Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2

[samspace070]

I wonder what happened with all of this BS? I don't recall hearing the outcome. The part concerning the butcheress #281129 is further down in the article.



https://cases.nationalcdp.org/juan-martinez/

My gosh, what a nightmare. I do not believe Juan did anything wrong in this case, but I definitely believe the defense attorneys suborned perjury. They definitely knew CMJA lied and so did that Marc McGee and his lying mother too. Juan worked alone and JSS gave the defense every break, all those ex-parte meetings for one. Anything that crazy eyed JA wanted she got. They got very important evidence suppressed that the Jury should have seen. And dropping that damn camera was not smashing it on the floor like the article stated. That alone made me think this whole web site is people that hate Juan and are just sore losers. I am not and never have been pro prosecution, but in this case it was the defense attorneys and their witnesses that were committing the misconduct. JA committed perjury every day she was on that witnesses stand and her attorneys knew it. It was obvious that Michael Keefer was a JA supporter from the beginning. He has been after Juan for years. I hope he gets his someday, he is a yellow journalist, if you can even call him a journalist.

 

[Hope4More]

I wonder what happened with all of this BS? I don't recall hearing the outcome. The part concerning the butcheress #281129 is further down in the article.



https://cases.nationalcdp.org/juan-martinez/

A slanted, biased, short on the truth hit piece. Though, JM can and has handled the anti DP yapping mutts that nip at his heels and howl at the moon, hoping to bring down an extremely effective prosecutor.

He remains the most impressive trial attorney I've ever had the privilege of watching in court.

 

[Colie]

I wonder what happened with all of this BS? I don't recall hearing the outcome. The part concerning the butcheress #281129 is further down in the article.



https://cases.nationalcdp.org/juan-martinez/

!st this was an ex-con running the site because he felt persecuted against His name is Jason Weber. You can google him but he has a big chip on his shoulder IMO.

Here is a blog stating that Juan was "Let off the Hook" but it seems that he was being investigated for the Arias trial and the charges were unwarranted.

http://www.prosecutorialaccountabil...notorious-prosecutor-off-the-hook-once-again/

 

[Hez]

!st this was an ex-con running the site because he felt persecuted against His name is Jason Weber. You can google him but he has a big chip on his shoulder IMO.

Here is a blog stating that Juan was "Let off the Hook" but it seems that he was being investigated for the Arias trial and the charges were unwarranted.

http://www.prosecutorialaccountabil...notorious-prosecutor-off-the-hook-once-again/

It seems like all the support sites are run by people with at best, questionable ethics. SJ who runs that awful JAII site is another one. It appears that Jason Weber and SJ are now in a blog war with each other. Typical of what you would expect from the weirdos that support this killer. :facepalm:

 

[Hope4More]

It seems like all the support sites are run by people with at best, questionable ethics. SJ who runs that awful JAII site is another one. It appears that Jason Weber and SJ are now in a blog war with each other. Typical of what you would expect from the weirdos that support this killer. :facepalm:

LOL. What exactly could they possibly be squabbling about now? The donation trickle dried up months ago, even before the media lost all interest. Only a handful of diehard True Fans are still standing.....and they can't even get along? LOL.

 

[Wing Ding]

The one thing that struck me while reading it was the utter lack of any mention of sexual activity between them, just inferences that they had been "seeing" each other free of the usual Mormon chaperones. That says to me(having come from another pretty strict religious upbringing) meant that they could openly flirt, talk dirty, swear, drink frappicunos(sp?), and even sleep in the same room(to save money, not necessarily to have sex) without the added fact that TA was actually dating Mormon girls while going on these unsupervised trips with someone that his friends didn't approve of.

I really think their actual sexual activity was way less than what JA tried to project, especially since her whole thing to try and woo TA was to appear to be a good Mormon girl worth marrying and when that fell through because of her obsessive spying/jealousy/whatever, she attempted the one big "sacrifice" of letting him have her and when she realized she'd just let him have the milk for free, so to speak, and that he had no impetus left to marry her because of it and in fact started seeing others with marriage in mind(as stated in his blog), she really started to lose it and started planning her revenge for having wasted so much of the limited(biologically speaking) time she had left to find a rich husband.

