(02-02-2015, 12:09 AM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]On the Trial Addicts Facebook page Justice told us about, I also found the plea bargain motion which makes it clear from the beginning that Arias was planning on putting the victim on trial and exposing him as a sexual deviant and a tawdry playboy thinking his Mormon family would take the plea to save their brother’s reputation.
Wrong. The Alexander family and Martinez refused to give in to her blackmail and forced her to take it to trial.
According to the motion, on Oct. 26, 2010, Jodi Arias stated she would plead to second degree murder if the state agreed to the sentencing guidelines for someone who does not have a criminal record. Nurmi wrote the motion but it smacked of Arias arrogant know it all attitude.
The motion didn’t list the sentencing guideline but I believe it is eight years for someone with no criminal record. By then she had already been in prison for two years. So she was basically wanting to spend six more years in prison and then get out of prison and obsess and stalk and kill another guy who wouldn’t marry her.
I find it interesting that in the motion, Jodi Arias says it would require “the feat of mental gymnastics” to believe that Arias would be found guilty of felony or first degree premeditation because of the demeaning, degrading and abusive behavior of Travis Alexander.
The motion lists all the evidence Arias has against Alexander: the text messages, the sex tape, the emails and says a plea would save the Mormon community and family embarrassment of a trial.
Because of the “chaotic relationship," the motion states the most she would get is manslaughter.
It also says Jodi Arias does not believe she will get the death penalty so she is not going to plead guilty to first degree murder.
I wonder why she didn’t just agree to plead to manslaughter because that’s what she thought she would be convicted of if she didn’t walk on self defense.
She was wrong because the jury found her guilty of first degree murder (8-4 felony and 12-0 premeditation.)
I hope she is wrong and she gets the death penalty also.
https://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf
WOW, I just read from the above link and was struck by the arrogance and manipulation in full force by Arias.
And having read this and then gone on to watching this trial unfold, she came through with all of her threats. Everything she said was presented in graphic detail and ad nauseum. She trashed Travis to the point that there was nothing else she could say about him. She used experts that were suspect to back her story of DV. She has trashed her own family and gone after each and every girlfriend of Travis' that she could. She even went as far as to make accusations against the prosecution and the police department. I am surprised she has left JSS out as a target given that it was in her court that Arias' conviction came down.
All of her comments about how it would affect others - the Mormon church, marriages and the Alexander family having to hear all the dirty stuff (et al) that she would present is not the reason she wanted to plead out.
She stated she had regret for all the stories she had told - not being there, the ninja story.
THAT IS WHY SHE WANTED TO PLEA OUT!
She knew once this came to light in a trial, her true personality would be exposed and especially that she is a pathological liar.
Manslaughter - not a chance.
Second-Degree Murder - not a chance.
Martinez and the Alexander family knew that they had the facts and evidence to support a PREMEDITATED First Degree Felony Murder charge with Extreme Cruelty.
They did not fall for her attempt to blackmail them through manipulation and subsequently a lesser sentence. They saw right through her and were and are confident of their decision.
Arias has done everything that she said she would do and more.
Didn't work for her, did it?
Arias - you are not as smart as you think you are.
Thanks for these links Justice. I remembered the stories from Dabell’s and Bertot’s interviews but I didn’t remember who told the stories. I never saw the interview with Veronica, Arias' coworker.
Unfortunately, Jodi Arias seems to be able to paint Travis Alexander as a sexual deviant and abuser but Martinez seems to be unable to bring in any witnesses to say that is not true and Arias was the “Fatal Attraction stalker.”
The only way Martinez was able to get Abe to testify was to rebut Arias claim that she sent him an email that Travis made her write but he was unable to show that Arias was manipulating Travis and seducing men.
The interesting thing is that Jodi Arias can’t get one person to take the stand and say she should live but Travis Alexander’s friends would be lined up for miles if the prosecution asked for volunteers to testify for him.
That was evident because numerous men and women talked to HLN saying they were Travis’s best friend. Dave Hall said Travis made everybody feel like they were his best friend because he cared about his friends.
D”Ann Dabell could rebut Arias claim that he was possessive, controlling and sucking her back into the relationship by telling that Travis Alexander, her good friend, told her he felt suffocated because Arias wanted to know where he was 24/7 and how she had ran after their car “like a little puppy dog” when Travis was going to their house to get away from Arias.
Mike Bertot could rebut Arias claim that Travis talked her into moving to Mesa after they broke up. He said he was sitting in the car talking to Travis when he was texting Arias that he was very upset that she moved to Mesa because they were not together and he did not want her around. Bertot also described Arias' behavior as “creepy” the way she would sneak around Alexander’s house and crawl through the doggy door and one night Alexander found her vacuuming his house in the middle of the night.
Veronica the coworker of Arias could rebut the defense’s claim that all her coworkers loved her and thought Travis was the bad guy. I loved it that Veronica said, “The only thing missing is the rabbit in the pot” which was a reference to the movie Fatal Attraction where the Glenn Close character goes into his home and boils up Michael Douglas' character's daughter’s pet rabbit.
