SIDEBAR #15- Arias/Alexander forum

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't get into this site either http://www.azcentral.com/community/m...nclick_check=1

Could someone give me a little synopsis of what it is about. Something about more reports of animal abuse by CMJA??? Sorry can't seem to follow what's going on. :blushing:

Thanks ...... Would like to hear more about this :seeya:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-arias-sidebars-exclusive.html?nclick_check=1

Hi Sydni :seeya: I transcribed them for those that can't play them. Here's the first two. I'll have the second two posted shortly. Mods if these belong somewhere else please move thanks.

Clip One:

JM: 558 talks about torturing pets. The defendant tortured her cat…and I want to get into that…and it’s in her notes….and it’s something that she knows about. My argument’s going to be that if anyone’s the abuse, if anyone’s the abuser it’s her, and that’s where I’m headed.

JSS: However, Mr. Martinez I, I did read the note that says that she poked at the cat and she slapped the dog…but I don’t know that that rises to the level of torturing a pet, which is what is listed on the….under terrorism. It says torturing pets.

JM: But she also squeezed the cat out of anger. Um she also squeezed the cat very tight, too tight, out of anger….

(The judge ruled it out).

Clip Two:

(This one deals with the dismissal of juror #8)

JM: If I could just have his name.

JSS: Yes

JM: Okay

JSS: I’ll find out.

JW: And judge, just to make sure that I think that juror #8 should have no knowledge that the prosecutor is investigating him.

JSS: I agree. I think that’s one of the reasons I’m uncomfortable about asking him for the number. I think as far as he’s concerned it’s done. I don’t want him to think we are concerned about him beyond what we’ve already discussed. OK, alright.

(this is news because everyone thought the DT fought to get juror #8 off the jury, but it was actually the prosecution that had him investigated and removed apparently)
 
JS RE: ALV after Juan says "ALV is advocating for the defendant" ...JSS: "I've told her and you've told her but for whatever reason ... she wants to volunteer information ... She's just getting herself in deeper because she's doing that.." JSS goes on to say " I do believe the witness (ALV) wants to answer with information that's not what she's being asked...I don't want to admonish her in front of the jury ...JSS to Jenny "She ( ALV) did this yesterday and it delays the proceedings ... talk with her at the break about it"

OMG where can I read this stuff. I'm so lost, I can't get back to the post where there's a link (that works for me).

H ... E ... L .... P ..!!!!!
 
ive just listened to those side bar videos,juan sound so different. so cute and harmless :floorlaugh: i think i know which version i prefer :innocent:

i can't believe nurmi and wilmott with this new motion.....surely JSS will deny it right? hes pretty much saying the jury is dumb imo
 
Here's clip three and four:

Clip three

JM: If she wants to talk about the big picture, then I’m going back to start talking about the defendant slashing tires. If she wants to talk about the big picture, how she slept under the Christmas tree. She can’t have it both ways. Uh, I’m just asking her about that which is what I was instructed to do and then she continues to want to advocate on behalf of the defendant. I just that there has to be a stop at some point.

JW: There’s a difference between advocating on behalf of the defendant and just trying to answer truthfully. She’s just trying to answer truthfully, The reason why there is no information that has come in that Ms. Arias is the one who slashed Mr. Alexander’s tires is because there is no evidence of that. And even the State agreed to that, even Detective Flores. That’s why it doesn’t come in. That’s why it wouldn’t be appropriate as a 404B issue to come in. When she, when she’s talking about the big picture she’s trying to answer his question, because he’s trying to paint her into….an answer that isn’t true. She can’t answer it yes or no, and that’s what she continues to say.

JSS: Okay, I’m going to sustain the objection and ask another question. She continues to volunteer information and I know I’ve told her, and I know you’ve told her not to volunteer information, but for whatever reason she wants to volunteer information. She's just getting herself in deeper because she's doing that. So for now I’m going to sustain the objection and let’s move on to another question.

Clip four:

JW: We’re going to make speaking objections. The State continues to make speaking objections about the witness not being responsive. The objection is non-responsive, not she’s just not being responsive, she’s just not answering the question. I’m objecting to his speaking objection. Furthermore, the objection is that she’s attempting to answer his questions, but he interrupts her and doesn’t allow her to finish just because he wants a yes or no or something specific and she’s not able to give it. If he would just let her answer he would get an answer.

