Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[Caylee Advocate]

Doggoneit I can't find it...maybe it got poofed. I do have a little mosquito who follows me around I'm afraid. Bzzzzzz

Does a pink cowgirl hat ring a bell? Alluring pose? LMFAO.

 

[TartLemon]

Went to the grocery store in the rain today. I like to park way in the back of the lot so I can walk for the exercise. Skipped and giggled to my self thinking Jodi will NEVER have that thrill again. *singing in the rain just singing in the rain* while I twirled the umbrella.

 

[mydirtysecret]

I could be wrong too. But how could she not have known? It makes no sense. If your husband is on trial you know who the prosecutor is especially one so distinct.

I can see her Not knowing if. ..
On a traffic ticket? Sure i can see it. DWI? Yup. A MURDER 1 charge? But again she married him the day before he was to be sentenced on a plea deal. She was either blissfully ignorant and a complete coincidence that they were married then OR she was very much aware of his case, knew the game on his time he was facing and knew what being a wife meant to marry him before he pulled chain on his murder plea. I'm going with she was aware and actively participating in his case

 

[MeeBee]

My first question would be: Did you attend your ex-husbands trial?

I'd also be pulling the transcripts and everything else available, especially for verdict day and sentencing .. see what can be dug up, and see if she messes up any of her answers. If there were media articles on the case I'd have a look at those too, because sometimes the family of the accused is mentioned, interviewed or photographed.

If she lies about that .. then the rest is probably lies too.

Actually, in regards to that case, maybe we could pull articles ourselves right? I'm actually headed out the door, but a quick look into media for that trial could be revealing KWIM?

But, again, she didn't even reveal the murder trial he was prosecuted for. She only revealed the charges that happened after they were separated and Juan was not the prosecutor then and they were minor charges, not of any concern to Juan. She even qualified it with an, I don't care, he was an abusive a-hole. So, naturally, she probably would not have attended the trial.

Again, way more digging than a prosecutor would do. He asked the questions and got what he needed.

It isn't his fault she was not completely honest with him.

 

[cricket49]

Anybody know when Fox 10 will be playing the retrial videos? Any other news station playing them?

TIA

 

[HarvestMoon]

Waiting for the Fox10 recording of A in the courtroom.

I know this is off topic, but please allow me to ask: what are you all paying for gas? Here in CA under 3 weeks ago I paid $2.29 for regular. Yesterday I went to fill up and it was $3.17.

Did it go up in other states?

 

[HarvestMoon]

Anybody know when Fox 10 will be playing the retrial videos? Any other news station playing them?

TIA

Around 12 at Fox 10 they said within a few hours.

 

[Hez]

This needs to be reposted! And MDLR used to be a Victim Advocate...even the real VA in that courtroom can't wrap their head around this. Unreal.

I imagine the VA for the Alexanders not only had to help them deal with their brother being put on trial instead of his killer, but MDLR's completely unprofessional antics inside and outside the courtroom as well.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You know who would definitely know if J17 attended her ex-husband's trial and was aware of Juan or not?

Her ex-husband.

No reason to think he wouldn't be honest about it, there may be no love lost between them now that she's remarried etc.

 

[Tulessa]

This needs to be reposted! And MDLR used to be a Victim Advocate...even the real VA in that courtroom can't wrap their head around this. Unreal.

Katie, I wonder if Juan reads here? If he does, he surely must know how much we love and respect him.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

She cant play the i didn't know card either. She had enough knowledge to marry him the day before sentencing to get wife privilege/immunities. That screams to me she was aware of his case

Wow!! Another GREAT point!! I never thought of that... ("sneaky", not
"illegal" - but definitely "working the system" behavior)

Which is the same behavior we suspect is behind what she did this time too...

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Katie, I wonder if Juan reads here? If he does, he surely must know how much we love and respect him.

Oh, I hope so too!! I :heartbeat: Juan!!

 

[tlckgram]

Cathy ‏@courtchatter · 4m4 minutes ago
"@juanstie: So that's how MDLR does it. Thanks Pandora. SS sent to the IRS. pic.twitter.com/Y3IzfFojFO" #jodiarias

Clickable link:

https://twitter.com/juanstie/status/576421623596593152/photo/1

Anybody think this is a "plant" to see us all go nuts over here? I find it almost unbelievable that even that group would be this stupid to put it out there like this. Just saying..........

 

[GigiG]

Well I have heard that but I want proof.

it's hard to find things about JSS that don't relate to JA, but here are two examples:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/06/dominic_chagolla_will_spend_hi.php

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...oenix-mother-accused-of-abusing-her-young-son

 

[Nosey Parker]

Anybody think this is a "plant" to see us all go nuts over here? I find it almost unbelievable that even that group would be this stupid to put it out there like this. Just saying..........

No, I don't think it's a plant. This kind of talk goes on in their private 'Vent Room'. Apparently, there is a spy in there :talker: hence the leaks to certain bloggers.

 

[MeeBee]

Anybody think this is a "plant" to see us all go nuts over here? I find it almost unbelievable that even that group would be this stupid to put it out there like this. Just saying..........

