Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #3

[Hope4More]

Lots happened in late 2009 and 2010. Here are a few of the court entries that I think had something to do with her decision as well as her opportunities to do so. Don't forget, someone had that phone for well over a year, almost two. I believe that MM, auntie Sue, or lil sis were a party to the cutting and splicing and then poof, it magically reappeared in grandpa's truck and was found by the same vitriolic aunt that spews JA's lies for her.
----------------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082009/m3843543.pdf
08/10/2009

"The Court has received and reviewed Counsel’s Motion to withdraw.
Based upon that review,
The Court finds there is sufficient cause to allow the attorney’s from the Office of the
Legal Defender to withdraw from representing the defendant."

"LET THE RECORD REFLECT a sealed minute entry will follow."
--------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082009/m3857149.pdf
08/18/2009

"LET THE RECORD REFLECT on August 10, 2009, this Court ordered that new
Counsel be appointed to represent the defendant.
IT IS ORDERED appointing Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi as Defense Counsel
for all further proceedings."
--------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092009/m3890661.pdf
09/17/2009

"The Court has received Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit the State from Viewing and/or
Accessing Jail Visitation Records."
--------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3907505.pdf
09/25/2009

"Argument is heard on Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit the State from Viewing and/or
Accessing Jail Visitation Records.
Based on the arguments presented,
IT IS ORDERED prohibiting the State or any member of the State’s staff from viewing
and/or accessing the jail visitation records. If the State wants to review the records, the State
shall submit them to the Court for an in camera inspection.
Discussion is held re: previous court order issued on 08/07/2009 regarding handwriting
exemplars from Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED affirming the previous ruling with respect to the handwriting exemplars
from Defendant."
----------------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042010/m4192866.pdf
04/22/2010

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office shall transport
Jodi Ann Arias, date of birth: 07/09/1980, booking number: P458434,to the Lions Vision Center
at 1016 North 32nd Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008, within 30 days of the date of this order, for
purposes of conducting an eye examination of the Defendant."
------------------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062010/m4262971.pdf
06/14/2010

"The Court has received State’s Motion to Preclude Letters Purportedly Written by Travis
Alexander to Defendant filed on 06/10/2010."
-------------------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062010/m4264901.pdf
06/15/2010

"The Court has received and considered Defendant’s Request for Extension of Time Limit
to Respond to the State’s Motion to Preclude Letters Purportedly Written By Travis Alexander to
Defendant and Request for Evidentiary Hearing.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Request for Extension of Time."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the cites. I forgot who said a long time ago that JM may have initially dropped the ball on examining the Helio, but I think that poster may have been correct.

I'm thinking its possible the killer didn't tell her DT about the Helio for a long while out of concern it would be obvious she'd edited the May 10 call and had sent the May 2 text to herself, and that in 2010 she decided to risk it because she needed to produce "evidence" in support of her vicious pedo lie.

I hope JM includes in his book a long discussion of all the "evidence" against Travis he believes she manipulated or flat out created herself.

 

[Hope4More]

Lol, I really should read up to current before I reply since I referred to this just before I read this but I did find my note on when she claimed to have seen the show.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 Vol.7 P.30-33.

Said she was excited to meet Sam Schultz, he didn't make it out on Friday. Took her forever to get on the road to Vegas and that TA had given her a hard time about it. They were supposed to go for pizza on the Saturday but she had flaked and gone to Vegas instead and saw and enjoyed the show Zumanity. Said her and TA rescheduled the pizza and that her and Sam might get together that week.

Didn't she write that she blew off pizza with Travis date because it sounded boring? She sure didn't have the $$ to pay her own way for an overnight trip to Vegas and the Zumanity show. Guest of Gus, methinks?

 

[Val1]

Didn't she write that she blew off pizza with Travis date because it sounded boring? She sure didn't have the $$ to pay her own way for an overnight trip to Vegas and the Zumanity show. Guest of Gus, methinks?

Yet GS said he'd only met her twice outside of business events, though I can't recall if this is the same time that she stayed with him... argh my memory has been so sporadic lately. Anyway, it's possible Sam Schultz took her to the show on a "real" date. He was one of the LDS hookups wasn't he?

 

[Hope4More]

I apologize if this has already been posted.

