U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2013, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Ft. Myers
17,628 posts, read 11,158,662 times
Reputation: 37671

Advertisements

If you boil this case down to it's most basic elements, regardless of the claims of abuse, pedophilia, and all the rest, there is the fact that she didn't stop at just shooting him or stabbing him. She stabbed him 29 times, slit his throat, and then shot him for good measure. Any one of those would have stopped him if he was really a threat to her, but the pure savagery of the attack shows rage. Jodi attacked him with everything she had and what she did was pure and simple overkill. She butchered Travis, and that is something her defense team will have a hard time explaining. That is why Jodi is guilty, regardless of the circumstances.

Don

 
Old 03-27-2013, 04:19 PM
 
4,253 posts, read 5,439,926 times
Reputation: 10299
[quote=Mtn. States Resident;28848904]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice View Post
Wow, you really have a problem admitting when you are wrong don't you? There is no such thing as the DSM-IVR. There is only the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR. Interesting that you use the link I provided for you so that you could know what you're talking about, and you still are spreading misinformation.
[color="Blue"]

Lady Ice,

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong WHEN I'm wrong. I am not giving inaccurate information. It may be information you've not seen previously. That does not make it inaccurate.

Here are a few links that are from many sources documenting DSM - IVR. I guess all these articles, training sessions were just a misprint or coincidence ......even the article from Australia?

1. DSM-IV-R diagnostic criteria
This link is to a Bulimia website and their internal link to the DSM is to the DSM-IV. No R after the title in their link, it is only on the page title and it refers to the same book only the R is supposed to be in a circle clearly some writers name it like this but it refers to the DSM-IV.
This is clearly a joke page, look at the author list, and is meant to insult and belittle men, do you really think a reputable paper would list "head up the ass syndrome" as associated with testosterone? As interesting as this hypothesis is, I think INTELLIGENT people might be offended at you finding ridiculous links like this to prove a serious point.

This is a powerpoint presentation that only has DSM-IVR on the title page and then references it as DSM-IV throughout the rest of the presentation because that is what it is ACTUALLY called and it is referring to that manual, i.e. the SAME manual the Doctor used. This was actually the only thing that came up in my search for your imaginary title and I dismissed it as an error in that they didn't bracket or circle the R after the title on the DSM-IV.

Another example of what is clearly the misunderstanding here, this is referring to the DSM-IV, the R is meant to be in a circle or at least in brackets. It is not a different version as you are suggesting and is the same manual the Doctor used.

Quote:
5. LADY ICE - PLEASE REVIEW THIS ONE GIVEN WHERE THE ARTICLED ORIGINATED.

Investigation of target plasma concentration... [Ther Drug Monit. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

"Investigation of target plasma concentration-effect relationships for olanzapine in schizophrenia."

Source

Departments of Pharmacy and Psychiatry, Graylands Selby-Lemnos and Special Care Health Services, Mt Claremont, Western Australia, Australia.

"Fifty-three patients (mean age 32 years; 40 M, 13 F) with a DSM-IVR diagnosis of schizophrenia completed a 6-week trial of oral olanzapine"

6. [An analysis of the causes of dementi... [Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI


There is no reason to add more links there are hundreds. I believe there are very intelligent folks posting here who can research this further if they wish. They certainly don't need to believe me - online searches are easy.

I acknowledge YOU may not have been taught about DSM IV-R in Australia given how many U.S. insurance companies and U.S. laws you aren't required to follow. That is very possible. However, I think there is plenty of evidence DSM - IVR not only was printed that articles and clinical practices changed based on it, not only in the U.S. but elsewhere too.

I hope you admit DSM - IVR was published and used even if you weren't trained how it was different. I won't pretend to understand why you didn't research it online.

And I hope you can finally put this one to rest given the evidence above.

MSR
Uuuuuum, No. I'm afraid I won't let it rest because you are still wrong. Just because you managed to find some articles where the formatting is wrong, it does not mean that a book called the DCM-IVR exists. Please refer to the following sites...

Perhaps if I put it in a way you can understand

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No mention of a DSM-TVR on wikipedia....RIGHT?

but we should never take wikipedia's word for it

DSM-IV-TR | psychiatry.org

No mention of it from the American Psychiatric Association, RIGHT?

You would kinda think that they might have heard of it wouldn't you?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)

No mention of it there, RIGHT?

This next link from Amazon showed me just where the mistake might be being made

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision): American Psychiatric Association: 9780890420256: Amazon.com: Books

In the above link if you scroll down to the description of the book it talks about the DSM-IV but puts an R in a circle next to it, perhaps that R in a circle next to the 1994 publication was lost in the formatting in those papers you sited or perhaps the writers just chose to write it that way. Note that you were using journal articles to prove a point without one mention of the literature about the book itself.

This one has the R in brackets from the 1994 DSM-IV

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR by American Psychiatric Association - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

Please be assured there is no such thing as the DSM-IVR it is not in any history of the manual, it is not in my AMERICAN text book on Abnormal Psychology that was published in NEW YORK (which specifically has a section on the manual) or any of my other AMERICAN text books.

If the APA do not list this non-existent version, if there is no general knowledge on any site that describes this manual, if I have not heard of it in all of my studies in psychology, and if there is a reasonable explanation pointed out to you where the mistake in the publications you sited came from, is it now clear to you that you could be mistaken?

YES OR NO?

Once again there is no difference between Australia and the US in this area, stop trying to make it sound as though I am from some backward country that doesn't know any better, it is not true and it just makes you sound rude and arrogant.

It is not in ANY of my text books because it doesn't exist!

Even if you could say that the R in a circle after the DSM-IV is the manual you were talking about, it was published in 1994 so that blows your argument about it being a more up to date version out of the water anyway. AND, if that is the manual that you are referring to it is the book he was ACTUALLY USING, again making your argument look foolish.

Again, what are your qualifications or education in this field for you to pretend that you know more about it than I do?

I would be quite happy to let this rest if you stop being disingenuous and admit that you are wrong. Unless of course you can provide a link that states the date of publication of your DSM-IVR that shows it is a more up to date version than either the DSM-IV or the DSM-IV-TR and not (as I suspect) an omission of the the circle around the R from the original title that is indicating that it is a revised version of the DSM-III.


This is what I find so annoying about people like Martinez. He lies to try and discredit something and his gullible fans eat up every word he says as if it is gospel. You have someone here training in the field who is actually agreeing that Jodi Arias is guilty and yet instead of getting some educated insight into what is being discussed, you want to argue over this point because you can't admit that your idol might have been wrong about something. Or your ego won't allow you to admit you were wrong.

Either way I am done with this thread. I'm sure you would be much more comfortable only surrounded by people who agree with your media fed bias and not have to deal with people who actually ask you to think for yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The public opinion around the web that I have seen on this case is disgusting. Why don't you people just build a Colosseum and be done with it? This is a blood sport, you are taking bets and getting entertainment out of the life and death of real people. Their private lives are up for public consumption without their consent, how would you like every detail of your history, or your rotting corpse, or images of your genitalia splashed all around the internet after you are dead? The media that I have seen a few snippets of is a freak show with morons watching on hoping to get one more tidbit about a strangers sex life or a gory detail about some poor man's brutal murder and you are all entertained by this?? The people have this woman hung, drawn and quartered before all of the testimony has been heard and are screaming for her death. It reminds me of the hate rallies in George Orwell's 1984 where everyone would get together and shake their fists and shout at a face on screen that they are told is the personification of evil.

