Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

Status
Not open for further replies.

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
11,169
Reaction score
29,182
Is it true that MDLR will have a two year ban before she can visit Arias in Perryville? I have read that a few times. Was it noted on the AZ Mitigation Specialist Contract page?

What is the reason for the ban?
 

Nosey Parker

A Brit in Canada
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,335
Reaction score
25
What is the reason for the ban?

I don't know. I don't even know if it's true - just know I have seen it posted on several occasions. Perhaps some 'arms length' clause once their mitigation role is complete?
 

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
11,169
Reaction score
29,182
Petite can also mean slim in size (weight) and not necessarily in height.

Not really. Some people misuse the word, though you don't usually see anyone 5'6" or more referred to as petite...even those who are extremely slim.

Tiny, imo, is even smaller than petite.

But Arias is neither so the point is moot anyway.
 

luvmygarden

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
843
Reaction score
2
IMO Jodi was going to use the thirty days video chatting with up to twenty seven each day to get her affairs in order. She was going to use each phone call to solicit money and favors. She wasn't using those chats to talk about the weather. Each one had a purpose. I cannot even begin to think of what she was going to use the two fifteen year olds for, but I believe there was a purpose. Lets say she had twenty chats a day times thirty days and she averaged ten dollar donations for each one thats six thousand dollars if I did my math right. Just an example of the possibility and I think it could be much more.
So she had a plan to sell interviews and go to prison with her stash of bribe funds.
She is evil so glad she had 30 days to add to her corrupted thinking. Her attorneys must
Be so proud.
 

Steve44

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
11
Moving target of time, which is still moving forward. Do we know for a fact that someone hasn't attempted to get to her home? Do we know for a fact that in the last few days someone hasn't made a phone call or made a threat of some kind on social media? Maybe they haven't, but would it surprise you that there could be some seriously pizzed-off and irrational people who could do such a thing? Just because we haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened in some form or won't still happen. What I've learned in following murder trials is this: the number of irrational and idiotic people far surpasses the number anyone thinks it will. Just spend a few hours reading Facebook and Twitter for hundreds of examples.
I believe the statement was largely preemptive, meant to attenuate the rising public sentiment against J17. It only takes one radical outlier in the prevailing direction to cause a tragedy.
 

lauraoh

Active Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
378
Reaction score
39
Fox News says they'll be showing some of the JA testimony at 1 pm ET
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
5,843
I'm not so concerned with what J17's intentions were or her intelligence as relates to this voir dire issue, as much as realizing she did disclose what was enough information to indicate one or more red flags. I'm still not clear on how or why the state allowed her on the jury panel. If some grandma types can easily find info about this juror, then I don't know why the state couldn't (or didn't). This issue is about the state and their actions or lack of actions in vetting.

I think there is a completely different way to view the information about J17 that was available during the voir dire process.

She's an Hispanic woman who claims to have witnessed and been involved in DV with what I assume would be her first husband? A violent felon. If there is someone who knows what DV really is, it should be her right? According to her she was in an abusive relationship in which she was married to the perp, living with him, and had two children with him. So technically you'd think she'd understand that JA's situation was not DV and that TA was an angel compared to the man who abused her. The kind of juror that I think it was mentioned more than once during the trial, that some people hoped had actually made it onto the jury. And JA does not identify with her Hispanic culture, another thing for an Hispanic woman to question about her right? Well wrong apparently. Also, technically, while JM may have been the prosecutor in her first husband's murder trial, he got off very lightly from what I've seen on the court records. So why would she have a problem with JM?

I guess that's the other way to look at it. For all the reasons that J17 should have "gotten it" that the defence team was lying about TA, DV, PTSD, etc, she, for some reason, did not. I have my own opinion on that but I just wanted to point out how the PT might have thought she was a good candidate.

Perhaps my question is why did the defense think it was a good idea to have a real DV victim on the jury? Someone who watched snippets of a made for TV movie that depicted JA as a manipulating monster? Who was also a fan of NG, HLN and was obviously active on her facebook? How did she sneak through their net of social media monitoring? And since the court records don't show it, IS she a real DV victim?

MOO
 

MeeBee

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
10,768
Reaction score
9
Honestly I am more concerned for the jurors that voted for death. Their names have been listed, along with some of their facebook links, even some middle names/initials. I don't see the ones that wanted the death penalty being so concerned that JA did NOT get death that they would go after juror 17. JA was found guilty of premeditated 1st degree murder. Now on the flip side of that I DO see how the ones that are supportive of JA would go after the ones that did vote for death. They have also shown themselves to not be thinking clearly at all.

MOO

The sheriff also said at the time that they have received no reports of credible death threats and still no word yet on that. I doubt she is receiving much in the way of actual death threats. It's just drama. SSDD. Cry victim. I hope you choke on a chicken bone does not equal death threat. The defense does the same thing. Juan receives threats and letters too but all we ever hear about is the defense. I'm over it. Show me the police reports and I will recant.
 

steelman

Former Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
5,052
Reaction score
155
Question:

Arpio, in the smackdown heard 'round the world yesterday, stripped the <modsnip> from all of her privileges for the next 42 days. We all know that her sentencing is in exactly 30 days (one month) from today.

What's the extra 12 days for ? Is there going to be a delay in sending her over to Perryville after she is sentenced ?

42 days seems like a weird number to me.

Maybe this has been answered already, but I have to work for a living, so I don't have much time to read all of the proceeding pages until later.
 

Steve44

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
1,470
Reaction score
11
That's interesting because someone (can't remember who) posted the other day that the jurors reported that they didn't put much stock in what any of the DT witnesses had to say.

Maybe it's a context issue again.

The important thing to remember is they didn't believe the defense...and that to me means they didn't believe their witnesses. What else could it mean?
Yea maybe he just meant he gave her the same due respect, the same benefit of the of the doubt, as any other witness, it's just that in the end he concluded that she was full of ****.
 

Gin

Share a smile
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
15
Question:

Arpio, in the smackdown heard 'round the world yesterday, stripped the 3-hole-wonder Hershey Goddess from all of her privileges for the next 42 days. We all know that her sentencing is in exactly 30 days (one month) from today.

What's the extra 12 days for ? Is there going to be a delay in sending her over to Perryville after she is sentenced ?

42 days seems like a weird number to me.

Maybe this has been answered already, but I have to work for a living, so I don't have much time to read all of the proceeding pages until later.

JMO--Maybe the extra days are a little insurance, just in case there's some hiccup. Gosh, ja's probably having quite the annoying Friday the 13th. I predict her weekend will stink, too.
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,718
Reaction score
5,843
Quite true, but I believe she was expecting, and maybe even counting on, the DP.

I think she may have known there was a small chance that the "lottery" may not have been in her favour. No need to allocute to the rest of them. She knew what they were thinking. She just had to hedge her bets that she might need this obstification further down the road. There could be a whole new set of judges who heard her appeal who have a different viewpoint right? Always scheming and planning ahead that Jodi. Including this murder.

MOO
 

Nosey Parker

A Brit in Canada
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,335
Reaction score
25
The sheriff also said at the time that they have received no reports of credible death threats and still no word yet on that. I doubt she is receiving much in the way of actual death threats. It's just drama. SSDD. Cry victim. I hope you choke on a chicken bone does not equal death threat. The defense does the same thing. Juan receives threats and letters too but all we ever hear about is the defense. I'm over it. Show me the police reported and I will recant.

I agree. IMO, the majority of her direct contacts are more likely to be 'ambulance chasers' (one already got to her apparently), talk-show producers, and reporters. Her Twitter/Facebook accounts are another matter, but those she should have made 'private'. If she is on the internet reading all the cray cray comments floating around, that's her problem.

I doubt very much any deranged individual has attempted to run the gauntlet of the MCSO officers outside her home if, in fact, anyone has even considered it.
 

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,030
Reaction score
15,243
Question:

Arpio, in the smackdown heard 'round the world yesterday, stripped the 3-hole-wonder Hershey Goddess from all of her privileges for the next 42 days. We all know that her sentencing is in exactly 30 days (one month) from today.

What's the extra 12 days for ? Is there going to be a delay in sending her over to Perryville after she is sentenced ?

42 days seems like a weird number to me.

Maybe this has been answered already, but I have to work for a living, so I don't have much time to read all of the proceeding pages until later.

Maybe the 42 days is their standard protocol........ maybe he just wants to ensure that she is still banned in case there are delays for some reason.
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
Some people view criticism as an attack on them personally. They shut themselves off and shut down because that may have been a dealing mechanism they acquired through the DV experience. jmo
 

geevee

Well-Known Stickie
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
17,322
Reaction score
13,515
Question:

Arpio, in the smackdown heard 'round the world yesterday, stripped the 3-hole-wonder Hershey Goddess from all of her privileges for the next 42 days. We all know that her sentencing is in exactly 30 days (one month) from today.

What's the extra 12 days for ? Is there going to be a delay in sending her over to Perryville after she is sentenced ?

42 days seems like a weird number to me.

Maybe this has been answered already, but I have to work for a living, so I don't have much time to read all of the proceeding pages until later.

Has AZL said what the maximum length of time between verdict/hang and sentencing is there? I saw one tweet reporter say 45 days, so I was thinking he was making sure that even if the DT got another delay that she'd always be on restriction until she's out of his hair completely.
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
7,848
Reaction score
31,756
Maybe the 42 days is their standard protocol........ maybe he just wants to ensure that she is still banned in case there are delays for some reason.

I'm thinking "42 days" in street lingo would be "six weeks". Maybe "prison think" works in days, not weeks.
 

MeeBee

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
10,768
Reaction score
9
I think there is a completely different way to view the information about J17 that was available during the voir dire process.

She's an Hispanic woman who claims to have witnessed and been involved in DV with what I assume would be her first husband? A violent felon. If there is someone who knows what DV really is, it should be her right? According to her she was in an abusive relationship in which she was married to the perp, living with him, and had two children with him. So technically you'd think she'd understand that JA's situation was not DV and that TA was an angel compared to the man who abused her. The kind of juror that I think it was mentioned more than once during the trial, that some people hoped had actually made it onto the jury. And JA does not identify with her Hispanic culture, another thing for an Hispanic woman to question about her right? Well wrong apparently. Also, technically, while JM may have been the prosecutor in her first husband's murder trial, he got off very lightly from what I've seen on the court records. So why would she have a problem with JM?

I guess that's the other way to look at it. For all the reasons that J17 should have "gotten it" that the defence team was lying about TA, DV, PTSD, etc, she, for some reason, did not. I have my own opinion on that but I just wanted to point out how the PT might have thought she was a good candidate.

Perhaps my question is why did the defense think it was a good idea to have a real DV victim on the jury? Someone who watched snippets of a made for TV movie that depicted JA as a manipulating monster? And since the court records don't show it, IS she a real DV victim?

MOO

I place no blame on the state or the judge for not crossing her in the beginning. There was nothing to cross her for. You don't cross someone off for cause for having DV in their past if they say they can remain impartial about it. It's their word and you have to accept it. I don't think Juan was super concerned about DV victims, especially if there were more strike worthy candidates. He may have thought, like many of the posters here, that a true victim of DV might see through the lies. There was a male juror who had experience with DV in his past let on too. It's a crap shoot. And, again, doing in depth research into their backgrounds doesn't seem typical to me.

As far as Juan not doing more research on her ex husband, I don't think that is typical of research that the state does when vetting jurors and seriously, how would it ever cross his mind to look for that, especially when the juror does not appear to have disclosed his earlier first degree prosecution? The prosecution she did disclose to him would not have been prosecuted by him either, as he has been a homicide prosecutor for quite some time now. Was he even allowed to ask her for his name so he could research him? Sure a bunch of "grandma types" found the info, but, again, this isn't something the state will ususlly look for. There's an expectation of honesty when questioning jurors. I remember AZL saying during jury selection that the lawyers will look for things that will show them a juror was honest. This juror was forthcoming about her husbands' legal issues and that probably tipped to him that she was being transparent and didn't appear to be TRYING to get on the jury. He otherwise seems to have done a stellar job selecting the jury so it makes you wonder.

He did try and get her removed a couple times which is interesting. I'd like to know more about that. If the defense had asked for it she'd be gone in a New York minute.

Like I said before, I won't blame the state for someone else's deceit. Yes, deceit. She lied by ommission by not mentioning Juan was her ex husband's prosecutor. There's no way she didn't know this and no way she didn't know this was important information and no way she told them this and Juan let her stay on. If she comes out and offers some logical explanation for why she didn't reveal this info I will eat my words. But I'm not gonna pretend to be blind to what is in front of me.
 

SwampMama

Insomniac Extraordinaire
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
28
What is the reason for the ban?

Possibly the same as if a correction Officer wanted to visit and inmate. Usually if you have a professional relationship with the inmate, you are not able to immediately able to visit them as if you are friends or family or a lawyer. MLDR's job as a mitigator is over. She no longer has a professional relationship with CMJA and has to sit out a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top