Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[WhoaIsMe]

I guess I should have read further before commenting. Was she let go because of a court date she had for being arrested?

 

[JSR]

How do I search here for a post if I can't remember which thread? I'm looking for the.post about someone's family member knowing JSS and commenting how nice she is......

I'm sure JSS is very nice she's just a poor case manager for her cases. But I'm sure she is a lovely woman.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Ask her why Ms. Intengrity was also arrested for a BAD CHECK.

Oh, the characters in the trial. So glad she is gone!

BBM: Whoa ... "BAD CHECK" !

So is this different than a "bounced check" or NSF check under Arizona Law ? You have time to make restitution for the NSF check along with the fees, and overdraft fees the bank charges.

So ... is a "bad check" like fraud ?

Hopefully, AZlawyer will let us know !

 

[AngelWings444]

She wrote the bad check in 2006 and was arrested on a warrant over thanksgiving. She let the court know on her questionnaire about the check. She now has a court date. That's what prompted the removal. Juan and the defense probably both wanted her gone.

SW broke the news.

I'm not understanding. Court Chatter says she was arrested for a DUI and bad check on November 28, 2014. If the check was written in 2006, wouldn't the statute of limitations be up. Why the warrant? Warrant and DUI? Can anyone pull her criminal stuff? Are we allowed since it's MSM?

JMO-she is totally lying about the reason she was released. Maybe they told her it was a scheduling conflict, but I don't think they would lie. They probably just released her with no explanation and she assumed it was from the one-day conflict.

It's one thing to get in trouble with the law, but quite another to get on the web with reporters and SPEW, yes she spewed, all kings of stuff about "integrity."

 

[MeeBee]

Can't find her original post to quote, but I'm a lifelong Californian. We go on Daylight Savings Time from April to November- Spring to Fall. Just got off it and it sucks. Gets dark at 4:00 in Dec. I hate it!!! Wish we always stayed on it, I like my twilight summer evenings!

The entire country has DLS except for AZ.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm not understanding. Court Chatter says she was arrested for a DUI and bad check on November 28, 2014. If the check was written in 2006, wouldn't the statute of limitations be up. Why the warrant? Warrant and DUI? Can anyone pull her criminal stuff? Are we allowed since it's MSM?

JMO-she is totally lying about the reason she was released. Maybe they told her it was a scheduling conflict, but I don't think they would lie. They probably just released her with no explanation and she assumed it was from the one-day conflict.

It's one thing to get in trouble with the law, but quite another to get on the web with reporters and SPEW, yes she spewed, all kings of stuff about "integrity."

It doesn't really matter, IMO. She's gone now so she didn't hurt anyone. The court was already aware of her issues. The only reason the info was released was to smear her after her very pro-state interview.

 

[krkrjx]

I thought he was let go because when he was arrested he revealed that he was on the JA jury to the cops?

She is saying she did tell the court about the arrest and they were fine with it. It was only when the court appearance and the schedule conflict came up that they let her go. Maybe, in the end, it was just a combination of things. Maybe they didn't want it to become more of an issue than it was. Or maybe she's not being truthful...

If that juror had been allowed to stay after being arrested, it could have caused problems down the road. JA would have been able to use that as an appeal issue and it might have had merit in the eyes of an appeals judge.

 

[daisydomino]

OMG this trial. It just never stops getting weirder.

 

[katydid23]

I am not worried about the conviction sticking. I think that is solid.

Yes, I am aware that Jason Young won a new trial. His deed was just as heinous and it took a lot of effort to get a conviction, only to have it overturned on appeal. However, in Young's case it was judge error that was deemed prejudicial to the defendant; in Arias's case the odds are greater that judge error will prove to be beneficial to the defendant--IOW, less chance of guilty verdict being overturned for Arias. IMO.

I have, for a long time now, wanted this to end...just sentence her to LWOP and be done with it. I think that's where it's headed anyway. I am just so sick of her!

I am not totally convinced it is rock solid. If they pull shenanigans with the alleged , and can convince the higher courts that there was possibly child that was overlooked, then it could be RETRIAL time. And child can be alleged if the names of sites are 'young cheerleaders' or the like. I am very worried at this point.

 

[bsk]

OK then. See you all Thursday. IMO the judge ought to be more public about the reasons for her rulings--can't be more insane than what we're all thinking....

Would any other judge by now have said, "Call your next witness or rest your case."?

 

[AngelWings444]

It doesn't really matter, IMO. She's gone now so she didn't hurt anyone. The court was already aware of her issues. The only reason the info was released was to smear her after her very pro-state interview.

RBBM: She states the court knew of her issues. I don't believe her. IMO-her original interview was not pro-state, it was pretty neutral. I'm not so sure SW threw her under the bus. She may have thrown herself under the bus when she did her interviews. Surely, they would have her last name. They would check and know this would get a ton of attention to websites/reporters. Pretty sad for her.

 

[MeeBee]

I am not totally convinced it is rock solid. If they pull shenanigans with the alleged , and can convince the higher courts that there was possibly child that was overlooked, then it could be RETRIAL time. And child can be alleged if the names of sites are 'young cheerleaders' or the like. I am very worried at this point.