I was interested in this case because of the psychological aspects. I thought that it was a rare opportunity to watch a female psychopath in action and analyse her in real time. I also have an investigative personality and I love trying to find the truth. I've come to realise though that people are not interested in the standards of "innocent until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial", they are certainly not interested in the truth. They want to see this woman dead without even being able to look objectively at the case and find out if they are being told the facts or not. They want to vilify and belittle anyone who is a witness for the defense and shout down anyone who points out errors in the prosecution's case. If that is justice in the USA, then you can have it. Here in Australia we have a media blackout (at least in the state in question) in high profile cases until the end of the trial, that might seem backward to you but I am proud of this. How do you expect to have a fair trial when you have such obvious bias in the coverage and the jury just walking out into this media saturated world after every day in court? Why are the not sequestered?

Anyway, enjoy your circus and I hope you don't get any innocent blood on your hands.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 04:27 PM
 
9,911 posts, read 9,298,562 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitram View Post
You are very perceptible. Nothing can be further from the truth that she is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame and knowing that a movie is being made about her. In jail she'll be a celebrity forever and love every minute of it. She'll probably try to seduce the warden with her sociopathic ways.
Let's hope the jurors see through all this flim flam hollywood style court case and convict her of 1st degree murder and send he away for life without parole. Everything points to premeditation. Trying to twists the facts from her defense counsel is rediculous.

If you recall Susan Smith that killed her two sons, she was having sex in prison with two of the guards. She ended up with an STD and confessed to having sex with the guards. One guard had been with the prison 13 years and the other one was a prison guard captain. They both lost their jobs. Both had families can you imagine a wife at home that could have possibly ended up with an STD too. Smith was transferred to another prison.

Arias already has a fan club in prison. One of the news channels had them on one night singing Jodi's praises and how great a person she was and she was innocent.

Logically ... that is logically thinking here ... the jury can't acquit her or even find her not guilty ... can they?

She admitted to the murder the very first day. All this hoopla they are dragging the court through is just an attempt to get the death penalty off the table ... right?
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:39 PM
 
9,911 posts, read 9,298,562 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice View Post

This is what I find so annoying about people like Martinez. He lies to try and discredit something and his gullible fans eat up every word he says as if it is gospel.

This is a blood sport, you are taking bets and getting entertainment out of the life and death of real people. Their private lives are up for public consumption without their consent, how would you like every detail of your history, or your rotting corpse, or images of your genitalia splashed all around the internet after you are dead? The media that I have seen a few snippets of is a freak show with morons watching on hoping to get one more tidbit about a strangers sex life or a gory detail about some poor man's brutal murder and you are all entertained by this?? The people have this woman hung, drawn and quartered before all of the testimony has been heard and are screaming for her death. It reminds me of the hate rallies in George Orwell's 1984 where everyone would get together and shake their fists and shout at a face on screen that they are told is the personification of evil.

I was interested in this case because of the psychological aspects. I thought that it was a rare opportunity to watch a female psychopath in action and analyse her in real time. I also have an investigative personality and I love trying to find the truth. I've come to realise though that people are not interested in the standards of "innocent until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial", they are certainly not interested in the truth. They want to see this woman dead without even being able to look objectively at the case and find out if they are being told the facts or not . They want to vilify and belittle anyone who is a witness for the defense and shout down anyone who points out errors in the prosecution's case. If that is justice in the USA, then you can have it. Here in Australia we have a media blackout (at least in the state in question) in high profile cases until the end of the trial, that might seem backward to you but I am proud of this. How do you expect to have a fair trial when you have such obvious bias in the coverage and the jury just walking out into this media saturated world after every day in court? Why are the not sequestered?

Anyway, enjoy your circus and I hope you don't get any innocent blood on your hands.
I am not replying to your entire epistle just the comments in red.

Unlike you, the average John & Jane Doe are not aware of Juan Martinez telling lies ... yes it is his job to discredit any defense witness. In addition it's up to the defense to object to any untruths and the judge needs to take care of the matter. Juan Martinez is the only voice Travis Alexander has in this courtroom.

I think Juan Martinez is an excellent lawyer and I hope you are aware Arias wanted to defend herself ... after a couple a weeks she realized she needed a lawyer ... the first pair the state assigned her quit thus Willmott and Nurmi ended up with her ... Nurmi attempted to quit but the State of Arizona wouldn't allow him to quit.

On the very first day Jodi Arias took the stand she admitted in front of God, the judge & jury, however millions of people watching on the internet and TV that SHE KILLED Travis Alexander. OK so as a future shrink you feel she is not getting a fair trial??

I mean she really really killed him ... dead as a door nail ... to be sure she shot him, stabbed him 27 or 29 times, then cut his throat from ear to ear. The evidence is there showing this was premeditated.

I didn't watch Arias on the stand until Juan Martinez questioned her. I didn't watch Dr QuacksAlot on the stand. I didn't watch or listen to any sex junk, that doesn't interest me at all.

My interest is ... the jury and the verdict. Will a young, attractive female be found guilty of a crime she admitted she did it and has been telling nothing but lies since 2008. I do not think they will give her the death penalty. I never predict or think what a jury will do after the Casey Anthony trial.

Are you familiar with the Zarah Baker case, one of your own. A ten year old little girl from Australia ... moved to the US with her dad and new stepmother. Stepmother cut her in pieces and distributed the pieces in various places. The stepmother received 18 years for this murder. By the way they finally identified Zarah's skull this past February. Other body parts were found all over the county. That is 18 years for second degree murder of the child ... in this case yes a Colosseum would have suited me ... 18 years to kill a ten year old who defeated cancer, wore a hearing aid and ended up cut into pieces in the bathtub and the pieces strung all over the area where I live.

Arias did not have to kill Travis Alexander but she traveled to Mesa to kill Travis.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 06:42 PM
 
4,253 posts, read 5,439,926 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman View Post
I am not replying to your entire epistle just the comments in red.

Unlike you, the average John & Jane Doe are not aware of Juan Martinez telling lies ... yes it is his job to discredit any defense witness. In addition it's up to the defense to object to any untruths and the judge needs to take care of the matter. Juan Martinez is the only voice Travis Alexander has in this courtroom.

I think Juan Martinez is an excellent lawyer and I hope you are aware Arias wanted to defend herself ... after a couple a weeks she realized she needed a lawyer ... the first pair the state assigned her quit thus Willmott and Nurmi ended up with her ... Nurmi attempted to quit but the State of Arizona wouldn't allow him to quit.

On the very first day Jodi Arias took the stand she admitted in front of God, the judge & jury, however millions of people watching on the internet and TV that SHE KILLED Travis Alexander. OK so as a future shrink you feel she is not getting a fair trial??

I mean she really really killed him ... dead as a door nail ... to be sure she shot him, stabbed him 27 or 29 times, then cut his throat from ear to ear. The evidence is there showing this was premeditated.

I didn't watch Arias on the stand until Juan Martinez questioned her. I didn't watch Dr QuacksAlot on the stand. I didn't watch or listen to any sex junk, that doesn't interest me at all.

My interest is ... the jury and the verdict. Will a young, attractive female be found guilty of a crime she admitted she did it and has been telling nothing but lies since 2008. I do not think they will give her the death penalty. I never predict or think what a jury will do after the Casey Anthony trial.

Are you familiar with the Zarah Baker case, one of your own. A ten year old little girl from Australia ... moved to the US with her dad and new stepmother. Stepmother cut her in pieces and distributed the pieces in various places. The stepmother received 18 years for this murder. By the way they finally identified Zarah's skull this past February. Other body parts were found all over the county. That is 18 years for second degree murder of the child ... in this case yes a Colosseum would have suited me ... 18 years to kill a ten year old who defeated cancer, wore a hearing aid and ended up cut into pieces in the bathtub and the pieces strung all over the area where I live.

Arias did not have to kill Travis Alexander but she traveled to Mesa to kill Travis.
I'm sorry but Juan Martinez's voice is for Juan Martinez, he wants to win this for what it will do for his career. I don't believe he gives two hoots about the Alexander family and if he was on the defense side of the floor he would be treating them just as badly as he does the witnesses for the defense. He has lied about several things but people are so enamoured with the man that they will not hear anything against him. That is unfair in itself and an unsequestered jury in a case that has received so much public comment to the detriment of the defendant is patently unfair.

Just to say it once again, I think that Jodi Arias is guilty. But unlike many people I am willing to put that idea to one side and consider all of the evidence presented. She admitted to shooting him in self defense but she states that she does not recall the rest of the crime (which I actually do not believe, I think she does remember it). That is the case that the prosecutor has to challange and disprove. Your characterisation of the Doctor as "Dr Quacksalot" really says it all. You decided that he was speaking in defense of Jodi Arias and therefore he was not to be given any credibility. The thing is, he was wrong in his diagnosis in my opinion but because I am not willing to throw his 35 year reputation in the toilet and let lies about psychological testing and the diagnostic manual go unchecked, I am given no credit and argued against as well. I actually have a whole post written on notepad about why I think Miss Arias is a psychopath and what has come up in the trial to support my theory but I am certainly not going to waste my time posting it here.

Yes I have heard of the other case with the Australian girl you mentioned but I have not looked into it. I am not a television watcher and I miss a lot of reporting on things like this but I do remember seeing something about it, possibly when they found her skull.

The Casey Anthony trial would have been interesting. I actually looked into that one but never saw the trial. I mean, Zanny the Nanny??? Clearly that was her code for Xanax and she was knocking out her little girl so she could go and party. That last time I am guessing that she couldn't get any Xanax and looked up how to make chloroform (or she had been using it for a while, I can't remember off the top of my head) and accidentally killed her daughter with it. I guess I think she was guilty of criminal negligence and second degree murder. I don't think she meant to kill her daughter but what she was doing and what she did was despicable. I have no idea how that compares with what came out in the trial or what her verdict actually was, but she is free now isn't she? I don't think that is right if that is the case. I wonder if I would have been swayed by the trial? If it's on youtube I might have a look at it if I ever get any time. I should not even be here now, I'm supposed to be working on two assignments and getting ready for a residential school .

I'm sorry if my little rant in my previous post offended you. It's just something that has been bugging me for weeks watching this trial and seeing the one-eyed bias of the comments below the videos and elsewhere. It's really sickening how people think and kind of frightening to think that an innocent person could be railroaded like this. I'm not saying that Jodi is innocent but what if the next pretty girl that gets charged with murder is innocent and treated like this by the public because of their feelings left over from this trial? I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear but I don't have time to clarify my position any more than I have.

Like I said, enjoy the circus.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 07:40 PM
 
9,911 posts, read 9,298,562 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice View Post
I'm sorry but Juan Martinez's voice is for Juan Martinez, he wants to win this for what it will do for his career. I don't believe he gives two hoots about the Alexander family and if he was on the defense side of the floor he would be treating them just as badly as he does the witnesses for the defense. He has lied about several things but people are so enamoured with the man that they will not hear anything against him. That is unfair in itself and an unsequestered jury in a case that has received so much public comment to the detriment of the defendant is patently unfair.

Just to say it once again, I think that Jodi Arias is guilty. But unlike many people I am willing to put that idea to one side and consider all of the evidence presented. She admitted to shooting him in self defense but she states that she does not recall the rest of the crime (which I actually do not believe, I think she does remember it). That is the case that the prosecutor has to challange and disprove. Your characterisation of the Doctor as "Dr Quacksalot" really says it all. You decided that he was speaking in defense of Jodi Arias and therefore he was not to be given any credibility. The thing is, he was wrong in his diagnosis in my opinion but because I am not willing to throw his 35 year reputation in the toilet and let lies about psychological testing and the diagnostic manual go unchecked, I am given no credit and argued against as well. I actually have a whole post written on notepad about why I think Miss Arias is a psychopath and what has come up in the trial to support my theory but I am certainly not going to waste my time posting it here.

Yes I have heard of the other case with the Australian girl you mentioned but I have not looked into it. I am not a television watcher and I miss a lot of reporting on things like this but I do remember seeing something about it, possibly when they found her skull.

The Casey Anthony trial would have been interesting. I actually looked into that one but never saw the trial. I mean, Zanny the Nanny??? Clearly that was her code for Xanax and she was knocking out her little girl so she could go and party. That last time I am guessing that she couldn't get any Xanax and looked up how to make chloroform (or she had been using it for a while, I can't remember off the top of my head) and accidentally killed her daughter with it. I guess I think she was guilty of criminal negligence and second degree murder. I don't think she meant to kill her daughter but what she was doing and what she did was despicable. I have no idea how that compares with what came out in the trial or what her verdict actually was, but she is free now isn't she? I don't think that is right if that is the case. I wonder if I would have been swayed by the trial? If it's on youtube I might have a look at it if I ever get any time. I should not even be here now, I'm supposed to be working on two assignments and getting ready for a residential school .

I'm sorry if my little rant in my previous post offended you. It's just something that has been bugging me for weeks watching this trial and seeing the one-eyed bias of the comments below the videos and elsewhere. It's really sickening how people think and kind of frightening to think that an innocent person could be railroaded like this. I'm not saying that Jodi is innocent but what if the next pretty girl that gets charged with murder is innocent and treated like this by the public because of their feelings left over from this trial? I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear but I don't have time to clarify my position any more than I have.

Like I said, enjoy the circus.

No, your rant didn't offend me ... it was just overboard with this edition of the book and that edition of the book and I am a better shrink to be than you. Which wasn't really necessary.

If the next pretty young girl shoots her boyfriend, stabs him however many times and slashes his throat from ear to ear ... she will need to come forward immediately ... call 911 right then ... and not start a cover-up of lies and more lies. Nor should she drive 1000 miles trying to cover her tracks to do the deed. In addition to leaving the dead body and heading for her next male conquest in Utah.

Yes I call him Doc QuacksAlot because I certainly wouldn't want him for a doc. I have been to a psychiatrist (not a psychologist) ... I have taken tests ... I marked the questions myself not the doc. In addition she recorded the entire sessions. They were typed and the file was organized. The whole event was organized. Not this shuck and jive that doc quacksalot was presenting. I was in an accident and had a head injury that caused some memory problems.

Also, I don't know if this is available to you in OZ but I don't watch the trial on television ... I watch live streaming of the trial on my computer ... no talking heads, no advertisements .... nothing but the trial. I don't watch all the HLN hoopla. You will not see comments on any of the live streaming stations. It's up to the viewer to use their own minds.

But I don't know how the time difference would be in Australia for these live streaming stations.

Local Livestream - CBS 5 - KPHO

Jodi Arias trial live video from courtroom, latest updates on Valley woman's murder trial | ABC15.com | Phoenix, Arizona | KNXV-TV

CNN.com Live - Breaking news, live events, and today's top stories

In the Casey Anthony case, I too believe she was doping Caylee so she could go out and party. Then she screwed up and killed her. I never believed Casey killed Caylee on purpose but I do believe she was guilty of the child's death.

The Australian child's death happened where I live and I was very aware of it ... no HLN needed. We lived it. In fact I followed an Australian TV and newspaper on the internet as the child's grandmother that raised her still lives there.

I don't expect this jury to return a death penalty verdict for Arias but I do think they will consider life in prison without parole ... but then again I lost faith in even considering what a jury would do.

So you and I will just agree to disagree on Juan Martinez.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 08:27 PM
 
1,817 posts, read 2,757,895 times
Reputation: 3527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice View Post
I'm sorry but Juan Martinez's voice is for Juan Martinez, he wants to win this for what it will do for his career. I don't believe he gives two hoots about the Alexander family and if he was on the defense side of the floor he would be treating them just as badly as he does the witnesses for the defense. He has lied about several things but people are so enamoured with the man that they will not hear anything against him. That is unfair in itself and an unsequestered jury in a case that has received so much public comment to the detriment of the defendant is patently unfair.
What lies has he told? Be specific.

It doesn't matter if you dislike him, but your assumptions about his character are so off-base that they're laughable. I live in Arizona and am familiar with many high-profile cases that he has worked (none quite as high-profile as this one, of course). He has already established an impeccable career over his decades as a prosecutor. No, I'm not "so enamored with the man I won't hear anything against him." I don't believe he is perfect, nobody is, but he is highly regarded in his field and he absolutely does care about the families of his victims.

It's very easy to look at the attention this trial is receiving online and jump to conclusions. You are basing your opinions on random posts on forums, Youtube (troll heaven!), Facebook, etc. Frankly, the majority of the public even here in Arizona doesn't know or care about Jodi Arias. While it is a fairly sensational case at the moment, that doesn't that most of the people invested in the trial are "morons" or whether their motives are more or less pure than your own.

And one more thing - probably the main reason why this case attracted so much attention is due to Jodi herself going on two national tv shows and giving interviews with a wildly different version of events than the one she's trying to sell now. This is the woman who stated "Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me." She is (or was) highly telegenic, knew it and ran with it.

Last edited by fruitlassie; 03-27-2013 at 08:49 PM..
 
Old 03-27-2013, 09:01 PM
 
1,143 posts, read 1,016,627 times
Reputation: 1466
[quote=fruitlassie;28867495]

"While it is a fairly sensational case at the moment, that doesn't that most of the people invested in the trial are "morons" or whether their motives are more or less pure than your own."

Was that a typo? Or did you mean "Mormons"??
 
Old 03-27-2013, 09:20 PM
 
1,817 posts, read 2,757,895 times
Reputation: 3527
^^^ Not a typo, I was referring to one of LadyIce's posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ice View Post
The public opinion around the web that I have seen on this case is disgusting. Why don't you people just build a Colosseum and be done with it? This is a blood sport, you are taking bets and getting entertainment out of the life and death of real people. Their private lives are up for public consumption without their consent, how would you like every detail of your history, or your rotting corpse, or images of your genitalia splashed all around the internet after you are dead? The media that I have seen a few snippets of is a freak show with morons watching on hoping to get one more tidbit about a strangers sex life or a gory detail about some poor man's brutal murder and you are all entertained by this??
 
Old 03-27-2013, 09:27 PM
 
1,143 posts, read 1,016,627 times
Reputation: 1466
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitlassie View Post
What lies has he told? Be specific.

It doesn't matter if you dislike him, but your assumptions about his character are so off-base that they're laughable. I live in Arizona and am familiar with many high-profile cases that he has worked (none quite as high-profile as this one, of course). He has already established an impeccable career over his decades as a prosecutor. No, I'm not "so enamored with the man I won't hear anything against him." I don't believe he is perfect, nobody is, but he is highly regarded in his field and he absolutely does care about the families of his victims.

It's very easy to look at the attention this trial is receiving online and jump to conclusions. You are basing your opinions on random posts on forums, Youtube (troll heaven!), Facebook, etc. Frankly, the majority of the public even here in Arizona doesn't know or care about Jodi Arias. While it is a fairly sensational case at the moment, that doesn't that most of the people invested in the trial are "morons" or whether their motives are more or less pure than your own.

And one more thing - probably the main reason why this case attracted so much attention is due to Jodi herself going on two national tv shows and giving interviews with a wildly different version of events than the one she's trying to sell now. This is the woman who stated "Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me." She is (or was) highly telegenic, knew it and ran with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitlassie View Post
^^^ Not a typo, I was referring to one of LadyIce's posts.

Oh, I see. Well, then I would respond to Lady Ice, that not just Morons, or Mormons for that matter, are interested in this trial. A lot of Legal Buffs are interested in watching the complicated judicial aspects of this trial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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 - Top