weekend break: discuss the latest here #123

[moonshyne]

Great post. I agree.

Caught a snippet today I'd forgotten where she asks about a polygraph. "How could that help me?" Flores says it can't be used in court.

She quickly says "oh well, no point in doing it, then."

She was never taking a polygraph.

Yep, that was a classic Jodi "snake in the grass" tactic. She thinks she's soo smart. It didn't occur to her at all how blatantly obvious her sneakiness was just in that one exchange, let alone countless others. Acts like she had nooo idea polygraphs are inadmissable followed by a quick - too quick - "ah well just forget it then". This vile, evil, conniving creature needs to be put down ASAP. I hope her case is a precedent for future "Jodi's" who are clearly guilty as sin..no years of endless appeals, no bs..straight to death row and death warrant carried out in 30 days or less if possible. The fact a million bucks has been WASTED by the state on this thing is reprehensible. That money could do a lot for the VICTIMS instead of defending a clearly guilty psycho.

 

[Nhic]

Not an atty again.

I believe AZ has a 2 year period to file a civil suit after an event--that's passed. But on the previous page, a Statute was shown that this is extended to 1-year after a criminal case is concluded--regardless of the verdict.

Now even though JA may be penniless now, perhaps she could accrue big $$ from interviews, articles, book etc. Even if she is on death row, that could be for many years.

I do not know if anyone has found out if AZ has a son-of-Sam type law barring convictee from keeping profits resulting from writings about her crime?

That seems to be the key element now. JA could even get around that perhaps. Say e.g. she claims--as OJ did--to write a work of fiction and not about the crime, or write about her current life in jail. Thus it would not be about the actual murder. A publsher might still pay her well as people might buy the book or tune in to her interview.

If AZ does not have a son of Sam law,TA family should sue. ANd perhaps they should even if AZ does, for the above reasons.

I believe that if JA is convicted the civil suit then becomes easy and short and would only need to be about the amount the jury will decide. MOO

Yes I saw the 2 year statute, then the 1 year post verdict. It's confusing - maybe that's something that should be asked on the legal thread.

Someone here mentioned that Arizona has a son of sam law, however, if there is a way to get it JA will figure out how and IMO her mother will be complicit in it as well.

 

[TXHoney]

Arizona Son of Sam Law (note 1978 date, have been unable to confirm if it's still in effect or not)

Citation: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-4202 (Mathew Bender 2000)
History: Enacted in 1978.

TITLE 13. CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 38. MISCELLANEOUS
ARTICLE 27. CRIME VICTIM ACCOUNTS

A.R.S. § 13-4202 (2000)

§ 13-4202. Void contracts; crime victim accounts; establishment; notice to victims; exceptions; civil liability; definition A. Every contract whether written or oral, express or implied, with an accused with respect to the reenactment of a crime by movie, book, article, radio or television presentation, live entertainment or expression of thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions is contrary to public policy and void unless the contract provides for payment to the commission of any monies which would be paid to the accused for such information or rights.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think the only time JA has EVER been honest in that courtroom was when she was answering Jury questions and one of them was something like, "why did the camera end up in the washing machine" or "why did you put the camera in the washing machine." Something like that. She looked really puzzled and responded like, "I really don't know how that happened. I'm not sure why I'd do that."

I think when she drove off into the fog, she flipped her lid when she discovered that the camera wasn't in her car...

If she planned on taking the camera with her, why take the time deleting the pics?

 

[wasnt_me]

Oh yeah, I had a dream about JA last night (nightmare, I should say). Can't remember the details.

I can't even get away from this case in my sleep. I literally wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it.

Do you have a problem remembering things? It's your fog!:floorlaugh:

 

[PrincessSezMe]

What I thought was a waste of time on his part was trying to cajole the truth out of JA by saying things like "I need you to tell me" "I want to know" "I have to do my job" etc.

JA is a psychopath and she couldn't give a dam about what HE wants because it's all and always will be what SHE wants. So waste of time on his part.

I just think he should known that much anyway. It doesn't matter now anyway, does it. :fence:

I think it matters plenty. His dedication to his job is apparent every day he sits in that courtroom supporting the prosecution's case. And his very thorough and professional handling of the crime scene and evidence will be what puts her away...for good. It's not Detective Flores' fault that she is what she is.

I don't understand why you think he was wasting his time. He held all the cards, and it was up to JA how she played the hand. When he pulled out the pictures and all the evidence they had against her she was busted. Det. Flores had a 21 hand, and she had nothing. Waste of time on her part because she had nothing to play at that point. IMO.

 

[mollyf]

'Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us' is another.

I would like to re-read The Anatomy of Evil by Dr. Michael Stone. I wonder where on the 22 point scale he'd put JA?

Spoiler

 

[PPKik]

ITA, same author I think too isn't it? He developed the PCL, used by LE today.

Yes, Dr. Robert Hare. Wouldn't he be an interesting expert to rebutt both Doc $ and M$ Alyce in Juanderland? (Thanks to who came up with that!!)

 

[katydid23]

Couldn't he be deemed a hostile witness?

Yes, but he is still potentially dangerous to both sides. He can get up there under oath and LIE and maybe convince one juror that he saw the bruises on Jodi. It is not worth the trouble, imo.

 

[Nhic]

But in the end...the question can always be answered yes or no. This woman is taking it personally and it shows her IMO lack of professionalism. I also think she was poorly prepped. It's up to the defense to rehabilitate her testimony and extrapolate lengthy answers.

IMO ALV is taking this personally because her motive for agreeing to testify for the DT was deeper than JA.

She has a new book coming out, someone up thread posted something about ALV wanting to testify in a high profile trial, etc.

Now she's in deeper than ever imagined. She must stick to her (absurd) script or risk destroying her career. Her career may very well be over anyway, but the only thing she can do now is stick to that script.

Selling one's soul to the devil is when Karma steps in. :twocents:

 

[shane13]

AZ is one of 40 states with a son of Sam law.http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/SonOfSam/


Furthermore the case of Sammy Gravano shows that AZ is much tougher than this.
Sammy the Bull Gravano’s book profits being taken by the state is very instructive here. MOO

Please read this: “Finding another way’ — the Gravano routeThe constitutional hurdles imposed by Simon & Schuster, Keenan, Lerner and other court decisions are quite high. This may cause many states to follow the approach taken in Arizona in the case of “Sammy the Bull” Gravano.

Gravano, who served time in federal prison for organized crime racketeering activities in New York, was criminally charged in Arizona with distributing the drug Ecstasy. State officials then filed a civil action against Gravano seeking the forfeiture of many of his assets, including proceeds he obtained from a book about his life, Underboss: Sammy the Bull Gravano’s Story of Life in the Mafia.

Gravano argued that seizure of royalties from Underboss violated the First Amendment under Simon & Schuster. An Arizona appeals court rejected his arguments in State of Arizona v. Gravano (2002), ruling that the Arizona forfeiture statute, unlike a Son of Sam law, was not specifically targeted at expressive works. The court explained:
Thus, whether proceeds of an expressive work are forfeitable under the statutory scheme does not depend on the content of the work, and the Underboss royalties owed to Gravano may be subject to forfeiture regardless of the message conveyed in the book if a causal connection between racketeering and the proceeds exists. Accordingly, the forfeiture statutes as applied here are content-neutral.

Gravano appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which declined to review the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to review a further appeal. “I think what most states will do is what Arizona did,” says attorney Freeman. “They will avoid the Son of Sam laws altogether and find another way to forfeit a criminal’s assets, such as going under a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute. Arizona cleverly went through the state RICO law. I think more prosecutors will find creative ways to get around the constitutional problems imposed by the Son of Sam decisions.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/son-of-sam-laws

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Oh man, I cannot WAIT for Juan on Monday! He might change subjects at first to catch the witness ALV off-guard and then continue with his Snow White story and her "continuum" or whatever she calls it on how many points in that exhibit relate to Snow White. But all those points will eventually mirror JA and Travis relationship AS SHE KNOWS IT. I think he will also challenge her on how she claimed that she always talked to both parties "separately" in order to find out how close their stories were. He might even ask her if she ever interviewed Travis Alexander.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, Dr. Robert Hare. Wouldn't he be an interesting expert to rebutt both Doc $ and M$ Alyce in Juanderland? (Thanks to who came up with that!!)

He wouldn't do it.

but I'd love it, I'd have to buy plane tickets and sleep outside to ensure I'd get a seat to see it!

 

[PPKik]

I would like to re-read The Anatomy of Evil by Dr. Michael Stone. I wonder where on the 22 point scale he'd put JA?

Spoiler

View attachment 31608

Yes! I wonder where Dr. Hare would score JA on his Psychopathy Checklist? I'd love to ask Doc $ what he thinks of either one of those handy checklists. lol

 

[norest4thewicked]

If she planned on taking the camera with her, why take the time deleting the pics?

Maybe she planned on taking the camera, but couldn't find it in her haste to get out of there because it was tangled up in the clothing. Or, maybe she hadn't planned everything out and deleted the photos not knowing that they would stay on the CF card. I can't imagine that murdering someone in the frenzy that she had to be in would have made everything go really smoothly. We know that it didn't go that way for her.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes.

JA's most recent story is that she killed him in order to defend against an imminent threat to her own life.

Now she bears the burden of proof to make that case, while trying to plant reasonable doubts in the jurors' minds about her premeditation of the crime.

After all, if she planned Travis's murder before she arrived at his house; e.g., from California, days or weeks ahead of time, it can hardly be self-defense.

But, if the jury finds that her actions were justified in order to defend her own life from imminent threat then they will acquit her.

The Court's instructions to the jury will provide detailed parameters they will use to deliberate.

Can you imagine Travis' on trial for killing Jodi over a damn camera? :facepalm:

I can't believe she picked something so freaking lame to have them "fight" about to lead to "self defense." Travis threw a phone because she was upset that she messed up his car. Travis threw her because he was upset about a camera? Not likely.

If anything, I'd buy him throwing her over the car, not the camera.

If I was on that jury, there's no way I can believe that he body slammed her and chased her all over that room over a freaking camera--without even looking at the camera, mind you, to see if it were actually damaged! That camera went through a washing machine and kept on going. Travis bought a dang fine camera.

 

[Nhic]

I think it matters plenty. His dedication to his job is apparent every day he sits in that courtroom supporting the prosecution's case. And his very thorough and professional handling of the crime scene and evidence will be what puts her away...for good. It's not Detective Flores' fault that she is what she is.

I don't understand why you think he was wasting his time. He held all the cards, and it was up to JA how she played the hand. When he pulled out the pictures and all the evidence they had against her she was busted. Det. Flores had a 21 hand, and she had nothing. Waste of time on her part because she had nothing to play at that point. IMO.

:seeya:
I didn't say he wasted his time, generally. What I said was telling JA that he wanted to know, he needed to know, etc. (in other words Flores using "I") was pointless because someone with JA's PD doesn't care what anyone else wants.

I wonder why the good cop/bad cop routine wasn't used.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO ALV is taking this personally because her motive for agreeing to testify for the DT was deeper than JA.

She has a new book coming out, someone up thread posted something about ALV wanting to testify in a high profile trial, etc.

Now she's in deeper than ever imagined. She must stick to her (absurd) script or risk destroying her career. Her career may very well be over anyway, but the only thing she can do now is stick to that script.

Selling one's soul to the devil is when Karma steps in. :twocents:

Yep! When ya lie down with dogs.....hey wait! I'm laying next to a flealess dog...bad analogy. lol

I can't understand how she didn't see this coming? Not very insightful. She's ...apparently, "Jodi level smart"

 

[Nhic]

Yes, Dr. Robert Hare. Wouldn't he be an interesting expert to rebutt both Doc $ and M$ Alyce in Juanderland? (Thanks to who came up with that!!)

He'd be perfect! :rocker:

 

[Plumeria5]

There were six people " on vacation" in the last two days, but I know at least one who is back from vacation! so perhaps vacations are short, I know what you mean about Monday! I was on a five day vacation in the Casey Anthony trial at the worst possible time they could have given me one.


Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Was it an all-expense paid vacation?? :blushing:

Don't want to miss Monday!
Go, Juan!! :cheer: