Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2

[grammieto5]

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...hoenix/restitution-hearing-set-for-jodi-arias

15 second clip of
Willmot saying Jodi is working hard to behave herself so she can get more visitation. Right now she gets one visit weekly, non contact

And I'm sure that's the hardest the evil one has ever worked in her useless life.

 

[Steve44]

ROFLLLLLLL how "hard" can it be to behave oneself in prison, alone in a cage for 23 hrs a day?

I guess it could be pretty hard if you've lived all your life believing rules were meant to be broken, or didn't apply to you.

 

[blefuscu]

To be honest I don't think the Alexanders expect to see much of the restitution money. They know that CMJA will make things as hard as possible to get 50c from her. But it will pee Jodi off that she is working for 20% less than basic. Plus when the civil suit goes through she can kiss goodbye to even more.

 

[geevee]

JA's external Maxstor (sp?) hard drive (held in evidence) was wiped completely with some kind of utility program, Neu. says it didn't even have the master boot partition, or format, even though all sectors were perfectly fine (according to Neu.). Wonder what could have been on that drive that she had to wipe it so utterly squeaky clean?

 

[Hope4More]

Just because Willmott says she's entitled to one, non-contact visit weekly, doesn't mean the inmate actually gets weekly visits from anyone. Most of her most ardent supporters either live out of state or out of the country, and the others won't pass the required background checks to get on the approved visitor list because of their criminal backgrounds. Even MDLR can't visit her anymore now that the case is officially over. :shame::jail:

JW is full of it. How long has the lying CMJA been at Lumley? Step one lasts a minimum of 30 days and any infraction sets the clock back to day one. No visitation.

Step 2 lasts a minimum of 60 days and any infraction sets the clock back to step one day one. Visitation is restricted to one visit per MONTH, non-contact, max of 2 hours.

Step 3 doesn't even allow for weekly visits, just a longer one visit per month.

 

[Sweetiemom]

ROFLLLLLLL how "hard" can it be to behave oneself in prison, alone in a cage for 23 hrs a day?

That's always been so wrong to me; to hear defense attorneys state that their raping client has been behaving while in prison. Um. Yeah, not many women to rape in prison. Same with the pedophile clients not having access to children. How could they NOT be committing their crimes?

You know how arias likes to hear herself talk...she has probably been babbling all day and all night to whoever is in hearing distance.

 

[RickshawFan]

Just because Willmott says she's entitled to one, non-contact visit weekly, doesn't mean the inmate actually gets weekly visits from anyone. Most of her most ardent supporters either live out of state or out of the country, and the others won't pass the required background checks to get on the approved visitor list because of their criminal backgrounds. Even MDLR can't visit her anymore now that the case is officially over. :shame::jail:

That's my sense of it, too.

By the way, if I have this correct, the financial institution where Jodi has her "appeal fund" stashed can have the transaction records for that account subpoenaed. There would be a list of amounts and depositors. Because of all the anti-money laundering regulations—and JA's deposits, the nature of the account, the owner of the account, and physical address are clearly devised to evade laws—it is not difficult for LE to peruse transactions and account legalities. In Jodi's case, this would likely include many deposits from foreigners and/or other felons (who are unlikely to be allowed to make financial transactions while in prison). Red flags! Access by LE would also involve tracing the real owner (or trustee) of the account, checking on the street address for validity, whether the owner held funds that might have bypassed the bankruptcy process, whether the owner can legally have an account in the US, if the owner or depositors are identified with organized crime...

You can't just move money around! Computers track all this stuff!

Bank employees are obligated to report any suspicious activity or fishy account owners to compliance officers and regulatory agencies; if they don't, there are serious consequences, both for the financial institution and the individual employee. This means firing, suspension, getting closed down, fines, or all of the above.

 

[wendiesan]

BBM - I added this because the inmate has already raked in thousands of dollars from her supporters and it needs to be stopped!

You're right Hez. Thx for the addition to my rant.

 

[Zuri]

When I sent money to the Alexanders, it was a gift. How they chose to use it was on them. I did not intend for my gift to be used by Wilnott to offset what #heinous owes them.

 

[geevee]

Finally got to the video of the first of the computer files hearings - I may repeat some info already given during tweets when this was live but I want to post pertinent items from the hearings as I get through the videos:

Travis' laptop was set on Mountain Standard Time, since AZ doesn't recognize Daylight Saving Time, everything the computer shows was one hour later than actual time in June (Det. Flores woke it out of sleep mode at 10:27 a.m. according to the computer but it was actually 9:27 a.m.).

Sorry to quote myself (and I may be the only one who cares about this lol) but in the 12/04/14 hearing, JM grills Neumeister about the computer time again (the time referenced in the above post was from the 11/21/14 hearing) there is quite a bit of talk about the computer time, Neu. backtracks and says he'll go by the timestamp on the computer files as he can't really remember how he arrived at the one hour difference concerning DST. I think he was correct on 11/21, unless the computer is set to Arizona time, Windows will automatically adjust to DST so the laptop timestamp would be an hour fast from present AZ time during DST times. This is important to me because of the Spybot testimony to come, the time it was run, if user initiated, is critical to the timestamp on the nude photos.

 

[geevee]

Spybot has a file "access" date of 6/04/08 at 2:44 p.m. (computer time, 1:44 p.m. AZ time) but Neu. would have to parse the files to determine if it was manual or automatic, modified/changed, exe file, etc. (he didn't know he needed to do 'homework' on these files), he and JM went back and forth quite a bit but that's about all of the information on that, at least so far.

 

[wendiesan]

I believe they are honest and not asking for more than their actual losses. I am just saying I see nothing wrong with the other side wanting to know if, perhaps, any of the claimed expenses may have been covered by some other means. I think if they tried to say the Alexanders were lying in their claims, it's wrong on many levels...but from the little info I have on this restitution proceeding they asked to see donation amounts to determine what the balance of actual loss is currently. I can't stand them or their tactics and inferences and all that; still, I have no problem with them wanting to determine actual loss. I would want to determine that if someone sued me for a monetary loss.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this matter.

Warning: I have prepared a rant in an effort to explain why I feel this way. Therefore, some readers may want to skip directly to the last paragraph of this post.

Here's my reasoning: If someone sued you for a monetary loss that you caused, that you admitted to, that you were found guilty of causing, then you are responsible for every penny of that loss as determined by the court. If a person unrelated to you or your victim or the original loss sees that your victim is going to lose her home because of your criminal behaviour, that person might be moved to help the victim out with a gift or an informal loan to forestall a tragedy. You, the criminal, still owe the entire amount of the debt to your victim. The goodness of someone else's largesse does not extend beyond the victim to you, the criminal. You, the criminal, do not get to benefit from the actions of the donor. Your lawyer has no right to demand that, because your victim didn't lose her home, you, the criminal, should get to pay less than the full amount that you owe. Your lawyer's obligation, IMO, is to make sure that you are not required to pay for more than the damage you caused your victim. IMO, you have no right to say that the third party's financial contribution was, in essence, made on your behalf and that, therefore, your financial obligation to your victim is lessened. The third party intervened because you, the criminal, through your actions willfully endangered your victim's ability to provide a home for her family. The intervention was not made to benefit you, the criminal. It was meant to help the victim not to forgive some part of the criminal's debt. You, the criminal, are still on the hook for every cent you owe the victim. You, the criminal, cannot benefit from money not given to you. Neither you, the criminal, nor your Defence Team, have control over the money given to your victim. Your owe the victim. The victim does not owe you.

IMO, the JA Defence Team lawyer and "mitigation" specialist could care less how much the Alexander family was given through donations. It won't affect the payments to the Alexander family because the killer and the killer's family will do their utmost to avoid paying the Alexander family members a penny. And, IMO, it won't affect the amount of money that the citizens of AZ continue to pay JW and MDLR for their "services" to the court.

JW said as much. "In the past, my experience has been that victims are unlikely to get the money when somebody has been sent to prison for so long because they don't have the ability to make it," Willmott said. "Eventually she'll be able to get a job making 10, 20 cents an hour so they can take money from that, but it's very small." http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...hoenix/restitution-hearing-set-for-jodi-arias

I believe that the Alexander family has accumulated such high travel and housing expenses because JSS could not control her courtroom and the DT manipulated court activities so the procedure was dragged out for nearly seven years from the date of the killing. Seven years of the family travelling between states. Seven years of not knowing if there will be any courtroom activity on the days it's been scheduled. Seven years of lost time with husbands, wives, children, community. Seven years of interference with job performance, with further education, with spiritual growth. Seven years of dealing with slander and being given a few minutes here and there to respond. Seven years of unexpected expenses due to flight changes, or hotel room shortages, or weather problems.