Veronica said Jodi had to know where Alexander was, what he was doing every minute and she would tell her, “Jodi leave him alone. Quit throwing yourself at him.” She even said Jodi would finish a shift in California and drive five hours to Mesa to find out what Travis was doing. I thought she was dead on, when Veronica described Jodi as having a flat affect.
“She’d be deep in trouble at work and it wouldn’t bother her. She believed nothing would harm or hurt her” Veronica said.
Arias proved that by giving TV interviews while the jury was deliberating whether she lived or died and in the retrial laughing and joking with Maria De La Rosa and tweeting that the prosecutor and cops are crooked and the state’s witnesses are all liars.
Arias thinks no one can ever kill her. She is invincible. But she is worried about her reputation. She isn't worried about the death penalty. She just wants the world to think Travis Alexander is the scum of the earth and she is the salt of the earth.
I finally got to read the link that Justice posted earlier and I will not tell you why I was having trouble getting it as it was a stupid and obvious reason that I didn't notice - LOL
All that I read showed me that what was going on before the first trial began was a precursor to what was going to happen on behalf of the defense (Arias) once they got to trial.
The following was very poignant to me.....
"Look at the minutes yourself, but basically it says that although the Defense can argue it’s (irrelevant) mitigators, the State can argue the WEIGHT that should be placed on them as they relate to the offense itself. In other words, in this case, since the mitigators don’t have anything to do with what she did, they should not be given much weight, and Juan will be allowed to argue this during the penalty phase trial!! "
I have taken the liberty in an earlier post to make my comments refuting the mitigation factors that the defense has presented. I will not post again as I am sure most of you read it.
With this above statement about the WEIGHT put on these mitigating factors, it would seem to me that it will be rather easy for Martinez to dispute the factors in this penalty phase trial.
It wasn't too hard for me to do it and I am not a prosecutor nor knowledgeable about the law so I surmise that with Martinez's expertise, he can essentially flush those mitigating factors down the toilet.
The only other thing I would say about what I read is it is too bad not more people take the time to research info on this case. JSS denied most of the motions by the defense (Arias) put before her. She should be acknowledged for this rather than just trashed for the other things that people disagree with.
She DID get the conviction in her courtroom in the first trial.
She has given a lot of latitude to the defense in this trial BUT despite this, the defense's (Arias') case has been torn apart and almost annihilated by Martinez.
I have not and continue to not believe that she is favouring the defense (Arias) in any way.
I have said it before and I say it again, the jury has noticed that there is NO ONE coming forward on Arias' behalf in this trial.
There is no one to say she should live - no one but Arias herself.
What they have seen is that the only witnesses who did come forward were "experts" and Martinez was able to take their opinions apart, piece by piece when he questioned them.
The affidavits that were submitted were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were lies.
They have listened to the State's rebuttal witnesses to date and witnessed how they categorically proved that what the defense (Arias) has been saying are outright lies. AND.....Martinez is not done yet!
This jury is not stupid. They see the obvious.
Monday the bishop will be back for Nurmi's cross examination. I don't think there is anything Nurmi can do to impeach the bishop. He will probably just pussy foot around and say just because the bishop didn't see Alexander on the computer didn't mean he didn't use it and just because his son and Jake's cousin said it was Jake's porn didn't mean it couldn't have been Travis's porn.
I'm pretty sure Deanna and the bishop pretty much proved Nurmi's Witness No. 1 was a bald faced liar and Nurmi knew that when he interviewed the fool because McGee had been all over social media saying he never saw Travis hit a woman and that Arias didn't deserve the death penalty. Both of the affiants Witness No. 1 and 2 had wanted to give their opinion that Arias didn't get a fair trial so he knew they weren't unbiased witnesses.
The bishop is totally unbiased. There would be no reason for him to lie. Deanna wasn't even in the country on Jan. 18, 2001 when McGee said in the affidavit that he saw Travis abuse her physically and emotionally and she wasn't even dating Travis in December 2001 when he changed the date because he was dating Linda until January 2002 when they broke up. McGee and his wife were married in March 2002 and not even living at the Bishop's house. Travis did not even live in the house when McGee said he found the porn so he couldn't have awakened him and Travis couldn't have confessed to being abused as a child and putting child porn on the computer if he wasn't there and there was no child porn on the computer.
After Nurmi is finished boring the jury to death, Martinez will re-direct the bishop to say Travis was never there, didn't use the computer and the shop that fixed the virus told him there was no child porn on the computer.
Then Detective Smith, the Mesa police department forensics computer specialist, will testify that Alexander never looked at porn and the only porn on the computer was put there by a virus. Taylor Searle may testify that Alexander told him a virus had put porn on his computer and he helped him scrub the virus from the computer and if Travis put the porn on the computer he wouldn't be trying to wipe it off. I hope he will also talk about Travis telling him he was through with Jodi for good and moving on after he sent those "harsh" text messages calling her a sociopath and saying she was the worst thing to happen to him.
Looking forward to the State's continued rebuttal case. I like how efficient Martinez is at putting this forward in a timely and straightforward manner. He knows his stuff and is decimating the defense (Arias).
