SIDEBAR #23- Arias/Alexander forum

[YESorNO]

I don't believe that.

How about this one? (the nose and the jowls look about just right) :floorlaugh:

----------------------

 

[LambChop]

I think my son would be mad if he happen to find it on the internet.

Don't laugh Nymeria rinces: :floorlaugh:

------
OMG- Ricki's not on anymore!! (my son will kill me) :scared:

Okay YESorNO, you are all set.

 

[YESorNO]

I better go before I mess up more. I really need some rest or maybe some Xanex. :facepalm:

:hills:

Thanks to Lamby and Ricki. :tyou:

 

[daisymae]

Good Luck to him in his heat(s) tomorrow/tonight (4:30 am my time)!
Someone needs to grab that gold away from Russia, they have enough already :snooty:
Which driver is he? You don't have to say his name...if you give age I can figure it out. I have my home page set to the games, I have literally watched everything that has happened for 2 weeks.

Anyway, I will cheer for your cousins team along with the US boys .:cheer::woot::cheer:

At the moment I am on the verge of not even cheering for the US team tho, I am so pissed at the womens and mens hockey teams for pretty much giving away a gold medal (women) and the shot at one (men). :tantrum:

Sochi will be known as the 2014 big choke games to me :steamed:

Nymeria, what time will the cousin be on tonight EST?

Agree on the women's hockey team.

 

[YESorNO]

I found this article and don't know what to make of what Rob Roman is trying to state.
It did have some info that I didn't know about JM:
--------------

"Juan is the second youngest of a family of nine. He came to America at age 6 when his family immigrated and settled in California. He vowed to learn English well and be a success. He participated in many activities, such as running long distance track in high school. He finished college and attended ArizonaStateUniversity where he earned his law degree. Juan did some volunteer legal work and some work defending clients. Then, in 1988, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office..."

I agree with this statement made by Mr. Roman:

"For Juan Martinez, there are no “irrational” scenarios about a murder. Murder is against the laws of God and man. There is a victim here. A human being is dead in an unnatural way. The defendant is the accused. Many hours of police work and investigation have been rendered. The defendant has been brought to trial. Juan Martinez is going to trial to put them in a cage. A conviction will slam the door shut. When the conviction survives appeals, the door will be locked. That is the only rational response to murder.

Juan Martinez doesn’t want to hear about any exceptions to the rule. He doesn’t want to hear “this is not what it seems”. The defense always seems to have an excuse, a rationalization, explanations, and alternate scenarios. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense must show is any doubt, any doubt at all. The prosecution needs a unanimous jury to convict. The defense only needs one juror on their side to jam the wheels of justice. If you get a conviction, an appeal can change a sentence, send the case back to trial, or even free the defendant."

But then there's this:

"For Juan Martinez, he will grudgingly provide a “why”. If the jury needs a “why”, he will find one to give them. But for Juan, there is no why. You took a life. We know you did it, and now it is time to pay for your sin. Many murders are straightforward. Juan Martinez doesn’t see that there are rare exceptions and sometimes there are possible explanations for something that seems like a horrible and vicious murder."

And this about The Killer's :jail: trial:

"Juan Martinez was in his usual element, berating defense witnesses, attempting to insult and humiliate the defendant and expert defense witnesses. Appealing to the emotions rather than the reason and logic of the jury, trying to shape the testimony of defense witnesses, cutting them off before they can explain their answers, and questioning witnesses with cynical and aggressive questioning, even screaming, barking and snapping at witnesses in bulldog fashion."

But then you read this:

"Why does Juan Martinez fight so hard to get an aggravator he doesn’t need to get the death penalty? The answer is precedent. If this particular crime is seen as supporting the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravator, then many more cases can claim this aggravator due to the precedent that can be created in State v. Miller. This allows the prosecutors in Arizona to use the threat of the death penalty more often to force a plea in selected cases. This also widens rather than narrows the number of homicides that can be found eligible for the death penalty."

And this:

"To try to convince the jury with argument based on speculation and emotion also seems to fall outside the bounds of the ethics of a prosecutor who is supposed to seek justice. To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also, falls outside these bounds. To accuse defense witnesses of crimes without evidence and to use these accusations to try and prevent a witness from testifying is a violation of law. For Judges to tolerate these tactics is wrong on its face. Excessive screaming, sarcasm, taunting, and contempt violate the decorum of a capital case.

Do you want to defend a mass murderer? Neither do I. Do you want to defend a child rapist and killer or an outlaw drug induced spree killer? Neither do I. How far over the line would you go to prosecute the bad guy? If you go too far, the scales are tipped, and you start to become part of the problem. But if you are falsely accused of such a thing, you would want a prosecutor with ethics. You would not want a Grand Jury to indict you on false, misleading, or missing information. You would not want charges to be brought against you without probable cause. You would not want to be overcharged in the crime."

"There is no “Justice for Yarmilla”, “Justice for Faylene” or “Justice for Travis”. There is only Justice for all. The balance between victim’s rights and the rights of the accused must be carefully maintained. Otherwise, we are only seeking a conviction. We have left Justice far behind."

The article has some of JM cases and is long, so grab a cup of coffee/tea/hot chocolate :cup: and read this "interesting" article. Methinks it kinda smells a little. :facepalm:

:sheesh:

http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/spotlight-on-juan-martinez-2/

 

[ElleElle]

So proud to be Canadian! :canada: :canada:

2 Gold medals in for Women's and Men's Hockey!

 

[LambChop]

So proud to be Canadian! :canada: :canada:

2 Gold medals in for Women's and Men's Hockey!

Congratulations :great: :thewave: arty:

 

[ElleElle]

I found this article and don't know what to make of what Rob Roman is trying to state.
It did have some info that I didn't know about JM:
--------------

"Juan is the second youngest of a family of nine. He came to America at age 6 when his family immigrated and settled in California. He vowed to learn English well and be a success. He participated in many activities, such as running long distance track in high school. He finished college and attended ArizonaStateUniversity where he earned his law degree. Juan did some volunteer legal work and some work defending clients. Then, in 1988, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office..."

I agree with this statement made by Mr. Roman:

"For Juan Martinez, there are no “irrational” scenarios about a murder. Murder is against the laws of God and man. There is a victim here. A human being is dead in an unnatural way. The defendant is the accused. Many hours of police work and investigation have been rendered. The defendant has been brought to trial. Juan Martinez is going to trial to put them in a cage. A conviction will slam the door shut. When the conviction survives appeals, the door will be locked. That is the only rational response to murder.

<respectfully snipped>

And this:

"To try to convince the jury with argument based on speculation and emotion also seems to fall outside the bounds of the ethics of a prosecutor who is supposed to seek justice. To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also, falls outside these bounds. To accuse defense witnesses of crimes without evidence and to use these accusations to try and prevent a witness from testifying is a violation of law. For Judges to tolerate these tactics is wrong on its face. Excessive screaming, sarcasm, taunting, and contempt violate the decorum of a capital case.

<respectfully snipped>

The article has some of JM cases and is long, so grab a cup of coffee/tea/hot chocolate :cup: and read this "interesting" article. Methinks it kinda smells a little. :facepalm:

:sheesh:

http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/spotlight-on-juan-martinez-2/

:seeya: Thanks for the good post.

BBM 1 ~ ITA with Juan in this aspect.

BBM 2 ~ That is interesting. It seems there was alot of taunting and calling out liars during the JA trial. :waitasec:

However, imo, you need to be tough as a prosecutor who knows a lying, murderess who took a life with extreme cruelty and aggravation. This qualifies as DP and therefore needs to retried.

 

[Kensie]

Good morning everyone.

 

[Nymeria]

Nymeria, what time will the cousin be on tonight EST?

Agree on the women's hockey team.

Well, it actually happened around 4:30 ET this morning, but NBC will be showing the Bobsled heats at 2 PM ET. I will not tell you what happens...shhhh

Closing ceremonies are happening right now....

 

[Nymeria]

I think my son would be mad if he happen to find it on the internet.

Don't laugh Nymeria rinces: :floorlaugh:

------
OMG- Ricki's not on anymore!! (my son will kill me) :scared:

OK, I was laughing because I thought you were talking about the cartoon granny pic you posted....Hope you did not think I was laughing at your predicament with having it posted online!

 

[YESorNO]

So proud to be Canadian! :canada: :canada:

2 Gold medals in for Women's and Men's Hockey!

arty::fireworks:

:canada::congrats:

 

[YESorNO]

Good morning everyone.

Morning , Kensie :seeya:

How are you and your pup, Becky doing?

It's 50 degrees and some of the snow is melting (the driveway is slushy and no more icicles dripping from my roof :floorlaugh.

 

[Kensie]

Becky had to go back to the vet yesterday and get some fluid thing done. She is eating good and adjusting to her new life.

In the high 60's today and sunny.

 

[YESorNO]

OK, I was laughing because I thought you were talking about the cartoon granny pic you posted....Hope you did not think I was laughing at your predicament with having it posted online!

Let's just forget about how dumb I am. I am just stooopid sometimes about the internet. (I was sort of laughing, too, about the whole :scared: situation. :floorlaugh: )

:blowkiss:

 

[Niner]

BBM How exciting! So, what happened?

I don't know yet! I'll be watching it when it comes on here at 2pm!!

Good Luck to him in his heat(s) tomorrow/tonight (4:30 am my time)!
Someone needs to grab that gold away from Russia, they have enough already :snooty:
Which driver is he? You don't have to say his name...if you give age I can figure it out. I have my home page set to the games, I have literally watched everything that has happened for 2 weeks.

Anyway, I will cheer for your cousins team along with the US boys .:cheer::woot::cheer:

At the moment I am on the verge of not even cheering for the US team tho, I am so pissed at the womens and mens hockey teams for pretty much giving away a gold medal (women) and the shot at one (men). :tantrum:

Sochi will be known as the 2014 big choke games to me :steamed:

I don't mind saying his name, as it is totally different from mine! He is Oscars Kiebermanis...

Yeah, I'm disappointed with the U.S. hockey teams too!

Will be watching the Canada vs. Sweden Gold medal hockey game in about 15 minutes! GO SWEDEN!!! (I was born there, so I have to root for them!!) :woot:

Okay - back to reading!!

:wave:

 

[Niner]

Nymeria, what time will the cousin be on tonight EST?

Agree on the women's hockey team.

Here it starts at 2pm, so I believe you'll be seeing it at 5pm!! GO LATVIA!!! :woot:

 

[aa9511]

I found this article and don't know what to make of what Rob Roman is trying to state.
It did have some info that I didn't know about JM:
--------------

"Juan is the second youngest of a family of nine. He came to America at age 6 when his family immigrated and settled in California. He vowed to learn English well and be a success. He participated in many activities, such as running long distance track in high school. He finished college and attended ArizonaStateUniversity where he earned his law degree. Juan did some volunteer legal work and some work defending clients. Then, in 1988, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office..."

I agree with this statement made by Mr. Roman:

"For Juan Martinez, there are no “irrational” scenarios about a murder. Murder is against the laws of God and man. There is a victim here. A human being is dead in an unnatural way. The defendant is the accused. Many hours of police work and investigation have been rendered. The defendant has been brought to trial. Juan Martinez is going to trial to put them in a cage. A conviction will slam the door shut. When the conviction survives appeals, the door will be locked. That is the only rational response to murder.

Juan Martinez doesn’t want to hear about any exceptions to the rule. He doesn’t want to hear “this is not what it seems”. The defense always seems to have an excuse, a rationalization, explanations, and alternate scenarios. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense must show is any doubt, any doubt at all. The prosecution needs a unanimous jury to convict. The defense only needs one juror on their side to jam the wheels of justice. If you get a conviction, an appeal can change a sentence, send the case back to trial, or even free the defendant."

But then there's this:

"For Juan Martinez, he will grudgingly provide a “why”. If the jury needs a “why”, he will find one to give them. But for Juan, there is no why. You took a life. We know you did it, and now it is time to pay for your sin. Many murders are straightforward. Juan Martinez doesn’t see that there are rare exceptions and sometimes there are possible explanations for something that seems like a horrible and vicious murder."

And this about The Killer's :jail: trial:

"Juan Martinez was in his usual element, berating defense witnesses, attempting to insult and humiliate the defendant and expert defense witnesses. Appealing to the emotions rather than the reason and logic of the jury, trying to shape the testimony of defense witnesses, cutting them off before they can explain their answers, and questioning witnesses with cynical and aggressive questioning, even screaming, barking and snapping at witnesses in bulldog fashion."

But then you read this:

"Why does Juan Martinez fight so hard to get an aggravator he doesn’t need to get the death penalty? The answer is precedent. If this particular crime is seen as supporting the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravator, then many more cases can claim this aggravator due to the precedent that can be created in State v. Miller. This allows the prosecutors in Arizona to use the threat of the death penalty more often to force a plea in selected cases. This also widens rather than narrows the number of homicides that can be found eligible for the death penalty."

And this:

"To try to convince the jury with argument based on speculation and emotion also seems to fall outside the bounds of the ethics of a prosecutor who is supposed to seek justice. To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also, falls outside these bounds. To accuse defense witnesses of crimes without evidence and to use these accusations to try and prevent a witness from testifying is a violation of law. For Judges to tolerate these tactics is wrong on its face. Excessive screaming, sarcasm, taunting, and contempt violate the decorum of a capital case.

Do you want to defend a mass murderer? Neither do I. Do you want to defend a child rapist and killer or an outlaw drug induced spree killer? Neither do I. How far over the line would you go to prosecute the bad guy? If you go too far, the scales are tipped, and you start to become part of the problem. But if you are falsely accused of such a thing, you would want a prosecutor with ethics. You would not want a Grand Jury to indict you on false, misleading, or missing information. You would not want charges to be brought against you without probable cause. You would not want to be overcharged in the crime."

"There is no “Justice for Yarmilla”, “Justice for Faylene” or “Justice for Travis”. There is only Justice for all. The balance between victim’s rights and the rights of the accused must be carefully maintained. Otherwise, we are only seeking a conviction. We have left Justice far behind."

The article has some of JM cases and is long, so grab a cup of coffee/tea/hot chocolate :cup: and read this "interesting" article. Methinks it kinda smells a little. :facepalm:

:sheesh:

http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/spotlight-on-juan-martinez-2/

Wow, thank you for this! I only read your post and what you pasted, have not read the entire article yet.

Well, I think we all disagree with the part about accusing defendant of lying and by extension accusing defense witnesses of lying, not letting them answer, etc.. The defendant WAS lying, and Juan, through his questioning, showed that. I don't see anything wrong with that. Was he supposed to sit back and let Jodi tell her "story" a SECOND TIME through?? After she had already had a chance to tell her ENTIRE story once during defense direct?

Also, some of the defense witnesses WERE lying. ALV lied. It's not Jaun's fault that she lied. I would say that some like Dr. Samuels also lied BY OMISSION - for example, he put a very remote possibility up and made it appear to the jury like it was probable that this happened with Jodi. I would consider that a form of lying. I think that he knew, from his many hours of questioning Jodi, along with the evidence he knew of in the case, that this very remote possibility did not happen with Jodi. Although I am not going to outright call Dr. Samuels a liar - I wouldn't go that far. ALV did lie.

Appealing to the jury through emotion? Don't defense lawyers do that most the time? IF it's the case that their client is lying and is actually guilty, isn't their whole case then just smoke and mirrors?

Argh. They just don't like that Juan is very good at cross-examining and that he knows how to present a case to a jury.

 

[Niner]

Oh, Canada... :canada: Congrats on winning! :truce:

Now another hour until 4-Man Bobsled!! GO Coz!! :loveyou:

 

[Love Never Fails]

I found this article and don't know what to make of what Rob Roman is trying to state.
It did have some info that I didn't know about JM:
--------------

"Juan is the second youngest of a family of nine. He came to America at age 6 when his family immigrated and settled in California. He vowed to learn English well and be a success. He participated in many activities, such as running long distance track in high school. He finished college and attended ArizonaStateUniversity where he earned his law degree. Juan did some volunteer legal work and some work defending clients. Then, in 1988, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office..."

I agree with this statement made by Mr. Roman:

"For Juan Martinez, there are no “irrational” scenarios about a murder. Murder is against the laws of God and man. There is a victim here. A human being is dead in an unnatural way. The defendant is the accused. Many hours of police work and investigation have been rendered. The defendant has been brought to trial. Juan Martinez is going to trial to put them in a cage. A conviction will slam the door shut. When the conviction survives appeals, the door will be locked. That is the only rational response to murder.

Juan Martinez doesn’t want to hear about any exceptions to the rule. He doesn’t want to hear “this is not what it seems”. The defense always seems to have an excuse, a rationalization, explanations, and alternate scenarios. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense must show is any doubt, any doubt at all. The prosecution needs a unanimous jury to convict. The defense only needs one juror on their side to jam the wheels of justice. If you get a conviction, an appeal can change a sentence, send the case back to trial, or even free the defendant."

But then there's this:

"For Juan Martinez, he will grudgingly provide a “why”. If the jury needs a “why”, he will find one to give them. But for Juan, there is no why. You took a life. We know you did it, and now it is time to pay for your sin. Many murders are straightforward. Juan Martinez doesn’t see that there are rare exceptions and sometimes there are possible explanations for something that seems like a horrible and vicious murder."

And this about The Killer's :jail: trial:

"Juan Martinez was in his usual element, berating defense witnesses, attempting to insult and humiliate the defendant and expert defense witnesses. Appealing to the emotions rather than the reason and logic of the jury, trying to shape the testimony of defense witnesses, cutting them off before they can explain their answers, and questioning witnesses with cynical and aggressive questioning, even screaming, barking and snapping at witnesses in bulldog fashion."

But then you read this:

"Why does Juan Martinez fight so hard to get an aggravator he doesn’t need to get the death penalty? The answer is precedent. If this particular crime is seen as supporting the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravator, then many more cases can claim this aggravator due to the precedent that can be created in State v. Miller. This allows the prosecutors in Arizona to use the threat of the death penalty more often to force a plea in selected cases. This also widens rather than narrows the number of homicides that can be found eligible for the death penalty."

And this:

"To try to convince the jury with argument based on speculation and emotion also seems to fall outside the bounds of the ethics of a prosecutor who is supposed to seek justice. To express the sentiment that the defendant is a liar and by extension, all defense witnesses are liars also, falls outside these bounds. To accuse defense witnesses of crimes without evidence and to use these accusations to try and prevent a witness from testifying is a violation of law. For Judges to tolerate these tactics is wrong on its face. Excessive screaming, sarcasm, taunting, and contempt violate the decorum of a capital case.

Do you want to defend a mass murderer? Neither do I. Do you want to defend a child rapist and killer or an outlaw drug induced spree killer? Neither do I. How far over the line would you go to prosecute the bad guy? If you go too far, the scales are tipped, and you start to become part of the problem. But if you are falsely accused of such a thing, you would want a prosecutor with ethics. You would not want a Grand Jury to indict you on false, misleading, or missing information. You would not want charges to be brought against you without probable cause. You would not want to be overcharged in the crime."

"There is no “Justice for Yarmilla”, “Justice for Faylene” or “Justice for Travis”. There is only Justice for all. The balance between victim’s rights and the rights of the accused must be carefully maintained. Otherwise, we are only seeking a conviction. We have left Justice far behind."

The article has some of JM cases and is long, so grab a cup of coffee/tea/hot chocolate :cup: and read this "interesting" article. Methinks it kinda smells a little. :facepalm:

:sheesh:

http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/spotlight-on-juan-martinez-2/

I totally agree with Juan. If that sounds harsh to the defense lawyer, consider this. Why did she stab him 29 times? Why shoot him in the head? Why slit his throat? A murder is a murder. Period. This one especially heinous and cruel. I trust Juan will get more time to point out she is a liar, as are any defense witnesses.

I have a questions for the moderators. Under the Travis Alexander trial logo, you state this is a case of Arias being accused of this crime. Isn't it time to change the wording? She is no longer accused. She was CONVICTED, first degree murder, aggravated. Just wondering. It's all over but the crying.