Again, my position is that the killer caused the problem. The killer, therefore, reasonably bears the burden of the full expense. So what if people donated to the Alexanders? If the killer was forced to pay full restitution, who is to say that the Alexanders, because of their honesty, would not return any money received to the donors? Who is to say that they would not then funnel the gifts from anonymous donors into Travis Alexander's favoured charities? I think it's possible that the family could have received informal loans which family members fully intend to repay which are none of the killer's business. None of this money was donated to the killer, so why should the killer have any say in how the money was spent? Why should the DT once again intrude into the private lives of the Alexander siblings?

It is my contention that any gifts or loans made to the Alexanders do not relieve the killer from the burden of repaying all those expenses set out by the court. I, therefore, think the killer's lawyers have no right to ask for anything other than proof that the costs claimed are legitimate: gas, lodging, restaurant bills, local grocery receipts, taxi services receipts, bus fares, plane fare, train fares, and so on. IMO, the DT should be thankful they cannot be charged for knowingly slandering Travis Alexander, or Deanna, or the bishop. They should just slink off into the darkness with their "experts".

IIRC, JM said that he turned in some receipts on behalf of the Alexander family members because they, understandably, do not want to return to AZ. I doubt the family really expected to get any money from this exercise. In fact, it may be possible that they will use some of their other travel receipts for income tax purposes--especially if they have donation sites and are expected to show how funds raised were actually used. (A WS accountant will probably correct me on this, tia.)

In the end, perhaps because it was the total of the receipts given to the court by JM, JSS has decided to grant the entire family less than $4,572.00 for each of the seven years (or about $915.00 per sibling) to cover their expenses related to travel and housing and food in AZ during the trial. To compare, ALV got $11,000 for one week of conducting interviews with the killer in jail. ALV, however, is being paid by the State of Arizona so she will be paid in full. The family, on the other hand, is being paid by a lying psychopathic loser with few financial resources and, essentially, no ability or desire to ever make a substantial payment on her debt.

 

[FelicityLemon]

sorry, but i respectfully disagree with your position in this matter.

Warning: I have prepared a rant in an effort to explain why i feel this way. Therefore, some readers may want to skip directly to the last paragraph of this post.

Here's my reasoning: If someone sued you for a monetary loss that you caused, that you admitted to, that you were found guilty of causing, then you are responsible for every penny of that loss as determined by the court. If a person unrelated to you or your victim or the original loss sees that your victim is going to lose her home because of your criminal behaviour, that person might be moved to help the victim out with a gift or an informal loan to forestall a tragedy. You, the criminal, still owe the entire amount of the debt to your victim. The goodness of someone else's largesse does not extend beyond the victim to you, the criminal. You, the criminal, do not get to benefit from the actions of the donor. Your lawyer has no right to demand that, because your victim didn't lose her home, you, the criminal, should get to pay less than the full amount that you owe. Your lawyer's obligation, imo, is to make sure that you are not required to pay for more than the damage you caused your victim. Imo, you have no right to say that the third party's financial contribution was, in essence, made on your behalf and that, therefore, your financial obligation to your victim is lessened. The third party intervened because you, the criminal, through your actions willfully endangered your victim's ability to provide a home for her family. The intervention was not made to benefit you, the criminal. It was meant to help the victim not to forgive some part of the criminal's debt. You, the criminal, are still on the hook for every cent you owe the victim. You, the criminal, cannot benefit from money not given to you. Neither you, the criminal, nor your defence team, have control over the money given to your victim. Your owe the victim. The victim does not owe you.

Imo, the ja defence team lawyer and "mitigation" specialist could care less how much the alexander family was given through donations. It won't affect the payments to the alexander family because the killer and the killer's family will do their utmost to avoid paying the alexander family members a penny. And, imo, it won't affect the amount of money that the citizens of az continue to pay jw and mdlr for their "services" to the court.

Jw said as much. "in the past, my experience has been that victims are unlikely to get the money when somebody has been sent to prison for so long because they don't have the ability to make it," willmott said. "eventually she'll be able to get a job making 10, 20 cents an hour so they can take money from that, but it's very small." http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...hoenix/restitution-hearing-set-for-jodi-arias

i believe that the alexander family has accumulated such high travel and housing expenses because jss could not control her courtroom and the dt manipulated court activities so the procedure was dragged out for nearly seven years from the date of the killing. Seven years of the family travelling between states. Seven years of not knowing if there will be any courtroom activity on the days it's been scheduled. Seven years of lost time with husbands, wives, children, community. Seven years of interference with job performance, with further education, with spiritual growth. Seven years of dealing with slander and being given a few minutes here and there to respond. Seven years of unexpected expenses due to flight changes, or hotel room shortages, or weather problems.

Again, my position is that the killer caused the problem. The killer, therefore, reasonably bears the burden of the full expense. So what if people donated to the alexanders? If the killer was forced to pay full restitution, who is to say that the alexanders, because of their honesty, would not return any money received to the donors? Who is to say that they would not then funnel the gifts from anonymous donors into travis alexander's favoured charities? I think it's possible that the family could have received informal loans which family members fully intend to repay which are none of the killer's business. None of this money was donated to the killer, so why should the killer have any say in how the money was spent? Why should the dt once again intrude into the private lives of the alexander siblings?

It is my contention that any gifts or loans made to the alexanders do not relieve the killer from the burden of repaying all those expenses set out by the court. I, therefore, think the killer's lawyers have no right to ask for anything other than proof that the costs claimed are legitimate: Gas, lodging, restaurant bills, local grocery receipts, taxi services receipts, bus fares, plane fare, train fares, and so on. Imo, the dt should be thankful they cannot be charged for knowingly slandering travis alexander, or deanna, or the bishop. They should just slink off into the darkness with their "experts".

Iirc, jm said that he turned in some receipts on behalf of the alexander family members because they, understandably, do not want to return to az. I doubt the family really expected to get any money from this exercise. In fact, it may be possible that they will use some of their other travel receipts for income tax purposes--especially if they have donation sites and are expected to show how funds raised were actually used. (a ws accountant will probably correct me on this, tia.)

in the end, perhaps because it was the total of the receipts given to the court by jm, jss has decided to grant the entire family less than $4,572.00 for each of the seven years (or about $915.00 per sibling) to cover their expenses related to travel and housing and food in az during the trial. To compare, alv got $11,000 for one week of conducting interviews with the killer in jail. Alv, however, is being paid by the state of arizona so she will be paid in full. The family, on the other hand, is being paid by a lying psychopathic loser with few financial resources and, essentially, no ability or desire to ever make a substantial payment on her debt.

Excellent comments. EVERY SINGLE WORD.

 

[nwmouse]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this matter.

Warning: I have prepared a rant in an effort to explain why I feel this way. Therefore, some readers may want to skip directly to the last paragraph of this post.

Here's my reasoning: If someone sued you for a monetary loss that you caused, that you admitted to, that you were found guilty of causing, then you are responsible for every penny of that loss as determined by the court. If a person unrelated to you or your victim or the original loss sees that your victim is going to lose her home because of your criminal behaviour, that person might be moved to help the victim out with a gift or an informal loan to forestall a tragedy. You, the criminal, still owe the entire amount of the debt to your victim. The goodness of someone else's largesse does not extend beyond the victim to you, the criminal. You, the criminal, do not get to benefit from the actions of the donor. Your lawyer has no right to demand that, because your victim didn't lose her home, you, the criminal, should get to pay less than the full amount that you owe. Your lawyer's obligation, IMO, is to make sure that you are not required to pay for more than the damage you caused your victim. IMO, you have no right to say that the third party's financial contribution was, in essence, made on your behalf and that, therefore, your financial obligation to your victim is lessened. The third party intervened because you, the criminal, through your actions willfully endangered your victim's ability to provide a home for her family. The intervention was not made to benefit you, the criminal. It was meant to help the victim not to forgive some part of the criminal's debt. You, the criminal, are still on the hook for every cent you owe the victim. You, the criminal, cannot benefit from money not given to you. Neither you, the criminal, nor your Defence Team, have control over the money given to your victim. Your owe the victim. The victim does not owe you.

IMO, the JA Defence Team lawyer and "mitigation" specialist could care less how much the Alexander family was given through donations. It won't affect the payments to the Alexander family because the killer and the killer's family will do their utmost to avoid paying the Alexander family members a penny. And, IMO, it won't affect the amount of money that the citizens of AZ continue to pay JW and MDLR for their "services" to the court.

JW said as much. "In the past, my experience has been that victims are unlikely to get the money when somebody has been sent to prison for so long because they don't have the ability to make it," Willmott said. "Eventually she'll be able to get a job making 10, 20 cents an hour so they can take money from that, but it's very small." http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...hoenix/restitution-hearing-set-for-jodi-arias

I believe that the Alexander family has accumulated such high travel and housing expenses because JSS could not control her courtroom and the DT manipulated court activities so the procedure was dragged out for nearly seven years from the date of the killing. Seven years of the family travelling between states. Seven years of not knowing if there will be any courtroom activity on the days it's been scheduled. Seven years of lost time with husbands, wives, children, community. Seven years of interference with job performance, with further education, with spiritual growth. Seven years of dealing with slander and being given a few minutes here and there to respond. Seven years of unexpected expenses due to flight changes, or hotel room shortages, or weather problems.

Again, my position is that the killer caused the problem. The killer, therefore, reasonably bears the burden of the full expense. So what if people donated to the Alexanders? If the killer was forced to pay full restitution, who is to say that the Alexanders, because of their honesty, would not return any money received to the donors? Who is to say that they would not then funnel the gifts from anonymous donors into Travis Alexander's favoured charities? I think it's possible that the family could have received informal loans which family members fully intend to repay which are none of the killer's business. None of this money was donated to the killer, so why should the killer have any say in how the money was spent? Why should the DT once again intrude into the private lives of the Alexander siblings?

It is my contention that any gifts or loans made to the Alexanders do not relieve the killer from the burden of repaying all those expenses set out by the court. I, therefore, think the killer's lawyers have no right to ask for anything other than proof that the costs claimed are legitimate: gas, lodging, restaurant bills, local grocery receipts, taxi services receipts, bus fares, plane fare, train fares, and so on. IMO, the DT should be thankful they cannot be charged for knowingly slandering Travis Alexander, or Deanna, or the bishop. They should just slink off into the darkness with their "experts".

IIRC, JM said that he turned in some receipts on behalf of the Alexander family members because they, understandably, do not want to return to AZ. I doubt the family really expected to get any money from this exercise. In fact, it may be possible that they will use some of their other travel receipts for income tax purposes--especially if they have donation sites and are expected to show how funds raised were actually used. (A WS accountant will probably correct me on this, tia.)

In the end, perhaps because it was the total of the receipts given to the court by JM, JSS has decided to grant the entire family less than $4,572.00 for each of the seven years (or about $915.00 per sibling) to cover their expenses related to travel and housing and food in AZ during the trial. To compare, ALV got $11,000 for one week of conducting interviews with the killer in jail. ALV, however, is being paid by the State of Arizona so she will be paid in full. The family, on the other hand, is being paid by a lying psychopathic loser with few financial resources and, essentially, no ability or desire to ever make a substantial payment on her debt.

Bravo - this is EXACTLY how I see it, but was unable to articulate as clearly as you have.

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

Wanted you to know that Steve44's post is the Websleuths Post of the Day for yesterday!


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...hs-Post-of-the-Day!!!&p=11872244#post11872244

 

[Steve44]

Hi Everyone,

Wanted you to know that Steve44's post is the Websleuths Post of the Day for yesterday!


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...hs-Post-of-the-Day!!!&p=11872244#post11872244

Thanks. I'm embarrassed. In a good way.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Sorry to quote myself (and I may be the only one who cares about this lol) but in the 12/04/14 hearing, JM grills Neumeister about the computer time again (the time referenced in the above post was from the 11/21/14 hearing) there is quite a bit of talk about the computer time, Neu. backtracks and says he'll go by the timestamp on the computer files as he can't really remember how he arrived at the one hour difference concerning DST. I think he was correct on 11/21, unless the computer is set to Arizona time, Windows will automatically adjust to DST so the laptop timestamp would be an hour fast from present AZ time during DST times. This is important to me because of the Spybot testimony to come, the time it was run, if user initiated, is critical to the timestamp on the nude photos.