JM: You’re here judge, and you’re seeing that she was being evasive. I’ve been holding back because of your indication that perhaps I shouldn’t be as aggressive as I, as I should. Uh, I can begin to be more aggressive with her if need be, uh, so she may answer my questions “yes” or “no”. Um, I just have backed off, I have let her go you know, on and on and not cut her off. At this point, um, it appears to me that the defendant wants it both ways. I need to not be assertive with her, but then when I ask you for the remedy, they don’t want me to ask for that either.

JSS: Okay, my preference is that you not escalate the aggressiveness at this point. The objections, the objection non-responsive, I will, I will rule based on that understanding of what you’re saying. I, I do believe that the witness wants to answer with information that she’s not being asked. I don’t want to admonish her in front of the jury. Perhaps you could discuss that with her at the break. She was doing the same thing yesterday, and it just delays the proceedings. While she’s doing that, if she can’t answer the question that’s being asked, she should just say “I can’t answer that question”, or….

JW: Or perhaps that’s the better course, because he….the questions that are being posed in a “yes or no” answer can not always be answered in a yes or no fashion and that’s the problem that she’s having. And judge, for the record, when the court asked Mr. Martinez to back off the aggressiveness, for the record when he talks about being aggressive or assertive it’s aggressive because he’s yelled at witnesses in the past, he was doing it, he was doing it with Ms LaViolette at the beginning of this and so the court asked him to back down. So the fact that he’s not getting her to answer just the way he wants her to answer and, um, does not in any way entitle him to start yelling at her again if that’s what he is proposing.

JM: If I may, I dispute that I yelled about anybody because the shriek that I heard by defense counsel yesterday on the last objection when she said “Judge” at the top of, at what appeared to be the very top of her lungs (and yes, he did parody JW shrieking) was way louder than anything I’ve been heard addressing the witness with. So if we’re going to be talking about this issue it’s now denigrated to a situation where they’re trying to gain a tactical advantage. I have abided by your rules, and I will continue to do so.

JSS: Okay counsel, let’s move on. Tempers are getting short. You may proceed.
 
Here's clip three and four:

Clip three

JM: If she wants to talk about the big picture, then I’m going back to start talking about the defendant slashing tires. If she wants to talk about the big picture, how she slept under the Christmas tree. She can’t have it both ways. Uh, I’m just asking her about that which is what I was instructed to do and then she continues to want to advocate on behalf of the defendant. I just that there has to be a stop at some point.

JW: There’s a difference between advocating on behalf of the defendant and just trying to answer truthfully. She’s just trying to answer truthfully, The reason why there is no information that has come in that Ms. Arias is the one who slashed Mr. Alexander’s tires is because there is no evidence of that. And even the State agreed to that, even Detective Flores. That’s why it doesn’t come in. That’s why it wouldn’t be appropriate as a 404B issue to come in. When she, when she’s talking about the big picture she’s trying to answer his question, because he’s trying to paint her into….an answer that isn’t true. She can’t answer it yes or no, and that’s what she continues to say.

JSS: Okay, I’m going to sustain the objection and ask another question. She continues to volunteer information and I know I’ve told her, and I know you’ve told her not to volunteer information, but for whatever reason she wants to volunteer information. She's just getting herself in deeper because she's doing that. So for now I’m going to sustain the objection and let’s move on to another question.

Clip four:

JW: We’re going to make speaking objections. The State continues to make speaking objections about the witness not being responsive. The objection is non-responsive, not she’s just not being responsive, she’s just not answering the question. I’m objecting to his speaking objection. Furthermore, the objection is that she’s attempting to answer his questions, but he interrupts her and doesn’t allow her to finish just because he wants a yes or no or something specific and she’s not able to give it. If he would just let her answer he would get an answer.

JM: You’re here judge, and you’re seeing that she was being evasive. I’ve been holding back because of your indication that perhaps I shouldn’t be as aggressive as I, as I should. Uh, I can begin to be more aggressive with her if need be, uh, so she may answer my questions “yes” or “no”. Um, I just have backed off, I have let her go you know, on and on and not cut her off. At this point, um, it appears to me that the defendant wants it both ways. I need to not be assertive with her, but then when I ask you for the remedy, they don’t want me to ask for that either.

JSS: Okay, my preference is that you not escalate the aggressiveness at this point. The objections, the objection non-responsive, I will, I will rule based on that understanding of what you’re saying. I, I do believe that the witness wants to answer with information that she’s not being asked. I don’t want to admonish her in front of the jury. Perhaps you could discuss that with her at the break. She was doing the same thing yesterday, and it just delays the proceedings. While she’s doing that, if she can’t answer the question that’s being asked, she should just say “I can’t answer that question”, or….