<snipped>

I agree, Val, that Travis and Jodi's 22-month relationship was far less physical than she claimed during her trial(s). Far less. And as shocking as it may sound, I do think she initially respected his Mormon views on chastity -- though perhaps only to present herself to him as a worthy candidate for marriage. But, as you say, Val... once Travis moved-on and began pursuing other prospects, she turned-on her sexual charms (such as they were) in an attempt to lure him back in. The thing is, Travis already knew Jodi wasn't wife material so no matter how much she made herself available to him sexually, it didn't matter. He had, for the most part, already checked-out of the relationship mentally, physically and emotionally and her charms weren't going to work on him. I don't think Jodi realized that the emotional components of a relationship can override the physical. Or maybe she did, but kept right on trying anyway. But no amount of Olympic Gold Medal sex will ever make up for the amount of crazy, mean and evil she possessed.

 

[RickshawFan]

I agree, Val, that Travis and Jodi's 22-month relationship was far less physical than she claimed during her trial(s). Far less. And as shocking as it may sound, I do think she initially respected his Mormon views on chastity -- though perhaps only to present herself to him as a worthy candidate for marriage. But, as you say, Val... once Travis moved-on and began pursuing other prospects, she turned-on her sexual charms (such as they were) in an attempt to lure him back in. The thing is, Travis already knew Jodi wasn't wife material so no matter how much she made herself available to him sexually, it didn't matter. He had, for the most part, already checked-out of the relationship mentally, physically and emotionally and her charms weren't going to work on him. I don't think Jodi realized that the emotional components of a relationship can override the physical. Or maybe she did, but kept right on trying anyway. But no amount of Olympic Gold Medal sex will ever make up for the amount of crazy, mean and evil she possessed.

Isn't the only time that physical sex was actually mentioned in any kind of documentation (with confirmation from him) the time with the tub and the flower petals? It was mostly just phone sex? And she cobbled together the sex tape so that separate fantasies would look like just one example of a really big deal? After all, a chaperone was required on the trip to the Grand Canyon: in that world, there was no hint that TA and JA are actually sexual.

Jodi did like her posed photo ops and draping herself over TA, but he's pulled away from her in those photos. In the photo in the waterfall at Grand Canyon, she practically has her hand around his neck. This might not seem significant, but there are photos earlier in the day of her "pretend" pushing him over a cliff.

There are a couple of situations that give me pause about the extent to which they consummated sex. One was the photo of her in a bathrobe outside a hotel bedroom. With him (I forget)? We have no reliable way to interpret this photo, however. Her room? His room? The room of the person taking the photo? The second was they do seem to agree that KY was involved in their relationship.

By the way, is TA even in the erased photos of JA? .... She staged them.

I'm thinking the "sex photos" (the ones that were erased) were taken when she surprised TA masturbating (no kiddie involved). She's the kind of person that would hate for a "boyfriend" to satisfy any kind of sexual need without her being involved, she's that much of a narcissist. This wasn't just about TA looking for someone else to be a life partner, but his ability to find pleasure in ways that excluded her. TA didn't need her in his relationship with himself, and he had made that quite clear. Perhaps part of the "you are the worst thing" accusation was that she turned some of his self-pleasuring into evidence of sex with her and was blackmailing him with it.

PS I realize masturbation probably doesn't go along with the rules of chastity, either, but I would guess it has fewer repercussions than full-out, straight, partner sex.

 

[Hope4More]

Isn't the only time that physical sex was actually mentioned in any kind of documentation (with confirmation from him) the time with the tub and the flower petals? It was mostly just phone sex? And she cobbled together the sex tape so that separate fantasies would look like just one example of a really big deal? After all, a chaperone was required on the trip to the Grand Canyon: in that world, there was no hint that TA and JA are actually sexual.

Jodi did like her posed photo ops and draping herself over TA, but he's pulled away from her in those photos. In the photo in the waterfall at Grand Canyon, she practically has her hand around his neck. This might not seem significant, but there are photos earlier in the day of her "pretend" pushing him over a cliff.

There are a couple of situations that give me pause about the extent to which they consummated sex. One was the photo of her in a bathrobe outside a hotel bedroom. With him (I forget)? We have no reliable way to interpret this photo, however. Her room? His room? The room of the person taking the photo? The second was they do seem to agree that KY was involved in their relationship.

By the way, is TA even in the erased photos of JA? .... She staged them.

I'm thinking the "sex photos" (the ones that were erased) were taken when she surprised TA masturbating (no kiddie involved). She's the kind of person that would hate for a "boyfriend" to satisfy any kind of sexual need without her being involved, she's that much of a narcissist. This wasn't just about TA looking for someone else to be a life partner, but his ability to find pleasure in ways that excluded her. TA didn't need her in his relationship with himself, and he had made that quite clear. Perhaps part of the "you are the worst thing" accusation was that she turned some of his self-pleasuring into evidence of sex with her and was blackmailing him with it.

PS I realize masturbation probably doesn't go along with the rules of chastity, either, but I would guess it has fewer repercussions than full-out, straight, partner sex.

What she definitely lied about was how early they were intimate in any way. Think about the entrapment tape she did, and what was NOT on it. She wanted him recorded as admitting they had full intercourse, that they got kinky, that he masturbated, every single "incriminating" episode that had happened.

What wasn't there, but sure as heck would have been had it happened, was any "intimacy" whatsoever on the day she was baptized.

The earliest time they got physical she brings up is about the time they grinded in that Anna whatever hotel. Pretty tame stuff.

I don't think she ever respected his beliefs about anything, but obviously knew he was looking for Mormon wife material, which is why she put on the rediculous show of walking around reading the Bible, etc.

The seduce in earnest didn't begin until she slapped aside his vehement objections and moved into his backyard, and I agree that even then, for the first few months, there was precious little physical contact because he was unhappy she was there and because he was pursuing Lisa in earnest.

Which is why she went psycho, including the tire slashing, and the ever bolder invasions of his privacy. Reading his texts from late January and in Feb, plus what I remember from everything else, he became increasingly vulnerable to her because she was succeeding in blowing up his relationships, and because he was under tremendous stress financially.

During that time he is definitely reaching out for frisky romps---- but not with her, at least not by text. I can't imagine that she DIDN'T read his texts, regularly, while he was asleep or in the bathroom or when he left his phone unattended for 5 minutes.

IMO she knew he was more vulnerable, not feeling good about himself, not interested in her, and wide open to being dragged into sex. Her initiative, but for part of February and in March 2008 I think she snagged him less often than she suggests, but not infrequently either. JMO.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Hmmm....maybe we have a reason for the delay and scramble for sealing for an unsealing...LOL
IMO, someone's gonna be charged with something....duh, obviously since Ahler's involved. Perhaps the xtra time for release is when they think the matter will be resolved....or, it's gonna keep getting back ordered. There's a reason JA's team doesn't want ANYTHING that's sealed unsealed. The lawyers had also requested to see/read Juans book.

We have received new release date information for the item in the order below. The release date has been changed by the publisher and we want to provide you with the updated release date. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by this delay. We'll keep your pre-order open on your account and you'll receive a confirmation when the item is available for download.* As a reminder, you can change, cancel, or view the status of your orders in Your Orders on Amazon.com.

Your new pre-order release date:
Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Order Details


Order #D01-2744145-4790633
Placed on Monday, August 24, 2015

Conviction: The Untold Story of Putting Jodi Arias Behind Bars

Kindle Edition
Sold by HarperCollins Publishers

$12.99
(or less)
Why?

Item Subtotal: $12.99*

Got questions? Learn more in Help & Customer Service.

 

[Hope4More]

The BK texts reveal some interesting contrasts in how the killer communicated with him vs how literally everyone else did, and vice versa.


Many of her texts to him read like they're sent from a busy wife of many years. Things like- " hon, we (!!!!)are out of eggs," or, "hey you, don't forget to pick up XYZ, ok babe?"

Strange. As if she lived there. As if they were in a relationship at all, much less a comfy longterm domestic one.

And then are the unceasing texts requesting or demanding his help, his attention, his time.

Almost all are of her contacting him. Much of the time he isn't paying her much attention even when he replies, since he frequently was texting back and forth with others at the same time, which is unsurprising because she so rarely allowed him his own uninterrupted time.

All in contrast to how he interacted with real friends. Teasing and joking back and forth, friends offering to help HIM, friends texting just to say hi, friends that not once demanded squat from him, and who when asking for his assistance on PPL stuff asked him with respect and with an awareness that his time was valuable.

 

[Hope4More]

Edited to update.



1. Original publication date was Jan 5.

2. The State filed its motion to unseal on Oct 19, which was granted.

3. On Oct 21 the killer's attys filed their motion to get immediate access to JM's book for themselves and to have the court of their choice (COA) review whether or not JM broke all kinds of laws by using sealed docs.

4. The attys mention in a footnote included in the book motion that the use of discovery materials for other than litigation is a violation of Rule 15 RCP, that it raises "ethical concerns," and that they have already raised those ethical concerns with the "County Atty's office administrators, " aka JM's boss, Bill Montgomery.



There's more legal stuff to throw in here about the motions, but the bottom line seems to be......UNBELIEVABLY!!! that the only investigation likely to be going on is about JM and what he wrote in his book.

 

[samspace070]

Adding...

JM isn't going to be charged with anything. My DH thought too, though, that maybe the State's motion to unseal was to proactively doublecheck the content of JM's book against the sealed records so the AG-- or whomever --can tell the killer's attys wanting prepub access to his book to shove it where the sun don't shine.

I so hope you are right, it does make sense. You know CMJA and her attorneys want to know what is in that book. Curiosity killed the cat.

 

[Hope4More]

I so hope you are right, it does make sense. You know CMJA and her attorneys want to know what is in that book. Curiosity killed the cat.

Revised that thought. I deleted what you snipped above- see my last post. I still think JM won't be charged, but the killer's attys are obviously going after him personally. Its not curiosity, but trying to nail him , which would be ever so helpful to an appeal.

 

[geevee]

Revised that thought. I deleted what you snipped above- see my last post. I still think JM won't be charged, but the killer's attys are obviously going after him personally. Its not curiosity, but trying to nail him , which would be ever so helpful to an appeal.

Yes, they have nothing else, a self-admitted killer with zero remorse trying to throw blame on everyone but herself, and now another set of attnys attempting to do the same - 'look over there at what he *might have* done, not here at this murderous maniac which we know what she's guilty of!'. Please.

Thanks again for all of the intel Hope, the texts and your gist of them is very enlightening. I still feel so much sorrow that Travis couldn't find a way to extricate her from his life, she was killing him from practically the minute she met him, psychologically and emotionally, and then literally. Even being anti-DP, I admit there are times I'd like to wring her neck with my own hands.

 

[LinTX]

I would guess that unless he's planning on retirement, JM has already discussed this book with his boss(es). I also don't think the AG investigation is about JM - the AZ Bar and Supreme Court are charged with attorney/prosecutorial ethics violations. It could be that the book delay is delayed on COA request, but it could also be about something totally unrelated, like his schedule/time off for a book signing, etc.

I'm going to stick with my rose colored glasses and watch for COA denial postings...

 

[Hope4More]

I would guess that unless he's planning on retirement, JM has already discussed this book with his boss(es). I also don't think the AG investigation is about JM - the AZ Bar and Supreme Court are charged with attorney/prosecutorial ethics violations. It could be that the book delay is delayed on COA request, but it could also be about something totally unrelated, like his schedule/time off for a book signing, etc.

I'm going to stick with my rose colored glasses and watch for COA denial postings...

I hope you're right about the AG not investigating JM. You're definitely right that JM must have asked for and have been given permission to write the book. He certainly wasn't secretive about the fact he was writing it, and lo, it is still being published.

I'm not as sure as you that the AG isn't investigating JM related to what he included the book. He didn't write it in his capacity as a state prosecutor or attorney, but as a private citizen.

The killer's attorneys contacted the "County Attorney" to raise issues about a specific ethical violation, rather than making a complaint to the Bar. That's interesting.

There also was a veiled threat IMO included in the book motion , which stated that it was a professional breach of conduct inviting sanctions for an attorney to "collaborate" with the press before a trial in generating pre-trial publicity which could taint a jury.

That one was specifically directed at him in his capacity as attorney, unlike the "violation" of using discovery material for any purpose other than a trial.

 

[RickshawFan]

I would guess that unless he's planning on retirement, JM has already discussed this book with his boss(es). I also don't think the AG investigation is about JM - the AZ Bar and Supreme Court are charged with attorney/prosecutorial ethics violations. It could be that the book delay is delayed on COA request, but it could also be about something totally unrelated, like his schedule/time off for a book signing, etc.

I'm going to stick with my rose colored glasses and watch for COA denial postings...

It's possible the book release is delayed because JM is going to add something to the text and not edit something out or be under pressure not to release. It's just possible he has new information: either something he just figured out or....... stuff that's come up in a late 2015 investigation that speaks to his topic.

Even if there's no new information, JM is probably still writing the thing. An e-published book doesn't take much lead time at all. He could be writing until the very last minute. Plus, the publishing house might want to release it on the anniversary of Jodi digging her grave by taking the stand? The first day of cross?

Plus....how can a legal judgment be made about a book that is technically a draft? It's not even a book yet. It won't become a book until it's published. Until then, it's a work in progress: nothing is a done deal.... How could you possibly build a case against a draft of a book? Bwahaha! We've probably all broken the law in the drafting stage, done serious damage to someone else, let viciousness take the upper hand, made offensive comments about people who are different ....It's, well, duh, part of getting stuff out on paper.

 

[LinTX]

I hope you're right about the AG not investigating JM. You're definitely right that JM must have asked for and have been given permission to write the book. He certainly wasn't secretive about the fact he was writing it, and lo, it is still being published.

I'm not as sure as you that the AG isn't investigating JM related to what he included the book. He didn't write it in his capacity as a state prosecutor or attorney, but as a private citizen.

The killer's attorneys contacted the "County Attorney" to raise issues about a specific ethical violation, rather than making a complaint to the Bar. That's interesting.

There also was a veiled threat IMO included in the book motion , which stated that it was a professional breach of conduct inviting sanctions for an attorney to "collaborate" with the press before a trial in generating pre-trial publicity which could taint a jury.

That one was specifically directed at him in his capacity as attorney, unlike the "violation" of using discovery material for any purpose other than a trial.

I just don't see it. That section of the AG's office is pretty serious. JM wrote a book and the inmate doesn't like it - the COA is already handling that matter. Her attorneys are only guessing that there *might* be info in it that was sealed. Easy to settle - the COA can read it and determine fact. As for the record that the Superior Ct judge unsealed, that is going to an interesting legal decision IMO. The judge said it had nothing to do with her appeal. But again, COA will review & make a ruling - it's basically an authority question. But until they do, and there is a determination that there has even been any violation, why would the AG get involved in either of these issues? No this is some criminal matter that was committed during the trial or by someone connected in some way to it. It is also something that another LE agency wouldn't have the means to investigate, and serious enough for that section to look into it. JM's actions surrounding this book, or his use of info gained from the trial would be professional ethics concerns, not criminal fraud, money laundering, corruption of a state official, etc. - those are the types of crimes this section deals with.

eta: adding that it was interesting that the AG's office went to another Superior Court judge for this record, instead of JSS and that info surrounding the request and the record were sealed - may simply be who was available, but maybe not...

 

[geevee]

I just don't see it. That section of the AG's office is pretty serious. JM wrote a book and the inmate doesn't like it - the COA is already handling that matter. Her attorneys are only guessing that there *might* be info in it that was sealed. Easy to settle - the COA can read it and determine fact. As for the record that the Superior Ct judge unsealed, that is going to an interesting legal decision IMO. The judge said it had nothing to do with her appeal. But again, COA will review & make a ruling - it's basically an authority question. But until they do, and there is a determination that there has even been any violation, why would the AG get involved in either of these issues? No this is some criminal matter that was committed during the trial or by someone connected in some way to it. It is also something that another LE agency wouldn't have the means to investigate, and serious enough for that section to look into it. JM's actions surrounding this book, or his use of info gained from the trial would be professional ethics concerns, not criminal fraud, money laundering, corruption of a state official, etc. - those are the types of crimes this section deals with.

The sheriff was supposed to release JA's jail records after sentencing and then they were 'turned over to LE for investigation' (or words to that effect), I wonder if that could have anything to do with this investigation?

 

[samspace070]

I hope you're right about the AG not investigating JM. You're definitely right that JM must have asked for and have been given permission to write the book. He certainly wasn't secretive about the fact he was writing it, and lo, it is still being published.

I'm not as sure as you that the AG isn't investigating JM related to what he included the book. He didn't write it in his capacity as a state prosecutor or attorney, but as a private citizen.

The killer's attorneys contacted the "County Attorney" to raise issues about a specific ethical violation, rather than making a complaint to the Bar. That's interesting.

There also was a veiled threat IMO included in the book motion , which stated that it was a professional breach of conduct inviting sanctions for an attorney to "collaborate" with the press before a trial in generating pre-trial publicity which could taint a jury.

That one was specifically directed at him in his capacity as attorney, unlike the "violation" of using discovery material for any purpose other than a trial.

What about Nurmi going on social media (twitter) backing away from his favorite client saying he has nothing to do with her begging for money? You haven't seen Juan on twitter. Besides, other prosecutors have written books, Bugliosi, Chris Darden, Marcia Clark. and many others wrote about cases they had RIGHT after the trial. Even Casey Anthony's prosecutor wrote a book right after the trial. Willmont gave an interview right after sentencing and outright lied about any family members saying they saw bruising on CMJA. Either that or CMJA mother outright lied in her interview right after sentencing when she said her and her daughter both saw bruising.
I have been re-watching the trial coverage on youtube and I can't see Juan did anything wrong. I still don't understand the business about the shot coming first business with Det Flores and Dr Horn. But it doesn't make any difference, she still killed him three times over. The computer business was even more ridiculous. No one knew at that time on it would even matter in a vicious murder like this so there would be no reason for anyone to remove any of it if it was ever there. CMJA was telling her intruders story at that time. No pedo story or child story. But watching this evil person testify again was an eye opener. She made herself out to be a SAINT and Travis out to be a deranged deviant monster. That so called sex in her Church clothes after baptism was an outright LIE, and I don't believe anyone on that jury believed her.