IMO, the higher courts are going to need more than "young cheerleader" or searches for teen to prove that's there was child here. Neither of those things are child .

 

[bsk]

Would any other judge by now have said, "Call your next witness or rest your case."?

Or maybe, "Call your next witness or I find you in contempt. Bailiff, take Mr N into custody until such time as he is ready to call another witness, at which time he will be released ... and can start billing his time again."

 

[JSR]

Thank you for posting your thoughts on this interview. I didn't know there was another one today. I wonder if Juan fought for her. It really sucks that they would not accommodate her one day when the DT have spent the last month (is it two already?) jerking everyone in court around every chance they get. Seems like Nurmi would have been all for it. He could have had a free day from CMJA's face. He could have just reminded his secretary to hang up if it's her on the phone, and had some peace.

As an aside, I have been thinking about how much she made out in her letter to JSS re:firing Nurmi, that she hates Nurmi and how much he really sucks at his job and how much he loathes her, and the part of my mind that has learned to distrust everything she says and to try to see the motive behind her words wonders if that wasn't all a ploy. Setting the stage to represent herself for that short period of time, to do whatever it was that Nurmi or Willmott didn't want to be caught doing.

This trail is making me into a very suspicious minded person.

I do agree that Jodi wanted to be pro se for a very specific reason. And that she had ZERO intention on permanently staying pro se.

 

[katydid23]

I think some others, Hope4More and others, were even more correct. I thought she was genuine just was worried about her. Something did rub me the wrong way. She's all talk about integrity but runs to Jen to get her story out before her arrest goes public. I thought it interesting that she kept saying the reason she was let go, making sure everyone understood she was excused not dismissed. It was obvious she wanted that known. Still thought she just wanted people to know she did nothing wrong. Protesting too much, maybe. Now we know the real truth.

Still think there's nothing wrong with talking to the press. But I question her intentions now. Still regret her not making it on the jury. But it's good she's gone. She must not have revealed her arrest until she was forced to reveal a court appearance due to the trial running long.

:sigh:

And the IRONY [ iorny] is that if she had just kept her mouth shut the public would have never learned about the skeletons in her closet. But all the endless chatter forced their hand. :worms:

 

[krkrjx]

I am not totally convinced it is rock solid. If they pull shenanigans with the alleged , and can convince the higher courts that there was possibly child that was overlooked, then it could be RETRIAL time. And child can be alleged if the names of sites are 'young cheerleaders' or the like. I am very worried at this point.

I am not sure it's rock solid...but pretty solid nonetheless.

I do not know how could play into a successful appeal. I just can't see it. Not to say it isn't possible but to me it does not look probable. The , be it a viable issue or not, has nothing to do with her being guilty of a cruel premeditated murder. I am not going to worry about this conviction being overturned until it actually happens. And the possibility is so remote and even then so far into the future that I doubt it will even make headlines. Jodi who??

 

[katydid23]

IMO, the higher courts are going to need more than "young cheerleader" or searches for teen to prove that's there was child here. Neither of those things are child .

I hope so. But in DP cases they sometimes err on the side of caution.

 

[MeeBee]

RBBM: She states the court knew of her issues. I don't believe her. IMO-her original interview was not pro-state, it was pretty neutral. I'm not so sure SW threw her under the bus. She may have thrown herself under the bus when she did her interviews. Surely, they would have her last name. They would check and know this would get a ton of attention to websites/reporters. Pretty sad for her.

She says she let them know if her questionnaire. That is probably true. They are asked to disclose these things.

SW is the one who broke the news. She gave an interview last week that was somewhat neutral and this didn't come out. Not five minutes after her more opinionated interview tonight and SW breaks the news. The trial people reported they know for a fact MDLR was hanging out in there. The trial talk people also may have had her name but they'd be the only ones other than the DT and the state because she's never revealed it publicly and they never gave a last name. The court, as we all know, have been cautious about keeping everything about everything under tight seal. It's suspicious, is all, that the report didn't come from a savvy reporter but from a crazed JA supporter who has been known to have personal contact with members of the DT.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

OMG. Of course the reason she was booted was this arrest.

So she writes bad checks and lies about the reason why she was booted from the trial. Probably good to have her off the case.

Of course the courtroom didnt tell her the real reason but she is only fooling herself if she thinks its because of 1 lousy day she had a conflict in Jan.

Of course it was because of being arrested for the writing of bad checks.

The court doesnt want potential criminals being part of juries.

:seeya:

BBM: I think the court did tell her the real reason she was booted off the jury, but she -- juror #3 -- decided to put her own spin on it.

:waitasec: Obviously, she's been picking up pointers from the CMJA and the DT on how to deceive !

:moo:

 

[LinasK]

She's celebrating like this I'm sure :facepalm:
♪
♫ Oh Holy Night ♫


She has totally ruined one of my favorite Christmas songs :tantrum:

For Jodi, it's (3) Wholy Night...