5WYupMhg
I don't see how the gun-shot first theory makes the murder any less barbaric. Shooting the victim first and then stabbing him to death is just as cruel.
ETA: If she had planned on simply shooting Travis to death then she could have done so earlier in the evening...when Travis was sleeping or even when Travis was shaving in the bathroom. Why did she wait till Travis was in the shower? She was prepared for a 'bloody' murder. The shower was the perfect place to corner/torture/stab Travis and the perfect place to wash off the blood/DNA.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,010
Oh, I completely agree. She wanted him to know who was killing him. In one of the shower photos right before she launched her attack, you can see the fear in his eyes. She got him at his most vulnerable. I don't think she expected him to escape the shower.
- Status