JW: Or perhaps that’s the better course, because he….the questions that are being posed in a “yes or no” answer can not always be answered in a yes or no fashion and that’s the problem that she’s having. And judge, for the record, when the court asked Mr. Martinez to back off the aggressiveness, for the record when he talks about being aggressive or assertive it’s aggressive because he’s yelled at witnesses in the past, he was doing it, he was doing it with Ms LaViolette at the beginning of this and so the court asked him to back down. So the fact that he’s not getting her to answer just the way he wants her to answer and, um, does not in any way entitle him to start yelling at her again if that’s what he is proposing.

JM: If I may, I dispute that I yelled about anybody because the shriek that I heard by defense counsel yesterday on the last objection when she said “Judge” at the top of, at what appeared to be the very top of her lungs (and yes, he did parody JW shrieking) was way louder than anything I’ve been heard addressing the witness with. So if we’re going to be talking about this issue it’s now denigrated to a situation where they’re trying to gain a tactical advantage. I have abided by your rules, and I will continue to do so.

JSS: Okay counsel, let’s move on. Tempers are getting short. You may proceed.

Thanks so much princess ... we were all going insane .. :seeya: At lease I was :banghead:
 
Here's clip three and four:

Clip three

JM: If she wants to talk about the big picture, then I’m going back to start talking about the defendant slashing tires. If she wants to talk about the big picture, how she slept under the Christmas tree. She can’t have it both ways. Uh, I’m just asking her about that which is what I was instructed to do and then she continues to want to advocate on behalf of the defendant. I just that there has to be a stop at some point.

JW: There’s a difference between advocating on behalf of the defendant and just trying to answer truthfully. She’s just trying to answer truthfully, The reason why there is no information that has come in that Ms. Arias is the one who slashed Mr. Alexander’s tires is because there is no evidence of that. And even the State agreed to that, even Detective Flores. That’s why it doesn’t come in. That’s why it wouldn’t be appropriate as a 404B issue to come in. When she, when she’s talking about the big picture she’s trying to answer his question, because he’s trying to paint her into….an answer that isn’t true. She can’t answer it yes or no, and that’s what she continues to say.

JSS: Okay, I’m going to sustain the objection and ask another question. She continues to volunteer information and I know I’ve told her, and I know you’ve told her not to volunteer information, but for whatever reason she wants to volunteer information. She's just getting herself in deeper because she's doing that. So for now I’m going to sustain the objection and let’s move on to another question.

Clip four:

JW: We’re going to make speaking objections. The State continues to make speaking objections about the witness not being responsive. The objection is non-responsive, not she’s just not being responsive, she’s just not answering the question. I’m objecting to his speaking objection. Furthermore, the objection is that she’s attempting to answer his questions, but he interrupts her and doesn’t allow her to finish just because he wants a yes or no or something specific and she’s not able to give it. If he would just let her answer he would get an answer.

JM: You’re here judge, and you’re seeing that she was being evasive. I’ve been holding back because of your indication that perhaps I shouldn’t be as aggressive as I, as I should. Uh, I can begin to be more aggressive with her if need be, uh, so she may answer my questions “yes” or “no”. Um, I just have backed off, I have let her go you know, on and on and not cut her off. At this point, um, it appears to me that the defendant wants it both ways. I need to not be assertive with her, but then when I ask you for the remedy, they don’t want me to ask for that either.

JSS: Okay, my preference is that you not escalate the aggressiveness at this point. The objections, the objection non-responsive, I will, I will rule based on that understanding of what you’re saying. I, I do believe that the witness wants to answer with information that she’s not being asked. I don’t want to admonish her in front of the jury. Perhaps you could discuss that with her at the break. She was doing the same thing yesterday, and it just delays the proceedings. While she’s doing that, if she can’t answer the question that’s being asked, she should just say “I can’t answer that question”, or….

JW: Or perhaps that’s the better course, because he….the questions that are being posed in a “yes or no” answer can not always be answered in a yes or no fashion and that’s the problem that she’s having. And judge, for the record, when the court asked Mr. Martinez to back off the aggressiveness, for the record when he talks about being aggressive or assertive it’s aggressive because he’s yelled at witnesses in the past, he was doing it, he was doing it with Ms LaViolette at the beginning of this and so the court asked him to back down. So the fact that he’s not getting her to answer just the way he wants her to answer and, um, does not in any way entitle him to start yelling at her again if that’s what he is proposing.

