Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/5 - 2/9 - Break

[Hope4More]

And she could have made decent money as a waitress IF she was willing to work hard. Our oldest worked at Pappasitos while in college. He made over $50K one year. But he worked double shifts every weekend and every shift he could around his school schedule (probably 55-60 hrs a week)

Jodi would work but if anything else came up she would just leave...confronting Bianca ...tracking down Travis...quitting to go on vacations etc

She wasn't even a good waitress when she managed to show up. The PP folks said she "couldn't focus." Her only interest was scoping out menfolk and making sure they appreciated her goddess-ness. Mimi's cafe fired her for stealing muffins and not smiling enough at customers. I bet she was fired from many of her many server positions.

Related. The only explanation ever provided why she moved back to Yreka was hers- -that she needed to move on, etc. So we know that's not true.

Guessing that she was just plain broke. Fired from Mimi's, had quit her babysitting job, had stopped making car payments and was losing her car, and had huge credit card bills. And if IIRC, friends of Travis said that he stopped helping her out financially.

No way she freely chose to leave and to leave him alone.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I only found it interesting, and did qualify with "if true"......however, I have deleted my own posts about it and will not have the temerity to post again....back to lurking.

Spcagrl,
Don't just lurk. Speak your opinion! Everyone else does. . There is no harm in discussing what possibly might have happened with JA in the past. I was just as worn out from the discussion of which came first, the gun or the knife. Or whose picture the male genatalia was of, Travis or Darryl? And so on....

I had never heard a rumor of JA and pedophilia because I don't venture into the unknown on the internet, so when a poster brought it up, I asked where it was. It was suggested that someone knew of JA and a younger boy. For all we know, it could have been someone only a year younger than her.

No one ever backed away from discussing whether TA was a pedophile day in and out or whether he looked at *advertiser censored* or what kind of computer he had for goodness sake!

One thing we all can agree on: Travis was a normal guy and we care about him. Jodi is a murderer and we want justice. I can see her doing ANYTHING evil. Absolutely anything.

 

[pocketaccent]

I wish we had a date for this! Perhaps she was already gone and he considered it a small price to pay to be rid of her.

Re: missing engagement ring
Travis wrote in his journal dated March 18, 2008 (this is from my note, so it may not be verbatim)

Well a lot of things have been lost. I lost my journal so I'm writing in this one. I lost my I Pod, hopefully it is around here somewhere. (?.....)a diamond ring but apparently Jodi took for some reason. My roommate thinks he lost his camera but it is in my BMW. He didn't lose it but what's it doing in my BMW?....

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hello :seeya:
Lurk a lot but post very little here.
I have a question...
Has the DT given a list of mitigating factors that they are trying to prove?.. or are they just putting info out there to the jury and will spell it out for them later?
TIA

They gave a list. I only remember two. She was young and had not committed a crime before and BPD. So far, all they have done is trashed Travis.

 

[TupeloMz]

They gave a list. I only remember two. She was young and had not committed a crime before and BPD. So far, all they have done is trashed Travis.

Thank you.
So the same mitigating factors as the original trial?

 

[Hope4More]

Spcagrl,
Don't just lurk. Speak your opinion! Everyone else does. . There is no harm in discussing what possibly might have happened with JA in the past. I was just as worn out from the discussion of which came first, the gun or the knife. Or whose picture the male genatalia was of, Travis or Darryl? And so on....

I had never heard a rumor of JA and pedophilia because I don't venture into the unknown on the internet, so when a poster brought it up, I asked where it was. It was suggested that someone knew of JA and a younger boy. For all we know, it could have been someone only a year younger than her.

No one ever backed away from discussing whether TA was a pedophile day in and out or whether he looked at *advertiser censored* or what kind of computer he had for goodness sake!

One thing we all can agree on: Travis was a normal guy and we care about him. Jodi is a murderer and we want justice. I can see her doing ANYTHING evil. Absolutely anything.

You go, girl. That right there is why I appreciate you.

 

[potboiler]

Just playing around and found this.
Is anyone familiar with Health-grades?
This is a Patient Satisfaction feedback on their experience with Dr. Janeen A. Demarte, PHD
Over all - below national average
Staff friendliness- below national average
Total Time wait- shorter than national average
Office environment, cleanliness, comfort,,etc,- above national average
Ease of scheduling, urgent appointments- below national average
Level of trust in provider- below national average
How provider explains medical conditions - below national average
How well provider listens and answers questions- below national average
Spends appropriate amount of time with patients- below national average

This site wouldn't let me read the reviews because that part is confidential.

I was surprised.

http://www.healthgrades.com/provider/janeen-demarte-366p9#tab=patient-ratings&scrollTo=TopOfMain

The way the Jodi supporters operate, I t wouldn't surprise me if they just went in and did bad ratings. (Icould be wrong tho)

 

[Ricki]

I got this from twitterland. It looks like MDLR contract runs out on 2/28/2015 although I would imagine it will be renewed.
http://www.maricopa.gov/OPDS/Assets...tracts/Service_Provider_Contracts/11075-c.pdf

 

[Val1]

About the Purple Plum rumors posted some while ago elsewhere now being referred to here. Who knows who wrote them? Could have been anyone from anywhere, and most likely were written by someone who never set foot inside that restaurant.

That JM didn't use everything from the PP owner's interview isn't confirmation that damaging info wasn't allowed in. What did make it in was some of the State's most devastating evidence against JA to date in this retrial, imo.

In one fell swoop DM presented JA as sexually aggressive, manipulative, rude to anyone who didn't serve her purposes, and very very not lacking in self esteem.

As perverse as it might sound, given everything, it just bothers me to see unsubstantiated rumors spread here about pedophilia, no matter who those rumors are about.

That is why I followed up the rumour post I had found with my post clarifying that the only info I had found, was that this Edgar was not only named in open court, signifying to me that he was likely no longer a minor, if he had ever been a minor during the time of his and JA's interaction, but that the interaction mentioned in court by the co-worker had only been "She was very inappropriate w/ men, she would sit and kiss Edgar. ". Should any other statements or evidence come to my attention supporting or denying the rumour, then yes I would also post that info, isn't that what we're supposed to be doing... sleuthing and verifying or denying rumours as they regard the case under scrutiny?

 

[Meemaw12]

I've wondered why someone as intelligent as JA never got even a GED until forced to take the class in jail. Could it be that JA's focus was never on making her own way in the world, but always on being the wife/partner of someone who already had everything materially that she craved? Nothing against being a server, but why did JA limit her options, since there was apparently no learning disability? The only success she seemed interested in was successfully snaring a successful man.

I've always wondered why she didn't go to work at one of the Bunny places in Vegas, weren't they legal back then?

I mean she would have fit in perfectly imo made money lots of sex..



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GigiG]

JM doesn't fear truth. His expert told him years ago that JA likely has BPD. The DT made it easier for him last time around by fighting rather than embracing the diagnosis.

This time around the DT is opting to accept the BPD. The problem is that their client has forced them to present a mitigation case that necessarily leaves all the dots unconnected.

An all out mental illness case would put BPD front and center. Their case would be, her BPD made her see things wrong and to make very bad decisions. Athough she didn't understand this at the time, she killed Travis to make her own pain stop. And she feels very very remorseful.

Because his client insists on making herself the victim, Nurmi can largely use BPD only as another aspect of her victimization. Travis brought out her BPD. Travis took advantage of her BPD.

The jury won't miss that the State , not the DT, convinced them she has BPD. A reasonable conclusion for them to draw is that although the DT is asking them to believe her BPD is a reason to hold her less culpable for the murder, the DT hasn't explained why. Except to suggest that it's one more reason to blame the victim. As is her PTSD.

I waited and waited for the DT to get to the murder. They're allowed to argue that there were mitigating circumstances in the crime itself. But they never went there. It finally occurred to me....they can't. Neither of their narratives takes them there. The Travis deserved to die narrative can be suggested and inserted wherever possible , but indirectly, and always followed by vague denials if confronted. PTSD as mitigator belongs to this narrative.

The JA as mentally ill narrative doesn't allow them to revisit the murder either. BPD can't explain away the premeditation. They can't openly claim PTSD and snapped. They have no story to tell.

JM hasn't gone there either, and IMO will not until closing. DM isn't there to draw conclusions about why JA's BPD shouldn't be considered mitigating. That's JM's job. I can't wait to hear him tell it like it is.

I can't wait for JM to bring it home, and I have no doubt he will. With all the BS in this trial, the one thing I feel good about is that JM has done his best, and no one could have served Travis's family any better than he has. I have the utmost respect for him.

 

[T-4-2]

Someone recently asked about the origin of the ludicrous Monet/van Gogh reference. I don't remember who brought this up, or where, or when, so I'm responding here.

Everybody please swallow your coffee or whatever, OK? We all ready? It was Jodi herself who introduced this helpful tidbit, during jury questions.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/06/ijvm.01.html

STEPHENS: Sustained. "Why did you plan on going to see John Dixon when you were on your way to Utah to see Ryan?"

ARIAS: John Dixon was a friend, although there was somewhat of an interest there. It was nothing that I ever let grow, because he wasn`t a church member, so it would be kind of a poor investment of my heart to get attached to somebody who is not a member of the church.

What I was going down there for is he had a friend who either owned a gallery or ran a gallery where he hung some of the greats such as Van Gogh and Monet. And when I told him I painted, he said, "We could make a space in this gallery for you. I could hang it right next to a Monet or Van Gogh." It sounded like a very big -- it sounded like a very exciting thing for me, because one of my goals at that time was to get my paintings into galleries.
------

Oh, Jodi. This is what I love so much about you. You sound like you're chitchatting with someone in line at Starbucks even when you're testifying in your defense in a (potentially capital) murder trial! What a gal.



I suppose she interpreted this question as a thinly veiled "*advertiser censored*" accusation, which it probably was. Never one to take the "less is more" approach, she just couldn't stop talking after "John Dixon was a friend," no matter how hard Willmott and Nurmi prayed to their god to pleeeeeeze make Jodi shut up. And so... we're off.

No reason for anyone to believe any of this, but who cares.

Romantic specifics, who cares.

"Church" specifics, who cares.

No one cares about what may or may not be a "poor investment" of her "heart" because obviously she doesn't have one.

It just so happens she had a super innocent, non-sexual/financial/alibi-related reason to see John Dixon and it just so happens that this reason makes her look awesome: John Dixon knew a guy! Who owned an art gallery! Or maybe just ran one! (Jodi doesn't know and nobody cares.) This was a great art gallery with great art by great artists like Monet and van Gogh (who are two great artists Jodi has evidently heard of). And I guess Jodi had talked to this guy before? And told him she paints? And without even seeing her paintings he offers to hang her stuff in the gallery right next to a Monet! Or a van Gogh! Because that's totally how art galleries work.

So I guess maybe this is all somehow relevant, because why else would Jodi bring it up. She leaves out the part where she goes into any credible detail about the guy, the gallery, showing him any actual surface that she personally put paint on... none of which matters anyway because nobody cares.

What she does want everyone to know, though, is that this guy and this gallery and this offer were exciting! Because she had this goal, see, at that time, of getting her paintings into galleries. Now she's in jail for something or other and it's totally getting in the way of her goals.

Nobody cares. Nobody believes her. And yet she just keeps talking....

 

[Bernina]

Dodn't JA rattle some of them off during the first day of interrogation? lol

I thought the 10 Commandments were a Catholic thing, do Mormons hold them in the same regard?

"Articles of Faith" it's an LDS thing. NOT the 10 commandments.

 

[ohreally]

JM doesn't fear truth. His expert told him years ago that JA likely has BPD. The DT made it easier for him last time around by fighting rather than embracing the diagnosis.

This time around the DT is opting to accept the BPD. The problem is that their client has forced them to present a mitigation case that necessarily leaves all the dots unconnected.

An all out mental illness case would put BPD front and center. Their case would be, her BPD made her see things wrong and to make very bad decisions. Athough she didn't understand this at the time, she killed Travis to make her own pain stop. And she feels very very remorseful.

Because his client insists on making herself the victim, Nurmi can largely use BPD only as another aspect of her victimization. Travis brought out her BPD. Travis took advantage of her BPD.

The jury won't miss that the State , not the DT, convinced them she has BPD. A reasonable conclusion for them to draw is that although the DT is asking them to believe her BPD is a reason to hold her less culpable for the murder, the DT hasn't explained why. Except to suggest that it's one more reason to blame the victim. As is her PTSD.