This is the Greek person that was recently banned from visiting with Jodi. This was not posted in the open but in a private room. Since Jodi has been caught advising people how to donate money to her trust so the Alexnaders can't get it, it's likely true. It's exactly what many of us suspected she was doing, putting her money in a place that the Alexanders can't get it. Et voila! A trust fund!

 

[Dmacky]

Anybody think this is a "plant" to see us all go nuts over here? I find it almost unbelievable that even that group would be this stupid to put it out there like this. Just saying..........

Not me. It was taken in their secret "vent" room...
me-thinks someone in her support group is NOT there to support :giggle:

 

[katiecoolady]

Does a pink cowgirl hat ring a bell? Alluring pose? LMFAO.

OMG...busted! LOL giddyup!

 

[Hope4More]

QUOTE=oceanblueeyes;11587984]Possibly.

But if so, I am still totally shocked that anyone who had truly suffered from abuse would fall for JAs claims. Its mind boggling to me and I have seen several cases where jurors were abuse survivors. In fact every time I serve on a jury I have to go into great detail about being abused by my ex-husband and I have been selected 5 times to serve. Not once did my own experience enter my verdict or deliberations. I looked at the totality of evidence searching for substantiations for any claims made.

There was a case in NC where a female murdered her husband who was divorcing her. She claimed he had abused her for 20 years. I remember there was at least one on the jury that either had suffered from abuse or had a family member who had. Not one person on that jury believed the defendant. In fact they felt she was the one who had tormented him before she wound up murdering him. Just because a juror has abuse in their past isn't a surety they are going to fall for the female defendant's pack of lies. I would say #17 is a rarity instead of the norm. Or I hope like hell she is.

But I guess there really are some people that simply believe abuse claims if they have been abused themselves. I cant wrap my mind around that though because domestic violence survivors usually have a keen sense when hearing false claims of abuse and can smell the BS a mile away.

If she was going to look at the case fairly she should have removed her own abuse history from deliberations and shouldn't have let it cloud her vision.

She should have. But that's different than saying she was capable of it. For all we know she is still experiencing DV of one form or another. For all we know she really hasn't come to terms with what it is and what it has done to her. I'm not going to judge her for not being able to take that step back while she was in the jury room under intense pressure.


Even JAs claims of abuse had no ring of truth to them. When looking at them overall ...even including both claims of abuse by Travis, and her family.. they were very shallow claims, and had inconsistencies all in them.

According to media reports, 17 had links or likes or whatever to the Secret and to the Law of Attraction. Yah, some see conspiracy in that. Another explanation is that she actually believed that stuff. Which would explain a lot, eh? Including bad reasoning for what was and what was not in the journals 17 relied upon so much.

I truly hope she is never on another jury. Many brutal murderers suffer from some type of personality disorder... yet certainly know right from wrong, and may also deserve death like JA. If we start excusing murderers with personality disorders then victims are going to continue to be shortchanged when it comes to the just and correct punishment.........just like Travis was, imo.

I still find this juror very immature. What difference does it make what JA looks like? Does #17 really believe that premeditated murderers must look like a monster? I find that ridiculous. Didn't she even realize like the others that JA was trying to manipulate the jury into believing she was one way instead of the true monster she really is? She sure played right into JAs hands.


I don't see the monster thing as her being immature. I see it as not being....um...a very deep thinker. And I actually understand it must be mind bending in a way to encounter in person a vicious murdering psychopath who looks like a mousy librarian young woman.
Its interesting that out of all the people that I have talked with about this case in the past few years who are genuine survivors of abuse..........not ONE has ever believed JA suffered from abuse. They don't even believe she suffered abuse at the hands of her family.

And we all know by now when JA testifies it is in that full flat affect of hers exhibiting no emotion or genuine truthfulness. Why juror #17 didn't pick up on that is odd because when a survivor is talking about real abuse they have experienced in their lives the tone and inflection is raw with emotions. Yet #17 bought it even though she even admitted that she saw no remorse from Arias.

I think it is pretty interesting that 17 agreed JA showed no remorse, and that JA manipulated Travis. It makes me wonder what might have happened had the foreman not shoved the autopsy photos in her face for a second time, or if he had exercised more leadership and told the jurors who were cussing at her that they were out of bounds, or if he hadn't written a secret note to JSS.

IIIRC, his statement about 17 afterwards was over the top harsh. If he displayed a fraction of that contempt and anger during deliberations, no wonder she shut down, especially if she had been verbally and emotionally abused.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

But, again, she didn't even reveal the murder trial he was prosecuted for. She only revealed the charges that happened after they were separated and Juan was not the prosecutor then and they were minor charges, not of any concern to Juan. She even qualified it with an, I don't care, he was an abusive a-hole. So, naturally, she probably would not have attended the trial.

Again, way more digging than a prosecutor would do. He asked the questions and got what he needed.

It isn't his fault she was not completely honest with him.

So what are you saying, that the jury selection process from the PT's side can not change and be done better in the future, and whether or not she attended the trial of her ex-husband in which Juan was the prosecutor should not be looked into?