JM: If I may, I dispute that I yelled about anybody because the shriek that I heard by defense counsel yesterday on the last objection when she said “Judge” at the top of, at what appeared to be the very top of her lungs (and yes, he did parody JW shrieking) was way louder than anything I’ve been heard addressing the witness with. So if we’re going to be talking about this issue it’s now denigrated to a situation where they’re trying to gain a tactical advantage. I have abided by your rules, and I will continue to do so.

JSS: Okay counsel, let’s move on. Tempers are getting short. You may proceed.

:floorlaugh: It's just as interesting reading it as hearing it!!!!! And how does <modsnip> know what <modsnip> looks like shrieking "....(and yes, he did parody JW shrieking)..." if <modsnip> DIDN'T shriek? :floorlaugh:
Denigrating <modsnip> is like poking a stick at a snake with rubber fangs and a baby rattle duct taped to his tail, all show and no go, but hella fun, Bawahaha!
 
Read up Jodi, executions of females happen...one in Texas this evening

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...s-out-500th-execution-with-kimberly-mccarthy/

Texas marked a solemn moment in criminal justice Wednesday evening, executing its 500th inmate since it resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982.

Kimberly McCarthy, who was put to death for the murder of her 71-year-old neighbor, was also the first woman executed in the U.S. in nearly three years.

McCarthy, 52, was executed for the 1997 robbery, beating and fatal stabbing of retired college psychology professor Dorothy Booth. Booth had agreed to give McCarthy a cup of sugar before she was attacked with a butcher knife and candelabra at her home in Lancaster, about 15 miles south of Dallas. Authorities say McCarthy cut off Booth's finger to remove her wedding ring.

It was among three slayings linked to McCarthy, a former nursing home therapist who became addicted to crack cocaine.
 
Read up Jodi, executions of females happen...one in Texas this evening

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...s-out-500th-execution-with-kimberly-mccarthy/

Texas marked a solemn moment in criminal justice Wednesday evening, executing its 500th inmate since it resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982.

Kimberly McCarthy, who was put to death for the murder of her 71-year-old neighbor, was also the first woman executed in the U.S. in nearly three years.

McCarthy, 52, was executed for the 1997 robbery, beating and fatal stabbing of retired college psychology professor Dorothy Booth. Booth had agreed to give McCarthy a cup of sugar before she was attacked with a butcher knife and candelabra at her home in Lancaster, about 15 miles south of Dallas. Authorities say McCarthy cut off Booth's finger to remove her wedding ring.

It was among three slayings linked to McCarthy, a former nursing home therapist who became addicted to crack cocaine.

HOLY crap!
 
Ok folks. We can use a pick me upper. Would someone please be a doll and go to youtube for me and post Flash mob moscow Puttin on the Ritz. I am not able to.
 
Thank you Ricki. Its a upbeat flash mob video. I became hooked on them whe Howie Mandel has his show called Flash Mob.
 
HOLY crap!

Right! A crack head who brutalized elderly women

DNA evidence also tied McCarthy to the December 1988 slayings of 81-year-old Maggie Harding and 85-year-old Jettie Lucas. Harding was stabbed and beaten with a meat tenderizer, while Lucas was beaten with both sides of a claw hammer and stabbed.

McCarthy, who denied any involvement in the attacks, was indicted but not tried for those slayings.
 
http://wildabouttrial.com/arias-attorneys-seek-to-vacate-death-eligibility/

PHOENIX (AP) &#8211; Jodi Arias&#8217; attorneys have asked a judge to vacate the jury&#8217;s decision in her murder trial that the 2008 killing of her boyfriend was &#8220;especially cruel,&#8221; a finding that allowed the panel to consider the death penalty.
Defense attorneys argue in their motion that the definition of &#8220;especially cruel&#8221; is too vague for jurors with no legal experience to determine what makes one killing more cruel or heinous than another
 
I watched the movie We Need To Talk About Kevin this afternoon, which led me to look the movie up on Google, which led me to the book (haven't read it, but ordered it), which led me to the psychology of the concept of "The Bad Seed". I found an article that I thought might be of interest to WSers. It kind of reminded me of what JA might have been when she was young. Here's a passage from the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychologist Robert Hare is devoted to the study of psychopathy. His research may upset a lot of people because until the psychopath came into focus, it was possible to believe that bad people were just good people with bad parents or childhood trauma. But Hare’s research suggested that some people behaved badly even when there had been no early trauma nor bad parenting. Moreover, since psychopaths’ brains are in fundamental ways different from ours, talking them into being like us might not be easy. Indeed, to this day, no one has found a way to do so (more information at hare.org).

