Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #1

[pacnwgal]

I think it would be easy for CMJA to see and copy the list of jurors' info. During many attorney/client meetings, etc? This is assuming there were no copies other than the original six, she could see and copy. Technically, if done that way, people could swear that they didn't give her a copy of the list? Maybe I'm giving too much credit. I still can't help thinking the loose-lipped bailiff would have loved to leak it, though.

Maybe CMJA traced the list LOL

 

[LinasK]

I have no doubt at all that she has always remembered every second of that day. I'm willing to bet that she in fact treasures her murder memories, and that she has spent many hundreds of hours in her jail cell recalling how good it made her feel to make Travis suffer.

I was shocked when she admitted the obvious at sentencing, but that's only because I thought she was incapable of telling the truth about anything, whatever the twisted reason for doing so.

Could someone please explain how her foul splutterings at sentencing could possibly hurt her direct appeal? Or her chances of post-conviction relief? What would the legal basis be for having them come at all anywhere along the line?

I don't see it. Am I missing something?

Well, she blew her "fog" defense out of the water. It's a further admission of guilt to recall the act of the murder itself. She can no longer claim Travis was so abusive he scrambled her brain and caused this PTSD fog, nor mental illness that caused it, nor the trauma of the murder itself causing her to blackout. It speaks to premeditation that she knew what she was doing every step of the way including her post-murder actions in the desert, like calling his voice-mail, to leave an alibi like she thought he was alive. I think her true motive in the sentencing phase was to stick the proverbial knife in the Alexander family's heart by claiming he was still conscious. Plus the bad-asses in Perryville like Shawna Forde got wind of it.

 

[Hez]

Maybe CMJA traced the list LOL

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! :laughing:

 

[GigiG]

I don't think Jodi was still acting pro per when the jury was selected. I think she got the names from someone on her defense team who is not a member of the bar, ahem, and gave them to one of supporters during a video chat. :moo:

Thank you for your gentle correction. You are right.

 

[krkrjx]

I have no doubt at all that she has always remembered every second of that day. I'm willing to bet that she in fact treasures her murder memories, and that she has spent many hundreds of hours in her jail cell recalling how good it made her feel to make Travis suffer.

I was shocked when she admitted the obvious at sentencing, but that's only because I thought she was incapable of telling the truth about anything, whatever the twisted reason for doing so.

Could someone please explain how her foul splutterings at sentencing could possibly hurt her direct appeal? Or her chances of post-conviction relief? What would the legal basis be for having them come at all anywhere along the line?

I don't see it. Am I missing something?

I don't think she stated the obvious. He could not have been "still trying to attack" her as she stated at sentencing. That was designed to justify her having to slice him further. She spoke of this only to hurt the Alexanders. He could have still been alive when she administered that slice but I doubt he was conscious, and no way for even a second do I believe he was trying to attack--imo he was not even able to fight back by that point. As for her appeals, it won't hurt her chances--she still gets to appeal whatever she wants. She just won't win. There is little chance of most of what she considers appealable issues being heard. Likely that would be the case even if she had not uttered her hateful sentencing speech, but I think she could have helped herself a little had she attempted contrition at that stage instead. She made a bad choice; bad choices we make usually come back to haunt us.

 

[pacnwgal]

I don't think she stated the obvious. He could not have been "still trying to attack" her as she stated at sentencing. That was designed to justify her having to slice him further. She spoke of this only to hurt the Alexanders. He could have still been alive when she administered that slice but I doubt he was conscious, and no way for even a second do I believe he was trying to attack--imo he was not even able to fight back by that point. As for her appeals, it won't hurt her chances--she still gets to appeal whatever she wants. She just won't win. There is little chance of most of what she considers appealable issues being heard. Likely that would be the case even if she had not uttered her hateful sentencing speech, but I think she could have helped herself a little had she attempted contrition at that stage instead. She made a bad choice; bad choices we make usually come back to haunt us.

BBM I agree and wanted to add that even if the result of a future appeal was reducing her sentence to life with the possibility of parole, all the state would have to do at a clemency hearing is pop in a recording of her sickening tantrum and crank up the Bose.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think she stated the obvious. He could not have been "still trying to attack" her as she stated at sentencing. That was designed to justify her having to slice him further. She spoke of this only to hurt the Alexanders. He could have still been alive when she administered that slice but I doubt he was conscious, and no way for even a second do I believe he was trying to attack--imo he was not even able to fight back by that point. As for her appeals, it won't hurt her chances--she still gets to appeal whatever she wants. She just won't win. There is little chance of most of what she considers appealable issues being heard. Likely that would be the case even if she had not uttered her hateful sentencing speech, but I think she could have helped herself a little had she attempted contrition at that stage instead. She made a bad choice; bad choices we make usually come back to haunt us.

