SIDEBAR #25- Arias/Alexander forum

[Love Never Fails]

A little more info:

A Minute Entry was posted this morning on the 7/30 hearing:

While the deposition witness is not named, the initials D.R. are used.

There are two oral argument hearings listed on the docket for 8/4 (Monday), one at 11:00 and one at 2:30, the minute entry mentions the 11:00 hearing and says it'll be sealed.

The M.E. also mentions the status conference is still on for today at 1:30.

Minute Entry:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082014/m6417640.pdf

Thanks Geevee. If you have any information of hearing today, please let us know. Wonder who DR is?
Also wonder what the exhibit is? Hmmm.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Good morning everyone. I got my new Acer tablet from Amazon today. Seems to be user friendly and fast. Much lighter than iPad. Will see how it goes or return it for a samsung tablet. Wish me luck! Have a great day.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Geevee, if I remember correctly, DR is a defense witness who does not want to be deposed. So I wonder if that person doesn't want to go before Juan or has maybe changed their mind? Or is being called against their will? Is that possible?

 

[geevee]

Thanks Geevee. If you have any information of hearing today, please let us know. Wonder who DR is?
Also wonder what the exhibit is? Hmmm.

I can't tell what the exhibit is either, there is reference to it in the 7/11 minute entry:

"Defendant's Exhibit 1 is marked for identification" (and then it was 'admitted by the Court' on 7/30).

That's all the info about it I see.

No idea who D.R. is but the request for deposition is from the defendant.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I can't tell what the exhibit is either, there is reference to it in the 7/11 minute entry:

"Defendant's Exhibit 1 is marked for identification" (and then it was 'admitted by the Court' on 7/30).

That's all the info about it I see.

No idea who D.R. is but the request for deposition is from the defendant.

So it is a defense exhibit. Is it possible it is something excluded from the first trial? Would that even be permissible?

I knew the defense wanted this person deposed so why would this person object...unless he/she isn't willing to go on record. Or maybe this witness needs to be deposed if they have a terminal illness, something like that?

 

[Love Never Fails]

I am in Eastern Time so I am guessing the hearing is starting about now? Any news?

 

[Kensie]

There was another status meeting, is that correct? Good grief they meet all the time and nothing seems to get resolved - except at least now we have the new court date.

Hope everyone is doing great.

 

[Love Never Fails]

There was another status meeting, is that correct? Good grief they meet all the time and nothing seems to get resolved - except at least now we have the new court date.

Hope everyone is doing great.

Kensie, I just read on HLNTv.com that the hearing is at 1 PM EST. Both sides are to argue whether cameras should be allowed in courtroom during trial but I don't know if JSS will give a final decision just yet. Also, they will argue whether the investigation into Maria DeLaRosa will be entered into evidence. Boy I hope so! If you hear anything, please let us kow.

 

[YESorNO]

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 2h
#Jodiarias has a hearing today at 1:30pm MST. I'm heading over to see if I can get in again. It may be a miracle if open!

Jen's Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ · 2h
Hearing is closed so I'm not going. But Monday I will be there #jodiarias

https://twitter.com/TrialDiariesJ

 

[Kensie]

Just take the killer to the Big House already - enough of these field trips.

 

[YESorNO]

This is a pic of her from Wednesday. (Source: CBS 5 News)

http://www.kpho.com/story/26156429/jodi-arias-back-in-court-wearing-prison-jumpsuit

 

[Kensie]

She does not look good. Acne on her face and she looks extremely thin. I bet she is getting gaunt looking for the new jury.
I see a few gray hairs too.

 

[YESorNO]

"...According to the July 2014 ruling, Dippolito argued that the trial court “erred by denying her request to individually question prospective jurors about their exposure to pretrial publicity about her case and by denying her request to strike the entire jury venire after all the jurors heard an allegation that appellant had attempted to poison the victim in this case.”

The district court agreed with Dippolito’s argument and ordered a new trial...."