I care about this stuff, too Geevee - and I'm a 'techie' and found the testimony very frustrating - Neumeister especially. IIRC, BN testified only in the evidentiary hearings, made a lot of snide comments, and incorrect statements, then said he hadn't actually done the computer analyses, but two of his people had done it - one being "John Smith aka Pseudonym" (whose testimony I had all kinds of problems with).

I've used Spybot S&D many times, and did use it in 2008 with a Windows XP computer. One of it's benefits is to 'immunize' your machine the same way you get immunized for childhood diseases - by putting reference to known bad sites on your computer, to prevent the real bad sites from intrusive behavior. JM was right about this, and one of his witnesses said so later (I think it was Det. Brown, but it could have been the Det. Smith).

Anyway, when Pseudonym testified, he said he used a program called "Autopsy", which is freeware, and open source (so it can be customized/changed by a user if they like - which also means different users can get different results) , but Det. Brown (or Det Smith) testified that "autopsy' has a number of flaws - one in particular an issue with DST and time zones.
So BN' was giving second hand information that wasn't accurate, IMO. Even if BN had been accurate, the picture time stamps came from the camera, not the computer - which Travis had recently purchased and used, so the date and time were likely correct, IMO

Sorry for babbling about this, but no one ever talks about this stuff!
Grrr, I just lost a long post, it just disappeared! I was able to retrieve part of it, so I apologize if this is oddly worded.

PS- I also wonder what what was on the CMJA external drive - as well as her laptop (I think both were damaged) - it had to be pretty bad, JMO - but we'll never know. BN should have 'autopsied" that drive, being the expert he is.

 

[krkrjx]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this matter.

Warning: I have prepared a rant in an effort to explain why I feel this way. Therefore, some readers may want to skip directly to the last paragraph of this post.

Here's my reasoning: If someone sued you for a monetary loss that you caused, that you admitted to, that you were found guilty of causing, then you are responsible for every penny of that loss as determined by the court. If a person unrelated to you or your victim or the original loss sees that your victim is going to lose her home because of your criminal behaviour, that person might be moved to help the victim out with a gift or an informal loan to forestall a tragedy. You, the criminal, still owe the entire amount of the debt to your victim. The goodness of someone else's largesse does not extend beyond the victim to you, the criminal. You, the criminal, do not get to benefit from the actions of the donor. Your lawyer has no right to demand that, because your victim didn't lose her home, you, the criminal, should get to pay less than the full amount that you owe. Your lawyer's obligation, IMO, is to make sure that you are not required to pay for more than the damage you caused your victim. IMO, you have no right to say that the third party's financial contribution was, in essence, made on your behalf and that, therefore, your financial obligation to your victim is lessened. The third party intervened because you, the criminal, through your actions willfully endangered your victim's ability to provide a home for her family. The intervention was not made to benefit you, the criminal. It was meant to help the victim not to forgive some part of the criminal's debt. You, the criminal, are still on the hook for every cent you owe the victim. You, the criminal, cannot benefit from money not given to you. Neither you, the criminal, nor your Defence Team, have control over the money given to your victim. Your owe the victim. The victim does not owe you.

IMO, the JA Defence Team lawyer and "mitigation" specialist could care less how much the Alexander family was given through donations. It won't affect the payments to the Alexander family because the killer and the killer's family will do their utmost to avoid paying the Alexander family members a penny. And, IMO, it won't affect the amount of money that the citizens of AZ continue to pay JW and MDLR for their "services" to the court.

JW said as much. "In the past, my experience has been that victims are unlikely to get the money when somebody has been sent to prison for so long because they don't have the ability to make it," Willmott said. "Eventually she'll be able to get a job making 10, 20 cents an hour so they can take money from that, but it's very small." http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...hoenix/restitution-hearing-set-for-jodi-arias

I believe that the Alexander family has accumulated such high travel and housing expenses because JSS could not control her courtroom and the DT manipulated court activities so the procedure was dragged out for nearly seven years from the date of the killing. Seven years of the family travelling between states. Seven years of not knowing if there will be any courtroom activity on the days it's been scheduled. Seven years of lost time with husbands, wives, children, community. Seven years of interference with job performance, with further education, with spiritual growth. Seven years of dealing with slander and being given a few minutes here and there to respond. Seven years of unexpected expenses due to flight changes, or hotel room shortages, or weather problems.

