SIDEBAR #25- Arias/Alexander forum

[geevee]

Here's a YTube on Cassandra Collins- the woman with the pigtails- who lived with missy:jail:

"...The former cellmate, Cassandra Collins, told media sources that the 33-year-old Arias also had a strange infatuation with Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Juan Martinez — and asked why the lawyer didn't love her.

"She asked me questions like, 'Why doesn't Juan Martinez love me?'" Collins told the news station. "And I'm like, 'Love you? He's your prosecutor. He's there to prosecute you for a crime.'"

"She said that if she was given the death sentence, she wanted to get her revenge," Collins said. "She knows inmates on the outs to do a mafia bow tie...cut his throat."

The ex-con claimed she wanted to speak out because she really felt that Martinez could be in danger. "I really think she would try to hurt someone," Collins said..."

[video=youtube;IfFQNrEX6Pk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFQNrEX6Pk[/video]

Your memory is fine, geevee. :loveyou:

LOL Thanks Y/N, now please tell me the secret to posting a clickable YouTube video with this new format, I'm failing badly.

 

[YESorNO]

How do you get the YT box to come up? I tried the 'share' link and it still just pastes the link, I've tried the 'insert video' but that box is so wide I can't get to an OK or anything to close it.

Are you posting with the little film thingy that looks like this?:

It's in the second row- above where you want to post (under the "title" thingy and in "advanced". Just copy from YTube and post in the box that comes
up after you hit the little film thingy).

Does that make any sense?

 

[geevee]

Are you posting with the little film thingy that looks like this?:

It's in the second row- above where you want to post (under the "title" thingy and in "advanced". Just copy from YTube and post in the box that comes
up after you hit the little film thingy).

Does that make any sense?

Yeah, I've been trying that but how do you OK that box? There's no button to press on it for me after I paste the video link.

 

[YESorNO]

YESorNO? I have always been puzzled by your internet problems. I should be ashamed that we have three desktops, and four laptops, two tablets and Netflex that have no problem with speed or bandwidth, so am I spoiled? I remember the days of dial up and slow speeds and getting knocked of line all the time, and then we went broadband and haven't looked
back.


And taking the s's out the videos hasn't work for me in a long time. Am I doing something wrong?

(snipped)

My internet problems- :boohoo: :gaah:

Because I live in the "sticks" of NY State, we can only have satellite TV and internet service.

My internet service has a "Fair Access Policy" (I have the "Pro Pak" plan) and this explains it better than I can:

"...We will notify you via your WildBlue contact email address if your Usage Total reaches 80% or more of the Usage Threshold. If at any time your Usage Total is above the Usage Threshold, your usage has violated the FAP and we will reduce your WildBlue access speeds, typically to 128 kbps in the downstream (from the Internet to you) and 28 kbps in the upstream (from you to the Internet). Once your speeds have been reduced, you must decrease your usage to bring your Usage Total to 80% or less than the Usage Threshold. Once your Usage Total reaches this level, your access speeds will be restored to the original speed levels by the next day.

Failure to decrease your usage to 80% or less of the Usage Threshold by the following calendar month and each consecutive calendar month thereafter will constitute another FAP violation. If you violate the FAP in four consecutive months or at least once in each of five calendar months within any twelve month period – whether by exceeding the Monthly Usage Threshold or by remaining in a reduced-speed status -- WildBlue may terminate your Customer Agreement. .."

http://www.hky.com/WildBlueFairAccessPolicy060816.pdf

We have 2 laptops, so I'm not the only one who uses the internet on a daily basis. I suppose when my son starts school in Sept., I will have more bandwidth because he won't be home 4 days a week. I could only hope as missy's retrial will start in Sept. and I will hate to not be able to be online when that happens- (the "slowdown" that my service talks about makes it impossible to use the internet and even tho' it may take only 1 day to go over our limit, it takes days- even weeks- to go back to their idea of what is "appropriate" internet usage).
So, I can't "stream", look at too many YTubes, play internet games, etc. and it's very frustrating because I pay $95+ per month for this service. I can buy more bandwidth (at $10 a pop), but damn if I'll pay them more $. :snooty:

If we "go over" what they consider "fair usage", I get an email like this:

Dear WildBlue customer,
WildBlue has been made aware that your bandwidth usage over the past 30 days is approaching the Usage Threshold, as defined in WildBlue's Fair Access Policy (FAP).
To ensure that your service is not downgraded in accordance with our FAP (available here), you will want to decrease your usage.... Blah, blah, blah!!!!! and Pfttt, too. :gaah:

Having to monitor every download for fear of exceeding the bandwidth is annoying- I'm sick of it already. Wish I had cable again, but we don't have it here in "the sticks" and I'm stuck with this service (or dial-up with Verizon). Pftttt, again!!! :gaah:

So, If I'm off of WS, it's mainly because I'm up to my limit- or nearly up to it- and need to cool-it- that usually takes days. I don't like it, but what can I do? As "they" say, "Beggars can't be choosers".

So that's my sob-story.:crazy:

 

[YESorNO]

Yeah, I've been trying that but how do you OK that box? There's no button to press on it for me after I paste the video link.

Let me try it now and I might be able to explain:

[video=youtube;aBiXIwq0QPY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiXIwq0QPY[/video]

There's an OK box all the way to the bottom right for me.

(BTW, I like to bend pages, this YTube had a "https" and it went through with no adjustments)

 

[geevee]

Holy cow Y/N, I thought your internet bandwidth troubles were because you lived overseas in some farflung area with 2 phone lines for the whole town. My dsl costs about half of what you pay and it might as well be unlimited as me and hub stream plenty and have never come close to getting b****ed at by at&t.

 

[zoey]

This is a pic of her from Wednesday. (Source: CBS 5 News)

http://www.kpho.com/story/26156429/jodi-arias-back-in-court-wearing-prison-jumpsuit

Doesn't appear Missy is living up to one of her "mitigating " factors~~locks of love

 

[YESorNO]

Sorry everyone- I've been trying to play catch-up since the last internet "slowdown":banghead: this week and that's why I have diarrhea of the mouth now.

 

[geevee]

Let me try it now and I might be able to explain:

[video=youtube;aBiXIwq0QPY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiXIwq0QPY[/video]

There's an OK box all the way to the bottom right for me.


(BTW, I like to bend pages, this YTube had a "https" and it went through with no adjustments)

I can't see any OK button to click on the video box, or any way to close that box, I have to close the whole page and come back in. I can move that box a little up and down but not side to side, I'll try it again after I post so I don't lose this post, and paste a YT link into this one by itself (no insert video thing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4d7Wp9kKjA

 

[holidayy]

Is she getting some help with eyebrow tweezing,is that allowed? To her jail was easy,she was singing,and winning contests,and what have you,she was not thinking lockdown 23hrs a day at that time,I think it has hit her,it shows on her face,very weary looking.

 

[geevee]

Just a lonely link.

 

[geevee]

This is what the video box looks like on my screen:

pooh

 

[YESorNO]

Just a lonely link.

I don't understand why you are having problems????

Let me try it again- see if there's anything I've missed in the explaining:

[video=youtube;Mo0SPiXDGoI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo0SPiXDGoI[/video]


(I did notice that it said this:

"Supported videos include:
Hulu GameSpot (Part 2) Twitter Storify Photobucket (Videos) Photobucket (Direct Link) CNN CNBC YouTube (Short URL) YouTube (Playlists) Vevo GameSpot (Part 1) CNN 2 YouTube (Long) YouTube (Short) Vimeo Dailymotion Metacafe Google facebook GameTrailers CollegeHumor (Legacy) CollegeHumor Youk" )

"short URL" You Tubes???

I'm on a laptop. maybe it's different for something else, like a tablet or something.
Go ask in one of the threads downstairs about the new format, I guess.

 

[YESorNO]

This is what the video box looks like on my screen:

pooh

You're missing the whole right side. No wonder!!!
Can't you scroll to the right somehow?

 

[YESorNO]

You need a bigger screen, geevee. :therethere:

 

[YESorNO]

Is she getting some help with eyebrow tweezing,is that allowed? To her jail was easy,she was singing,and winning contests,and what have you,she was not thinking lockdown 23hrs a day at that time,I think it has hit her,it shows on her face,very weary looking.

