Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #3

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Sep 29, 2014.

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

    MeeBee Active Member

    Messages:
    10,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I saw the conversation they were having and in the part where he said she should go back to law school that's exactly what he was doing, in an albeit, frustrated way. They were arguing over hearsay and she said, "I just don't see how that's hearsay..." And he interjected with the law school comment.

    With the other comment, it's exaggerated. He didn't say if he were married to her he'd want to f****** kill himself. He did NOT use the f word. He just said I'd certainly want to kill myself. It was a hypothetical he'd brought up in response to something that Travis said. He was saying just because you say something hyperbolic doesn't mean you mean it. They took issue with it, understandably.

    But at this point they're just tattling. The judge quickly reprimanded him on both occasions. And what he said wasn't even that bad in context. A bit inappropriate? Probably. Funny? Kind of. Lol
     


  2. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if JW was insulted by JM's hypothetical, how does that translate into Arias not getting a fair trial?
     
  3. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding the tweets do the motion Exhibits show all tweets or just hers? IOW, is the tweet conversation in context or not?

    ETA: I am thinking back of when the killer and her DT hoped to play only portions of the sex tape in court.
     
  4. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they needed to fill a page.
     
  5. Zuri

    Zuri Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,782
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wilmott wrote it didn't she? Her signature is at the end.
     
  6. MeeBee

    MeeBee Active Member

    Messages:
    10,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
  7. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why wasn't that motion sealed? I thought all defense motions were sealed.

    Seems a bit covert to me...let's just put this out there for all to see. Eh, throw in the "f" word here; nobody will remember that he didn't say it. *snicker*.
     
  8. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, she should have refrained. But...did she tweet SEALED info? That's what's being claimed, isn't it?
     
  9. bsk

    bsk New Member

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My guess would be that if JM and JA agree to that now, then she could do it. But JA would have no reason to agree to that since she figures it's almost impossible that she will get death, so maybe she'll luck out and get the possibility of parole.

    If penalty phase round 2 ends like round 1 did, then it goes to the judge and she assigns one of the two life sentences.
     
  10. Retrofit

    Retrofit New Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I assume they have verified that she actually did the tweets, etc. and someone didn't just do them using her name or something? I know if JA can hack email accounts, etc., then twitter accounts should also be easy to manipulate. I guess they could check the IP Address, but can't you spoof those as well?
     
  11. dog.gone.cute

    dog.gone.cute Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10

    Messages:
    15,653
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not sure JA figures it's impossible for her to get a death sentence. She thought it for sure for awhile but I am not sure she really believes it now. And...if the state took the DP off the table now, the judge could decide the sentence. No penalty retrial would be necessary and no mitigation would happen because there would be nothing remaining to mitigate.

    I think the state could end this circus at this point, but only the state--unless judge finds reason to dismiss DP. But I am guessing there.
     
  13. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that bantering @ the bench is funny to me. If I were the judge I'd accuse JM & JW of having a wild attraction to each other and to either consummate it or get over it! That's some real heat there. :floorlaugh:
     
  14. Lissa

    Lissa New Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I'm surprised/disappointed too. If it's her, I find it inappropriate, but it doesn't amount to prosecutorial misconduct, IMO. I sure hope there was no sealed info leaked!

    The motion says it's her based on the content of the tweets and the photos posted. Ugh! I anxiously await JM's response!
     
  15. katydid23

    katydid23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    60,681
    Likes Received:
    160,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think she can do it alone. But I think she can call in both sides and try and get a deal between them all. jmo
     
  16. krkrjx

    krkrjx The answer is blowin' in the wind.

    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    21,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is a deal necessary? I think this is the state's call--if they decide to remove the DP then there is no need for a penalty trial because the only penalty possible is Life. Since a jury is required only to decide between Life and Death, there would be no need for a retrial. And I do not think the state needs the defense approval to remove the DP and let the judge decide sentence. They can just do it, if they choose. IMO.

    ETA: Just thought of another question. IF this were to happen (state removes DP so the only sentence that can be given is Life) would there then be a mitigation phase necessary to try to convince the judge to give LWP?
     
  17. potboiler

    potboiler Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have been looking at some of the defense motion. She is claiming that the state is being unfair by not letting her show evidence of some of her mitigating factors.

    -she was physically and mentally abused by travis

    -she was beaten as a child

    -she has BPD, PTSD

    Basicly, if she isn't allowed to represent her side of things (lies and all), in its entirety, she is being denied her mitigation factors. It is as if she should get to present Samuels and LaViolets testimony as experts without cross. I feel that Martinez successfully impeached both of them. Thiss could really go on and on.......
     
  18. east2west

    east2west New Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Her hatred for Travis, and by proxy , the Alexander family, is what keeps the steam in her engine going. Add to that, the hatred for The Hughes, bringing up the caboose. The hatred of those individuals and the additional fear of being carted off to the Lumley Unit, next to Adriano, is the driving force behind her motions. She knows she's goin to Perryville however the thought of a tiny cinder block as your home (Lumley Unit-DR) til the needle knocks on the metal food depository flap, will drive her further into hysteria. She's doomed. And her vicious claws are scratching at the walls.
     
  19. Bernina

    Bernina Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,444
    Likes Received:
    6,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "issue" is that CMJA is "using" these great organizations as "evidence" for her "philanthropic" albeit "Mother Teresa" act to sway the jury in finding those donations mitigating factors to save her azz.

    It's all "Show and No Go". Her minions have only made these "donations" in the last month: if court had proceeded on the original start date, none of this would have taken place, thus the motion to represent herself and the delay.

    There is a method to her madness. She's never given to charities before, this is all a show for the retrial.

    As she has shown in the past, she leaves a wake of destruction in her path. She is a sociopath, it's NOT what she can do for you, it's what you can do for her.
     
  20. turaj

    turaj Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    4,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i doubt if she can shut it down...but she can reign in the courtroom..keep things moving...make rulings faster and limit the scope of what will take place...my fear is the same crap that happened in the first trial will get even worse this time.
     
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