Again, my position is that the killer caused the problem. The killer, therefore, reasonably bears the burden of the full expense. So what if people donated to the Alexanders? If the killer was forced to pay full restitution, who is to say that the Alexanders, because of their honesty, would not return any money received to the donors? Who is to say that they would not then funnel the gifts from anonymous donors into Travis Alexander's favoured charities? I think it's possible that the family could have received informal loans which family members fully intend to repay which are none of the killer's business. None of this money was donated to the killer, so why should the killer have any say in how the money was spent? Why should the DT once again intrude into the private lives of the Alexander siblings?

It is my contention that any gifts or loans made to the Alexanders do not relieve the killer from the burden of repaying all those expenses set out by the court. I, therefore, think the killer's lawyers have no right to ask for anything other than proof that the costs claimed are legitimate: gas, lodging, restaurant bills, local grocery receipts, taxi services receipts, bus fares, plane fare, train fares, and so on. IMO, the DT should be thankful they cannot be charged for knowingly slandering Travis Alexander, or Deanna, or the bishop. They should just slink off into the darkness with their "experts".

IIRC, JM said that he turned in some receipts on behalf of the Alexander family members because they, understandably, do not want to return to AZ. I doubt the family really expected to get any money from this exercise. In fact, it may be possible that they will use some of their other travel receipts for income tax purposes--especially if they have donation sites and are expected to show how funds raised were actually used. (A WS accountant will probably correct me on this, tia.)

In the end, perhaps because it was the total of the receipts given to the court by JM, JSS has decided to grant the entire family less than $4,572.00 for each of the seven years (or about $915.00 per sibling) to cover their expenses related to travel and housing and food in AZ during the trial. To compare, ALV got $11,000 for one week of conducting interviews with the killer in jail. ALV, however, is being paid by the State of Arizona so she will be paid in full. The family, on the other hand, is being paid by a lying psychopathic loser with few financial resources and, essentially, no ability or desire to ever make a substantial payment on her debt.

Difference of opinion, when expressed respectfully, leads to good discussion so please do not ever feel you need to say you are sorry for disagreeing, at least with whatever I post.

My position remains the same: Alexanders and the state are entitled to claim their losses. Arias should be ordered to pay for any losses still outstanding. If what might be still outstanding is in question, I have no problem with her attorney asking for clarification.

And...I am not sorry that I feel this way. It does not mean I sympathize with the killer or even that I believe she is asking for the information for the right reasons. It only means I believe it is not completely improper for her to ask.

Carry on.

 

[LinTX]

JW is full of it. How long has the lying CMJA been at Lumley? Step one lasts a minimum of 30 days and any infraction sets the clock back to day one. No visitation.

Step 2 lasts a minimum of 60 days and any infraction sets the clock back to step one day one. Visitation is restricted to one visit per MONTH, non-contact, max of 2 hours.

Step 3 doesn't even allow for weekly visits, just a longer one visit per month.

Respectfully, it is one per week, but whether or not she's had any is questionable since they say it takes up to 60 days to approve visitors. She was also in SplMgt for a little while before she was reclassified, so I would think that would have delayed her getting 1st visitation as well? BTW, the chart for Lumley incentives does say phase 2 & 3 can earn longer visitation and eventually contact visits, but the following order says that doesn't apply to Max inmates.

DOC Order 911, revised May 2015:

1.3 Maximum Custody Inmates - Maximum custody inmates shall be allowed to visit a
maximum of one, 2-hour block per week with exception to Death Row inmates. Visitation
shall be by appointment only. All maximum custody inmate visitations shall be for one
block, and is always non-contact regardless of what phase the inmate is in, unless a court
order authorizes a contact visit and is approved by the Department’s Legal Services
Division. The following phase requirements shall be for male Death Row inmates (female
Death Row inmates are exempt from phase visitation):

 

[geevee]

Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 · 18h18 hours ago
#JodiArias ordered to pay $32k to Alexanders. They will get 20% of her jail funds til debt is paid, if ever.