VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Break 2/27 thru 3/2

[ElleElle]

Jodi offering an affidavit that she's telling the truth?

I wish! The biggest thing besides J4T is knowing what exactly happened, starting May26.

 

[Hope4More]

Did anyone ever figure out what JW handed JM in that ziplock bag during closing?

 

[RickshawFan]

I agree completely. I cannot understand with a second chance and a new jury why they did not go with insane jealousy, that even though he would tell her to date others and move on she still believed they could get back to the place they were- for a short time in the beginning- happy, traveling, sharing their religion and being in love. That Jodi just couldn't accept it and the fact that he was still having sex with her- she just couldn't see it any other way then that he may have still wanted her.

The reason that crimes of passion can be given a lighter sentence sometimes is because most people can understand what that feels like or can do to your head, heart and thought process.

She could have admitted that SHE had it all wrong but could not see it and really wanted to win him back and beg him to give her a chance to win his love and be his wife. He was actively looking for a wife, why couldn't it be her? She loved him more than she had ever loved anyone before- the others didn't even compare, she wanted his children and a life with him, she couldn't let him go.

She could have said, I got dolled up, died my hair, did my nails, I was working and had a photography business, I was going to get my finances back on track and prove to Travis that I was worthy of his love. I went, he wasn't unhappy to see me- we ended up in bed (like we always did) I felt so close to him, like there was a chance.

I begged him for a chance... to take me to Cancun, I'll make you happy, prove myself to you. She could have said he politely rebuffed her expressed his hope for Mimi or if it didn't work out with Mimi he was going to try one last time to win Lisa back and I snapped- I flipped, something just went nuts in me. I couldn't take it, I attacked him, we started to fight, I had a gun for protection on my trip- I used it, I was jealous with rage- he would have sex with me but didn't want me. I slaughtered him, before I even knew what I was capable of. I hated him, I hated the women, I hated that I wasn't good enough. In the back of my mind I was so filled with confusion, unrequited love and jealousy that I may have even known that if he didn't want me... I couldn't let anyone have him. I loved him... I couldn't handle it... I couldn't handle the rejection.

Why? Why wouldn't they have tried something like that?

I thought most of their travels were actually after they "broke up"? And the most significant one before was to the Grand Canyon, when TA insisted on a chaperone.

 

[Frigga]

"Travis Law"

I sure like the sound of that and I think it may just work.
Multiple years of non-stop false allegations against him. The false child *advertiser censored* allegations alone should be enough to pass some kind of law to prevent attorneys from doing such a thing.

Any allegation needs to have some sort of evidence to back up the allegation. Something. The DT attorney should not be able to accuse without some form of evidence to back it up. And they cant just keep promising that evidence will come and it never does. It needs to be proven up front and then the allegation could be allowed. Or something like that.

I am totally onboard with Travis law, and completely agree that the system needs to change, but in terms of the pedophile allegation and never being able to bring that up unless there is proof- well, just think about the flip side of that, and what that would mean for true victims? That would be a very dangerous precedence and a slippery slope- IMO.

 

[ElleElle]

I think Geevee was saying that JA had deleted them off her own camera and brought the memory card to use in Travis camera but the memory card still had some of the thumbnails pics from the deleted photos before she ever left to go to Travis house.

I actually kind of like that theory too.

Geevee can correct me if I got that wrong.

She would of had to buy an OEM Sony SD card.

 

[krkrjx]

"Travis Law"

I sure like the sound of that and I think it may just work.
Multiple years of non-stop false allegations against him. The false child *advertiser censored* allegations alone should be enough to pass some kind of law to prevent attorneys from doing such a thing.

Any allegation needs to have some sort of evidence to back up the allegation. Something. The DT attorney should not be able to accuse without some form of evidence to back it up. And they cant just keep promising that evidence will come and it never does. It needs to be proven up front and then the allegation could be allowed. Or something like that.

Laws require prosecution to prove everything they say; defense does not have to prove a thing.

I would like to see that change but am not sure how new laws should read. I am all for fair trials and do not want to see any restrictions on a person's right to adequate defense. However, when I say "defense" I mean just that: A person has a right to defend themselves against accusations, and the entity or individual making the accusation should bear the burden of proving what they are accusing the person of. Persons defending themselves should bear no such burden of proof.

HOWEVER...I think any person who points fingers at someone else in a court of law should be required to prove those accusations. Just as the state is required to prove what they assert, the defendant should be required to prove whatever accusations they are hurling at or about another.

If such laws were in effect for this case, Arias would have had to prove her assertions against Travis; if she could not do that, the state should have been allowed to keep a lot of her crap out based on no evidence, just like the defense can keep things out that the state has insufficient evidence of.

In the Caylee case, I believe the defense should have been required to prove things they said about Roy Kronk and others; if they had no evidence for what they asserted, those assertions should never have been allowed to be hurled about the courtroom.

I would bet my bottom dollar that our forefathers never intended a person's right to a fair trial to include uncorroborated accusations on innocent parties. Sadly, over many, many years the laws they drafted for the good of all have been twisted in interpretation to the point of allowing perpetrators to get away with all varieties of evil while leaving law-abiding citizens biting their dust.

In all situations but one, if a person's reputation is ruined by another person's spoken or written word, the injured party has legal recourse. All situations but one--and that one is our courts of law.

Something is radically wrong here.

~End rant~

 

[Becky Sharp]

Okay folks we need to stay on topic in this thread. While the rules are relaxed there is already a thread open for chit chat conversations. You all need to take it to the Sidebar and continue your discussions there. This thread is basically for discussions regarding court sessions and the verdict watch. Thanks, Lambchop

Sorry, LambChop! I'm guilty of going waaay off topic. My only excuse is that I was performing a Canadian ritual: carp on and on about the cold. I'm now holding out my hands so you can rap my knuckles with your awesome wooden spoon.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I am totally onboard with Travis law, and completely agree that the system needs to change, but in terms of the pedophile allegation and never being able to bring that up unless there is proof- well, just think about the flip side of that, and what that would mean for true victims? That would be a very dangerous precedence and a slippery slope- IMO.

I can absolutely agree with this but there has to be a common ground, what happened with this defense went over and above imo. This should never be allowed again.

 

[geevee]

Okay Geevee, I really want to believe TA didn't know she was there and surprised him. So if exif data is attached to every picture taken, you are saying she took pictures of photos already on her camera from a previous time, then deleted the pictures from Travis' camera so only the thumbnails are there and they have the date of the murder because they are pictures of pictures.

No, I'm not saying they are pictures of pictures, when a photo is taken by a digital camera, a picture file is created, within that picture file is the photo taken plus all of the information about the picture (the EXIF data). When Melendez was trying to recover the pictures on the memory card, most of the picture file was not recoverable, he could only get the thumbnail out of the picture file's EXIF data for each of the deleted nude photos, in the unallocated space of the memory card (where things go once deleted). She had to have deleted the nude photos before other photos were taken and saved to that memory card, because they were located in the unallocated space.

I'm in agreement that he did not know she was coming, we have zero evidence of it and if he did, why would she wait to drive the whole night long to get to Mesa at 3:00 - 4:00 in the morning when she had the whole day of the 3rd after WalMart shopping to get there? Nope, don't buy that it was a planned visit and that it would have been okay with him to wait up until before dawn for her lackadaisical arrival. It was an ambush, imo.

 

[ElleElle]

Geevee! As far as the nude pics go from Jun4, I don't know what will convince you to believe they were taken that day?

I believe it, and it makes sense. What else would of sent JA into a rage killing? One last rejection by TA.

Do you also believe that if the nudies weren't taken Jun4, Juan would of argued it or asked JA about it on the stand during the first trial?

Sorry, I have to :giggle: because it's something I wish I could think your theory. Do you believe she snuck in and TA did not know she was there?

 

[east2west]

I wish! The biggest thing besides J4T is knowing what exactly happened, starting May26.

You might have to go back to April 8th when she, the Uhaul, and her Infiniti crept away from Mesa. A thousand miles of drive and machinations.

 

[TexMex]

Wait....the entire trial, from guilt phase through the end of the penalty phase deliberations only took 15 court days?