What I meant by her stating the obvious is that of course she remembered killing him, including almost decapitating him. That's also what I meant about her telling the truth, though the most she could manage to say truthfully is that she remembered. The rest, as usual, was all lies.

I still think all she achieved by saying that at sentencing was that she fully revealed herself, directly, as the sick, twisted, malicious and hateful nothing she is.

Nothing she said or could have said would have swayed JSS, imo, and nothing she said will make the slightest bit of difference in her appeal(s).

Whether or not she showed remorse, ever, is irrelevant to the appeals process. Whether or not she magically recovered memory in jail or lied her arse off on the stand is also irrelevant to the appeals process. The self-serving magically restored memories of a convicted murderer aren't "new evidence," which is what even more magical rabbit she'd have to pull out of her hat to obtain a shot at post conviction relief.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Has anyone heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's report on CMJA?
I have been waiting and seen nothing on news either. Guess it was a lie when Troy Hayden reported it was coming out last week?

 

[Val1]

I think it would be easy for CMJA to see and copy the list of jurors' info. During many attorney/client meetings, etc? This is assuming there were no copies other than the original six, she could see and copy. Technically, if done that way, people could swear that they didn't give her a copy of the list? Maybe I'm giving too much credit. I still can't help thinking the loose-lipped bailiff would have loved to leak it, though.

BBM - Exactly and iirc during the jury selection while the lawyers were up at the bench(I think about the now #17), you can see her pull some document from JW's pile, peruse it, then carefully put it back. Of course the camera then went back to the court so I couldn't see if she wrote notes... though we all know she was great at doing that then passing them thru MDLR to her mom.:/

 

[GigiG]

Who is Janet???:waitasec:

Just in case your question has yet to be answered, Janet (Wiebelhaus) is JSS's Judicial Assistant.

She was not very popular with courtroom attendees (including journalists) during JA's trial(s).

She was also the person (during the first trial) who allegedly said, within earshot of the jury, that JM should be stabbed 27 times, and that he should get the death penalty.*

*Not vouching here, just reporting from past WS threads, so take it FWIW. Too lazy/tired to do the research to provide more detailed info...

 

[geevee]

Has anyone heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's report on CMJA?
I have been waiting and seen nothing on news either. Guess it was a lie when Troy Hayden reported it was coming out last week?

From what I read last week (a couple tweets as best I recall) the report had been turned over to the prosecution for 'possible charges', doubt we'll see it until it's decided whether or not whatever is in it leads to charges (for whom it hasn't been specified).

 

[nwmouse]

When is the CMJA Restitution Hearing scheduled for - thought it was June 1st?? TIA

 

[StillMindmatters]

When is the CMJA Restitution Hearing scheduled for - thought it was June 1st?? TIA

IIRC, it was posted that it had been rescheduled some time ago. I think it is now in Aug???

 

[mugwump*]

June 22nd I'm pretty sure

 

[ElleElle]

Well, 7 years ago today, JA made the fateful road trip to Mesa.

RIP Travis. :angel:

As far as the Jury list goes, perhaps this is a good thing. This should be a lesson learned for all to keep an eye on who (in the courtroom) have access to the media/MSM.

 

[krkrjx]

From what I read last week (a couple tweets as best I recall) the report had been turned over to the prosecution for 'possible charges', doubt we'll see it until it's decided whether or not whatever is in it leads to charges (for whom it hasn't been specified).

I think it will not be released at all or at best, in redacted form. I do not expect any charges to happen and believe that the reporting of possible charges was done to lay ground for an excuse to not release the report. MOO, of course.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think it will not be released at all or at best, in redacted form. I do not expect any charges to happen and believe that the reporting of possible charges was done to lay ground for an excuse to not release the report. MOO, of course.

How sad if true.

 

[Hez]

RIP Travis. Justice has finally been served.

 

[geevee]

Rest in Peace, dear Travis.

I have a hard time wishing terrible on anyone but I hope she has nasty nightmares tonight.

 

[daisydomino]

I think it will not be released at all or at best, in redacted form. I do not expect any charges to happen and believe that the reporting of possible charges was done to lay ground for an excuse to not release the report. MOO, of course.

Wow, is it still not out? I'm so curious to read this thing!

Out of curiosity (please don't read into my question, I'm only asking because I don't understand) why would they have to make up excuses? Is this report a public record?