Maybe she's one of the lucky ones who just has eyebrows that don't need too much tweezing?

 

[geevee]

You need a bigger screen, geevee. :therethere:

I have a 23" monitor on my PC, it's like TV size. lmao Maybe it's too big.

Yeah, the right side is cut off and I can't move the box side to side to get at the OK button. I'll have to find the upgrade thread and see if I can get some help. Thanks for your's, Y/N. :hug:

 

[YESorNO]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

From the first article, the mit. specialist, Unklesbay, makes a lot of sense, IMO:

"..."It should not be surprising that people who commit criminal acts didn't have a good childhood," Unklesbay said. "There comes a point, though, when they have to take responsibility for their actions. There are a lot of people who have gone through some difficult times in life and didn't become killers..."

-except there is nothing in missy's :jail: childhood, that was proven- by anyone, that she had a bad childhood. Where are the family supporters and why aren't they talking? JM would crucify them, that's why, IMO. I would just love to see someone from her family just try to defend the lie of a terrible childhood. Getting hit by a wooden spoon is just ridiculous, IMO (my mother use to use a broom on my brother and a spoon on the girls- we didn't consider it abuse at the time and I still don't!). Unbelievable that a "bad" childhood would be a mitigation in missy's :jail: case and that those 4 jurors believed it!
This mitigation stuff has me very upset in this case.
------------------------------------------------

The jury in missy's case could not reach a unanimous decision on sentencing because some jurors could not get past certain mitigating factors.
Some jurors (4) looked at some of the mitigating factors - that missy had been abused - they felt that she had been abused by Travis and as a child- that they didn't feel she had the best family life. Where is the proof, again I say. It's only missy who claims she didn't have a "best" family life.She's a liar! How can they believe anything she says?
Those jurors felt that those mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors. That was the biggest concern for them and I feel they were duped by missy, Nurmi, and Wilmott, IMO.

WEIGHING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

"...Five state statutes (Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming) and both federal death penalty statutes specify that mitigating circumstances must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In Alabama, when the factual existence of a mitigating circumstance is in dispute, the defendant must present competent evidence on the mitigating circumstance but the state must disprove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In New Jersey, the defendant must produce evidence of the mitigating circumstance but he does not have the burden of establishing it. In Ohio, the defendant has the burden of going forward. In some states (like New Hampshire and New York) and both federal death penalty laws, an individual juror can determine whether a mitigating circumstance exists and can consider it regardless of how many other jurors believe it is established. Colorado's statute specifies that there is no burden to prove or disprove a mitigating circumstance....

Sufficiency of Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances

..Seven other states require the jury to consider whether mitigating circumstances call for a sentence other than the death penalty.
1. In Arizona, the jury can impose a death sentence if it finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances 'sufficiently substantial to call for leniency'..."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0488.htm

Capital Punishment in Arizona

"....The decision to present evidence to the court in aggravation is the sole responsibility of the prosecutor. The admissibility of evidence in support of the aggravating circumstances is governed by the rules of evidence. Evidence in mitigation may be offered by the defense or the State regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence. Once the prosecution has presented evidence supporting aggravating circumstances and either side has presented mitigating circumstances, the court decides whether to impose the death penalty, regardless of the views of the prosecutors...
If the court determines that the State has proven at least one of the ten aggravating circumstancesbeyond a reasonable doubt it next turns to deciding the existence of mitigating circumstances.
This determination includes any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any circumstances of the offense, including but not limited to, the following factors listed in A.R.S. §
13-703(G):

1. The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform
his conduct to the requirement of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as
to constitute a defense to prosecution;

2. The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such as to
constitute a defense to prosecution;

3. The defendant was legally accountable for the conduct of another under the provisions
of § 13-303, but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to
constitute a defense to prosecution;

4. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of the
commission of the offense for which the defendant was convicted would cause, or
would create a grave risk of causing death to another person; and

5. The defendant’s age...

...If the trial court decides that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, the court shall impose the sentence of death...

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/sites/all/docs/Criminal/ccc/section2.PDF

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Arizona):

"Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-751, each death sentence must rest on two findings: proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one aggravating circumstance set forth in A.R.S. § 13-751(F), and a finding “that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” A.R.S. § 13-751(E). Mitigation is defined by our statute as evidence relevant to “any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.”...

Statutory & Non-Statutory Factors

Relevant Mitigation:

...While not specifically defined, the Court has indicated that matters bearing on a defendant’s “character” or “record,” or concerning the “circumstances of the offense” are relevant and cannot be taken out the realm of sentencing consideration...

Instructions: There is no federal constitutional obligation to instruct the jury on how to consider mitigating evidence in light of aggravating evidence, or whether the jury should consider particular mitigating factors. Thus, for example, it is permissible to tell the jury to make its sentencing decision based upon “all the evidence,” without further instruction...
Argument & Causal Nexus: It is not improper to allow the State to argue that there is no causal relationship between the mitigation and the crime....
(“We do not require that a [causal] nexus between the mitigating factors and the crime be established before we consider the mitigation evidence. But the failure to establish such a causal connection may be considered in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation.&#8221

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/crtproj/capsentguid/mitintro.htm

(continuing Ariz. Law):

Character/Personality Disorders: A character or personality disorder usually does not qualify as an impairment under the meaning of the statute. Richmond I; State v. Kayer, 194 Ariz. 423, 984 P.2d 31 (1999). However, evidence of a character or personality disorder should be evaluated to determine if it is mitigating in some other way and should be given some independent mitigating weight. State v. McMurtrey (McMurtrey I), 136 Ariz. 93, 664 P.2d 637 (1983). At times, the Court has found the distinction between personality disorders and mental impairments important, noting that mental impairments have a far greater mitigating effect because they may evidence an inability of the defendant to control his conduct. Brewer, supra

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Intro.htm

MENTAL IMPAIRMENT

Some other trials and rulings on mental impairment:

"State v. McMurtrey (McMurtrey I), 136 Ariz. 93, 664 P.2d 637 (1983)
...It found that the defendant had an antisocial personality. The trial court concluded that because such kinds of character defects are not mitigating under Arizona law, no further evaluation of that evidence took place...

State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 694 P.2d 222 (1985)

The defendant offered credible evidence that he was mentally impaired at the time of the murder. In contrast, the prosecution offered equally credible rebuttal evidence that although the defendant suffered some mental impairment, it was not significant enough to be a mitigating circumstance. The defendant's evidence did not outweigh the prosecution's evidence. The Court stated that it did not find this to be a mitigating factor."

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Mental1.htm

"State v. Gerlaugh (Gerlaugh II), 144 Ariz. 449, 698 P.2d 694 (1985)
... The existence of a mere character or personality disorder like sociopathy is not alone sufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance. This kind of evidence should be considered by the trial judge because it may suggest some reason other than the nature of the disorder why the defendant should receive some leniency, such as a difficult family history. The trial judge may refuse to find a mitigating circumstance so long as he considers this evidence.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Mental2.htm

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(1) -IMPAIRMENT
MENTAL
DRUGS / ALCOHOL

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(2) -DURESS

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(3) -MINOR PARTICIPATION

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(4) -VICTIM'S DEATH NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(5) -AGE

NON-STATUTORY

-COOPERATION

-LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY

-DIFFICULT CHILDHOOD/FAMILY HISTORY (Relevance/“Causal Link”: A difficult family background may be a mitigating circumstance in determining whether a death sentence is appropriate. But a difficult family background, including child abuse, is not necessarily relevant without a showing that it affected the defendant’s conduct in committing the crime. State v. Sansing, 206 Ariz. 232, 77 P.3d 70 (2003) (where there was no “causal link” between troubled childhood and crime, this circumstance given “minimal weight&#8221

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/CHILDHOODFAMILY.aspx

-EMPLOYMENT HISTORY/MILITARY SERVICE

-FAMILY TIES ([This category contains cases where the defendant argues that his current love of family and his family members' love for him is mitigating. It also contains arguments regarding the adverse effect the defendant's execution would have on a family member. One case argues the concern of friends, see State v. Michael Apelt, and in another case the defendant argued that the domestic nature of the murder ought to be mitigating. See State v. Kiles. For discussions of the impact of the defendant's family background and childhood on the defendant, see difficult childhood/family history section.]

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/FAMILYTIES.aspx

-FELONY MURDER/LACK OF INTENT
-FOLLOWER
-GOOD CHARACTER
-INTELLIGENCE/EDUCATION
-LIFE SENTENCE AVAILABLE
-MEDICAL PROBLEMS
-MODEL PRISONER
-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LENIENCY
-REHABILITATION
-REMORSE / GRIEF
-RESIDUAL DOUBT/INNOCENCE
-SENTENCING DISPARITY
-STRESS
-VICTIM'S ACTIONS
-MISCELLANEOUS (This is a catch-all category for cases that do not fit within the other categories. It appears that the arguments presented here were only presented in that particular case and have not been repeated in other cases. Some of these arguments are specific to the particular case. Others argue more generally about the cost or efficacy of the death penalty.]--

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/MISCELLANEOUS.aspx

IMPAIRMENT
NOT A FUTURE DANGER

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/TableofContents.aspx

----------------
“Capital Sentencing in Arizona A “Weighing State” in Name Only

"When does juror “weighing” of factors mean less than meets the eye?
In the sphere of Arizona capital sentencing, a sphere where state courts must
instruct jurors that they must “assess” if death is the appropriate penalty, but not
instruct that jurors should “find” that mitigation “outweighs” aggravation. So they
must assess without finding any facts.

Confused? Imagine how the jurors feel....

...But if Arizona is such a firmly entrenched weighing state, why then has the Arizona
Supreme Court ruled that juries should be not be misled into believing that their function is
to “weigh” mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding whether to impose life or
death?...

...“a state death penalty statute may [constitutionally] place the burden on the defendant to
prove that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumcumstances."

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/0706Capital.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
- No previous criminal record: although she was convicted of a violent crime, nothing in her criminal record reveals a tendency toward the kind of violent crime for which she has been convicted- so maybe one factor?

-Remorse: may be a mitigating factor if found to exist- none for missy here.

-Family Ties: negative impact that the defendant’s execution would have on her family was a mitigating factor, but I thought she said that she had an abusive childhood (remember the "spoon") and/ or a dysfunctional family background and no one in her family cares about her-so she says?

Again-to what degree did missy suffer as a child and what is the strength of a connection between this mitigating factor and the crime in assessing the quality and strength of this mitigation evidence? Pftt, again- I say to this because where's the proof? Unless someone in her family or some friends come forth, there is nothing here to mitigate , IMO.

-Mental Illness or Impairment: she's supposed to be an Einstein, so she's not impaired and
she did not have a serious (or any recognizable) personality disorder at the time of the
murder of Travis.

-Age- she was neither very young nor very old, IMO.

New mitigations? Still can't think of any for her.

She needs to put in a cell with pictures of what she did to Travis, so that she has to look at her "handi-work" each and everyday of her miserable life- or what's left of it, IMO.

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

Some of those names seem familiar. Last year when Samuels was on the stand I went looking to see what I could find........and I found several case where he was the defense's hope and a prayer to get out of jail card. There were three men, all sex offenders, that Samuels said were fine according to how he rated them on the scales. One was asking for more money for Samuels, and there was one that there was a phone call from the defense to the judge (?) that their client had prostrate cancer so he couldn't "offend" again. I'll go looking.

 

[YESorNO]

Murder verdict tossed because his mom couldn’t find a seat

"Meet Daniel Floyd — the luckiest “killer” in New York.
The 23-year-old Brooklyn man was tried, convicted and — after the jury found he shot a rival dead at a dice game — sent to prison for 15 years to life. But the state’s highest court overturned the guilty verdict — all because Floyd’s mother couldn’t find a seat in the courtroom during jury selection...."

http://nypost.com/2014/07/28/murder-verdict-tossed-because-his-mom-couldnt-find-a-seat/


And we thought AZ was Unbelievable!!!