long weekend break: discuss the latest here #102

[Clue Finder 55]

Beyond reasonable doubt
Main article: Reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.
It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.
If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death.

 

[beeshie]

...and Travis was screaming the whole time. He wasn't screaming like a girl. He was just like, like he was in pain, like he was shocked. Like ahhh, you know? He really wasn't moving now he was standing staying kind of still on the floor. Well as soon as he said go get help and I turned around and I was and they were there. They were in the bathroom. The girl was in the hallway and the guy was more towards the bedroom but like still in the bathroom on the tile carpet area right there. And he started coming in to the bathroom too and I was?

Flores: What happened Jodi, What did you see?

I took __________ ?????

Flores: You took off?

I ran and he stopped me. And Travis and he was still like conscious he still alive.

Flores: So you just left him?

No, I ran into the closet because they're two doors and they were sorta in the hallway already. And he stopped me. He didn't touch me. He was just, he held the gun to my head and he was like 'you don't go any where.'

And he told the other girl ??finish it up?? which I didn't see but he's like I didn't think he was saying a lot Um but,

Flores: What happened?

He told me to stay there and not to move.

Where was that in the closet?

No, it was um, like this - sorry (Arias takes Flores legal pad - Flores takes the pad and draws a floor plan for Arias).

Snipped and BBM

I've always thought this sounded like she says "I chickened out like a little b****!"

I wonder if she had pointed the gun at him, chickened out and ran down the hall and into and through the closet with Travis chasing her. She turned the gun back on him, he lunged at her but she didn't shoot him. They fell when he lunged and the gun was knocked out of her hand. She grabbed the knife and the rest we know.

 

[Truth Detector]

Actually both are true. Flores tells her about the sexual, shower and the ones taken inadvertently and she says "can I see the pictures" they then talk about the twenty five auto used and his multiple stab wounds. Flores says to her "if you want I could show you pictures of him, do you want to see them". She then says "part of me does and part of me doesn't. Then she says the famous morbid curiosity line. So she wanted to what the camera inadvertently took and what LE took.

I believe she already knew what was on the camera's card. She had previously viewed and deleted all those images on June 4.

What she wanted to know was what LE knew.

E.g., were all the images recovered? Which images were recovered and which weren't?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This is another thing that's making my head spin on these threads. This is a relatively standard intimate partner crime. None of the details are particularly shocking or unusual except that we've seen pics of private parts because they're the best evidence of presence at the crime scene and the religious aspect. Mormons doing un-Mormanlike things always makes the news here (see the bestiality couple I posted previously). Yeah, there were a bunch of stabs wounds. Compare it to the other case that Juan prosecuted with the rape and killing of a teen girl and the torture of her little brother in the presence of her restrained parents. THAT is sick. Manson's followers committed their crimes on complete strangers. They cut the fetus out of the stomach of a 9 month pregnant woman. Dahmer drilled holes into his victim's brain while he was alive and poured chemicals in there to see what would happen.

Jodi Arias isn't even slightly the worst criminal who's walked the face of the earth. Not even close. If she were to be out of prison tomorrow, I wouldn't worry myself about her in the slightest. jm

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and even though I respect yours.......here is mine. This is a victim who was senselessly and brutally murdered viscously by a cold blooded psychopath. A psychopath that has taken the stand in her defense giving the jury and the public a chance to see how they truly act. That within itself makes this case far different than most.

I don't dismiss horrible murders like Travis was subjected to just because another defendant may have done something just as horrific or in a different manner. It certainly does not make Travis less worthy of justice nor does it make Jodi Arias less worthy of death. This is no way is a standard domestic violence case. Even those who have lost their lives from DV homicides,,, both men and women... rarely are murdered three different ways like Travis suffered.

Well I do fear psychopaths. We have seen how cold, unfeeling, remorseless she is and what she is capable of doing to an innocent victim who never harmed anyone. Society doesn't need Arias in it and while you wouldn't worry in the slightest if she roamed around imo the majority of the public would and rightly so.

In fact if this had been a female victim that suffered such horror most would want the death penalty for the male defendant due to the heinousness of the crime.

It gives me satisfaction and hope because the majority of posters I have seen in this case all across the net are not making one bit of difference in wanting justice for Travis because he is a male victim and thinks the DP is appropriate for the female defendant. That shows me we are finally taking abuse and DV homicides seriously that are done by a female against a male victim.

But IMO no one is going to have to worry about this creepy getting out anyway.

IMO

 

[pinkie60]

:twocents: just thinking out loud, JA loved role playing and fantasy. I think as someone else has posted, she might have been dreaming about playing a murderess.. Going a little further, could she have wanted a relationship like Heidi Komulda with Paul Bernardo? Supposing Travis wouldn't go along with her and knew just what she was all about, so she decided he would be her victim so he couldn't talk and ruin it for her.. A friend of mine feels the Cancun trip had nothing to do with it, he thinks she wanted to do it for the thrill, thinks there are other victims, bodies out there somewhere. She shows no feelings at all for TA. It's hard to believe they ever had a relationship since she is so unemotional about him. The psychologists explanations of her behavior are just excuses.

 

[SweetT]

I agree 100 percent with this post. I also have dealt with psycho and it fits to a T.


"Originally Posted by BritsKate
It's not a coincidence. You're likely to see very similar traits in most if not all psychopaths.

The way they gain access to victims is by morphing into whatever seems perfect for the person they're targeting. If the target is religious, the psychopath becomes the most pious; if the target is family oriented with kids, the psychopath becomes all about play dates and parenting manuals; if the target loves dogs, the psychopath will procure the perfect breed, attend every training class they can locate, and know every dog park in town. (With Bundy, because he wasn't able to read his victims in the mere moments he knew them before abducting them he instead assumed a vulnerable role preying on his victim's compassion.)

They all treat relationships in the same manner. Every relationship they meet their target and idealize all their target's best traits...instead of being smart, you're a genius; instead of pretty, you're gorgeous; instead of compassionate, you're Mother Theresa. Then they realize you aren't as perfect as they thought, because in reality no human being ever could be, and they start to devalue all the things that they believed made you so awesome. Lastly, if you're lucky, they discard you like yesterday's trash.

In my experience if you have the audacity to leave them instead you're opening yourself up for a scenario of nightmarish proportions. Psychopaths don't often willingly let their targets go unless they've secured a new victim. They'll sink to almost any depth, even years later, in an attempt to punish their initial target. Rejection is the ultimate sin in their world. It must be avenged.

JMO"

The morphing and idealizing is sooooooooo true....well in my experiences with them this is spot on.

 

[MonaSuzy]

This is an interesting interview with the Elder who taught Jodi. http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2013/03/special-episode-elder-jensenjodi-arias/

 

[katiedid2]

Can you imagine the family when she sends the iris bouquet? Or the 18 page manifesto she sent them?

Dear family, as Travis's ex girlfriend (WE WERE OFFICIAL FOR FIVE MONTHS!)
I'd like to impart a few thoughts....

Scary stalker chick

Would love to see what the 18 page letter to the family said!
Sent after she made him pass away

 

[Clue Finder 55]

Self-Defense
To succeed, a defendant arguing self defense must show that the killing resulted from a reasonable use of force to resist a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. The defendant cannot have instigated the threatening situation. The degree of force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat perceived, and the threat perceived must be something that would place a reasonable person in fear of death or great bodily harm. Mere words or insults do not suffice.
The defendant's reaction to the threat cannot take place after the threat of death or bodily harm has passed. Many states require that the defendant attempt to retreat or avoid danger if possible before resorting to the use of deadly force.
For example, if someone incapacitates a mugger with pepper spray, he or she may need to attempt to flee to safety instead of taking out a pistol and shooting the mugger. States differ in the degree to which they require an attempt to retreat if the threat they face occurs in the defender's home

 

[Schuby]

On the heels of the whole Warren Jeff deal, at least here in AZ, there seems to be quite a bit of intrigue and mystery surrounding the Mormon Church and its belief system.

My mom and I were talking about this the other day. The whole time Mitt Romney was running for President, the word Mormon got a lot of airplay but I was never moved to actually do any independent research on Mormonism until I started following this trial.

 

[ChinaBlue]

i don't think you can prove the ammo is the same----anyone can walk in and buy a box of bullets for a .25. they'd be the same as hers.

as for the gun, i'm sure they did look for it. but since she's a liar, they don't even know for sure where she was when she got rid of it. i wouldn't be surprised if she gave it to matt to dispose of. and i would think if she could prove that gun wasn't her grandfather's, she would have told her DT where it was long ago.

BBM

Absolutely!

 

[TXHoney]

Nevermind, didn't go far enough - I hear now that the door broke off the camera and was laying in the bottom of the washer. Oops

 

[pip]

Would love to see what the 18 page letter to the family said!
Sent after she made him pass away

I wonder if LE has it. I hope they kept it and didn't shred it into a million bits because they were angry. I have to wonder why it has not been introduced in court? You would think it would only further show what a calculating, cold-hearted, diabolical liar she is.

 

[Mykeru]

True, but some of us got over being personally annoyed about these errors and confusions -- not always conflations -- long ago.

I hear JM, KN, JW, RS, and other court participants express them infrequently. We've even heard JA correct JM, and him thank her for it. Occasionally she is wrong as well.

I think I began letting go of these types of quantification/measurement errors the 30th or 40th time I saw a billboard advertising children's ice cream cone specials for .15 cents, or handwritten ".50 Cents Off" sale signs in various discount retail stores...

The problem is that people are theorizing based on an obvious error made by a non-authoritative bloviator on cable TV. And we still don't know what they were referring to.

Moreover, when you take it too far in this forum, don't be surprised when your comment is mod snipped or deleted, as one of mine was once when I exchanged with a member who insisted that JA was the victim in this case. :banghead:

Really? I would hate to think that within the forum pure recalcitrance in the face of fact and common sense eventually affords some people protection, but in reality, I know that is true.

It's the same as the "civility" arguments in politics, where some politician says something egregiously stupid, even harmful, and the people who react with justified derision, even outrage, are accused on being "uncivil". In which case, you learn that some people can get away with talking about repealing child labor laws because, of course, they talked about it so nicely. And the people who call them on it, well, they just aren't nice.

It's the ultimate triumph of style over substance.

I actually try to be substantial and not gratuitous, but there comes a time when you just have to make your case as best you can.

I just don't see the added value of people making pronouncements about ".25mm ammunition" as if they know what they are talking about. I really do try to find the nicest way to point out when I think people have no idea what they are talking out, but often being too nice is just giving someone a pass.

My experience as a skeptic in the skeptical community discussing things with some of the wrongest people ever -- conspiracy theorists, 9/11 "truthers", Creationists and the like -- gives me a pretty good idea what people are up to when they keep repeating the same falsehood and then, when cornered, pull a variation of "the facts don't matter".

To some people they don't. That's just a given. The philosopher of science Larry Laudan, responding to Thomas Kuhn in "Science Truth and Values" made the claim that there are no factual disputes. The hierarchy works as fact--->method---->values. When you factually dispute, the next step is the appeal to method, but in fact what people (persisting in being wrong) are really arguing about most of the time is values. That is to say, the actual facts of Evolution are irrelevant to a Creationist. What is of value to them is their ideas of the social ills they assume are caused by teaching Evolution and the benefits of their religious dogma.

Of course, the ideal, is that people adhere to facts and when facts and theory are in conflict, it's the theory that gets rejected, not the facts. Which is why things like conspiracies and Creationism are quasi-rational. They take the appearance and pay lip service to reason, except when fact and reason needs to be rejected to hold onto the pre-existing bias.

So whether or not 9mm or .25 caliber ammunition was found in Jodi Arias' mother's house isn't really the point to some people. What's important is the value of their theorizing that the mother is somehow complicit as an accessory after the fact, if not before, and the ".25mm ammo" is just a means of confirmation of this hypothesis. The value of the theory is more important than the particular "facts" used to buttress it. And if it turns out no ammo was found, then there will just be something else used to confirm it.

I guess there's some personal animosity towards Jodi Arias' mother based on her behavior, her courtroom shenanigans, and the fact that she raised a monster. Which may be true. She may be a miserable human being. But that's the part that I don't particularly care about, especially when it comes with evaluating one fact at at time regardless of whatever larger significance they may have as part of a narrative.

At least, that's what I assume from people's dogged persistence on this point.

 

[Clue Finder 55]

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER?
The main difference between first degree and second murder is "premeditation". Under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1105, first degree murder is defined as:
"Premeditation" means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and that after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.]
CAN SOMEONE GET THE DEATH PENALTY IN ARIZONA?
The short answer is yes. Since the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the state of Arizona can execute a defendant guilty of a capital crime. That capital crime would be first degree murder.
Premeditated murder is a murder committed by someone who planned ahead. The laws surrounding premeditated murder vary, but as a general rule it is treated as the most serious form of murder because of the fact that the murderer planned to kill beforehand. This is contrasted with situations in which people murder by accident, as for example in the heat of an argument. Usually, when premeditation is involved, a murder is treated as a first degree murder, which carries the stiffest penalties

 

[AZWatcher]

Snipped for humor. : )

 

[3trees]

I believe she already knew what was on the camera's card. She had previously viewed and deleted all those images on June 4.

What she wanted to know was what LE knew.

E.g., were all the images recovered? Which images were recovered and which weren't?

Flores informed her that they retrieved some of the images, she wanted to see what survived the washing machine She indeed did want to know what they had in order to build her story and to make it fit.

 

[Truth Detector]

thats how i feel,yeah im tired of the endless sidebars but i dont see her bias as another poster said last night.

she has been more than fair with both sides,which imo means there are no grounds for an appeal that way


are we taking bets yet on once juan starts how soon the first ojection/sidebar will be?

I wouldn't describe it as bias, but a case could be made for that.

Mostly, I see a lack of courtroom control manifested by a willingness to let in crap which has no foundation, no basis in the evidence.

E.g., where is the corroborative evidence of TA's homosexual pedophilia?

We have only JA's false "chaotic pattern that paper falls" and Spiderman underwear testiphoney.

Yet Judge Stephens allows this in as though it was established fact.

 

[BritsKate]

A couple of days ago I posted the only thing Doc Samuels got right was Jodi had low self esteem.



The reasons I believe are: she had been cheated on, called many names (*advertiser censored*, 3-hole wonder, evil, sociopath). The "rubber band" effect - men puling away once a woman gets too attached or needy.



Over time, this makes one feel inadequate and want to please the one that calls them these names, but yet can say they are the most beautiful woman in the world- it's confusing for them, The texts dictate this also. I re-read them all and Jodi appears apologetic all the times Travis got upset.



The narcissistic, person is full of rage and eventually snaps, hence the "fight or flight".



Jodi chose to "fight" and this probably was not controlled by as it is a biological response.



I am not defending her actions, just sayin' .



I've been there also. :twocents:

Respectfully, I don't think we can transpose how we've felt, or might react, on a likely psychopath.

There's still much debate on whether those afflicted with psychopathy or malignant narcissism don't also experience low self esteem and simply use their disorder as the defense mechanism to end all others.

I personally believe any slurs or insults directed at Jodi were borne of sheer frustration at dealing with all the emotional manipulators psychopaths utilize. To me it makes sense Jodi would apologize and act remorseful.

Psychopaths will do anything it takes to keep their target in the relationship. Lastly, I'd have to say I wonder if a flight or fight response is relevant in a true narcissistic rage. It is, to date, the truly scariest thing I have ever witnessed.

When in such a rage there is just no stopping them, no controlling them, until their rage is spent. They can literally decimate physical objects in front of them, be bleeding, have fractured their own wrist and still not stop raging. IME

JMO and FWIW


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[bsk]

Arizona Laws that qualify a murder for the death penalty

I would like to say that I have copied Parts of an article and I’m posting it so people might understand how and why a prosecution would try and convict a person charged with a first degree murder which qualifies for death penalty such as with the Jodi Arias trial. I believe one or more of these factors listed below qualify a person for the death penalty and that one or more of these acts were committed in this murder. This is my opinion only and I believe the prosecution on this case will prove this

Especially “Cruel"; (The victim-oriented factor)

To find that a victim suffered mental anguish or physical pain, the Court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the victim was conscious during at least some portion of the crime and that (2) the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer

As to physical pain, the victim does not need to be conscious for “each and every wound” inflicted for cruelty to apply. Sansing, 206 Ariz. at 235, 77 P.3d at 33 (quoting State v. Lopez (I), 163 Ariz. 18, 115, 786 P.2d 959, 966 (1990)). Physical pain may be found where a conscious victim physically suffered for at least a short period of time. State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz.

Gratuitous Violence

The gratuitous violence factor focuses on the intent of the killer as evidenced by his actions. State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476, 189 P.3d 403 (2008). The fact finder must consider the killer’s intentional actions to determine whether he acted with the necessary vile state of mind. The state must make two showings. The state must first show that the defendant
did, in fact, use violence beyond that necessary to kill. The state must also show that the defendant continued to inflict violence after he knew or should have known that a fatal action had occurred. Id.
The showing of using violence beyond that necessary to kill often involves a “barrage of violence.” State v. Ceja, 115 Ariz. 413, 417, 565 P.2d 1274, 1278 (1977). See Bocharski, 218 Ariz. at 494 ¶ 86, 189 P.3d at 421 (twenty-four knife injuries to head and face, including eight stab wounds that penetrated deep into face and neck, unnecessary to cause death); State v. Detrich, 188 Ariz. 57, 932 P.2d 1328 (1997) (three stab wounds were fatal and thirty-seven others were excessive, constituting gratuitous violence);

I may have not interpreted some of these factors correctly so you can look up Arizona Laws yourself and see what you think

And to add a little bit to that, as I read it (IANAL) it sounds like there are the following considerations before that point.

• 1st degree murder = intentional killing with premeditation
• 2nd degree murder = intentional killing without premeditation (e.g. heat of passion)
• manslaughter = unintentional killing (e.g. due to recklessness)

Nurmi would love to get manslaughter as a lesser included ("she didn't mean for the gun to go off") and hope some holdout on the jury forces them to compromise on 2nd degree at worst. JM has spent so much time on "minor" stuff like the gas cans because he must prove premeditation. If he can't prove premeditation to the jury's satisfaction, then the best he could get is 2nd degree.

What's weird is that since Nurmi didn't argue heat of passion, I'm not sure how 2nd degree could apply, since it doesn't fit anyone's story. If you believe it was premeditated, then it's 1st degree; if not, then it was either accidental (manslaughter) or self defense (not guilty).