+- Crime & Trial Discussion Forums (http://kristinarandle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Crimes and Trials (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Jodi Arias Trial (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: End is Near Hopefully (/thread-1.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Justice - 03-26-2015
Excerpt from Paul Sanders article posted today in JMPSP:
WHY NOT KILL HER
“A Juror’s Perspective”
Travis Alexander & the Jodi Arias Death Penalty Retrial
by Paul Sanders
DAY 7: AM SESSION
“A KILLER’S RIGHTS”
Posted in Jodi Arias / Travis Alexander, Trials / A Juror's Perspective by Paul Sanders On March 26, 2015.
(Paul said, ”Special thanks to David Bodney and Channel 12 (KPHO) for the release of the secret transcripts and showing us that “the rights of Jodi Arias do not supersede that of the public and media.”)
Jennifer Willmott put a picture on the screen for the jury to see. It was of Arias seated in a restaurant with what looked to be happy friends, half-finished cocktails and beers in front of them. Arias could be seen smiling. “Is this a picture of you and some co-workers.”
“Yes,” she answered. She looked toward the jury. “We all went to the Yard House after work.”
“In 2006, did a financial opportunity come your way?” Willmott asked.
“Well, yes.”
“Can you tell us how that happened ?”
“I was cleaning out my closet one day and I ran into a DVD I had for about six months. I had never seen it and I put it in the player and it was a sales presentation for Pre-Paid Legal. I liked what I saw and tried to pursue it,” Arias explained with her chair turned a quarter of the way toward the jury box.
“You eventually signed up to work for Pre-Paid Legal on a commission basis?”
“Yes,” Arias answered. “I think that was in March 2006. I had signed up on-line. I knew it required some diligence and it looked like a lot of people were successful at it. I wasn’t making enough money to pay the mortgage even though I was working two, maybe three, jobs at a time.”
“So,” Jennifer Willmott said slowly. “At some point, you became involved?”
She looked at the jury. “Let’s see. If I would have signed up in March, there is an international convention held in September which, at the time, was being held in Las Vegas. So, the lady who signed me up called me. I think it was around June or July and urged me to go. I had a wedding booked as she wanted me to go to another segment of that. I couldn’t go to the first thing but was able to go in September to the convention. That’s when I got involved a little more.”
“You went to the wedding but couldn’t do the retreat,” Willmott said as a statement. “But you went to the convention. Now who is paying you to go to retreats or conventions?”
“We pay our own way,” Arias answered with a shrug of her shoulders.
“All right. So, that’s the first pre-Paid legal function that you went to?” Willmott asked.
“It was in September of 2006.”
______________________________________________________________________________
In the quotes above, by Paul Sanders, this just reinforces my opinion that Arias had from March until Sept. to 'research' about 'sucessful SINGLE prospects' for her to manage to meet when she DID get to a PPL Convention. I will always think she had learned about Travis ahead of their 'meeting' and absolutely planned to meet Travis when she got to that convention. I wish some of those who car pooled with her would come forward and tell us if she ASKED anything about Travis Alexander on the way there!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-26-2015
Duluth,
I do not follow Beth anymore because unlike when she was at HLN, she is commenting with her personal opinions.
It makes me wonder if her personal opinions have been pro Arias to a certain degree all along but she could not voice them in her last job because she was to "just report". Maybe not actually pro Arias but she could have favoured the defense more than the prosecution.
In any case, I have found her reporting this time around to be not as reliable for an unbiased opinion.
I do not believe for a minute that the prosecution leaked anything.
They already got their guilty verdict WITH evidence and I do not believe they would jeopardize the remainder of their entire case.
I do not see any proof that the defense did either. (as of yet)
Justice,
I have firmly believed that Arias "did her research" and planned her initial meeting with Travis.
Things were starting to fall apart with Darryl and she needed to find a replacement, one that would fulfill all the things she wanted in her life.
She did not leave a relationship until she had someone waiting in the wings. That is her MO.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-26-2015
@WildAboutTrial @courtchatter @TrialDiariesJ @TrialQnSharee @David_Lohr @BethKaras = #JODIARIAS SITE OWNER/BLOGGERS/ REPORTERS TRIAL EXPERTS
Keifer is in with MDLR, the above is the soon to be released' MDLR example of hundreds of tweets misspelled or misworded = ( "None Sense" ) instead of Nonsense, the above is heads-up today or tomorrow news release!
,,..............................................
In the quotes above, by Paul Sanders, this just reinforces my opinion that Arias had from March until Sept. to 'research' about 'sucessful SINGLE prospects' for her to manage to meet when she DID get to a PPL Convention. I will always think she had learned about Travis ahead of their 'meeting' and absolutely planned to meet Travis when she got to that convention. I wish some of those who car pooled with her would come forward and tell us if she ASKED anything about Travis Alexander on the way there!
@ 100% I bet she saw Travis on a DVD and she never was accredited for a PPP sale commission before the convention, so she had only paid the join-in fee, then without gas money bummed a ride' I don't know if she had money or not for splitting expenses, but Jodi did not have the money to help pay for gas getting there.
Nern' in time I will post to explain Martinez, as I understand it' first #17 was discussed in chambers, and again discussed on the following day with Florez holding a piece of paper proving #17's internet use!
Here I need to know if you agree, it is saved in my phone = judges released court minutes' I cannot crop the post' so see if attachment opens (my first try here), then the released jury were informed that their information was posted on the internet by the courts, by the courts just as they were going into the room for interview' as in before the interview, just then the paper with #17's internet use was released on the internet that included her information' the exact information that Florez showed the judge' that Martinez waved in the air in chambers at JSS.
Attachment attempt! The attachment fails to open for me' if it opens please let me know!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-26-2015
[attachment=5] another attachment try
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Justice - 03-26-2015
Both links work for me...I guess if you have pdf on your computer, it opens easily.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-26-2015
Great' my new phone is slow' I was never following Twitter this much and it seams to be a problem, I have been trying to post this for a few days' week, and the page mentioned is what was released in retaliation for JII releasing the 11 jurors names and Facebook information, but in law 2 wrongs don't make a right' the justice department is mad.
_________________
So Beth is correct the defense had nothing to do with releasing #17's name, and are blaming the Prosecution side, All the while the release of the 11 jurors names, middle names, addresses and 2 of their Facebook addresses released by JII within minutes of hung-verdict are in no way blamed or mentioned by Beth, only the state or prosecution side having a finger of blame aimed, we do have jodi passing notes to MDLR during jury selection' plus Jodi carrying notebooks during transport on numerous occasions, and we must add Keiter saying just before deliberations that a vote of 11 to 1 is all that's needed (tweet is saved in my email drafts) Simon saying "we got this, and before deliberations code red = 2 dismissed jurors (Simons dirty work maybe) and MDLR saying ' faith won'=paraphrasing as soon as jury gave note to judge of deliberation conclusion.
MDLR was tweeting Keiter with trial information during court in open view (the tweets were dated - time stamped) and Beth protects Keiter, she lost standing from Travis supporters that Tweet' gone from communication with news bloggers that topic Jodi.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-27-2015
Both links opened for me as well. I have read them before.
Issues regarding #17 were discussed in chambers.
Citing case law, removal of #17 was denied. This was after interviewing 3 jurors, including #17.
Citing case law, request by defense for mistrial was denied.
Since this and since the verdict, accusations that #17 was lying throughout and that the court basically ignored the prosecution's motions to have #17 removed.
Therefore, #17 and the judge are at fault for the mistrial.
As mentioned, case law was researched before any decision was made.
Both parties, defense and prosecution, accepted the court's ruling and carried on without further motions or debate.
The court of public opinion did not accept the court's findings. I think the only ruling they would have supported is if #17 was booted off.
So, public opinion sets the rules and precedents?
In my world, I think not.
It was truly unfortunate, truly disappointing and truly, the mistrial angered so many in that Arias did not get the DP as so many felt she deserved.
In reading these minute entries, it seems to me that all bases were covered by the court before it was decided to have the jury remain intact. Case law was researched before the decision was made. The case law was presented to all parties. involved with no further debate coming forward.
The court of public opinion may not like the results but it appears to me that all was done correctly.
that has been my stance from the beginning of this issue.
And for the record, to date, no one, not even me, knows who may have leaked any information regarding jurors. We all have our opinions but no one knows as of yet.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-27-2015
Nern well said' we have the timing of when the paper was released' it was exactly when the 11 were walking into interview room and that was just after the 11 were informed' by the court, that JII had published all their names including middle names, plus 2 jurors Facebook names, then we have (it's important) that the first trials jurors had their names and Facebook names posted on Jodi support blogs a month before deliberations, the page released was the page discussed in the judges chambers' it was both posted and swiftly deleted' but #17's information quickly flooded the retweets, we don't know who released #17 but we know that the department of justice will find out what reporter released the papers information because the department of justice is actively investigating as we speak, that much is lockset!
Their is a correction that relates' and accuracy is important, the daily show or something that was favorited by #17 was reported only in existence since December' but it had been a prior news show closed and reopened, theirs a possibility of the show having reused the web link, highly unlikely due to expanse of time but also a possibility that #17 just never deleted from favorites and that is the tidbit that had me leaning towards culpability, note I never assured blame' just posted possible agenda, my assumption still stands but I fear possibility of bearing false witness' so I will keep #17 under scrutiny' because of her liking Nancy and channel 12 and 10, plus I do believe Martinez filed a complaint motion' that was reentered unrevised days later.
___________
From Cathy Court Chatter
"Supplemental" to motion to change counsel.Where's the motion? Change counsel for what? Of course sealed. #jodiarias pic.twitter.com/Q5IK0wHgx7
A commenter then said;
The date says March 23, 2015, change counsel for what? I don't get it, Hodiwho is off to Perryville soon.
And another said; Justice4Travis; JSS better deny Jodi if she wants to go pro se again, just wants phone privileges back!
@ So over the weekend' first thing monday the "Jodi Motion" was filed' but JSS sealed the "Jodi Motion", note Nurmi and Willmott are not appellate attorneys' so their done with Jodi on the 13th, but motions filed must be addressed/answered
Link is a very narrow window' so going to the link doesn't give more or less filed motions (everything important is above), I take it that Nurmi gives Jodi the my Secretary can take your calls treatment and Willmott wants no part of taking Jodi calls with MDLR having told Jodi that she is broke, plus like the talking = Jodi wants a Hersey bar' instead of jail slop, so she wants a ride to the courthouse!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-27-2015
Some time ago, I stopped following Cathy and Court Chatter. I did it about the time I stopped listening to Jeff Gold on Spreecast. I found him horribly opinionated, a poor interviewer (reminiscent of Nancy Grace) and just plain obnoxious.
The only thing I read from Court Chatter are postings of documents.
Court Chatter has not made any bones about how they feel about the judge in this case and blame JSS for most of what they feel went wrong with this trial.
This bias seeps into almost every post they make.
It does nothing to encourage serious discussion but rather to fuel the fires of discontent - IMO.
I basically follow JMPS page and The State vs Jodi Arias - The Travis Alexander Trial page. I also read the Examiner articles, Just da Truth, and a few others.
I find these to report articles with facts to substantiate their postings. Of course personal opinions are occasionally made, after all they are humans with their own thoughts, but generally the Admins of these places encourage discussions and discourage vile, hateful posts. The two FB pages I follow always are mindful of the Alexander's feelings as well.
But I also know that these are not seasoned reporters who run these pages (with the exception of the Examiner) and they are just creating a forum for people to comment. I just find that by giving opinions like Cathy does on Court Chatter about JSS, only serves to fuel the fires that are burning.
Too many comments are just speculation to me and I take most of them with a grain of salt until there is proof provided.
I know, sounds like I am beating a dead horse, but proof is important, not just unfounded comments based on what people "think".
Again, here in this forum, every attempt is given to back up what people's thoughts are and that makes the interaction interesting and worth responding to, even when there is some disagreement.
Hey.......................koodos to us!!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-27-2015
Cool Koodos' I hadn't noticed Cathy and will remember, some like Cathy are so anti secrecy that they never want to cover JSS trials because of time loss from delays, to arrive just to depart and to have so much sealed' being outside of the norm, yes their putting pressure on JSS and Nurmi kept pressure on JSS by keeping her caseload full of motions, theirs only one in control and the first trial became a circus' but I've watched way way bigger circus trials with the only difference being social medias watchful eye, and I do avoid all hateful commemters which is why I follow CSHughes or actually follow the people that he converses with, like Mimi and the Juror who supports Travis, they have the truthful information' attitude or not, Jodi is a clown and she asks for disrespect, but I want the gaps of secret information filled.
Being 100% positive really means' wait for the end and assume everything was professionally managed, I don't see where that allows debate or communication' we can only take what's there and compare to resolve our own convictions.