More law than attraction at this point.
Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
- Status
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 170
I just don't know who would really waste the time. I would rather scrub a toilet. I think she has gotten enough attention. Torture her by ignoring her.
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
I would expect no less and I suspect that's what's behind much of the other juror's outrage, they likely thought they had been and then it turns out that she obviously wasn't.
I most certainly will not pray for her soul. And I absolutely will not apologize or feel bad about hoping that she experiences horror and fear every single day of her life in prison.
The PPV thing was a joke, FGS, and when it was brought up otherwise it was meant to chastise folks for being interested in hearing about her not doing well at Perryville.
I think the news release is because juror 17 is probably getting a lot of harassing phone calls and such. Not that they are threatening her in any way, but calling or even driving by voicing loudly their disgust in what she has done in their opinion.
I read the whole thing as they are not about to let the public know there is an investigation going on. I think there would be an increase in phone calls and other forms of harassment if they said there was still an investigation going on. IMO if there isn't an on going investigation they would say this matter has been investigated and it has been found that no further investigation is needed and cleared her name. In that news release they did not clear her of any wrong doing. They just want to not have to deal with people harassing her, and LE having to protect her from it.
I read the whole thing as they are not about to let the public know there is an investigation going on. I think there would be an increase in phone calls and other forms of harassment if they said there was still an investigation going on. IMO if there isn't an on going investigation they would say this matter has been investigated and it has been found that no further investigation is needed and cleared her name. In that news release they did not clear her of any wrong doing. They just want to not have to deal with people harassing her, and LE having to protect her from it.
ElleElle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 33
My guess is she needed time to talk via video phone to as many supporters as time allowed to keep the money flow coming in, and anything else she could rally her supporters to do. She knew it was her last chance before being sent off to Perryville and not having that privilege. That's why she is so mad. She didn't get the chance put those affairs all in order. Lol
mydirtysecret
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2014
- Messages
- 933
- Reaction score
- 2
Of ALL the things joe has done I'm MOST thankful for shutting down the olivia klaus domestic violence documentary she's planning on arias. If i understand the premise and the documentary agenda it was going to be disgusting. I wish we had an expanded son of sam that prohibits the financial gain off their crimes but prohibits them from speaking to media outlets about their crime. There are other motivators besides financial. I'm glad arizona DOC prohibits media from their institution.
katiecoolady
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Messages
- 9,177
- Reaction score
- 2,513
Hi All,
I got to thinking about this Juror 17 possible misconduct/stealth/whatever issue and this is an analogy that I came up with.
First off, they had one clear and simple decision--do the aggravators in this trial outweigh the mitigators (or vice versa)? I know not really simple but they weren't there to decide the merits of the death penalty, if Jodi Arias deserved to die, etc. They were to weigh those factors side by side and say which side outweighs the other. It the mitigator list did not outweigh the aggravator list, the sentence they were to render was Death. Plain and simple. This juror, from all I've put together, seems to have refused to do that task. She went on "feelings", what Jodi Arias looked like, "revenge" and other unrelated issues from the task at hand.
She was also not to consider whether Travis Alexander was a bad person and deserved to die. That was on neither list although what the defense primarily based their case on throughout hoping to get an errant juror to sway from their duty. And they did (unless there was something else nefarious going on which I'm entirely suspicious of personally--time will tell).
It's like they were handed two bushels--one was apples, the other oranges. They were to make one decision only--which of these baskets has the freshest fruit. That would require going through each of the pieces of apples and oranges and determining their degree of freshness. Let's take it a step further and say the oranges were just picked, juicy, fragrant and full of their orangey goodness. The apple bushel contained many which were bruised, rotting and full of worms although a few fresh ones were sprinkled in.
The group decides to take all the fruit out and line it up and look at each piece and see, overall, which 'weighs out" as the freshest overall. They count, they turn them around in their hand, they smell them, they take the time to be clear on their determination even though at the outset it might seem obvious.
Then there is Juror 17 who refuses to look at any of the pieces of fruit with them. She stands back by herself saying she likes apples. She thinks apples get a bad rap generally so she's on the side of apples. And she thinks the oranges get it too easy so apples, in any condition, are better than oranges. The rest of the group asks her to come and look at all the apples, show them why she thinks they are "better" or "more fresh" , convince them that the apple bushel is the freshest. They even beg her to make her case to them so they can understand her affinity for those apples.
She refuses to participate in this and says they are "attacking her" over her deep love and preference for apples. She feels that they are the freshest so in her mind, they will the bushel she votes for no matter what. She won't even look at the oranges much less pick one up and smell it. In fact, she kind of resents the oranges for wanting to 'win" as she feels pity for the apples thinking someone should champion for them so that's what she's going to do no matter what. Besides her brother once fell out of an orange tree and broke his arm so she's never cared much for oranges since he had to go to the hospital over that.
She hangs up the entire judging firmly refusing to look at the fruit but determining based on her predetermined preferences that this is the way she's going to vote.
Then she goes home, reaches in to her own fruit bowl and takes a smiling bite of a ripe juicy apple, looks back at it and sees the back end of a wiggling worm right in the center, chomped in half by her own teeth. She doesn't even spit it out, because she thinks that somehow, some way she can still make a case for that apple while she prepares her law$uit against the worm.
The End.
I got to thinking about this Juror 17 possible misconduct/stealth/whatever issue and this is an analogy that I came up with.
First off, they had one clear and simple decision--do the aggravators in this trial outweigh the mitigators (or vice versa)? I know not really simple but they weren't there to decide the merits of the death penalty, if Jodi Arias deserved to die, etc. They were to weigh those factors side by side and say which side outweighs the other. It the mitigator list did not outweigh the aggravator list, the sentence they were to render was Death. Plain and simple. This juror, from all I've put together, seems to have refused to do that task. She went on "feelings", what Jodi Arias looked like, "revenge" and other unrelated issues from the task at hand.
She was also not to consider whether Travis Alexander was a bad person and deserved to die. That was on neither list although what the defense primarily based their case on throughout hoping to get an errant juror to sway from their duty. And they did (unless there was something else nefarious going on which I'm entirely suspicious of personally--time will tell).
It's like they were handed two bushels--one was apples, the other oranges. They were to make one decision only--which of these baskets has the freshest fruit. That would require going through each of the pieces of apples and oranges and determining their degree of freshness. Let's take it a step further and say the oranges were just picked, juicy, fragrant and full of their orangey goodness. The apple bushel contained many which were bruised, rotting and full of worms although a few fresh ones were sprinkled in.
The group decides to take all the fruit out and line it up and look at each piece and see, overall, which 'weighs out" as the freshest overall. They count, they turn them around in their hand, they smell them, they take the time to be clear on their determination even though at the outset it might seem obvious.
Then there is Juror 17 who refuses to look at any of the pieces of fruit with them. She stands back by herself saying she likes apples. She thinks apples get a bad rap generally so she's on the side of apples. And she thinks the oranges get it too easy so apples, in any condition, are better than oranges. The rest of the group asks her to come and look at all the apples, show them why she thinks they are "better" or "more fresh" , convince them that the apple bushel is the freshest. They even beg her to make her case to them so they can understand her affinity for those apples.
She refuses to participate in this and says they are "attacking her" over her deep love and preference for apples. She feels that they are the freshest so in her mind, they will the bushel she votes for no matter what. She won't even look at the oranges much less pick one up and smell it. In fact, she kind of resents the oranges for wanting to 'win" as she feels pity for the apples thinking someone should champion for them so that's what she's going to do no matter what. Besides her brother once fell out of an orange tree and broke his arm so she's never cared much for oranges since he had to go to the hospital over that.
She hangs up the entire judging firmly refusing to look at the fruit but determining based on her predetermined preferences that this is the way she's going to vote.
Then she goes home, reaches in to her own fruit bowl and takes a smiling bite of a ripe juicy apple, looks back at it and sees the back end of a wiggling worm right in the center, chomped in half by her own teeth. She doesn't even spit it out, because she thinks that somehow, some way she can still make a case for that apple while she prepares her law$uit against the worm.
The End.
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 10,693
- Reaction score
- 52,082
I agree with you that interview is mindblowing in its bluntness. I wonder, though, why AS was allowed a media interview? But yes, I believe JA has a few lessons coming. AS has nothing to lose in damaging JA since she already has LWOP and she evidently wants to be the baddest girl at Perryville.
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 10,693
- Reaction score
- 52,082
That was me, thank you so much for this! It's really good informationI do wish websites would have all their information organized. Example: Perryville has all the Perryville-pertinent info organized where it makes sense to us visitors instead of having to back out to Google, lol!
https://corrections.az.gov/sites/def...e 6-7-14.pdf
What is interesting about the Class A Felony is the list of infractions (in detail) that could cause that charge: certain contraband, attempted murder, escape (!!!).
A lot of the best material on Perryville is located in the Department of Corrections regulations. There are many of these. One of my favorites is the dress code for visitors: no sleeveless tops, no revealing necklines, no skirts above the knee, no shorts, minimal jewelry...... And then there's the strip searches for inmates before and after visitation and rigorous security checks (e.g. with a K9) for visitors.
Someone else asked if visitors were required to get new criminal background checks on a regular basis, and the answer is yes. Once a year.
You mean like if they find that a certain specialist and/or her family might have frequented the same social circles that the juror and/or her family did? Anyone here a race aficionado in the Phoenix area? That might prove interesting... :moo:
I have such love/hate towards TexMex
Why did you torture me all through this brutal winter with pictures of warm Texas beaches and delicious homemade food while I was up here shoveling snow and eating cup-a-noodles?
But seriously, TexMex always offers great insights, and I know we all appreciate her input. Just hoping that by next winter we all get an invite to come on down to experience some of that Texas hospitality; good weather and good food!
I agree. If I understand correctly it would have been nothing short of the exploitation of the murder of an innocent young man in order to espouse the distorted world view of the misandrist school of thought. A transparent and self serving opportunity that would take no account of and feel no concern for its impact on the still living victims of this brutal and unjustified crime.
Maybe it's just me, but the photo on the right is particularly disturbing. That smile, I dunno...
Caylee Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,727
- Reaction score
- 15,193
Nah, you're not bad, just honest. CMJA can say her own prayers if she wants, mine are reserved for the truly needy and innocents of the world.... she is neither IMO.
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 10,693
- Reaction score
- 52,082
Evidently inmates at Perryville can earn the privilege of getting care packages from outsiders. These have to be assembled and packed and secured (Securepak) by a contractor.
This is the shopping list for Arizona inmates:
https://www.accesscatalog.com/downloads/OrderForms/AZ_DOC_2015_OF.pdf
It sure doesn't look appetizing!
This is the shopping list for Arizona inmates:
https://www.accesscatalog.com/downloads/OrderForms/AZ_DOC_2015_OF.pdf
It sure doesn't look appetizing!
- Status