I waited and waited for the DT to get to the murder. They're allowed to argue that there were mitigating circumstances in the crime itself. But they never went there. It finally occurred to me....they can't. Neither of their narratives takes them there. The Travis deserved to die narrative can be suggested and inserted wherever possible , but indirectly, and always followed by vague denials if confronted. PTSD as mitigator belongs to this narrative.

The JA as mentally ill narrative doesn't allow them to revisit the murder either. BPD can't explain away the premeditation. They can't openly claim PTSD and snapped. They have no story to tell.

JM hasn't gone there either, and IMO will not until closing. DM isn't there to draw conclusions about why JA's BPD shouldn't be considered mitigating. That's JM's job. I can't wait to hear him tell it like it is.

IMO Juan will bring out the reason why BPD is not a mitigating factor. I believe he is purposely saving those questions for the rebuttal. I realize it is not Dr. D's job to draw conclusion, but it is her job do give explanations about BPD, and how it is not an excuse for the murder. The jury questions and Juan's rebuttal will sure be interesting.

 

[geevee]

Re: missing engagement ring
Travis wrote in his journal dated March 18, 2008 (this is from my note, so it may not be verbatim)

Well a lot of things have been lost. I lost my journal so I'm writing in this one. I lost my I Pod, hopefully it is around here somewhere. (?.....)a diamond ring but apparently Jodi took for some reason. My roommate thinks he lost his camera but it is in my BMW. He didn't lose it but what's it doing in my BMW?....

Hadn't she already colored her hair darker with the blonde streaks by mid-March? Was that the month the pics with her and the black dog were taken? Seems like I knew when the from-blonde-to-darker hair coloring occurred but I can't recall atm. I do remember someone blogging about her and Travis texting and him going to her MySpace that had the darker hair color pics on it and him not mentioning it (and the blogger wondering why that was because it'd have been the first time he'd seen her with not-blonde hair and he never remarked about it).

 

[Val1]

From what we can tell, to her, pedophilia is just one more slander weapon she wields to assassinate her victim's character.

Neither more nor less...

Just like a certain male supporter of hers, as witnessed by his posts online. As for being pedo, I doubt that too, although I supposed Edgar could have been a handsome 16yr old dishwasher, which according to the law in many places would still qualify, but not necessarily something that someone who is perhaps using her allure to push someone's buttons, or reassert her own "goddessness", would likely even consider(a kiss is just a kiss... heck how long did she run around allegedly pretending nothing but penile/vagina penetration was sex).

 

[GigiG]

Someone recently asked about the origin of the ludicrous Monet/van Gogh reference. I don't remember who brought this up, or where, or when, so I'm responding here.

Everybody please swallow your coffee or whatever, OK? We all ready? It was Jodi herself who introduced this helpful tidbit, during jury questions.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/06/ijvm.01.html

STEPHENS: Sustained. "Why did you plan on going to see John Dixon when you were on your way to Utah to see Ryan?"

ARIAS: John Dixon was a friend, although there was somewhat of an interest there. It was nothing that I ever let grow, because he wasn`t a church member, so it would be kind of a poor investment of my heart to get attached to somebody who is not a member of the church.

What I was going down there for is he had a friend who either owned a gallery or ran a gallery where he hung some of the greats such as Van Gogh and Monet. And when I told him I painted, he said, "We could make a space in this gallery for you. I could hang it right next to a Monet or Van Gogh." It sounded like a very big -- it sounded like a very exciting thing for me, because one of my goals at that time was to get my paintings into galleries.
------

Oh, Jodi. This is what I love so much about you. You sound like you're chitchatting with someone in line at Starbucks even when you're testifying in your defense in a (potentially capital) murder trial! What a gal.

View attachment 68919

I suppose she interpreted this question as a thinly veiled "*advertiser censored*" accusation, which it probably was. Never one to take the "less is more" approach, she just couldn't stop talking after "John Dixon was a friend," no matter how hard Willmott and Nurmi prayed to their god to pleeeeeeze make Jodi shut up. And so... we're off.

No reason for anyone to believe any of this, but who cares.

Romantic specifics, who cares.

"Church" specifics, who cares.

No one cares about what may or may not be a "poor investment" of her "heart" because obviously she doesn't have one.

It just so happens she had a super innocent, non-sexual/financial/alibi-related reason to see John Dixon and it just so happens that this reason makes her look awesome: John Dixon knew a guy! Who owned an art gallery! Or maybe just ran one! (Jodi doesn't know and nobody cares.) This was a great art gallery with great art by great artists like Monet and van Gogh (who are two great artists Jodi has evidently heard of). And I guess Jodi had talked to this guy before? And told him she paints? And without even seeing her paintings he offers to hang her stuff in the gallery right next to a Monet! Or a van Gogh! Because that's totally how art galleries work.

So I guess maybe this is all somehow relevant, because why else would Jodi bring it up. She leaves out the part where she goes into any credible detail about the guy, the gallery, showing him any actual surface that she personally put paint on... none of which matters anyway because nobody cares.

What she does want everyone to know, though, is that this guy and this gallery and this offer were exciting! Because she had this goal, see, at that time, of getting her paintings into galleries. Now she's in jail for something or other and it's totally getting in the way of her goals.

Nobody cares. Nobody believes her. And yet she just keeps talking....


View attachment 68912 View attachment 68910 View attachment 68909

Thanks for putting the "art" up so everyone can see. She's so funny!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The pause that caused him to be able to get out and to the sink could have been the moment she sliced her finger and she stopped momentarily because it hurt.

That is a very good possibility MeeBee.

I have always thought she sustained the sliced finger during one of the times Travis was able to grab the knife. Travis was so desperate that he grabbed the blade trying to hold her off from stabbing him further. I will never get the images out of my mind of the deep defensive wounds he had to his hands.

Her hands by then would be very slippery with his blood and as she grappled with him I think it is then she may have cut herself. The area where she has the cut seems consistent with her trying to keep control of the knife and in the process her finger came in contact with the blade. I don't think Travis ever hurt her finger or anything else for that matter. I think when she got cut during the murder she cut a tendon. Have they shown any photos this time of her supposedly broken finger?

I am double jointed myself and I can make my fingers look just like hers.

I also think with the blood everywhere it made it easy for her to drag him back to the bathroom on the slick tile.

JMO though

 

[GigiG]

JM doesn't fear truth. His expert told him years ago that JA likely has BPD. The DT made it easier for him last time around by fighting rather than embracing the diagnosis.

This time around the DT is opting to accept the BPD. The problem is that their client has forced them to present a mitigation case that necessarily leaves all the dots unconnected.

An all out mental illness case would put BPD front and center. Their case would be, her BPD made her see things wrong and to make very bad decisions. Athough she didn't understand this at the time, she killed Travis to make her own pain stop. And she feels very very remorseful.

Because his client insists on making herself the victim, Nurmi can largely use BPD only as another aspect of her victimization. Travis brought out her BPD. Travis took advantage of her BPD.

The jury won't miss that the State , not the DT, convinced them she has BPD. A reasonable conclusion for them to draw is that although the DT is asking them to believe her BPD is a reason to hold her less culpable for the murder, the DT hasn't explained why. Except to suggest that it's one more reason to blame the victim. As is her PTSD.

I waited and waited for the DT to get to the murder. They're allowed to argue that there were mitigating circumstances in the crime itself. But they never went there. It finally occurred to me....they can't. Neither of their narratives takes them there. The Travis deserved to die narrative can be suggested and inserted wherever possible , but indirectly, and always followed by vague denials if confronted. PTSD as mitigator belongs to this narrative.

The JA as mentally ill narrative doesn't allow them to revisit the murder either. BPD can't explain away the premeditation. They can't openly claim PTSD and snapped. They have no story to tell.

JM hasn't gone there either, and IMO will not until closing. DM isn't there to draw conclusions about why JA's BPD shouldn't be considered mitigating. That's JM's job. I can't wait to hear him tell it like it is.

I can't wait for JM to bring it home, and I have no doubt he will. With all the BS in this trial, the one thing I feel good about is that JM has done his best, and no one could have served Travis's family any better than he has. I have the utmost respect for him.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

When WS was down the past two times I went to Twitter and searched #websleuths and all the tweets that came up were *advertiser censored* related (twitter names like 'Hotgirls *advertiser censored*', stuff like that) and all had the #websleuths on the tweets - really surprised me.

I saw that being discussed in another thread.

It never happened to me but I did read it was happening to some of our posters.

I am so dumb when it comes to stuff like this but how do they make it redirect to the *advertiser censored* site?