SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[Whack A Mole]

Thank you so much to those pasting tweets! I'm not proud to admit I just don't get twitter. I can't get the order of it ... Can't tell how to decipher which questions she's responding to. I feel so f'kin old.

I took delivery on a smart phone yesterday. If it's so smart, why did it take me and the ATT gal over a half hour to get it going and on line? :floorlaugh: My God there's more buttons and carp on there I know I'll never use. I can tune a 65 mustang...but this thing is just still such a mystery! :floorlaugh:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I took delivery on a smart phone yesterday. If it's so smart, why did it take me and the ATT gal over a half hour to get it going and on line? :floorlaugh: My God there's more buttons and carp on there I know I'll never use. I can tune a 65 mustang...but this thing is just still such a mystery! :floorlaugh:

Which one did you get???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DebinGA]

Question:
What is your opinion of Juan's style towards Dr. Samuels and Laviolette?

Answer:
he was good, a little over the top at times but it worked! They were very flustered on that stand with him!

When Mr. Foreman said he didn't appreciate being talked to like he was stupid, I think he was speaking of JM's treatment of ALV/RS/DrG instead of himself. He was offended on their behalf imo, because he views himself as a champion of the oppressed.

 

[elementary]

Excellent, excellent article. I usually don't like to watch WM on TV as she comes across as a man-hater (just MOO)....but this article hits the nail on the head.

WOW just WOW:

Quote:

By Arias telling the media she wanted to die, the defense had a convenient reason to file a motion to withdraw on the grounds of irremediable conflict. “We have to withdraw from the case, Your Honor, because she wants to die and we want to fight for her life.” It was a cool trick because if the motion had been granted, it would have caused a very long delay in the death penalty decision as new attorneys got up to speed on the evidence and were given time to prepare for the sentencing hearing. Arias clearly did not want to die but she used the media as a pulpit to create the fact pattern the defense needed to try and delay the jury’s verdict. All lawyers know that the longer the time period between the guilty verdict and the announcement of punishment, the more likely a jury will vote for life rather than death.

Despite the ploy, the judge not only quickly denied the motion to withdraw, she did so rather glibly, no doubt aware that she was watching a tactical maneuver as opposed to a sincere effort to protect Arias’ rights. (An observation born out by the fact that only days later, Arias put on a slideshow for the jury that she used to beg for her life; a presentation that clearly had been in the works for a while.)

Yep. yep, yep. Amazing for a DT that was so fragmented and wanted desperately off the case, they had a smoooooth slideshow all ready and aimed at certain jurors.

Manipulation and grandstanding. Every gesture and stance from the DT, IMO, was strategised.

 

[Whack A Mole]

No no no no no. I am older than your parents. You are talking ageism. I am appalled by the younger generations' disrespectful, unaesthetic view and major attitude when it comes to humans in their communications, but that has nothing to do with how people are socialised and their lack of critical thinking. This happens in every generation.

It's about REASON. This has nothing to do with age.

I disagree. It's about respect. I was taught respect by my parents. That respect has carried me through very well. I still live in the house I was born in. My neighbor is 101 year of age, and I'm 58. I still call him Mr. Hunter.....because he's older than I am. I hold doors open for folks coming behind me. I would never dream of yelling Beotch at someone in a mall... I'd never dream of the naked picture thing either, because I respect myself and I know some smuck would find them and use them on me. :floorlaugh:

 

[rose222]

But it's not our respective families. So far, the Alexanders are adamant for the DP. I am with them. If they change their minds, I am with them.

I don't think there is 'closure'. Anyone who goes through trauma/loss knows there is no closure. You live with the hole, you live with the outcome. In this case, at least you could feel relieved that this abomination no longer scourges the earth. That's something, IMO. And victory. Unlike letting it go for the sake of some pop psych 'closure'.

I'm on the fence now about which would be worse and would have less chance of appeals. I'm okay with LWOP I think. Travis' family wants JA to get the DP. Unless we have another trial they will be left with ' what ifs' for life. That would be even more painful for them. Have another trial that they want. Hope we get the DP. If not then Travis' family will know they gave it their all and can perhaps see that LWOP is a harsh punishment as well. We're into this much too far to back out. What they want is what I want.

 

[SunnyinMO]

I have to disagree. Travis was enraged alright, he was livid, but he was doing more than telling it like it is. His response to her was not merely harsh but vitriolic, and the words and expressions he used were designed and intended to objectify, dehumanize and annihilate.

Vitriol like that cannot be taken out of context; its very source is toxic; its voice betrays someone very at home, learned, and practised with the language of hatred and abuse. It has a second-nature quality--it flows. This kind of abuse may need a trigger, but it is not a one-off, born-full-grown kind of thing.

I tend to disagree, too, that he intended, at the moment of his abusive tirade, to get her out of his life once and for all. He was dismissing her as a human being and, at the same time, paradoxically and actively engaging her. Neither of them were just going to walk away.

WOW, this just proves how people can look at the same thing and get totally different impressions.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I disagree. It's about respect. I was taught respect by my parents. That respect has carried me through very well. I still live in the house I was born in. My neighbor is 101 year of age, and I'm 58. I still call him Mr. Hunter.....because he's older than I am. I hold doors open for folks coming behind me. I would never dream of yelling Beotch at someone in a mall... I'd never dream of the naked picture thing either, because I respect myself and I know some smuck would find them and use them on me. :floorlaugh:

Thank you!
I'm 46 and look up to and welcome advice from my elders!

I have far more respect for the critical thinking skills, reasoning and morals of those older than myself then I do of my same aged peers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JusticeJunkie]

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/21/A...M_05292013.pdf

Arizona Supreme Court [ Id: 3885 ]
Agenda
Motions
Wednesday, May 29, 2013

CV-13-0049-PR JODI ARIAS v HON. STEPHENS/STATE ex rel MONTGOMERY
(F) Court of Appeals Division One 1 CA-SA 13-0026
22-Feb-2013 Petition for Review (Petitioner Arias)

The "CV" stands for civil. I wonder why it would be categorized there?

 

[jennapuppy]

How is this case any different from Clara Harris, who snapped and ran over her husband three times. She got murder two and will be eligible for parole this year [which I think is ten years].

It's the same 'overkill.' And I don't think anyone would argue Clara Harris was a psychopath even given the overkill of running over her husband repeatedly. Sometimes people just snap and do outrageous things. Sometimes they are just pushed too far. Or there are extenuating circumstances.

IMO

Clara Harris was armed with nothing but her car - no knife, gun, or gas cans, and no premeditation.
IMO

 

[Maryann123]

I'm curious - if someone beat me up physically once...would you not define that as abuse? Or do they need to do it repeatedly for it to be abuse?

First of all you need to tell me if you were beaten up because you started beating the hell out of the other person first? If you were beaten up just because the other person was showing his authority over you, then it is abuse. But, if you steal from him, slash his tires, slash his friend's tires, lie to his friends about him, and break into his bank account, his facebook, etc, and he call you names, it's not abuse. It's called expressing anger, and she's lucky that's all he did.

 

[Whack A Mole]

Which one did you get???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got a Pantech Burst...which is what I was about to do trying to set it up. LOL. I didn't buy a data plan yet because I run it off my home wifi. It will be nice to take it and play my music with the earbuds. It takes good pictures, better than my Samsung slider did. And I was surprised it was easier to use the little keyboard than I thought it would be. I got a free one (refurbished) via ATT. I seldom use my phone for calls. I get 450 minutes a month and I've got over 5600 minutes in rollover. A social butterfly I'm not! :floorlaugh:

 

[gngr~snap]

No, with them she tried to use her sexuality. Heck, it worked for her in the past, why not give it another go.

MOO

I think it was "hexuality" she was trying to use on the male jurors.
:floorlaugh:

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hope4More]

even if you don't like the language, there's a context to what he said. and i'd never label anyone 'abusive' based on one text message. i just wouldn't, and i don't think it makes sense to do that.
seems like JA is benefiting from a one-time blow-up from a guy who i see, if anything, as EXTREMELY patient.
hell, after listening to her blather on the stand, i was calling her much worse than he did after about an hour. i don't know how he kept his cool for as long as he did, frankly.

if i had killed every guy who ever got pissed at me and yelled awful things at me in anger during an argument, i'd have a string of dead bodies behind me.

Remembering the huge number of peeps here and in the media who said that listening to her on the stand made them want to smack her. And we don't know her or have had to put up with her in real life.

Travis would have had to be an otherwordly saint to have not been tempted to whack her on multiple occasions. That he never did hit her is actually extraordinary. Think back to the day she confronted him after trespassing, violating his privacy and peeping into the window spying on someone who had made it clear he did not want a relationship with her.

I can only imagine what twisted and crazy-making things she said to him. I've always believed he did go upstairs....to get away from her, and I believe he did bang his head against a closet door...that he did so in a rage, after she wouldn't even give him the space to walk away, AND that even when that angry, even when so deliberately provoked, he had the self-control and fundamentsl decency to not hit her or even call her the names she so richly deserved.

 

[DebinGA]

[/b]

Yep. yep, yep. Amazing for a DT that was so fragmented and wanted desperately off the case, they had a smoooooth slideshow all ready and aimed at certain jurors.

Manipulation and grandstanding. Every gesture and stance from the DT, IMO, was strategised.

I hope we find out which astute juror's question in rebuttal let Dr. Horn clear up his "typo" re TA's intact dura mater (sp). JW was seething over that correction, intending I suppose to have used it to great effect in her closing.

 

[Whack A Mole]

First of all you need to tell me if you were beaten up because you started beating the hell out of the other person first? If you were beaten up just because the other person was showing his authority over you, then it is abuse. But, if you steal from him, slash his tires, slash his friend's tires, lie to his friends about him, and break into his bank account, his facebook, etc, and he call you names, it's not abuse. It's called expressing anger, and she's lucky that's all he did.