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/court-orders-new-trial-dalia-dippolito-n168886

I just hope that missy :jail: doesn't pull this baloney after the retrial. :scared:

 

[YESorNO]

btw Houston Chronicle has a new Jodi article up about her art and the legal aspects of that situation... With a bunch of filler. LINK TO ARTICLE

You need a subscription to view:

Convicted murderer Jodi Arias expresses herself through art

By Ken Hoffman

July 30, 2014 | Updated: July 30, 2014 3:14pm

"Convicted murderer Jodi Arias, prisoner No. 438434, spends 23 hours a day in a 7-by-11-foot cell in Estrella Jail in Phoenix.
Jodi Arias was found guilty of first-degree murder and is awaiting sentencing.

Convicted murderer Jodi Arias, prisoner No. 438434, spends 23 hours a day in a 7-by-11-foot cell in Estrella Jail in Phoenix.

She rests on a thin mattress on the bottom of two beds that jut from a cinderblock wall. Or she sits on a stool at a small metal table attached to another wall. She exercises, reads and draws, always by herself, in solitary confinement.

She doesn't have a computer, personal cellphone, radio or television. She eats, sleeps and goes to the bathroom in her cell, always being watched by authorities. Her cell has a window, but it's covered with a metal grate.

She is allowed one hour outside the cell each day. She is taken to a large room where she showers, greets visitors or talks on the phone. The conversations are monitored.
And she is running a business.

She sells her jailhouse drawings on a website, **************.

I know law-abiding people who are struggling to keep their business in the black, and they're in the store practically as many hours as Arias is confined to her cell.
How does a prisoner in solitary confinement operate a business?

Arias is in jail because she savagely murdered her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, in 2008. Her case had everything HLN - which turned into the All Jodi Arias Network during her trial last year - could want. There was a woman scorned, a handsome young victim, jealousy, rage, lust and sex.
And murder.

In September, another jury will decide her punishment. Arias will get either life in prison or the death penalty. She has asked that her life be spared.
And while Arias waits for her fate, she produces more drawings for sale.

Several months ago, I contacted Arias at Estrella Jail and asked if she'd cooperate with me writing a column about her art - and the business of selling her art - while in jail convicted of first-degree murder.

Her answer: "A story about my artwork (for a change) and not my case? I'm SO on board!"

I do not mean to glamorize Arias or boost her sales. I'm only curious - how does this notorious murderer run a business from jail? And how is it allowed to go on?
I sent Arias questions on post cards, to the jail's address. She is allowed to receive post cards, but not sealed letters. She can mail out letters. She prints. She signs her name "Jodi Ann Arias."
I corresponded with Arias six times in the past few months. At first, she limited my questions to her art. Arias set only one condition - she doesn't want photos of her letters in the newspaper.
Later, she said I could ask "more questions," and, "if things work out, I'd be open to the possibility of working with you again in the future."
I stuck to her art.

First thing I asked her - is this legal? Are you allowed to keep money from the sale of your drawings?

Arias said she gives her drawings to an "art administrator" who manages her website. She said she doesn't keep any of the money from the sales.
"The money goes to other causes, including charity. Some goes to my family, who is struggling badly like so many. There is a mistaken belief that me selling my art is somehow unethical or unlawful. That's false. Everything I do with regard to my art is well within the law," Arias wrote.

"As for ethics, were it unethical for convicted people to lawfully earn money, there would be no employment opportunities within the nation's prisons. I was an artist for decades before I derailed my life. I had a business, Jodi Arias Fine Art & Photography, now defunct. What I do now is the same concept. Marketing my art is completely lawful and not connected with the deeply regrettable things I've done."

Arizona officials confirm that Arias is not violating any state law by selling her artwork online.

"Inmate Arias is allowed to have pencils and paper. If she wants to draw and give those drawings - we call that 'release her property' - to a third party, she is allowed to do that," said Lt. Brandon Jones of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which operates Estrella Jail. "She can mail it or give it to a visitor. She doesn't have access to the Internet, but the person she releases her property to can sell it on the Internet."

