Jodi Arias #3

1. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful physical force; and
   
2. The defendant used or threatened no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation.

1. caused the death of another person; and
   
2. intended or knew that [he] [she] would cause the death of another person; and
   
3. acted with premeditation.

1. The defendant [and another person] [and other persons] committed or attempted to commit [insert one of the offenses listed in A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2)]; and
   
2. In the course of and in furtherance of this crime or immediate flight from this crime, the defendant or another person caused the death of any person.

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some of you have made recent comments about HLN and how downhill it's gone. In Chat today, several of you were asking about my complaint email to them, so I thought I'd share it. Here's what I emailed to them:

-----
I can't tell you how disappointed I am in HLN lately. Well, actually, yes, I can, and I will.

First of all, you advertise "live" coverage of the Jodi Arias trial, but it's not live, and it's interrupted by tons of commercials. I actually saw someone post that HLN provides "Commercial-to-commercial trial coverage", because that's exactly what it is. The live trial is over hours before you finish showing it.

Second, the fact that you're not going to show any future trials is extremely disappointing, especially since TruTV cut back InSessions to 2 hrs. per day. I used to automatically flip to HLN when InSessions was over, but now I can't go to either one for trial coverage. Very disappointing.

Third, your After Dark show is a joke. I'm a member of several true crime websites, and we know far more about this case than anyone on your show, with the exception of Jean C. and Beth Karas. Your recreation of Travis Alexander's house/crime scene was a total joke (shelves not tall enough or wide enough; no bench in the closet where she supposedly ran through; using someone much taller than Jodi to act as her; using a different size gun; blood stains not accurately reflected; Baez was wrong about the gun shell casing when he said it could have been kicked (the evidence CLEARLY contradicts that)), etc., etc., etc. The show is just filled with factual errors; so what's the point?

One of your jurors asked the question as to what evidence proved that the blood at the sink came from Travis coughing up blood. Not one person on the show knew the real/right answer, which was that saliva was found mixed with the blood. Also, your mock juries are worthless because you're only showing them selected pieces of evidence, and you're also showing things (like interviews) that are not actual evidence in the case, which is totally irrelevant. Very unrealistic, and an insult to those of us who have followed the case diligently. It's not worth watching when all I do is yell at the TV because you have so many "facts" wrong. It's not the least bit realistic, so again, I ask, what's the point?

And speaking of Jose Baez, not one person I know can stand him or cares about anything he has to say (and the one time he was on AD, he was flat-out wrong). He didn't "win" the Casey Anthony case; the only reason she was acquitted was because the jury didn't believe a homicide had occurred. He's a buffoon, and we don't want to hear from him ever again. Everyone I know turns off any show that he's on. Please, make him go away!

And I also heard Beth Karas has been let go. Say it ain't so! This woman is the only person on your entire network who truly deserves her own show. She's fair and unbiased, ALWAYS has her facts straight, always has the latest information, and does true and accurate reporting. She deserves a raise and her own show, not to be let go! I'd much rather watch her than Jane Valez-Mitchell or Nancy Grace. JVM's show is everyone yelling and talking over each other. Nancy Grace is rude to most of her guests, rarely checks the accuracy of her data because she's often wrong, and is often 2-3 days behind in terms of current information. Ditch JVM and NG and give me Beth Karas any day! And I know my online communities of true crime followers all feel the same way about all three.

I feel you are making all the wrong decisions, thinking you know what we want to watch, but you've got it all wrong. And I know many people who will never watch HLN again after this trial is over for the same reasons stated above.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my honest feedback. I used to love your channel, but it's gone seriously downhill over the past year, and I thought you should know what your viewers really think (not that it appears to matter).

CuriousPortlander wrote:I've been reading through parts of the AZ Jury Instructions and found some interesting information.
So, even if all jurors don't agree on premeditation, she can still be convicted of First Degree Murder!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Gizmo711 wrote:There was a lawyer on yesterday that was up against Martinez in court in another high profile case. He was asked if he was in favor of the juror's asking questions. He said that he was, that it gives heads up as to how the jurors are thinking and "which juror is thinking what", which made me believe what I had been thinking all along, that juror 5 was outed because she was probably asking too many questions against the defense.

I'm sure it will come out eventually, but I haven't heard one thing about her going against her duties as a juror. So it leads me to believe that it could very well be that she was, too state and her questions showed it and Nurmi thought that she wouldn't be open minded. Just a thought.

Gizmo711 wrote:There was a lawyer on yesterday that was up against Martinez in court in another high profile case. He was asked if he was in favor of the juror's asking questions. He said that he was, that it gives heads up as to how the jurors are thinking and "which juror is thinking what", which made me believe what I had been thinking all along, that juror 5 was outed because she was probably asking too many questions against the defense.

I'm sure it will come out eventually, but I haven't heard one thing about her going against her duties as a juror. So it leads me to believe that it could very well be that she was, too state and her questions showed it and Nurmi thought that she wouldn't be open minded. Just a thought.