You are correct that the Bishop is totally unbiased. He has no reason not to be. He is telling the facts and in a convincing way. He wouldn't compromise his church, his beliefs and him as a person to help a heathen who committed such a horrible deed. He has nothing to gain in lying.
As an aside, I have been busy outside here. We got 37 cm. of snow in one day (yesterday and through the night) and essentially, my little town is closed down for the day as people dig out. I am so thankful that I had friends that came and shovelled me out. Winds continue to make drifting a problem but the sun is shining now.
Jodi Arias: Court Minutes from Omnibus hearing January 23, 2015
Posted: 01 Feb 2015 05:38 PM PST
There are multi-defendants who have joined in a motion to Strike the Notice of Intent to Seek Death Penalty against the State of Arizona and Jodi Arias was allowed to join them in November 2014. Read that motion here.
Counsel for defendant Macario Lopez, Jr. informed Judge Kreamer that he was not prepared with the required data needed and it would not be ready until the end of March. Judge Kreamer was not happy having transported numerous inmates to this hearing on January 23 "unnecessarily".
The judge set deadlines for the parties to have their information in and a hearing was set for April 24. The Oral Argument previously set for February 6 was cancelled.
If Arias is sentenced to death in her current penalty phase retrial but this joint motion is successful, you can count on the State appealing. If the State is unsuccessful, her sentence would convert to Life.
-----
I am surprised that Arias is able to join this as she is the only one that is convicted.
I am totally outraged!
Nurmi has essentially called the Bishop a liar and trying to hide something by having a lawyer present with him.
He has stooped to a new low. His abject lack of respect for this man as a person and as a member of the Mormon church is disgusting!
If he wants evidence of lies, he should turn around and take a look at his client.
I would think that the jury is well aware that Nurmi is grasping for straws.
The best question and answer so far....
As a Bishop, is Parker not looked up to by members of the church?
Parker answers that he is there to guide members NOT for admiration.
This is just what has been asked so far - can you imagine what Nurmi will say next! Horrible.
I've been outraged and offended from the beginning as the defense dragged through the mud my LDS faith and a fellow member who was brutally murdered by their client.
I think the jury and public are offended and outraged with Nurmi's abuse of an elderly man who has served his church for all of his life. With accusing Bishop Parker of committing perjury and lying under oath, which is why he has an attorney, Nurmi is coming across as a big bully who is picking on an elderly man of God.
Attorney Jeff Gold tweeted that jurors don't like to see attorneys beating up men of the cloth and Jen Wood tweeted that the jurors were not amused by Nurmi's theatrics, but sat there with a straight face.
The only time the jurors took any notes is when he started talking about Deanna Reid wanting to go on a mission before she married Travis Alexander and when he corrected Nurmi when he said Alexander was engaged to Linda Ballard. Bishop Parker said he met Linda Ballard and they hadn't gotten engaged. Ballard told Nancy Grace they had planned on being married in February 2002 but she broke it off before he gave her the engagement ring he bought for her.
The only person Nurmi is putting on this show for is Arias. He wants her to take back all those nasty things she said in the 12 page letter when she tried to fire him and to the media about him being an incompetent attorney. He doesn't care what the jurors think.
The bishop might have made a mistake on the date that Jake lived there and may think he should protect Travis Alexander's memory, but I think the bishop made the biggest point this morning by saying the pop ups basically were not punishable because it wasn't really porn by the world's standards, nothing you wouldn't see on TV.
What Witness No. 1 reported to the Bishop were simply pictures of women in bikinis or bras and pants like in Victoria Secret ads. Hardly anything that would traumatize Witness No. 1, a grown man about to get married.
It's all a diversion to hide the fact that Witness No. 1 lied on his affidavit when he signed under penalty of perjury that he found child porn on the computer with Travis Alexander's name on the folder and said he didn't report it to the bishop because he worried he would be sanctioned and not be able to be married in the temple.
The bishop was telling the truth when he testified that Witness No. 1 reported pop ups of "scantily clad women" and the shop that got rid of the computer virus responsible for the popups stated that there was no "child porn" on the computer.
The bishop stated Deanna and McGee went to the same singles ward and he insisted they all knew each other. That doesn't mean Deanna and McGee knew each other. The singles ward was large so they wouldn't even remember meeting each other 15 years later.
When the jurors go to deliberate, they aren't going to care if Travis Alexander looked at pop ups of women in bikinis or bras and panties like in the Victoria Secret commercials. They are going to be asked to weigh whether the mitigating factors (of which there are none) outweigh the aggravators (autopsy pictures of Travis Alexander's body riddled with stab wounds, a slit throat and a bullet in his head, the medical examiner's testimony that Alexander suffered greatly as he tried to get away from his murderer and the cruel and premeditated elements of this gruesome murder.)
Bravo Observer - I am in total agreement with you!
Seems like the Bishop mentioned something when Juan was questioning him about having early dementia. Am I remembering correctly? Or maybe I have beginning dementia....
But, if I heard that, then getting some dates confused would be normal.
Justice, I did not hear that at all about the Bishop.
It has been well over 10 years and anyone's memory would get confused with actual dates. Everyone's except Arias' - LOL