Currently offered on her website are nine prints ($25 to $50), four original drawings in colored pencil on cardboard ($1,100 to $1,800) and three oil paintings on canvas ($7,000 to $9,000).
Critics and victims' rights advocates say it's ghoulish for murderers in prison to sell artwork or write books, or get paid for interviews. They call the business "murderabilia."
It is possible that the value of Arias' art will go up if she gets the death penalty.

Arias described her drawing style as "predominantly realism with occasional touches of surrealism and the abstract. I've dabbled a little in impressionism. I draw mostly to express myself, which also serves as a release. I generally focus on creating pieces that are stirring, soothing or symbolic to me. Most of my work is self-expressive."

Arias is not allowed to have any paint in her cell, so she draws in graphite and colored pencils. The oil paintings were done before she went to jail in 2008.

"The colored pencils are adequate, but far from ideal. Five years ago, I tried to create paints with water soluble colored pencils but I had no success. Besides, I have no brushes," she wrote.
It takes Arias seven to 12 hours over several days, sometimes weeks, to complete a drawing.

"I have a rigid schedule. It's up to me to structure my day. To be able to draw, both opportunity and inspiration need to be present. I've slowed down. With trial looming, my focus needs to be there. But if I go too long without drawing, the desire to visually express ideas on paper becomes almost a need."

Arias said lights out is "2300" (11 p.m.). She has a night light in her cell. It's bright enough to read and write by, but she doesn't draw after bedtime.
She is not allowed to put drawings on her cell wall - jail rules.

"Last year, one of my drawings was confiscated because it was in another girl's cell, which isn't allowed," she said.
Arias also claimed that "scammers" are selling counterfeit drawings with her forged signature. She authenticates her pieces with a thumbprint on the back. I asked how she does a thumbprint.
"I used to use mascara, now I use an ink pad," she said."

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/lif...r-Jodi-Arias-expresses-herself-5657264.php#/0

So- some of the money is going to her family??? How is that right and within the law?

She had a business? Who knew.

 

[YESorNO]

( Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 4h
Picture of #JodiArias in court today. Her sentencing retrial date was confirmed. Jury selection begins Sept. 8th. pic.twitter.com/ESrPQ36U8a)

7/30 court session:

 

[YESorNO]

I did want to make one other comment about this, Maria being her tweeter makes sense logistic-wise, until the pin wheel incident she's apparently had easy access and private conversations with JA but isn't that unethical behavior on Maria's part? From everything I've read*, their job is to dig up information that shows the defendant deserves to have their life spared in a capital murder case, since they are hired by the public defender's office and paid with taxpayer dollars it seems there should be oversight into what they can and cannot do. And it also makes a mockery of the defense complaining about JA's tweets when/if it was their own mitigation specialist posting those tweets. I just think this deserves some looking into.

*Cites:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/...cle_de2f6852-cacc-544b-8ae0-2db3f9bd21f7.html

http://www.arizonamitigation.com/what-is-a-mitigation-specialist/

From the first article, the mit. specialist, Unklesbay, makes a lot of sense, IMO:

"..."It should not be surprising that people who commit criminal acts didn't have a good childhood," Unklesbay said. "There comes a point, though, when they have to take responsibility for their actions. There are a lot of people who have gone through some difficult times in life and didn't become killers..."

-except there is nothing in missy's :jail: childhood, that was proven- by anyone, that she had a bad childhood. Where are the family supporters and why aren't they talking? JM would crucify them, that's why, IMO. I would just love to see someone from her family just try to defend the lie of a terrible childhood. Getting hit by a wooden spoon is just ridiculous, IMO (my mother use to use a broom on my brother and a spoon on the girls- we didn't consider it abuse at the time and I still don't!). Unbelievable that a "bad" childhood would be a mitigation in missy's :jail: case and that those 4 jurors believed it!
This mitigation stuff has me very upset in this case.
------------------------------------------------

The jury in missy's case could not reach a unanimous decision on sentencing because some jurors could not get past certain mitigating factors.
Some jurors (4) looked at some of the mitigating factors - that missy had been abused - they felt that she had been abused by Travis and as a child- that they didn't feel she had the best family life. Where is the proof, again I say. It's only missy who claims she didn't have a "best" family life.She's a liar! How can they believe anything she says?
Those jurors felt that those mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors. That was the biggest concern for them and I feel they were duped by missy, Nurmi, and Wilmott, IMO.

WEIGHING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

"...Five state statutes (Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming) and both federal death penalty statutes specify that mitigating circumstances must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In Alabama, when the factual existence of a mitigating circumstance is in dispute, the defendant must present competent evidence on the mitigating circumstance but the state must disprove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In New Jersey, the defendant must produce evidence of the mitigating circumstance but he does not have the burden of establishing it. In Ohio, the defendant has the burden of going forward. In some states (like New Hampshire and New York) and both federal death penalty laws, an individual juror can determine whether a mitigating circumstance exists and can consider it regardless of how many other jurors believe it is established. Colorado's statute specifies that there is no burden to prove or disprove a mitigating circumstance....

Sufficiency of Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances

..Seven other states require the jury to consider whether mitigating circumstances call for a sentence other than the death penalty.
1. In Arizona, the jury can impose a death sentence if it finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances 'sufficiently substantial to call for leniency'..."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0488.htm

Capital Punishment in Arizona

"....The decision to present evidence to the court in aggravation is the sole responsibility of the prosecutor. The admissibility of evidence in support of the aggravating circumstances is governed by the rules of evidence. Evidence in mitigation may be offered by the defense or the State regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence. Once the prosecution has presented evidence supporting aggravating circumstances and either side has presented mitigating circumstances, the court decides whether to impose the death penalty, regardless of the views of the prosecutors...
If the court determines that the State has proven at least one of the ten aggravating circumstancesbeyond a reasonable doubt it next turns to deciding the existence of mitigating circumstances.
This determination includes any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any circumstances of the offense, including but not limited to, the following factors listed in A.R.S. §
13-703(G):

1. The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform
his conduct to the requirement of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as
to constitute a defense to prosecution;

2. The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such as to
constitute a defense to prosecution;

3. The defendant was legally accountable for the conduct of another under the provisions
of § 13-303, but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to
constitute a defense to prosecution;

4. The defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of the
commission of the offense for which the defendant was convicted would cause, or
would create a grave risk of causing death to another person; and

5. The defendant’s age...

...If the trial court decides that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances, and that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, the court shall impose the sentence of death...

https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/sites/all/docs/Criminal/ccc/section2.PDF

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Arizona):

"Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-751, each death sentence must rest on two findings: proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least one aggravating circumstance set forth in A.R.S. § 13-751(F), and a finding “that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” A.R.S. § 13-751(E). Mitigation is defined by our statute as evidence relevant to “any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.”...

Statutory & Non-Statutory Factors

Relevant Mitigation:

...While not specifically defined, the Court has indicated that matters bearing on a defendant’s “character” or “record,” or concerning the “circumstances of the offense” are relevant and cannot be taken out the realm of sentencing consideration...

Instructions: There is no federal constitutional obligation to instruct the jury on how to consider mitigating evidence in light of aggravating evidence, or whether the jury should consider particular mitigating factors. Thus, for example, it is permissible to tell the jury to make its sentencing decision based upon “all the evidence,” without further instruction...
Argument & Causal Nexus: It is not improper to allow the State to argue that there is no causal relationship between the mitigation and the crime....
(“We do not require that a [causal] nexus between the mitigating factors and the crime be established before we consider the mitigation evidence. But the failure to establish such a causal connection may be considered in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation.”)