Chickenbutt wrote:Ang...thank you! You are the best!

Bravo

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some of you have made recent comments about HLN and how downhill it's gone. In Chat today, several of you were asking about my complaint email to them, so I thought I'd share it. Here's what I emailed to them:

-----
I can't tell you how disappointed I am in HLN lately. Well, actually, yes, I can, and I will.

First of all, you advertise "live" coverage of the Jodi Arias trial, but it's not live, and it's interrupted by tons of commercials. I actually saw someone post that HLN provides "Commercial-to-commercial trial coverage", because that's exactly what it is. The live trial is over hours before you finish showing it.

Second, the fact that you're not going to show any future trials is extremely disappointing, especially since TruTV cut back InSessions to 2 hrs. per day. I used to automatically flip to HLN when InSessions was over, but now I can't go to either one for trial coverage. Very disappointing.

Third, your After Dark show is a joke. I'm a member of several true crime websites, and we know far more about this case than anyone on your show, with the exception of Jean C. and Beth Karas. Your recreation of Travis Alexander's house/crime scene was a total joke (shelves not tall enough or wide enough; no bench in the closet where she supposedly ran through; using someone much taller than Jodi to act as her; using a different size gun; blood stains not accurately reflected; Baez was wrong about the gun shell casing when he said it could have been kicked (the evidence CLEARLY contradicts that)), etc., etc., etc. The show is just filled with factual errors; so what's the point?

One of your jurors asked the question as to what evidence proved that the blood at the sink came from Travis coughing up blood. Not one person on the show knew the real/right answer, which was that saliva was found mixed with the blood. Also, your mock juries are worthless because you're only showing them selected pieces of evidence, and you're also showing things (like interviews) that are not actual evidence in the case, which is totally irrelevant. Very unrealistic, and an insult to those of us who have followed the case diligently. It's not worth watching when all I do is yell at the TV because you have so many "facts" wrong. It's not the least bit realistic, so again, I ask, what's the point?

And speaking of Jose Baez, not one person I know can stand him or cares about anything he has to say (and the one time he was on AD, he was flat-out wrong). He didn't "win" the Casey Anthony case; the only reason she was acquitted was because the jury didn't believe a homicide had occurred. He's a buffoon, and we don't want to hear from him ever again. Everyone I know turns off any show that he's on. Please, make him go away!

And I also heard Beth Karas has been let go. Say it ain't so! This woman is the only person on your entire network who truly deserves her own show. She's fair and unbiased, ALWAYS has her facts straight, always has the latest information, and does true and accurate reporting. She deserves a raise and her own show, not to be let go! I'd much rather watch her than Jane Valez-Mitchell or Nancy Grace. JVM's show is everyone yelling and talking over each other. Nancy Grace is rude to most of her guests, rarely checks the accuracy of her data because she's often wrong, and is often 2-3 days behind in terms of current information. Ditch JVM and NG and give me Beth Karas any day! And I know my online communities of true crime followers all feel the same way about all three.

I feel you are making all the wrong decisions, thinking you know what we want to watch, but you've got it all wrong. And I know many people who will never watch HLN again after this trial is over for the same reasons stated above.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my honest feedback. I used to love your channel, but it's gone seriously downhill over the past year, and I thought you should know what your viewers really think (not that it appears to matter).

snowbird wrote:Dang,I didn't realize that she sent Jodie magazines at the prison and those were thee magazine that she had the message on. Is this normal for people who are working for the defense to supply the person with books and magazine. I have never heard anything like this before, how could u not claim that person is not biases. Strange

Sea Ray wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:Some of you have made recent comments about HLN and how downhill it's gone. In Chat today, several of you were asking about my complaint email to them, so I thought I'd share it. Here's what I emailed to them:

-----
I can't tell you how disappointed I am in HLN lately. Well, actually, yes, I can, and I will.

First of all, you advertise "live" coverage of the Jodi Arias trial, but it's not live, and it's interrupted by tons of commercials. I actually saw someone post that HLN provides "Commercial-to-commercial trial coverage", because that's exactly what it is. The live trial is over hours before you finish showing it.

Second, the fact that you're not going to show any future trials is extremely disappointing, especially since TruTV cut back InSessions to 2 hrs. per day. I used to automatically flip to HLN when InSessions was over, but now I can't go to either one for trial coverage. Very disappointing.

Third, your After Dark show is a joke. I'm a member of several true crime websites, and we know far more about this case than anyone on your show, with the exception of Jean C. and Beth Karas. Your recreation of Travis Alexander's house/crime scene was a total joke (shelves not tall enough or wide enough; no bench in the closet where she supposedly ran through; using someone much taller than Jodi to act as her; using a different size gun; blood stains not accurately reflected; Baez was wrong about the gun shell casing when he said it could have been kicked (the evidence CLEARLY contradicts that)), etc., etc., etc. The show is just filled with factual errors; so what's the point?

One of your jurors asked the question as to what evidence proved that the blood at the sink came from Travis coughing up blood. Not one person on the show knew the real/right answer, which was that saliva was found mixed with the blood. Also, your mock juries are worthless because you're only showing them selected pieces of evidence, and you're also showing things (like interviews) that are not actual evidence in the case, which is totally irrelevant. Very unrealistic, and an insult to those of us who have followed the case diligently. It's not worth watching when all I do is yell at the TV because you have so many "facts" wrong. It's not the least bit realistic, so again, I ask, what's the point?

And speaking of Jose Baez, not one person I know can stand him or cares about anything he has to say (and the one time he was on AD, he was flat-out wrong). He didn't "win" the Casey Anthony case; the only reason she was acquitted was because the jury didn't believe a homicide had occurred. He's a buffoon, and we don't want to hear from him ever again. Everyone I know turns off any show that he's on. Please, make him go away!

And I also heard Beth Karas has been let go. Say it ain't so! This woman is the only person on your entire network who truly deserves her own show. She's fair and unbiased, ALWAYS has her facts straight, always has the latest information, and does true and accurate reporting. She deserves a raise and her own show, not to be let go! I'd much rather watch her than Jane Valez-Mitchell or Nancy Grace. JVM's show is everyone yelling and talking over each other. Nancy Grace is rude to most of her guests, rarely checks the accuracy of her data because she's often wrong, and is often 2-3 days behind in terms of current information. Ditch JVM and NG and give me Beth Karas any day! And I know my online communities of true crime followers all feel the same way about all three.

I feel you are making all the wrong decisions, thinking you know what we want to watch, but you've got it all wrong. And I know many people who will never watch HLN again after this trial is over for the same reasons stated above.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my honest feedback. I used to love your channel, but it's gone seriously downhill over the past year, and I thought you should know what your viewers really think (not that it appears to matter).

I like this e-mail, not because I agree with all of it but because it's packed full of facts and examples. That's what separates constructive criticism from outright bitching.

I doubt they'll do much about your letter because I think they're enjoying their ratings although I agree with you, it's not because of their stellar hosts.

Beth Karras was on yesterday as I recall. What's this about her being fired?

Where did you hear that they're not going to show any future trials?

In their business commercials have to be part of the equation but it sure seems like they run too many of them and way too often.

Sea Ray wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:I've been reading through parts of the AZ Jury Instructions and found some interesting information.
So, even if all jurors don't agree on premeditation, she can still be convicted of First Degree Murder!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good work. With all the coverage HLN has done on this, they certainly should have brought this up by now. This represents another hole in their coverage. So am I reading correctly that the premeditation comes into this only when considering sentencing? If premeditation is found then the death penalty's on the table? That sure isn't what HLN is spinning. Their hosts such as Vinny P have said that premeditation isn't proved then the charge is knocked down to 2nd degree and she's out in her early 40s.

In going through all those pages, did you happen to come across a couple questions I've been wondering about.

1) In a case like this where the defendant is claiming self defense, who bears the burden of proving self defense did or didn't happen? The state of the defendant?

2) What is the standard for proving self defense? Reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence?

Sea Ray wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:I've been reading through parts of the AZ Jury Instructions and found some interesting information.
So, even if all jurors don't agree on premeditation, she can still be convicted of First Degree Murder!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good work. With all the coverage HLN has done on this, they certainly should have brought this up by now. This represents another hole in their coverage. So am I reading correctly that the premeditation comes into this only when considering sentencing? If premeditation is found then the death penalty's on the table? That sure isn't what HLN is spinning. Their hosts such as Vinny P have said that premeditation isn't proved then the charge is knocked down to 2nd degree and she's out in her early 40s.

In going through all those pages, did you happen to come across a couple questions I've been wondering about.

1) In a case like this where the defendant is claiming self defense, who bears the burden of proving self defense did or didn't happen? The state of the defendant?

2) What is the standard for proving self defense? Reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence?

Sea Ray wrote:

CuriousPortlander wrote:I've been reading through parts of the AZ Jury Instructions and found some interesting information.
So, even if all jurors don't agree on premeditation, she can still be convicted of First Degree Murder!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good work. With all the coverage HLN has done on this, they certainly should have brought this up by now. This represents another hole in their coverage. So am I reading correctly that the premeditation comes into this only when considering sentencing? If premeditation is found then the death penalty's on the table? That sure isn't what HLN is spinning. Their hosts such as Vinny P have said that premeditation isn't proved then the charge is knocked down to 2nd degree and she's out in her early 40s.

In going through all those pages, did you happen to come across a couple questions I've been wondering about.

1) In a case like this where the defendant is claiming self defense, who bears the burden of proving self defense did or didn't happen? The state of the defendant?

2) What is the standard for proving self defense? Reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence?