Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/3 -12/04 In recess w/hearing

[Val1]

Child *advertiser censored* would be exculpatory in a very tangential way, because it would support her story about the whole relationship spinning into an abusive spiral after the child *advertiser censored* incident. And I assume if she hasn't told that tale (in secret) already, she plans to.

Honestly, that makes little sense to me simply because if she held that information over TA, then she would have been the one holding all the power in the relationship.

 

[MeeBee]

I agree with this. Imagine if you wrote the question about the Hughes and you were thinking the Hughes probably didn't like JA after awhile, but Doc F infers that they would have felt more sorry for JA. That would burn your brain with the knowledge that the good Doc isn't very good at deciphering the written word. JMO

I definitely think that juror has prior knowledge of the trial and of the Hughes' and know that email was written early on, before they came to know more about Jodi. And that is great because they probably know a lot about the initial trial and info that will be helpful in deciphering what they're hearing now. And they will know when they are being manipulated.

 

[Steely Dan]

Hi all, I'd like to throw in some commentary regarding Mormon singles culture which might illuminate Jodi's strategy.

I am a former Mormon and believe it helps to understand that Mormonism is a recognized subculture with its own rules and tabus, which differ from regular America. For example, masturbation is a big deal and boys and girls are interviewed about this by their bishop from the age of 12 on (sometimes they skip the girls but never the boys). Every young woman is taught from childhood that marriage in the temple is her goal because only there can she go to the highest realm of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom and remain with her family (Mormons call that being "sealed" to their children and spouse). A man can be sealed to more than one woman, for example, his divorced wife and his present wife, but a woman can only be sealed to a worthy male Mormon once and cannot be released from that to remarry (after divorce) if she has a worthy male lined up to take his place, and if first husband gives his permission and states that there is no moral iniquity in her preventing her from remarrying.

This difference in power means the women do the picking because they have much to lose if they pick a non-worthy male. Every faithful Mormon single woman wants a "worthy" male that can take her to the temple for marriage. She is also looking for a returned missionary because that is the test of fire for the faith. A man who has been excommunicated would have little to offer the top-tier virgin Mormon woman--and by the age of 25, she's been waiting a long time. Mormons do not follow the modern trend to wait until later for marriage and children. When I was 28, I was considered over the hill and was sent to the family ward.

Being "sent to the family ward" means a person is no longer allowed to attend a singles ward, where the eligible people are all mate-shopping. When a single is sent back to the family ward, i.e., the parish nearest their home where all the families are attending, it means the church does not feel that person is a good candidate for marriage to other LDS people. They need to repent, or the church doesn't want them infecting the other singles with their problem (sex, coffee, drugs,alcohol, *advertiser censored*, etc).

We know CMJA was desperate and playing her last blackmail card. I submit to you that singles who are excommunicated may lose status and be working on repentence, but they are not shunned or treated badly. They may only be disfellowshipped (allowed to go to meetings but not the temple, cannot take the sacrament). If they are in a stage of repentence, they are usually supported in that. If they re-offend, however, that's another story. Then a "Court of Love" is convened with church officials to review evidence against them, such as the testimony of the other party. Then they are excommunicated as a habitual offender and the road back is longer.

No top tier Mormon woman would date an excommunicated man in the casual, collegial, fun environment of the singles wards. But there are plenty of jack mormon single women (believe but don't follow minor rules like the dietary ones). And they might not mind a bit.

Knowing the complete details of the sexual histories of both parties, it it less likely that TA would have initiated any kind of sex with Jodi on or around her baptism. He would have had to qualify to perform the baptism in the first place by having an interview. Since lying Arias said the oral sex in the car after the baptism was their first encounter, he must have passed the interview and therefore the who-corrupted-who torch passes to Arias. Is it more or less likely that a man on probation, so to speak, who has worked his way up to qualifying to baptize some would immediately risk it all to have himself serviced by a woman to whom he has been preaching the gospel? A woman he thinks whose life he is changing?

Skipping to the endgame here, the question was raised that people are wondering what Jodi was threatening Travis with. Had he embezzled, had he done this or that, let me tell you right now that ALL the regular frauds are understood with Mormons in that they are forgiveable. In Mormon culture, *advertiser censored* has a much higher place in the hierarchy of sins than it does with the general public. For most of us, *advertiser censored* on a man's computer is hohum unless there are excessive or weird practices, violence, etc. Men like to look at naked women ho hum.

In Mormonism, *advertiser censored* addiction is a serious problem. Utah has the highest consumption of *advertiser censored* per capita than any state in the union. It also has the highest suicide rate for young men ages 16 - 24 and these tend to be disaffected Mormons who feel worthless and have stopped going to church due to masturbation or *advertiser censored* problems. No Mormon boy can pass the sacrament as a 12 year old deacon if he admits to masturbating. So the kids suffer terrible public humiliation as the rest of his quorum goes to pass it and he is seen just sitting there, face burning, with everyone knowing what he probably did to get his privilege revoked.

I think it helps to understand this culture when talking about child *advertiser censored*. It is considered the worst thing you can do short of raping a child yourself. If you confess to this, your life in Mormonism is over. You would never be considered for leadership (as a male) and you would never be able to have a calling where you worked with children. That would leave you jobs in the church where you worked alone, like cleaning the toilets on a Saturday when the kids are gone. You would be a pariah and would not be welcome in either the family or the singles wards. Most likely you would never work in the "morridor" (Mormon corridor) of Idaho-Utah-Arizona because such excommunications are announced in priesthood meetings. There is no question that his employment as a role model/public motivational speaker would be over.

I have no proof of this, but my gut tells me that Jodi Arias planted child *advertiser censored* on Travis' computer. Records show she accessed the computer during the visit. He didn't know she did it until she told him as part of her final blackmail attempt. She wanted to capture the look on his face when she told him--that's what the closeup camera shoot was about. You can see the strange look on his face where he seems to be realizing something. He's realizing she's a monster bent on destroying him. He knew what this would mean--even if he deleted it, it still would be "there". Sharing some speculation here and welcoming comments pro/con.

Hope you find this background helpful.

Thank you. It sounds like this religion teaches people to lie a lot. JMO

 

[atthelake]

I was watching Juan's closing arguments again (thanks for the link)..... Jen seemed to get really PO'd when Juan used the word "slime" when referring to Jodi. She nudged Nurmi to object and was overruled. I wonder if that is the basis for continuously using the term "slime highway". (at about the 53:50 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Sq8m15-aXBU#t=3225

Oh yeah, shall we make a list of the passive aggressive/projection terms she presented on the stand? I bet we can get the list up to 10! I'll start!

1) slime
2) gutted

 

[NashBridges2]

I'm not the least bit worried 'bout it.

Good. You're quite level headed in my opinion, so when I see you nervous or worried, I worry that I am not worried enough lol

 

[Steely Dan]

After looking online I couldn't find any references to the wrong computer. :sigh:

 

[NashBridges2]

ATL. you forgot all the new words and phases we've learned in this trial. I have never heard three hole wonder, toss salad, cream pie, pedo pamphlets at the mall before in my near sixty thee years on this earth. I'll always remember Jodi saying she awoke to Travis having anal sex with her and her first thought was ut oh.

Oh yes, the pedo pamphlets at the mall. Here, they are located right in the food court between the "so you have a STD" and the " do you want cream on your pie " pamphlets.

 

[Val1]

Hi all, I'd like to throw in some commentary regarding Mormon singles culture which might illuminate Jodi's strategy.

<huge snip of very enlightening info>

Hope you find this background helpful.

First my apologies for snipping your post, it was very helpful to me and not just re the TA/JA dynamic(knowing what we know), but also on a more personal basis. I was a foster kid with a Mormon family in my troubled youth and this has really opened my eyes as to some of the family dynamics that I was blind to at the time and often wondered about.

 

[NashBridges2]

After looking online I couldn't find any references to the wrong computer. :sigh:

If you're looking for the info about the defense searching the wrong hard drive, it was in a court response filed by Juan. Not sure how to find those. He filed a document pointing out that the defense accused him of hiding *advertiser censored* on a laptop that was a different make than TAs

 

[Truth Detector]

Re: The educational background of the "sexpert" (love that word, by the way!)

Anyone who has attended a college or university, who has put years of their time and effort in earning a degree, or two or three degrees, is highly UNLIKELY to not list them anywhere.

The one and only higher education facility with whom this witness can thus far be found to be associated happens to have a "checkered" background - being described in various places as unaccredited and a diploma mill.

Did Nurmi go over her educational qualifications at the beginning of the direct examination of her? If he did, I must have missed it.

BBM

Well, you couldn't have missed anything because JSKS holds the 1st Amendment and Arizona law in such high regard that she will graciously allow you to read the occasional 140 character summary of the proceedings.

 

[Val1]

After looking online I couldn't find any references to the wrong computer. :sigh:

If you check the second court document at the following link, you will find a Motion for Sanctions(Compaq Presario Computer) from JM:
http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/11/juan-martinez-hurls-shocking.html

 

[MeeBee]

Good. You're quite level headed in my opinion, so when I see you nervous or worried, I worry that I am not worried enough lol

Lol, pffff.

I am a bit of a worry wort. Going back through the jury questions, they don't worry as much as they did before. But there are a couple that have me thinking there is a juror who is already on the defense side BUT they are so hard to read. Some of them are obviously good for the state, like the one about the Hughes email and the one about whether Travis might have been hiding the sex and not the women (such good questions) but the ones I'm thinking were good for the defense could kind of go either way. They weren't so obvious. Like, the one asking her if it was unfair she didn't get all the info first worried me, as if they were blaming Juan. But it also kind of sounds like they were trying to catch her out and have her admit she basically got all her info from the internet as opposed to documents provided to her and wasn't even as well researched as she's claiming, if that makes sense.

 

[MeeBee]

After looking online I couldn't find any references to the wrong computer. :sigh:

That's just a theory. Personally, I don't think it was the wrong computer, but there is something fishy about all this. BN did hand in the wrong hard drive from the wrong computer at one point after handing in Travis' hard drive damaged.

 

[Truth Detector]

I respectfully have to disagree with the above BBM part. Some pedophiles DO have sexual interests in grown women. Regardless, Travis was not a pedophile IMO.

Yes, but the DT can't decide whether he was interested in a 12 year-old girl (primum gaudens), or pictures of 8 year-old boys, or a late twenties surgically enhanced 3-hole wonder who was a walking KY Jelly ad.

 

[Truth Detector]

If Darryl takes the stand as a witness, I sure hope the first question JM asks on cross is "Is the photograph of the erect penis that was sent to JA yours?" Then, at least that mystery will be solved.

JM will never ask that question unless he knows the answer that DB must give will bolster his case.

 

[Truth Detector]

The defense isn't saying it was OK for her to kill him because he looked at child *advertiser censored*. Well, yes, they ARE saying that, but they're PRETENDING to say that the child *advertiser censored* was just an incident that happened to make the relationship more stressful and abusive, which, combined with JA's already screwed-up mind, led her to react in a premeditated and cruel manner.

Yes, we know.

She is St. Jodi of Arias, courageously sacrificing her chastity, honor, and sterling reputation in order to keep the world safe for children by sexually placating a dangerous pedophile.

Puh-leezzzzzzzzzzz... :banghead:

 

[Retrofit]

Hi all, I'd like to throw in some commentary regarding Mormon singles culture which might illuminate Jodi's strategy.

I am a former Mormon and believe it helps to understand that Mormonism is a recognized subculture with its own rules and tabus, which differ from regular America. For example, masturbation is a big deal and boys and girls are interviewed about this by their bishop from the age of 12 on (sometimes they skip the girls but never the boys). Every young woman is taught from childhood that marriage in the temple is her goal because only there can she go to the highest realm of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom and remain with her family (Mormons call that being "sealed" to their children and spouse). A man can be sealed to more than one woman, for example, his divorced wife and his present wife, but a woman can only be sealed to a worthy male Mormon once and cannot be released from that to remarry (after divorce) if she has a worthy male lined up to take his place, and if first husband gives his permission and states that there is no moral iniquity in her preventing her from remarrying.

This difference in power means the women do the picking because they have much to lose if they pick a non-worthy male. Every faithful Mormon single woman wants a "worthy" male that can take her to the temple for marriage. She is also looking for a returned missionary because that is the test of fire for the faith. A man who has been excommunicated would have little to offer the top-tier virgin Mormon woman--and by the age of 25, she's been waiting a long time. Mormons do not follow the modern trend to wait until later for marriage and children. When I was 28, I was considered over the hill and was sent to the family ward.

Being "sent to the family ward" means a person is no longer allowed to attend a singles ward, where the eligible people are all mate-shopping. When a single is sent back to the family ward, i.e., the parish nearest their home where all the families are attending, it means the church does not feel that person is a good candidate for marriage to other LDS people. They need to repent, or the church doesn't want them infecting the other singles with their problem (sex, coffee, drugs,alcohol, *advertiser censored*, etc).

We know CMJA was desperate and playing her last blackmail card. I submit to you that singles who are excommunicated may lose status and be working on repentence, but they are not shunned or treated badly. They may only be disfellowshipped (allowed to go to meetings but not the temple, cannot take the sacrament). If they are in a stage of repentence, they are usually supported in that. If they re-offend, however, that's another story. Then a "Court of Love" is convened with church officials to review evidence against them, such as the testimony of the other party. Then they are excommunicated as a habitual offender and the road back is longer.

No top tier Mormon woman would date an excommunicated man in the casual, collegial, fun environment of the singles wards. But there are plenty of jack mormon single women (believe but don't follow minor rules like the dietary ones). And they might not mind a bit.

Knowing the complete details of the sexual histories of both parties, it it less likely that TA would have initiated any kind of sex with Jodi on or around her baptism. He would have had to qualify to perform the baptism in the first place by having an interview. Since lying Arias said the oral sex in the car after the baptism was their first encounter, he must have passed the interview and therefore the who-corrupted-who torch passes to Arias. Is it more or less likely that a man on probation, so to speak, who has worked his way up to qualifying to baptize some would immediately risk it all to have himself serviced by a woman to whom he has been preaching the gospel? A woman he thinks whose life he is changing?

Skipping to the endgame here, the question was raised that people are wondering what Jodi was threatening Travis with. Had he embezzled, had he done this or that, let me tell you right now that ALL the regular frauds are understood with Mormons in that they are forgiveable. In Mormon culture, *advertiser censored* has a much higher place in the hierarchy of sins than it does with the general public. For most of us, *advertiser censored* on a man's computer is hohum unless there are excessive or weird practices, violence, etc. Men like to look at naked women ho hum.

In Mormonism, *advertiser censored* addiction is a serious problem. Utah has the highest consumption of *advertiser censored* per capita than any state in the union. It also has the highest suicide rate for young men ages 16 - 24 and these tend to be disaffected Mormons who feel worthless and have stopped going to church due to masturbation or *advertiser censored* problems. No Mormon boy can pass the sacrament as a 12 year old deacon if he admits to masturbating. So the kids suffer terrible public humiliation as the rest of his quorum goes to pass it and he is seen just sitting there, face burning, with everyone knowing what he probably did to get his privilege revoked.

I think it helps to understand this culture when talking about child *advertiser censored*. It is considered the worst thing you can do short of raping a child yourself. If you confess to this, your life in Mormonism is over. You would never be considered for leadership (as a male) and you would never be able to have a calling where you worked with children. That would leave you jobs in the church where you worked alone, like cleaning the toilets on a Saturday when the kids are gone. You would be a pariah and would not be welcome in either the family or the singles wards. Most likely you would never work in the "morridor" (Mormon corridor) of Idaho-Utah-Arizona because such excommunications are announced in priesthood meetings. There is no question that his employment as a role model/public motivational speaker would be over.

I have no proof of this, but my gut tells me that Jodi Arias planted child *advertiser censored* on Travis' computer. Records show she accessed the computer during the visit. He didn't know she did it until she told him as part of her final blackmail attempt. She wanted to capture the look on his face when she told him--that's what the closeup camera shoot was about. You can see the strange look on his face where he seems to be realizing something. He's realizing she's a monster bent on destroying him. He knew what this would mean--even if he deleted it, it still would be "there". Sharing some speculation here and welcoming comments pro/con.

Hope you find this background helpful.

Thanks. That's enlightening. When you think about it that way, I believe now (more than ever) that all the *advertiser censored* nonsense (especially child *advertiser censored*) is Jodi's doing. It's really scary to realize how easy it would be for a motivated person to completely ruin your life.

As far as verbal abuse goes, I never thought of it as calling someone names. That sometimes lets the bile out and you can move on. I believe I was verbally abused by my first husband. When we first met, I was very confident and sure of myself. Took pride in my work ethic and my appearance, etc. After getting married it all changed. He would twist things around to make me look bad and I lost confidence in myself and my abilities. Almost like gaslighting me to think I was crazy. Everything he said (alone or in front of others) was some snide way to put me down or make me feel dumb or incompetent while at the same time making others think I was useless or worthless. You don't actually realize it while it's happening and you only get it afterwards, when it's too late. My family and friends noticed it first when they said I was always saying "I'm sorry" about almost anything. I was raised that marriage was forever and though not really happy I felt I had to hang in there and keep trying.

Then, one night about 1 am, a girl called and told me she had been dating him for months. All of a sudden it hit me ... and I told her, "In that case, you can have him. Why don't you just come pick him up now." I woke him up and told him she was on her way to pick him up so he better be ready to go. I never looked back. Even though I've never reached that same level of self-esteem, at the moment I told her she could have him it was if a thousand pound weight had been lifted off my shoulders. That was 30 years ago and luckily I found someone just the opposite of him and have been very happily married for 27 years and counting. Thank God, I had family and friends to support me and help me see what was happening. As far as I can tell, Travis NEVER did anything like that to Jodi.

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[Truth Detector]

As I understand it, if the jury does NOT all agree on death, then it goes to the judge who has 2 choices. LWOP which means no chance ever of getting out. Or LWP which means she can apply for parole AFTER completing a FULL. 25 years but some board has to grant it and it rarely if ever, given to murderers. She will NEVER walk out alive.

This will not keep her from escaping and slaughtering again, or more likely, killing behind bars.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of murderers who escape state penitentiaries each year.

 

[Truth Detector]

ATL. you forgot all the new words and phases we've learned in this trial. I have never heard three hole wonder, toss salad, cream pie, pedo pamphlets at the mall before in my near sixty thee years on this earth. I'll always remember Jodi saying she awoke to Travis having anal sex with her and her first thought was ut oh.

Yes, she liked to be debased, or so she recorded herself stating.

 

[Myvice]

Lol, pffff.

I am a bit of a worry wort. Going back through the jury questions, they don't worry as much as they did before. But there are a couple that have me thinking there is a juror who is already on the defense side BUT they are so hard to read. Some of them are obviously good for the state, like the one about the Hughes email and the one about whether Travis might have been hiding the sex and not the women (such good questions) but the ones I'm thinking were good for the defense could kind of go either way. They weren't so obvious. Like, the one asking her if it was unfair she didn't get all the info first worried me, as if they were blaming Juan. But it also kind of sounds like they were trying to catch her out and have her admit she basically got all her info from the internet as opposed to documents provided to her and wasn't even as well researched as she's claiming, if that makes sense.

It's interesting that you thought they might be saying Juan should have given her info. My impression was that she said she was given 30 odd pieces to go over out of 3000 and that the defense screened it. It sure will be interesting to find out what they were thinking. Thanks for showing me another perspective.