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/crtproj/capsentguid/mitintro.htm

(continuing Ariz. Law):

Character/Personality Disorders: A character or personality disorder usually does not qualify as an impairment under the meaning of the statute. Richmond I; State v. Kayer, 194 Ariz. 423, 984 P.2d 31 (1999). However, evidence of a character or personality disorder should be evaluated to determine if it is mitigating in some other way and should be given some independent mitigating weight. State v. McMurtrey (McMurtrey I), 136 Ariz. 93, 664 P.2d 637 (1983). At times, the Court has found the distinction between personality disorders and mental impairments important, noting that mental impairments have a far greater mitigating effect because they may evidence an inability of the defendant to control his conduct. Brewer, supra

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Intro.htm

MENTAL IMPAIRMENT

Some other trials and rulings on mental impairment:

"State v. McMurtrey (McMurtrey I), 136 Ariz. 93, 664 P.2d 637 (1983)
...It found that the defendant had an antisocial personality. The trial court concluded that because such kinds of character defects are not mitigating under Arizona law, no further evaluation of that evidence took place...

State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 694 P.2d 222 (1985)

The defendant offered credible evidence that he was mentally impaired at the time of the murder. In contrast, the prosecution offered equally credible rebuttal evidence that although the defendant suffered some mental impairment, it was not significant enough to be a mitigating circumstance. The defendant's evidence did not outweigh the prosecution's evidence. The Court stated that it did not find this to be a mitigating factor."

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Mental1.htm

"State v. Gerlaugh (Gerlaugh II), 144 Ariz. 449, 698 P.2d 694 (1985)
... The existence of a mere character or personality disorder like sociopathy is not alone sufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance. This kind of evidence should be considered by the trial judge because it may suggest some reason other than the nature of the disorder why the defendant should receive some leniency, such as a difficult family history. The trial judge may refuse to find a mitigating circumstance so long as he considers this evidence.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/G1Mental2.htm

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(1) -IMPAIRMENT
MENTAL
DRUGS / ALCOHOL

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(2) -DURESS

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(3) -MINOR PARTICIPATION

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(4) -VICTIM'S DEATH NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

A.R.S.§13-751(G)(5) -AGE

NON-STATUTORY

-COOPERATION

-LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY

-DIFFICULT CHILDHOOD/FAMILY HISTORY (Relevance/“Causal Link”: A difficult family background may be a mitigating circumstance in determining whether a death sentence is appropriate. But a difficult family background, including child abuse, is not necessarily relevant without a showing that it affected the defendant’s conduct in committing the crime. State v. Sansing, 206 Ariz. 232, 77 P.3d 70 (2003) (where there was no “causal link” between troubled childhood and crime, this circumstance given “minimal weight”)

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/CHILDHOODFAMILY.aspx

-EMPLOYMENT HISTORY/MILITARY SERVICE

-FAMILY TIES ([This category contains cases where the defendant argues that his current love of family and his family members' love for him is mitigating. It also contains arguments regarding the adverse effect the defendant's execution would have on a family member. One case argues the concern of friends, see State v. Michael Apelt, and in another case the defendant argued that the domestic nature of the murder ought to be mitigating. See State v. Kiles. For discussions of the impact of the defendant's family background and childhood on the defendant, see difficult childhood/family history section.]

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/FAMILYTIES.aspx

-FELONY MURDER/LACK OF INTENT
-FOLLOWER
-GOOD CHARACTER
-INTELLIGENCE/EDUCATION
-LIFE SENTENCE AVAILABLE
-MEDICAL PROBLEMS
-MODEL PRISONER
-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LENIENCY
-REHABILITATION
-REMORSE / GRIEF
-RESIDUAL DOUBT/INNOCENCE
-SENTENCING DISPARITY
-STRESS
-VICTIM'S ACTIONS
-MISCELLANEOUS (This is a catch-all category for cases that do not fit within the other categories. It appears that the arguments presented here were only presented in that particular case and have not been repeated in other cases. Some of these arguments are specific to the particular case. Others argue more generally about the cost or efficacy of the death penalty.]--

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/MitigatingCircumstances/MISCELLANEOUS.aspx

IMPAIRMENT
NOT A FUTURE DANGER

http://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/TableofContents.aspx

----------------
“Capital Sentencing in Arizona A “Weighing State” in Name Only

"When does juror “weighing” of factors mean less than meets the eye?
In the sphere of Arizona capital sentencing, a sphere where state courts must
instruct jurors that they must “assess” if death is the appropriate penalty, but not
instruct that jurors should “find” that mitigation “outweighs” aggravation. So they
must assess without finding any facts.

Confused? Imagine how the jurors feel....

...But if Arizona is such a firmly entrenched weighing state, why then has the Arizona
Supreme Court ruled that juries should be not be misled into believing that their function is
to “weigh” mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding whether to impose life or
death?...

...“a state death penalty statute may [constitutionally] place the burden on the defendant to
prove that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumcumstances."

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/0706Capital.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
- No previous criminal record: although she was convicted of a violent crime, nothing in her criminal record reveals a tendency toward the kind of violent crime for which she has been convicted- so maybe one factor?

-Remorse: may be a mitigating factor if found to exist- none for missy here.

-Family Ties: negative impact that the defendant’s execution would have on her family was a mitigating factor, but I thought she said that she had an abusive childhood (remember the "spoon") and/ or a dysfunctional family background and no one in her family cares about her-so she says?

Again-to what degree did missy suffer as a child and what is the strength of a connection between this mitigating factor and the crime in assessing the quality and strength of this mitigation evidence? Pftt, again- I say to this because where's the proof? Unless someone in her family or some friends come forth, there is nothing here to mitigate , IMO.

-Mental Illness or Impairment: she's supposed to be an Einstein, so she's not impaired and
she did not have a serious (or any recognizable) personality disorder at the time of the
murder of Travis.

-Age- she was neither very young nor very old, IMO.

New mitigations? Still can't think of any for her.

She needs to put in a cell with pictures of what she did to Travis, so that she has to look at her "handi-work" each and everyday of her miserable life- or what's left of it, IMO.

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

 

[Love Never Fails]

( Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 4h
Picture of #JodiArias in court today. Her sentencing retrial date was confirmed. Jury selection begins Sept. 8th. pic.twitter.com/ESrPQ36U8a)

7/30 court session:

I hope she realizes now the horrendous thing she did and what it is going to cost her.

 

[YESorNO]

Oh, it must be FYI:, the rebuttal witness:

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-dr-jill-hayes-last-witness-for-the-prosecution/

Here's Dr. Hayes on YTube (had to refresh my memory- it's been so long):

[video=youtube;F_8LXHLtNoc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8LXHLtNoc[/video]

 

[geevee]

Here's Dr. Hayes on YTube (had to refresh my memory- it's been so long):

[video=youtube;F_8LXHLtNoc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8LXHLtNoc[/video]

How do you get the YT box to come up? I tried the 'share' link and it still just pastes the link, I've tried the 'insert video' but that box is so wide I can't get to an OK or anything to close it.

 

[YESorNO]

To the best of my recollection the threat towards JM came through a cellmate of JA's, that lady with her hair in pigtails doing interviews? I don't remember a specific tweet threatening JM but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, my memory is getting mighty holey these days. lol

Here's a YTube on Cassandra Collins- the woman with the pigtails- who lived with missy:jail:

"...The former cellmate, Cassandra Collins, told media sources that the 33-year-old Arias also had a strange infatuation with Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Juan Martinez — and asked why the lawyer didn't love her.

"She asked me questions like, 'Why doesn't Juan Martinez love me?'" Collins told the news station. "And I'm like, 'Love you? He's your prosecutor. He's there to prosecute you for a crime.'"

"She said that if she was given the death sentence, she wanted to get her revenge," Collins said. "She knows inmates on the outs to do a mafia bow tie...cut his throat."

The ex-con claimed she wanted to speak out because she really felt that Martinez could be in danger. "I really think she would try to hurt someone," Collins said..."

[video=youtube;IfFQNrEX6Pk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFQNrEX6Pk[/video]

Your memory is fine, geevee. :loveyou: