Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #5

[MaLou]

:seeya: Thanks, sumbunny !

:facepalm: I just had to go read it ... :couch:


Here it is:

Jodi Arias Updates @JodiAnnArias · 48m 48 minutes ago
Flores: "Was there ever a violent relationship between those two?"
C. Hughes: "I WOULD GUESS THERE WAS, but not that we know of."-- 10/28/08


:gaah:

Of course he would GUESS there was; one of his best friends was slaughtered by JA. Seems pretty violent to me.

 

[turaj]

as long as she has an audience reading and reporting on her tweets? Nope. Best thing is to ignore. Let her tweet out only to her darkness.

i so agree...by even repeating them or paying any attention gives them some sort of attention that they just do not deserve...let her tweet to no one...same with the photos...one has been replayed here many many times with a chocolate bar etc. this is just what she wants....attention...not interested in seeing her face ever again.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

It is annoying, but I totally believe Sheriff Joe.
I'm certain he carefully documents all past and current JA issues.

:seeya: I agree Gin ! IF he could make her stop, he would.


Re-Posting a couple of SJ's tweets: https://twitter.com/realsheriffjoe

Joe Arpaio @RealSheriffJoe · Mar 6

Trying to put a stop to #jodiarias social media antics which she conducts from jail. May hit legal road block.

Note: This was the day after the hung jury announcement.


Joe Arpaio @RealSheriffJoe · Mar 5

I am denying all interviews with convicted killer #jodiarias while she remains in my custody.

:great:

 

[Spellbound]

Daisy. This is the first one we saw with only three jurors. They made an announcement that they would air the next day an interview with eleven jurors, but that was never aired. I smell a gag order because of the investigation.

All 11 jurors did an "audio only" interview after the conclusion. Is that something different than you are referencing?
http://youtu.be/LwTFFczrL04

 

[daisydomino]

All 11 jurors did an "audio only" interview after the conclusion. Is that something different than you are referencing?
http://youtu.be/LwTFFczrL04

Ryan Owens used clips from that presser in his Good Morning America report here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-jurors-express-anger-regret-murder-trial-29435095 . Maybe that's what they meant.

I'm not assuming gag order. Since we have no news of the investigation, there's no way to tell whether there is—or there isn't—a gag order. No news does not necessarily mean that there is news but nobody is allowed to report it.

 

[Susza]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiZfbSkH2EE
Sheriff Joe might have already done this to JA:

May I ask you: What is the purpose of posting this link?

 

[turaj]

Ryan Owens used clips from that presser in his Good Morning America report here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-jurors-express-anger-regret-murder-trial-29435095 . Maybe that's what they meant.

I'm not assuming gag order. Since we have no news of the investigation, there's no way to tell whether there is—or there isn't—a gag order. No news does not necessarily mean that there is news but nobody is allowed to report it.

If those jurors were going to do media and get more of their feelings and experience out there they would have done it by now...the rest of that interview has somehow gone missing...I don't think it is an official gag or some how that court ordered doc would be out...it may be on advice of counsel for any or all of these jurors that they let the process play out...I think it is voluntary and they can ask the stations not to run it and hope they comply.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'll tell you one thing: if I ever sat on a jury and was offered the opportunity to interview afterwards I would never do it if my face or identity was part of the deal. I value privacy and would have no desire to deal with the cray-cray element out there, which abounds in just about every murder trial. Even if you make a perfectly logical choice, there are so many unhinged people that get drawn in. No thank you.

 

[Hope4More]

as long as she has an audience reading and reporting on her tweets? Nope. Best thing is to ignore. Let her tweet out only to her darkness.

NO, please don't make her stop!! More. More.....


She didn't put CH in a bad light, though I'm sure that was her intention. With every tweet she communicates how pizzed off and vengeful she is that nobody believes she is a victim, and that 13 of 14 jurors believe she doesn't deserve to live.

Believe that Sheriff Joe IS watching and listening to everything she says and does. He doesn't like her. He clearly wants to knock her down a peg or two or a hundred. What she doesn't get (thankfully) is that he IS in a position to mess with her AFTER she leaves Estrella. His report about her doesn't just go to JSS. It'll go to Intake at Perryville.

It's only been a few days since #17 tainted the verdict, and she's already:


1. (Likely) been responsible for breaking the law (s) by giving jurors' names to a public web-hole.

2. Lost her temper between the courtroom and her holding cell on Taint-Day.

3. Insulted and mocked her victim's family before she reached her holding cell.

4. Mocked her victim's family and the public by posting self-congratulatory photos of herself soon after the Death Verdict If It Weren't for the Taint.

5. Has relentlessly sought media attention to try to undermine the jury's findings

6. Insulted Sheriff Joe on Twitter (read: was "disrespectful to Law Enforcement")

7. Either quoted JW accurately or slandered JW by saying JW called JM a liar.

8. Is posting out-of-context from LE interviews. Hopefully she'll soon be posting info that is under seal.


Sheriff Joe will know how to turn all that into a good story about a killer who is positive the rules don't apply to her.

 

[Amster]

:seeya: Thanks, sumbunny !

:facepalm: I just had to go read it ... :couch:


Here it is:

Jodi Arias Updates @JodiAnnArias · 48m 48 minutes ago
Flores: "Was there ever a violent relationship between those two?"
C. Hughes: "I WOULD GUESS THERE WAS, but not that we know of."-- 10/28/08


:gaah:

Chris said this? Really? Because of the slaughter? He guesses violence was a part of the relationship?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The silence from Arizona and the investigation into Juror 17 is deafening. Guess they checked out her questionnaire and have seen that it wasn't so much that she lied (because who can prove she was in court and saw Juan, or even remembered his name and recognised him now), but that she wasn't asked the right questions, and the state didn't look any deeper into her ex-husbands case to see if there were any connections to people involved in this trial.

 

[Amster]

I'll tell you one thing: if I ever sat on a jury and was offered the opportunity to interview afterwards I would never do it if my face or identity was part of the deal. I value privacy and would have no desire to deal with the cray-cray element out there, which abounds in just about every murder trial. Even if you make a perfectly logical choice, there are so many unhinged people that get drawn in. No thank you.

So......I guess you would be upset if the defendant and her minions released your name to the public?

 

[katiecoolady]

Ryan Owens used clips from that presser in his Good Morning America report here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-jurors-express-anger-regret-murder-trial-29435095 . Maybe that's what they meant.

I'm not assuming gag order. Since we have no news of the investigation, there's no way to tell whether there is—or there isn't—a gag order. No news does not necessarily mean that there is news but nobody is allowed to report it.

Thank you for this lnk...been looking for it! I love Ryan Owens. Remember when she called him a "hater"?

 

[daisydomino]

Thank you for this lnk...been looking for it! I love Ryan Owens. Remember when she called him a "hater"?

"Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking?" LOL

 

[katiecoolady]

"Nobody believes a word out of your mouth. Why do you keep talking?" LOL

Just absolutely classic. I've watched that so many times. He nailed it.

 

[TartLemon]

Justice for Travis means Jodi must be condemned. It's like the Alexander 'The Great' thing. He was not 'Great' to those he conquered.

Jodi is in survival mode. The side of the battle most will never condone. She is a cold blooded, calculating murderer who, IMO, will kill again if released.

One of those perspective thingies.

 

[Madeleine74]

So......I guess you would be upset if the defendant and her minions released your name to the public?

No juror's name should ever be released to the public in this or any case, by either side. I feel strongly about that. It should be 100% up to any juror if they want to make their name and/or face public (or anything about themselves).

 

[Madeleine74]

Justice for Travis means Jodi must be condemned. It's like the Alexander 'The Great' thing. He was not 'Great' to those he conquered.

Jodi is in survival mode. The side of the battle most will never condone. She is a cold blooded, calculating murderer who, IMO, will kill again if released.

One of those perspective thingies.

Do you believe she'll be released from prison?

 

[wvjules]

Go back to the guilt phase then and you might find video showing her giving admonitions. These are standard jury admonitions. Judges make these admonitions in every trial, during every phase, every day the jury is convened, in every state. They can probably recite them in their sleep, and juries on long cases can probably do so as well by the end, after hearing it scores of times.

ETA:

Here are part of the actual instructions given to the jury in Arizona:

Do not form final opinions about any fact or about the outcome of the case until you have heard and considered all of the evidence, the closing arguments, and the rest of the instructions I will give you on the law. Keep an open mind during the trial. Form your final opinions only after you have had an opportunity to discuss the case with each other in the jury room at the end of the trial.

It says FINAL opinions. That doesn't mean that the jurors can't go back and forth during the trial about what their opinion is in regards to whether JA received life or death. I'm sure many jurors go back and forth throughout trials on their opinions but don't actually make a final decision until deliberations.

 

[TartLemon]

No juror's name should ever be released to the public in this or any case, by either side. I feel strongly about that. It should be 100% up to any juror if they want to make their name and/or face public (or anything about themselves).

IMO, the jurors who spoke after the verdict had every right to voice their own opinions on the case, but not voice an opinion about the other jurors like they did. I didn't like that. Had they said it was 11-1 and left it at that, speaking only of their own vote, it would have been okay. However, the presser was a condemnation of the dissenting jurors vote and even going into detail of her conversations in deliberation.

Like I said, I did not like that. Deliberations are done in secret on purpose.