No. The deliberations. They deliberated guilt/not guilt then the aggravating factors then Life/death

 

[geevee]

Okay, but did he not buy the camera after she left? So how did those pics get on there and deleted?

He did buy the camera after she left, but all the pictures were on the memory card inserted into the camera, not the camera itself. His roommate had a Sony camera, and she could have used that camera, saved pics to that memory card, taken the card and used it in Travis' new camera on June 4th.

 

[samspace070]

Thanks Mindmatters—I think you must mean Daisymae. My kitties are well.

Here's the raw, unedited Troy Hayden interview. It's ~47 minutes.
[video=youtube;AFIfLA0LmbM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIfLA0LmbM[/video]

In this interview right after the conviction she is still vindictive toward TA. Claimed she couldn't look at family because it reminded her of her abuser. Sickening. Then when Troy asked her about the people that hate her she said it like water on a ducks back. Bull, she is bent out of shape over the twitter comments and the TA fans she can't stand it. That's not water off a ducks back. Then she says a psychologist once told her soceity needs to persecute people they find some gratification from it. Then went on to say it was too involved to explain further or some such nonsense. This is a real piece of work.

People were wondering if she would give another interview after this verdict. I think she will. Milki, who was given the DP, gave an interview to media right after conviction before being bussed off to Perryville, so I am sure our media w-ore will too.

 

[TexMex]

But the memory card had photos Travis took- napoleon and such? And her memory card would have exif data from her camera?

There were 90 other pics that Travis took btwn April 29 (iirc) and June 4
The pics are what they are and establish the timeline

 

[Lochlynsmom]

He did buy the camera after she left, but all the pictures were on the memory card inserted into the camera, not the camera itself. His roommate had a Sony camera, and she could have used that camera, saved pics to that memory card, taken the card and used it in Travis' new camera on June 4th.

So she anticipated using the roommates camera? Sorry not following if other pictures of Travis without Jodi were on the camera as well.

 

[samspace070]

I find it odd that the pictures I've seen of JA and Travis nude that day, is that they are all out of focus. They are not well taken, somewhat blurry, wrong setting for the light, etc. If Travis took those photos of JA (including the anus shot), why would they be so out of focus? The photos of Travis are odd; they're not centered or sexy or anything. They're just strange photos.

I totally agree. But if you look closely at TA pictures, (only two) He seems to be asleep in one and the other one he seems to be throwing that KY tube at her backward, and he doesn't look happy, like she surprised him. Both of these pictures are taken over his shoulder from an odd angle, not directly at him from the front or the side, like her own are. She is smiling a posing for hers but he is not. He didn't want those pictures taken. I think she took them from behind him so he wouldn't see the flash but something alerted him on the second one because he woke up and threw that tube at her. What does everyone else think?

 

[TexMex]

He did buy the camera after she left, but all the pictures were on the memory card inserted into the camera, not the camera itself. His roommate had a Sony camera, and she could have used that camera, saved pics to that memory card, taken the card and used it in Travis' new camera on June 4th.

The majority were also in the camera itself per Melendez testimony

 

[Lochlynsmom]

He did buy the camera after she left, but all the pictures were on the memory card inserted into the camera, not the camera itself. His roommate had a Sony camera, and she could have used that camera, saved pics to that memory card, taken the card and used it in Travis' new camera on June 4th.

Can you please dumb this down for me as I clearly don't understand. She brought the pics? thumb drive or sd card? altered the exif data? Put them on Travis' camera or the roommates? Then deleted the photos? Why? she could have added them to the computer easy peasy.

 

[elementary]

I am totally onboard with Travis law, and completely agree that the system needs to change, but in terms of the pedophile allegation and never being able to bring that up unless there is proof- well, just think about the flip side of that, and what that would mean for true victims? That would be a very dangerous precedence and a slippery slope- IMO.

I think that's like comparing bananas and asparagus. The context is different, the circumstances are different. In her case, a defendant is wanting mitigating factors and excuses for a sadistic murder and one can suspect a desire for secondary gain.But more importantly, this was not a trial about paedophilia, and she was not a victim of it. So, in my estimation, the defendant who is found guilty of a first degree heinous murder is required to prove their allegations of paedophilia and justify why that matters to mitigation because she was not directly a victim.