For to many people the very idea of psychopathy in childhood is inconceivable. [...] Many people feel uncomfortable applying the term psychopath to children. They cite ethical and practical problems with pinning what amounts to a pejorative label on a youngster. But clinical experience and empirical research clearly indicate that the raw materials of the disorder can and do exist in children. Psychopathy does not suddenly spring, unannounced, into existence into adulthood. [...]

Clinical and anecdotal evidence indicates that most parents of children later diagnosed as psychopaths were painfully aware that something was seriously wrong even before the child started school. Although all children begin their development unrestrained by social boundaries, certain children remain stubbornly immune to socializing pressures. They are inexplicably “different” from normal children – more difficult, willful, aggressive, and deceitful; harder to “relate to” or get close to; less she puts on her sweet and contrite act we’re generally tormented by her behavior. She’s truant, sexually active, and always trying to steal money from my purse.” – Robert Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.

http://www.health-matrix.net/2010/07/18/good-parents-may-plant-bad-seeds/
- more good articles:
http://greenheritagenews.com/the-“bad-seed’’-diagnosis-and-the-casey-anthony-case/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...mon-think--spot-danger-signs-young-three.html

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBM The words "generally tormented by her behavior" seems what Travis' friends may have sensed in JA. I think, because, to me, Travis was sort of naive about JA and more emotionally involved than his friends, it took him more time to realize what JA really was- a psychopath. That was such a mistake for him. But, maybe, he was trying to help her?
I find the concept of The Bad Seed very compelling and so scary. I, kind of, feel sorry for JA's parents. It must be very hard to accept that your child might be/is a psychopath. Who would want to believe that in your own child and imagine all the guilt. Her parents should've gotten her help, tho'- I would have tried- even if it seems as if it wouldn't have helped anyway because they were born a "bad seed".
I'm going to look into more of the concept of the "bad seed". It's very interesting.
Has anyone read We Need To Talk About Kevin ? Was it good? I thought the movie was very good. The movie The Bad Seed was a great movie, also- with Pattie McCormick playing a stellar Rhoda.

I just ordered Dr. Hare's "Without Conscience" & can't wait to read it! I just finished reading "Columbine" by Dave Cullen, where towards the 2nd half of the book he delves into the psychopathy of Harris (he describes Klebold as more of the "manic depressive" type). In Dave Cullen's book he quotes numerous times from Dr. Hare's book "Without Conscience", as well as Hervey Cleckley's "The Mask of Sanity" (which I ordered as well).

I think most of us cannot even attempt to understand the reasonings to any murderous behavior so we want to understand the reasoning... Fortunately their reasoning is something we cannot & will never understand... B/c it (IMO) is not reasoning, it is utter insanity.

I'll let u know what I think of both "Without Conscience" & "The Mask of Sanity" once I finish them. It's all a very frightening yet fascinating subject.

Keep us posted on your thoughts after u finish Dr. Hare's book. :)
 
I just ordered Dr. Hare's "Without Conscience" & can't wait to read it! I just finished reading "Columbine" by Dave Cullen, where towards the 2nd half of the book he delves into the psychopathy of Harris (he describes Klebold as more of the "manic depressive" type). In Dave Cullen's book he quotes numerous times from Dr. Hare's book "Without Conscience", as well as Hervey Cleckley's "The Mask of Sanity" (which I ordered as well).

I think most of us cannot even attempt to understand the reasonings to any murderous behavior so we want to understand the reasoning... Fortunately their reasoning is something we cannot & will never understand... B/c it (IMO) is not reasoning, it is utter insanity.

I'll let u know what I think of both "Without Conscience" & "The Mask of Sanity" once I finish them. It's all a very frightening yet fascinating subject.

Keep us posted on your thoughts after u finish Dr. Hare's book. :)

I've read both. IMO they belong on the must read list for anyone following this trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,744
Total visitors
2,900

Forum statistics

Threads
603,500
Messages
18,157,540
Members
231,750
Latest member
Mhmkay..
Back
Top