In addition, I'd also want to know if anyone can verify that you were beaten. It's very easy to accuse someone of doing that if you have no police report, no medical report, and no pictures. I take pictures if someone bumps the back of my car. Why wouldn't you document physical violence? In addition, the last thing the person that beat me would see is my *advertiser censored* going out the door for good. No phone calls, no "I'm sorry"... :rockon:

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I agree that she wasn't normal, but if you listen to dad, he says something about her having issues for the past year and a half to 2 years (and maybe longer than that). That was about the time that she knew Travis. Too close to call, IMO. Anyway, IIRC, the tapes were found to be too prejudicial and weren't going to be allowed in. I don't think ANYTHING would have swayed the foreman...especially after hearing a comment like that.

From the National Education Alliance Borderline Personality Disorder:

http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/understading-bpd/a-bpd-brief/

"Borderline Personality Disorder, like all other major psychiatric disorders, is caused by a complex combination of genetic, social, and psychological factors. All modern theories now agree that multiple causes must interact with one another in order for the disorder to become manifest."

"There are, however, known risk factors for the development of BPD. The risk factors include those present at birth, called temperaments; experiences occurring in childhood; and sustained environmental influences."

"Borderline Personality Disorder usually manifests itself in early adulthood, but symptoms of it (e.g., self-harm) can be found in early adolescence. As individuals with BPD age, their symptoms and/or the severity of the illness usually diminish. Indeed, about 40-50% of borderline patients remit within two years and this rate rises to 85% by 10 years."

I think her symptoms may have manifested themselves around the time she knew Travis, but that was merely a coincidence and not the result of her relationship with him; those seeds were most likely planted years ago.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY STAY OF AGGRAVATION TRIAL - interesting read.

This is this is the actual application document. It won't let me give you a "clickable" link - you'll have to copy and paste I think.

media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Stay.pdf



And here IS THE PETITION FOR REVIEW:

media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/Petition.pdf ·
It reads in part:

Why This Court Should Grant Review 9
1. This Court Should Accept Review To Establish That The Remedy For Perjurious Testimony In A Chronis Hearing Should Be, At A Minimum, The Striking Of The Death Penalty Allegations. 9
2. The Taint Of The Perjured Testimony Cannot Be Cured Years Later By Trial Testimony Unrelated To The Issue Of Probable Cause For The Death Penalty Aggravator


HAHA My spell check says Perjurious is misspelled - good ol Nurmi.

…

 

[elementary]

karen302

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68


Quote:
Originally Posted by elementary
Comments need to be placed in context, IMO. They certainly were said in anger. Abuse suggests an ongoing pattern. Show me the pattern.

I'm curious - if someone beat me up physically once...would you not define that as abuse? Or do they need to do it repeatedly for it to be abuse?

Can't figure out how to use the multiquote.

My opinion was about stated verbal comments in evidence. Not sure what this has to do with physical abuse of which there was no evidence.

 

[PPKik]

That was just a "hail Mary" in my opinion anyway. DT has to try everything so they aren't accused of ineffective counsel.

This kind of agrees with your post in a backwards kind of way. I don't know if this American University Law Review article has been posted, but I do think that is what those two DT__________ were up to.

INTRODUCTION

Are defense attorneys deliberately providing ineffective representation at the penalty phase of capital trials? Two judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently suggested that they should—if they want to keep their clients off death row. In a concurring opinion in Poindexter v. Mitchell, a habeas corpus appeal decided in 2006, Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Danny Boggs identified a scenario in which intentional errors by counsel may benefit death-eligible defendants.

Boggs opined that a defense attorney trying a capital case is likely to secure the reversal of any death sentence that the jury might return if he or she deliberately conducts an inadequate investigation into his or her client’s troubled childhood, psychological problems, or other mitigating evidence that might otherwise have been presented at sentencing.

The probability of eventual reversal on ineffective assistance grounds, Boggs wrote, will more than make up for any greater chance that a jury that does not hear the missing material will arrive at a death sentence in the first place.

While Judge Boggs stopped short of accusing defense attorneys of employing these tactics, his colleague Judge Richard Suhrheinrich was not so restrained.

In his own concurring opinion in Poindexter, Suhrheinrich intimated that
defense attorneys in capital cases actually were sowing ineffective assistance claims of the sort described by his colleague.

Poindexter sparked renewed debate over “sandbagging” by criminal
defense attorneys. Depending upon whom one asks, sandbagging—the intentional withholding of, or failure to develop, meritorious arguments or useful evidence at trial by criminal defense attorneys for the purpose of attacking a conviction or sentence in later proceedings—is either a pervasive threat or an urban legend.


http://digitalcommons.wcl.american....1037&context=aulr&seiredir=1&referer=http:/%2


BBM RBBM