Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6

[Madeleine74]

It's all for naught as the convicted killer received a LWOP sentence and that's that. I noticed in JM's book he pointed out he was not tied to the DP outcome and was totally fine with LWOP. He also wrote that he had zero worries that the killer would at least receive the LWOP sentence at a minimum.

 

[Madeleine74]

she probably could have gotten off with 2nd degree if it weren't for her self-defeating, egotistical ways.

If she had just admitted to things upfront, claiming some kind of heat-of-passion (and possibly admitting to mental illness), she would have done herself a world of good. But thankfully, she was too self-absorbed to see the bigger picture. Justice has been served!

I truly don't think there's any way she would have gotten 2nd degree murder. There was a lot of evidence of pre-planning and the premeditation was proved over and over in the way the killing took place, using 2 weapons. No, she was never going to be convicted of anything less than first degree murder, not even with the sympathetic few jurors.

 

[Hope4More]

I truly don't think there's any way she would have gotten 2nd degree murder. There was a lot of evidence of pre-planning and the premeditation was proved over and over in the way the killing took place, using 2 weapons. No, she was never going to be convicted of anything less than first degree murder, not even with the sympathetic few jurors.

I agree she almost certainly was never going to be convicted of anything less than 1st degree premeditated murder, but I also agree with Gigi that the herself was largely responsible for that verdict.

I think it is entirely possible that if the had listened to Nurmi she would not have pled self defense, would not have taken the stand, and would not have been so thoroughly exposed as a lying .

Yes, JM would likely have convinced on pre-planning and premed anyway, but then Nurmi could have advanced his narrative that the might have thought about killing Travis but changed her mind after she arrived because TA was so happy to see her, and then they had sex, and then, to her dismay Travis..... ....causing her to snap.

But....she is who she is, and nothing and nobody could make her different enough to do what she needed to do for even the possibility of a different outcome. Says it all, Nurmi's take, that the was far more interested in sliming Travis than anything else.

 

[Hope4More]

It's all for naught as the convicted killer received a LWOP sentence and that's that. I noticed in JM's book he pointed out he was not tied to the DP outcome and was totally fine with LWOP. He also wrote that he had zero worries that the killer would at least receive the LWOP sentence at a minimum.

He has been 100% consistent in saying he was fine with whatever the jury decided, because he'd done the best he could do, believes in the jury system, and doesn't believe in looking back.

He has also said in post-publication interviews, though, that he very much believed things could have turned out differently, if....if he had not figured out the gas can evidence, if he had not been able to stay in control while crossing her, if...

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes, the conviction was all on the killer and her actions because she's the one who committed the killing and left all that evidence proving it. I don't think any defense team would've been able to prevent the conviction of first-degree murder. Of course things could've been different if evidence that was available to JM wasn't available, but that's a different reality than the one that happened.

 

[b_lab7410]

MDLR's role was a mystery, and remains so when trying to match her actions to her title. By examining her actions alone, it may be possible to connect them in the end to her title in a roundabout and indirect way.

Her role in the courtroom seemed to be that of Jodi's 'buddy' ; drawing to her side like a magnet at every opportunity, whispering, smiling, joking; presenting to the public the image of friend, there to lend support, implying an understanding and insight into a positive side to Jodi's character not obvious to anyone else and not necessarily presented as evidence at the trial, or if it was, as the demonstration of a concrete example of same.

That's the only sense I can connect her behavior to her title: as a conveyor of the message "Hey, if I can like her, so can you."

Manipulative and staged, but they say a stage is an appropriate metaphor for a courtroom.

I found her totally artificial. I would go as far to say, I personally felt her wardrobe style is also an effort to deflect from her less than professional motivations. You may be onto her, yet she's prepared her image for response. She's a 'specialist,' after all. It's the 'ol "Who, me?" card.

I remember when the rap artist, Chris Brown did an interview after his offense, the guy went on CNN for an interview with the most Urkel-ish outfit he could don. Manipulative.

OT: A few posts back I stated the county called me up for jury service. I was just a tad uneasy about this whole juror selection. I've always felt interrogative about the defense side - it's my nature, even long ago when I was called in for a criminal trial. This time it was a 'simple' insurance case. Passenger suing the driver for injury(?) sustained. It's so silly of them to presume that my innocent(?) self couldn't be more inept to serve. I felt somewhat bad for the attorney, she smiles and presumes I'm a shoo-in. I then unforeseeably respond with a "Well, I *may* find the passenger entitled to *some* compensation, even if fault be proved, I would want to ask some further questions as to the nature of the incident. Perhaps the passenger initiated some distraction or juvenile behavior the driver ordinarily would have been wise to. Did he/she also suffer injuries? Independent of the situation, I believe in a cap to the compensation..."

I mean, I think she was expecting a "Sure, why yes, of course, shell out the the $$$ for the poor schleb!" ? I'm sorry, but my bestest pal is actually a paralegal who sees these injury and insurance cases ALL the time. So we know what most of these people are after, despite fault/length of relationship, etc etc.

Just thought I'd share. I wonder if websleuths has also influenced me in some way... :thinking:

 

[b_lab7410]

I'm just sitting under a tree in a lawn chair, fan and ice chest with beer. The kids and grandson circle by every so often for more money
#ATM

#YouMeanDadsAreNotATMS #DadNeverEvenSaidNo #NotMyFault

 

[Steve44]

I found her totally artificial. I would go as far to say, I personally felt her wardrobe style is also an effort to deflect from her less than professional motivations. You may be onto her, yet she's prepared her image for response. She's a 'specialist,' after all. It's the 'ol "Who, me?" card.

I remember when the rap artist, Chris Brown did an interview after his offense, the guy went on CNN for an interview with the most Urkel-ish outfit he could don. Manipulative.

OT: A few posts back I stated the county called me up for jury service. I was just a tad uneasy about this whole juror selection. I've always felt interrogative about the defense side - it's my nature, even long ago when I was called in for a criminal trial. This time it was a 'simple' insurance case. Passenger suing the driver for injury(?) sustained. It's so silly of them to presume that my innocent(?) self couldn't be more inept to serve. I felt somewhat bad for the attorney, she smiles and presumes I'm a shoo-in. I then unforeseeably respond with a "Well, I *may* find the passenger entitled to *some* compensation, even if fault be proved, I would want to ask some further questions as to the nature of the incident. Perhaps the passenger initiated some distraction or juvenile behavior the driver ordinarily would have been wise to. Did he/she also suffer injuries? Independent of the situation, I believe in a cap to the compensation..."

I mean, I think she was expecting a "Sure, why yes, of course, shell out the the $$$ for the poor schleb!" ? I'm sorry, but my bestest pal is actually a paralegal who sees these injury and insurance cases ALL the time. So we know what most of these people are after, despite fault/length of relationship, etc etc.

Just thought I'd share. I wonder if websleuths has also influenced me in some way... :thinking:

I'm not sure her dress 'code' was actually part of her strategy.

Ironically, her 'artificial' air may have been the most real part of her...

would explain her choice of career. Expert pretender.

 

[b_lab7410]

I agree she almost certainly was never going to be convicted of anything less than 1st degree premeditated murder, but I also agree with Gigi that the herself was largely responsible for that verdict.

I think it is entirely possible that if the had listened to Nurmi she would not have pled self defense, would not have taken the stand, and would not have been so thoroughly exposed as a lying .

Yes, JM would likely have convinced on pre-planning and premed anyway, but then Nurmi could have advanced his narrative that the might have thought about killing Travis but changed her mind after she arrived because TA was so happy to see her, and then they had sex, and then, to her dismay Travis..... ....causing her to snap.

But....she is who she is, and nothing and nobody could make her different enough to do what she needed to do for even the possibility of a different outcome. Says it all, Nurmi's take, that the was far more interested in sliming Travis than anything else.

The media here in NY and my colleagues thought the same... she hurt herself because she chose to get on the stand.

Personally, I’m not the type of person who would feel ‘her flipping out,’ merits any less LWOP. You’d hope they’d bring the diary entries in as they did, which to me, prove she premeditated for quite a while. Her wonky hormonal ups and downs don't cut it for me. The borderline rage hurts her too, IMO, so seek therapy, you knew it was wrong, it isn't an excuse. Why instead did you pursue a relationship clearly when you are unstable? Men kill their significant others all the time, whatever the 'dysfunction.' We don't find disordered minds excused from culpability, thank god. It's not subconscious insanity. And with the slashing of his tires and the such, I’d see her as aggravating. Pun intended.

 

[Steve44]

The media here in NY and my colleagues thought the same... she hurt herself because she chose to get on the stand.

Personally, I’m not the type of person who would feel ‘her flipping out,’ merits any less LWOP. You’d hope they’d bring the diary entries in as they did, which to me, prove she premeditated for quite a while. Her wonky hormonal ups and downs don't cut it for me. The borderline rage hurts her too, IMO, so seek therapy, you knew it was wrong, it isn't an excuse. Why instead did you pursue a relationship clearly when you are unstable? Men kill their significant others all the time, whatever the 'dysfunction.' We don't find disordered minds excused from culpability, thank god. It's not subconscious insanity. And with the slashing of his tires and the such, I’d see her as aggravating. Pun intended.

She was too used to manipulating and getting her way to be dissuaded to any other strategy. No one knew better than she. Her only option when cornered was to play the victim, and she could do that well enough. Facts are things. Things can be manipulated. She set her own table, but then it just wouldn't turn.

 

[b_lab7410]

I'm not sure her dress 'code' was actually part of her strategy.

Ironically, her 'artificial' air may have been the most real part of her...

would explain her choice of career. Expert pretender.

I just think these people know the juries are sensitive to perception. She's going to work all juvenile angles much the way JW and KN did. She figures that there are the one or two individuals who will either feel a) she's an attractive professional woman or b) she's a professional woman and the female juror perhaps herself may have the same inspiration. I mean, she was the dressiest person in there, whilst everyone else is business professional, or casual, she came in.. business casual/decked out.

There were times I figured she wanted to roll her eyes at JM, but she refrained. Just barely concealing her personal edge/biases.

 

[Steve44]

I just think these people know the juries are sensitive to perception. She's going to work all juvenile angles much the way JW and KN did. She figures that there are the one or two individuals who will either feel a) she's an attractive professional woman or b) she's a professional woman and the female juror perhaps herself may have the same inspiration. I mean, she was the dressiest person in there, whilst everyone else is business professional, or casual, she came in.. business casual/decked out.

There were times I figured she wanted to roll her eyes at JM, but she refrained. Just barely concealing her personal edge/biases.

She was definitely putting on a show for the jury, but I suspect her risque attire was a more intimate reflection of her personality, and more than just courtroom showmanship. Look at her facebook handle 'Cougarluscious'. She likes lots of admiring eyes on her, in and out of the courtroom.

 

[Deleted member 122533]

Wifi working again. Longer …about interviews (plugged in dates to part of one of my original case timelines).

Superb timeline layout, H4M. Very helpful summary. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 122533]

And again, I know many won't agree, but she probably could have gotten off with 2nd degree if it weren't for her self-defeating, egotistical ways.

If she had just admitted to things upfront, claiming some kind of heat-of-passion (and possibly admitting to mental illness), she would have done herself a world of good. But thankfully, she was too self-absorbed to see the bigger picture. Justice has been served!

Her defence was ludicrous from the start. That's what first caught my attention. The 48 Hours interview chilled me. A barking mad, egotistical liar, smiling - almost glowing with happiness as she described Travis. Like she was claiming him in death - attributing a special status to herself that she couldn't do when he was alive. It was an international stage for her to get attention re Travis on.

I agree with GigiG that the truth would have been a much better defence than the smug, shameless, grotesque lies. The truth was as ugly as Arias' personality but it would have been based on something real. It would have been confirmation to his family of what they had already guessed. Her ego wouldn't allow honesty. Arias wanted recognition over Travis and to walk free from slaughtering him. Declaring that she was an obsessed stalker - crazed and crazy about Travis - unable to sleep or breathe without him - unable to see him with anyone else - that would have been recognisable as human emotions. Albeit, murderous, vengeful, hate-fuelled calculated, vile emotions.

Instead, Arias showed us what a monster she is on top of murdering a blameless man. In doing so, she almost was sentenced to death and will never get out of prison. Quite the criminal genius, huh?

 

[Steve44]

Her defence was ludicrous from the start. That's what first caught my attention. The 48 Hours interview chilled me. A barking mad, egotistical liar, smiling - almost glowing with happiness as she described Travis. Like she was claiming him in death - attributing a special status to herself that she couldn't do when he was alive. It was an international stage for her to get attention re Travis on.

I agree with GigiG that the truth would have been a much better defence than the smug, shameless, grotesque lies. The truth was as ugly as Arias' personality but it would have been based on something real. It would have been confirmation to his family of what they had already guessed. Her ego wouldn't allow honesty. Arias wanted recognition over Travis and to walk free from slaughtering him. Declaring that she was an obsessed stalker - crazed and crazy about Travis - unable to sleep or breathe without him - unable to see him with anyone else - that would have been recognisable as human emotions. Albeit, murderous, vengeful, hate-fuelled calculated, vile emotions.

Instead, Arias showed us what a monster she is on top of murdering a blameless man. In doing so, she almost was sentenced to death and will never get out of prison. Quite the criminal genius, huh?

The whole situation in that regard was a catch-22 of her own making. In order to mitigate her punishment, she would have to reveal truths about herself the very concealing of which were her motivation for killing Travis (he knew too much about who she really was).

 

[salberg7]

Regarding MDLR, "cougarlicious" says it all, doesn't it? Her juvenile tweets sent out during the trial, her association with the rapper (of which there are photos of for posterity), her giggling with the killer, passing notes to her family, etc. Her job was to find mitigation witnesses and the only one she found was Patty (forgot her last name) who had her 15 minutes of fame on NG and withdrew from testifying because she "received death threats" when in fact she received not death threats but monetary compensation from a tabloid for her story and then didn't declare it as income. Patty - who can to court dressed like a hoochie momma with an off the shoulder number showing her black bra and tats sitting next to Sandy giggling together. Yeah, good mitigation witness there. MDLR did a stellar job.
One of the many points that really bothered me during trial was the killer's total lack of humility. She lied without blinking an eye over and over again. Her demeanor while answering the jury's questions for instance, as she continued to lie. She would look directly in their eyes and lie. I have recently rewatched those two days of jury questions and noticed how the lies just rolled off her tongue and her smugness in thinking they believed her just because she stated that yes, she had lied in the past but now because she was under oath she expected them to believed that now she was telling the truth. The jury was on to her. If she didn't know her goose was cooked after those questions she was foolish. I could tell by those questions they didn't believed a word of anything she said.
Any normal defendent would realize that but not the killer. After those questions I'd be asking my defense team to try to negotiate a plea deal for LWOP & waive appeals in an effort to avoid being given the death penalty. Not her-she continued to pursue victim demoralization and slaughter Travis all over again.
I wonder if she sits in her cell and relives the killing. I am sure she remembers every stab, his every grimace, his cries out in pain, his look of disbelief and his cries for help ( "go to my neighbors, go get help"). I can't imagine having to have that in my memory day in and day out. But she probably is very good at compartmentalizing that day and keeping it surpressed in her mind whereby she doesn't even think about it as she is incapable of normal feelings.
She is disgraceful as was her DT. I realize she is entitled to a rigorous defense per our Constitution. But as one poster above stated, they shouldn't be allowed to enter hearsay or shred the victim's character as part of her defense. That's why at times I feel the criminal has more rights than the victim, and it irks me. A criminal's defense should stick to debating facts, not assumptions and character assassination based on whatever the defendant conjures up.
The killer needs to stay in Perryville until she dies. I am actually pleased with LWOP vs a death sentence. She needs to suffer as much as Travis and his family did.

 

[Madeleine74]

MDLR wasn't dressing for the jury -- she was wearing what *she* liked, which does not work well in a serious setting like a courtroom, IMO. Her behavior was as she is, not an act, which again, is not professional behavior, especially not for a courtroom. We were seeing her as she is. I doubt she dresses much different or acts any different when outside the courtroom. She didn't do herself or her client any real favors, though I'm sure she was there to help babysit the client as much as anything else. Whatever. It's over. She was barely a sidenote to the whole circus.

 

[Steve44]

MDLR wasn't dressing for the jury -- she was wearing what *she* liked, which does not work well in a serious setting like a courtroom, IMO. Her behavior was as she is, not an act, which again, is not professional behavior, especially not for a courtroom. We were seeing her as she is. I doubt she dresses much different or acts any different when outside the courtroom. She didn't do herself or her client any real favors, though I'm sure she was there to help babysit the client as much as anything else. Whatever. It's over. She was barely a sidenote to the whole circus.

I agree. So the question arises: what the hell was she doing there? In what professional capacity? Perhaps the answer is self-evident. She was a professional 'friend'. A hired escort.

 

[Hope4More]

The whole situation in that regard was a catch-22 of her own making. In order to mitigate her punishment, she would have to reveal truths about herself the very concealing of which were her motivation for killing Travis (he knew too much about who she really was).

Thing is, it didn't have to be a catch-22, and she didn't have to reveal her motivation. What tripped her up was her insistence that she not be held accountable. I wasn't there. The ninjas did it. Travis made me do it.

Second degree snapped was a story Nurmi was prepared to tell. A chaotic relationship, pushed and pulled by Travis, Travis emotionally and psychologically abusive, she forgave him May 26 and let her guard down, they had sex on June 4 then he raved to her about what a good time he was going to have with Mimi and she snapped.

As it was, to get to self defense she had to explain why she had to defend herself against a man who no one else in the world had experienced as violent. So he had to have a terrible secret only she knew about, one that he would use violence to keep secret. The pedo lie. Which also served as a reason for the jury to loath the victim, and to extend their sympathy to her, rather than to Travis.

The pedo lie was to be a 3fer. Explained self defense, made her the victim instead of Travis, and served to torment his family and friends.

 

[Hope4More]

MDLR wasn't dressing for the jury -- she was wearing what *she* liked, which does not work well in a serious setting like a courtroom, IMO. Her behavior was as she is, not an act, which again, is not professional behavior, especially not for a courtroom. We were seeing her as she is. I doubt she dresses much different or acts any different when outside the courtroom. She didn't do herself or her client any real favors, though I'm sure she was there to help babysit the client as much as anything else. Whatever. It's over. She was barely a sidenote to the whole circus.

I never cared what she wore or even how inappropriately she acted in court. What I did care about was her role as enabling liason to the 's whackadoodle fans. MDLR is a credentialed mental health worker. She has a professional code of conduct she is obligated to honor, and exploiting and encouraging those fans in the way she did IMO violated every rule in the book.