The COA denied 2 motions on Dec 3.

1. Denied the State's motion to seal their previous motion requesting access to trial docs unrelated to the killer's appeals.

2. Denied the killer's motion to prevent the State from having access to any sealed trial docs.


So...maybe we're going to find out just what/who Paul Ahler is investigating?

 

[b_lab7410]

What's even more telling is that she never even mentioned anything about what appears to be a bloody person in the picture. A normal/innocent person would say: OMG! Is that Travis? What's happening to him?

She never mentioned Travis AT ALL, I'm watching this horror show, I only got up to video 8 thus far, both detectives have pointed out that she never even mentions Travis unless they do. There is never any display of grief. In fact, whenever she refers to him in those moments, she complains about him and how he never gave her time of day (contradicting herself moments later with how he would always call/text/worship princess).

 

[LinTX]

I apologize if this has already been posted.

The COA denied 2 motions on Dec 3.

1. Denied the State's motion to seal their previous motion requesting access to trial docs unrelated to the killer's appeals.

2. Denied the killer's motion to prevent the State from having access to any sealed trial docs.


So...maybe we're going to find out just what/who Paul Ahler is investigating?

From the ruling:

IT IS ORDERED denying the state's motion to file documents under seal and directing the state to retrieve the tendered documents from the clerk of this court no later than 5:00 p.m., December 9, 2015

It seems the COA gave the state time to remove the sealed doc from the COA's clerk before the ruling was posted. Since the motion was records were sealed while @ the clerk's office, and is now removed, it's still confidential. I think....:thinking:

They denied JA's attempt to block the AG's right to the record too, so I'm thinking it's a win for the state all around.

 

[Hope4More]

From the ruling:



It seems the COA gave the state time to remove the sealed doc from the COA's clerk before the ruling was posted. Since the motion was sealed while @ the clerk's office, and is now removed, it's still confidential. I think....:thinking:

They denied JA's attempt to block the AG's right to the record too, so I'm thinking it's a win for the state all around.

You always have a much better sense of what these rulings mean.

I don't understand what you're saying about the State being able to remove their sealed motion. They entered a motion, gained access to the records they wanted, the COA ruled their motion to gain access couldn't be sealed. Are you saying the State can now simply withdraw their motion, after the fact?

 

[LinTX]

You always have a much better sense of what these rulings mean.

I don't understand what you're saying about the State being able to remove their sealed motion. They entered a motion, gained access to the records they wanted, the COA ruled their motion to gain access couldn't be sealed. Are you saying the State can now simply withdraw their motion, after the fact?

No, the motion won't be removed but it doesn't identify the records. The state, in addition to what they got from Superior Ct (sealed), also filed the sealed records with the COA in order to show they were unrelated to the appeal. They are being allowed to remove them from the COA's clerk. They basically enforced the Superior Ct's order to allow the AG's right to the records and the Superior Ct's seal.

eta: I see that I did say the motion would remain sealed in my earlier post, but I meant the sealed records that were submitted along with it.

 

[RickshawFan]

Aww.. thank you. :blushing: Reading/comprehension is easy. Speaking is ok, writing is hard because I'm self conscious about grammatical errors which I make a lot of. Plus I have to think more to put down in words. Remember ALV's famous saying '90% of communication is non-verbal'? It's so true in my case. JM loved that quote too.

Hear it from an expert! You do not make a lot of grammatical errors! Many people have to think quite a bit before getting their thoughts into writing. I would reckon you're somewhere in the 90th percentile of native English writers!!!!!!

 

[RickshawFan]

----------------------------------------

"The Court has received Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit the State from Viewing and/or
Accessing Jail Visitation Records."
--------------------------------
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3907505.pdf
09/25/2009

"Argument is heard on Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit the State from Viewing and/or
Accessing Jail Visitation Records.
Based on the arguments presented,
IT IS ORDERED prohibiting the State or any member of the State’s staff from viewing
and/or accessing the jail visitation records. If the State wants to review the records, the State
shall submit them to the Court for an in camera inspection.
Discussion is held re: previous court order issued on 08/07/2009 regarding handwriting
exemplars from Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED affirming the previous ruling with respect to the handwriting exemplars
from Defendant."

I don't get it. The State can't see Jodi's jail visitation records? Huh? These are used for monitoring prisoners, for gosh sake! There are many individuals who aren't even allowed to visit prisoners (see, e.g., the Perryville specs regarding who may or may not get privileges). I can see where attorney visits should be a matter of privacy, but if the state is already entitled to a prisoner's visitation records in the capacity of the DOC, how could the state not be allowed to view them?

Also, what does it mean in practical terms to say that the visitation records can be submitted by the state for in camera (chambers, presumably) inspection, although the state is not allowed to view them?

I'm guessing this motion came about because JM got into her jail visitation records? Was this when he "just happened to be there" and the magazine was confiscated? Or was that later? The magazine was one that ALV gave her?

 

[Hope4More]

I don't get it. The State can't see Jodi's jail visitation records? Huh? These are used for monitoring prisoners, for gosh sake! There are many individuals who aren't even allowed to visit prisoners (see, e.g., the Perryville specs regarding who may or may not get privileges). I can see where attorney visits should be a matter of privacy, but if the state is already entitled to a prisoner's visitation records in the capacity of the DOC, how could the state not be allowed to view them?

Also, what does it mean in practical terms to say that the visitation records can be submitted by the state for in camera (chambers, presumably) inspection, although the state is not allowed to view them?

I'm guessing this motion came about because JM got into her jail visitation records? Was this when he "just happened to be there" and the magazine was confiscated? Or was that later? The magazine was one that ALV gave her?

How odd. The State investigates, charges, arrests, jails, and puts the killer on trial, and.....is not allowed to know who visits her in jail?

 

[Hope4More]

No, the motion won't be removed but it doesn't identify the records. The state, in addition to what they got from Superior Ct (sealed), also filed the sealed records with the COA in order to show they were unrelated to the appeal. They are being allowed to remove them from the COA's clerk. They basically enforced the Superior Ct's order to allow the AG's right to the records and the Superior Ct's seal.

eta: I see that I did say the motion would remain sealed in my earlier post, but I meant the sealed records that were submitted along with it.

I don't know what possessed me to imagine we might actually be allowed to see public records. Silly me.

Back on go the seals of the sealed of the sealed of the sealed.

 

[T-4-2]

* Why was her backpack an issue in the first place? I mean if she wants to lug all that stuff around, why not let her?

Afterall, it's her backpack, right? And it would be good exercise for her. And good experience for next time.

The Backpack Business was all very weird. IIRC, Jodi was irked because Dan, behaving in a way normal humans don't behave, noticed her pack was heavy, opened it to see what was in it, decided she didn't need the lotion/cosmetics/whatever, and removed the stuff he deemed unnecessary. Frankly I'd have been irked too. I wouldn't have stomped upstairs in a huff and gotten in a fight about it... but I would never have socialized with Dan again. It's just a really strange thing for him to have done.

Also weird is the extent to which Jodi seems to want to look like Desiree:

 

[RickshawFan]

The Backpack Business was all very weird. IIRC, Jodi was irked because Dan, behaving in a way normal humans don't behave, noticed her pack was heavy, opened it to see what was in it, decided she didn't need the lotion/cosmetics/whatever, and removed the stuff he deemed unnecessary. Frankly I'd have been irked too. I wouldn't have stomped upstairs in a huff and gotten in a fight about it... but I would never have socialized with Dan again. It's just a really strange thing for him to have done.

I don't think what Dan F did with the backpack was necessarily strange, although I agree that there is a certain crossing of boundaries here. We don't know, but Jodi may already have been complaining about the weight. Jodi might have asked him to check it out and then he took it upon himself to tell her not to take certain items.

Jodi might have (probably did) said that she was unable to carry certain items that she was obligated to carry (like lunch and water).

In other words, there may have been context for Dan F's behavior that really didn't matter in the trial. Not that I don't think the Freemans aren't squirrel-y, but there was probably a lot of drama going on that contributed to the shampoo-removal event.

For reasons I've listed a few posts back, Jodi should absolutely not have been going on a hike, let alone into a canyon with all that stuff. She was putting 3 others at risk. They could have told her not to come on the trail, but they might not have thought of that. If she'd shown up at a trailhead like that with a group I was leading, I would not have allowed her to participate. If she was acting up even before the pack weight became an issue, I would have left her behind on that account as well..

And Jodi was irked because Jodi was irked. She's like that.

 

[T-4-2]

I don't think what Dan F did with the backpack was necessarily strange, although I agree that there is a certain crossing of boundaries here. We don't know, but Jodi may already have been complaining about the weight. Jodi might have asked him to check it out and then he took it upon himself to tell her not to take certain items.

Jodi might have (probably did) said that she was unable to carry certain items that she was obligated to carry (like lunch and water).

In other words, there may have been context for Dan F's behavior that really didn't matter in the trial. Not that I don't think the Freemans aren't squirrel-y, but there was probably a lot of drama going on that contributed to the shampoo-removal event.

For reasons I've listed a few posts back, Jodi should absolutely not have been going on a hike, let alone into a canyon with all that stuff. She was putting 3 others at risk. They could have told her not to come on the trail, but they might not have thought of that. If she'd shown up at a trailhead like that with a group I was leading, I would not have allowed her to participate. If she was acting up even before the pack weight became an issue, I would have left her behind on that account as well..

And Jodi was irked because Jodi was irked. She's like that.

Sorry, missed your previous post.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Lol, I really should read up to current before I reply since I referred to this just before I read this but I did find my note on when she claimed to have seen the show.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 Vol.7 P.30-33.

Said she was excited to meet Sam Schultz, he didn't make it out on Friday. Took her forever to get on the road to Vegas and that TA had given her a hard time about it. They were supposed to go for pizza on the Saturday but she had flaked and gone to Vegas instead and saw and enjoyed the show Zumanity. Said her and TA rescheduled the pizza and that her and Sam might get together that week.

Thanks Val. Once again, she's a lying Liar. Ticket prices are/were expensive to any of the shows, and unless she was hooking it hard, no way she could have afforded it. Maybe Gus took her. LMAO

 

[pocketaccent]

Regarding backpack-havasupie

[video=youtube;HTpvEnF4ubA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTpvEnF4ubA[/video]

Watch from 29:15 to 32:00

JA shoved 10-15 lbs of her beauty products into Daniel's backpack. And Daniel took them out because they were planning to hike 13 miles and he didn't want to carry them.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Didn't she write that she blew off pizza with Travis date because it sounded boring? She sure didn't have the $$ to pay her own way for an overnight trip to Vegas and the Zumanity show. Guest of Gus, methinks?

OMG, I just read your post, and our minds run the same route sometimes. I replied to Val before I read yours. Poor old Gus, he probably wined her, dined her, took her to an erotic show then back to his OLD motorhome for well um ... I don't want to think about it. :saythat: Was Travis in Vegas, or Mesa at the time I wonder?

 

[samspace070]

My recollection is that the Freemans were defense witnesses. They went with Jodi and Travis on a day trip to Lake Havasupai. They were called to testify, if I am remembering right, because JA and TA had a big fight before they left the house because JA had too much stuff in her backpack. My impression was that the defense wanted to show supposedly how angry and controlling TA was. My further impression was that the Freemans believed they were testifying truthfully and that's all they wanted to do -- I don't remember them as being Jodi supporters but I may well be wrong about that. They were undoubtedly the only ones who were willing to testify about anything related to TA and JA's relationship which meant Nurmi had to go with them even though they were pretty weak witnesses. JMO



Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

I just re-watched the testimony of both Freemans and Dan was as much a prosecution witness as he was a defense witness, both Freemans lied but Dan came around when JM went at him and he contradicted his sister a number of times on key points. She was made to look like the liar she was and it was done by her own brother. Neither did the killer any good.

 

[Hope4More]

Odds and ends.

Haven't posted this before, but the April -May texts make pretty clear that Travis thought it very possible he would lose his leadership position within PPL. Chris Hughes didn't disagree with this expressed fear- he told Travis that Travis needed to make the right friends and allies within PPL, stat. This was at the end of April, 2008.

Travis wrote in his journal of that time that he was heartedly tired of PPL politics. He began missing conference calls, skipping out on PPL events, falling behind on meeting PPL quotas.

He told Deanna he had finally found a new calling. I think he was referring to writing. Writing his blog, writing his book. He wanted to inspire others, and in the last few weeks of his life has become quite introspective and focused on that task.