Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Mar 6, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Amster

    Amster Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So long ago this case was about Travis Alexander.....

    Now, it's about Sherry and defending her and not offending anyone on the defense team and making excuses for J17....and about Jodi Arias and her rights and her feelings and her comfort or lack thereof. And, anti DP and anti Mormon.

    Travis Alexander is barely mentioned.
     


  2. Kamille

    Kamille Shine bright like a diamond

    Messages:
    16,603
    Likes Received:
    4,830
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Myvice

    Myvice Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. daisydomino

    daisydomino Active Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I listened to a couple of Monica Lindstrom Q & A sessions on Fox Live YouTube, so I might be confused where she said this. I believe she said that it is difficult and expensive to prove, not that it would be wrong.
     
  5. RickshawFan

    RickshawFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,556
    Likes Received:
    7,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the evidence Jodi will get one taxpayer funded appeal? Doesn't she have to pay for all appeals unless she got the DP?

    Also, I think Sheriff Joe was trying to stop her from tweeting, but wasn't sure he could legally do it. Maybe the reason JA is not tweeting right now is because he got it figured out?
     
  6. Endora27

    Endora27 New Member

    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm no legal expert but I do know that perjury is a crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth. JW and KN knew that their "expert" witnesses were going to lie. They were coached to lie. They were hired guns. They also coached their own client to lie after she admitted during an interview that she had no mitigating factors at all.
     
  7. Steve44

    Steve44 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If she really admitted to watching news about the case during the trial, JSS should have been able to remove her without it becoming an appeal issue. All she would have to say is "I am removing J17 for failure to follow admonitions. She has proven incapable or unwilling to follow the law, and is therefore not qualified to serve on this jury. It has nothing to do with her sentiment regarding the sentence of the defendant. The fact that we are only finding this out during deliberations does not implicate the deliberations themselves as the reason for her removal. She has been dishonest with this court during the trial and that fact has come to light only during these deliberations. If the court had been aware of her activity at an earlier time, she would have been removed earlier."

    ETA: If she had seen or even regularly watched news about the case before this trial started and before she was connected to the case in any way, and merely tried to introduce some of what she'd seen into the deliberations, I don't think she could have been so easily removed. She could have been instructed to keep deliberations to the information presented to the jury during the trial and to not bring anything additional into it. Previous exposure to the case was not grounds for precluding people from sitting on the jury.
     
  8. Endora27

    Endora27 New Member

    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted by ScarlettScarpetta
    Just because you don't like the way someone defended their client does not mean they did anything illegal. In fact they didn't. JSS did nothing to be disbarred over. It is not a whim but would have to be over something serious.

    While people may not like this defense team, JA is entitled to a rigorous defense. They were trying to save her life and I know it is disgusting what happened but they followed the rules and worked out the disgusting plan and it was legal.

    I have no problem with people not liking people for their tactics, but in the end everyone here had a job to do and did it.
    JSS whether you like it or not made it so JA will not have any good appeals. She bent over backwards to make sure JA's rights were not compromised.


    Subornation of perjury is a legal term describing the crime of persuading another to commit perjury.

    It may be applied to an attorney who presents testimony (or an affidavit) the attorney knows is materially false to a judge or jury as if it were factual. Generally, the knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what a reasonable attorney would have believed in the circumstances. For example, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that their witness is giving false testimony. An attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is clearly guilty of suborning perjury.
     
  9. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    56,541
    Likes Received:
    106,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is also a core group over there, that have a long complicated theory of the crime. They proudly proclaim that Det Flores and a group of Mormons FRAMED poor innocent JA, and the palm print was 'planted' by Flores, and the photos of the 'body drag' were not Jodi, because you csn tell by the strip on the pants they were not hers, they match the stripe of Mesa Police Officers uniform pants....:nuts:
     
  10. ZsaZsa

    ZsaZsa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,002
    Likes Received:
    14,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That procedure sounds like the pre-sentencing interviews that JA waived. I can't remember now who I watched on TV that day, ? Jean Casarez, but those interviews are an opportunity for her to have a Psych evaluation, present mitigation, anything she can do to obtain a lighter sentence. She's been there done that, and apparently doesn't want to do it again.
     
  11. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,634
    Likes Received:
    9,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My last post about JA.. :) I've posted it in the Travis journal thread as well, link below. (page 10).


    WHAT THE FULL MAY 26 TEXT MAY SUGGEST:


    Travis sends her an email in response to a "disgusting" call she had made to him. He tells her in the text that if she had any feelings at all for him she would respond to his email. I don't think that meant just sending him an email response (which she says she is doing while they are on chat).

    What did she say in the call to him that prompted his first email, and his misplaced hope that she would spare him?

    {{7:59 TA: I sent you a response to your dire conversation that I hope you read because you need to read it. Maybe it will spark some human emotion in you something that seems to exist only when it comes to your own problems. But everyone else is just a part of your sick agenda.}}

    In his email to JA Travis told her he knew she had slashed his tires. I think it’s likely his email listed all the things she had done to him, including stealing his journal (s) and the engagement ring. Most importantly, I think from clues in the text that he told her she was responsible for the loss of his second TR.

    {{ Tells her she is evil, a liar from day 1, then says: “it is gone because of you.”
    (earlier in chat) JA. “It’s my fault. I am 100% responsible for this.”

    I think his demands all through the text for her to say she is NOT sorry relate to the loss of his TR. He accepts his own responsibility for the sex at one point, but she quickly says that she is MORE responsible for it. That leads him right back to his central allegation- that she is and always has been trying to ruin him on purpose. The ruin he is referring to is definitely related to sex.

    What did she say to him during the call? I don’t think her call was FB related.

    1. He doesn’t bring up FB at all until well into the chat

    {{ TA: “and you after everything send some ******** thing down the pipe as you log into my FB.”

    2. She denies knowing what he is talking about: “What does that mean???”

    3. He asks her why she went on his FB, after he had forgiven her so many times for doing that. (Her reply: “Because I suck.”)

    I don’t think her call to him was about the blackmail sex tape.

    In the text SHE steers him to discussing that phone call (haven't diddled, except for the phone CALLS (plural). He didn't dispute the plural (I'm guessing because he was so angry he didn't even hear it). Here’s the context:

    {{He talks to her about the cycle of harm-anger-forgive-harm, and says, “you do something to make any sane person shun you..” She doesn’t respond to any of that. Instead, she changes the subject to say she hasn’t been “whorring around..” }}

    The diversion works. Travis then immediately asks her if she’s messed around with anyone else. She says no, she has had no sex drive, that she hasn’t even dittled herself.

    {{JA:….“Except for the times when we were on the phone and did it together.”
    TA: “well, it didn’t seem to be a problem while we were on the phone.” }}

    If she had threatened him with the tape, or had even mentioned it on her call to him, there is no way he would respond to her bringing it up as he did. (I think she brought up the May 10 sex tape call on purpose, as a prelude. More below).


    She deliberately manipulated him into anger (and more) with her call to him. She called rather than emailed or texted so that there would be no record of what she told him. During the chat she is clearly playing with him and stoking his anger. Making him wait for her response to his email is one example of that, and I think the cruelest.

    My best guess is that her initial call was to tell him he was in danger of being exposed for sexual contact with her AFTER he lost his TR for the second time.

    I don’t believe she made a direct, straightforward threat, because that wasn’t her MO, and the tone and content of what Travis says in the text suggest otherwise. It would have been an indirect threat, one that put the responsibility somewhere else.

    Possibilities, most likely (IMO) to least:

    1. She had reason to believe that there was proof of Travis being sexual with her after his TR loss, and she needed to tell him why she believed that.

    2. Some imaginary person had contacted her telling her that there was proof out there that TA had sex with her after his TR loss.

    3. That she had spoken to Rachel in confidence, and Rachel had just told she was going to talk to her Bishop about it.

    4. Or JA told TA that she felt a need to confide in her own Bishop about the sex for her spiritual well-being.

    Different possibilities, but all of them about exposing him for sex. That had been her plan since April 7 when he threatened to expose her as a tire slashing psycho thief.


    Why tell him there were 2 parts to what she had to tell him, and make him wait for hours before she responded to him at all, then a couple of hours more to send him an email while he is losing it on GChat?


    My guesses: To torment him by making him wait- a power trip, all the while relishing how much pain she was about to cause him. A revenge for daring to threaten her with exposure, and for the weeks she had waited, spying on him through his FB to see if he had followed through. And based on what DeMarte said about JA needing to completely demonize Travis to be able to kill him, it is possible she deliberately provoked him to extreme anger to convince herself she was justified in murdering him.


    Her call, his email, and the chat were only part I of the game she was playing. Part II was the email she kept saying that she was going to send him, and I presume eventually did.

    I think the chat ended because he received it.

    I think Part II was about the sex tape. I think it was a follow up to her telling him in the call that proof was out there. I think she told him that she had recorded the call, just for herself, but that the Helio had been stolen with the tape on it.

    It’s clear from the chat that what Travis expected to hear from her about the “dire” situation she was telling him existed was just more of the same. That an imaginary someone had told JA something. However angry that made him, imaginary friends didn’t pose a threat to him, and he had caught JA playing this game too often to be surprised that she’d pull it one more time. The sex tape would have been different.

    Beyond that is speculation based on speculation. I can’t imagine a single friend he would have confided in about the possibility of being exposed. It doesn’t surprise me at all that he told friends he was angry about her going into his FB and left it at that. I can easily imagine that the depression friends described was his response to the thought of losing it all- his church, the friends who believed he was chaste or at least repentant for his lapses….all that on top of his financial difficulties.

    The only hint of what his immediate response might have been to Part II is that JA texted or emailed him afterwards that she was going to see an attorney the following Monday. Perhaps he threatened her with legal action for taping him without this permission, or for the theft of his diamond ring.

    The haste of her plans after May 26 suggest that he told her he was going to carry through on exposing her, and/or taking legal action that would expose her. Maybe he thought he had nothing to lose at that point.





    Check out May 26 text, Travis-JA texts and 2008 chronology: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...-text-messages
     
  12. iluvmua

    iluvmua Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,660
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only thing I'm really happy about is that Jodi will never be able to hurt another person ever again.

    I'm glad she got life in prison. jmo
     
  13. ZsaZsa

    ZsaZsa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,002
    Likes Received:
    14,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really those people are the dregs. Let them proclaim but don't give them an audience.....
     
  14. Reagan

    Reagan New Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that their names were leaked to her supporters is despicable. Im looking at you cougarlucsious. Not only do they come across as severely unintelligent people (most of them can hardly spell or form coherent sentences), they also seem mentally unstable. I'd be worried if I was a juror.

    I wish the state was looking into who leaked the jurors names. There needs to be repercussions, but chances are nothing will come of it. Just like nothing will happen to the stealth juror who obviously lied under oath about being DP qualified (and more than likely lied about not knowing any of the players in this case)... and that's a damn shame.
     
  15. daisydomino

    daisydomino Active Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I haven't got the patience (or frankly, the interest) to keep reading about this trial much longer. I appear to be one of the only people on the whole internet who thinks that the mistrial was sad, and frustrating, but acceptable and that JSS will give JA the maximum possible sentence.

    Just briefly, can anyone tell me: what exactly do you want out of prosecuting Juror #17 if the official investigation proves she's guilty of perjury in jury selection? JA will never be eligible for the death penalty again.
     
  16. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Tracking a Foreign Faction of Cereal Killerz

    Messages:
    10,866
    Likes Received:
    8,112
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Tracking a Foreign Faction of Cereal Killerz

    Messages:
    10,866
    Likes Received:
    8,112
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I feel the same. I have no fear that JA will ever be freed. She will die in prison.
     
  18. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 Active Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Jumping off your post. He seemed to be out there IMMEDIATELY stating "my wife was the hold out," makes me wonder how much they discussed the case during the trial. He seemed very versed in what his wife's thought process was. Another no no.
     
  19. Wagara

    Wagara Wishin' and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’...

    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And it's not just that. The public has a right to expect jurors to be honest and to be held accountable if they aren't. What's to stop this problem from becoming the new normal. People might have stolen for ages but an attempt to prosecute them takes place. If not, stealing would become the normal. I think there's an obligation to all citizens to thwart the theft of justice.
     
  20. bettybaby00

    bettybaby00 Active Member

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I wonder if the Alexanders will seek to ensure that something comes of this????

    Could play into the civil suit as well.

    MOOOOOO
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice