Friday, January 30, 2015

ja Updates trying to tell Jeffrey Gold that "tween porn" is the same thing as "child porn." WRONG! Nice pic of ja's meal! lol



I agree with Jeffrey Gold.  Eigh"teen" and nine"teen" year old's are NOT children, as far as the law goes.  

There wasn't any child pornography found on TA's PC anyway.  If the person that runs ja Updates is trying to use the word of a known liar(ja) to smear his name so she can try using her lies to justify her having murdered him...it's NOT happening.  

ja should feel grateful that she's served anything to eat at all.  There's people that need it and deserve it far more than what she does.  Her victim won't ever eat again.  A lot of people DON'T care what ja "thinks" that she should be entitled to.  Seeing her recent court pics, she sure doesn't look like she's being starved by any means.       

A revolting picture that ja updates@Twitter posted for ja for MLK Day. Unbelievable that ja, a murderer, would compare herself to MLK.



The ONE person that didn't turn his back on ja was Travis Alexander.  It was ja that "tried" to silence him forever.  Thank God that Travis Alexander and his words lives on through a lot of people.

By: Understanding The Travesties of Unexpected Murder Trials.


Thursday, January 29, 2015

22 HOURS AGO BY: Kim Lapara David

BISHOP PARKER TOOK THE STAND TODAY & PROVED Marc McGee LIED!!! Here are some of the transcripts. Wish we could have seen Jodi's face.
Bishop Parker says there was a computer at his house. Family never saw Travis on the computer.
Bishop's family members never saw Travis Alexander use their computer in the living room.
Juan- During time TA was living there did ever use computer? P-I didn't see him use it and no one in my family saw him use it 
Bishop discusses Witness 1 & his online relationship with a female.
Parker knew Witness #1 in 1999 and Wit #1 met a woman online. They had an online relationship
The woman traveled to Riverside to meet Witness #1
Witness 1's online girlfriend lived w/Bishop. Bishop says he would not have allowed that if another male was living there.
She came to stay late Nov/Dec 2000
MaryEllen Resendez @maryellenabc15 36s37 seconds ago
Bishop Parker witness#1's online GF also lived w/him after parents asked 4a safe place 4her 2stay 12/2000
Witness 1 would come visit girlfriend at Bishop's house & had permission to use Bishop's computer.
Alexander was not living in the house when witness 1 was there to visit the girl he thought he might marry. Witness 1 used the computer.
Witness #1 had Parker's permission to use the computer TA wasn't living there at that time
Bishop can't recall exact employment but remembers Witness 1 worked with computers.
Witness 1's girlfriend lived with Bishop until marriage. Less than 5 months.
Witness #1 was very familiar with computers according to Bishop
Parker tells jurors witness#1 knew his way around computers
Aha so it was non-witness witness #1 who had access to the Bishops PC says Bishop. Travis never seen use it by him or his family
Bishop said Witness 1 came over almost every day.

Follow The Gold Patrol: #JODIarias reBUTTED By: Jeff Gold

FINALLY, Jeff Gold at the Gold Patrol gets what JM is doing.  





Edie Morse Largely, I agree with Jeff Gold's assessment (scroll above to his Spreecast), except that imo, Judge Sherry Stephens (JSS) is not fit to sit on the bench, adjudicating over a capital murder trial:-- for she has violated the US Constitution, when she allowed the convicted murderer to testify as a "secret witness" (when there are no National Security issues at stake); and, she has violated the AZ Victims' Bill of Rights by delaying this re-trial for over a year-and-seven-months following a series of inappropriate "ex-parte" meetings (not just one or two, but many); and, she has violated the AZ Rules of Disclosure by the Defense to the State, when she did not insist that the names & addresses of these witnesses be disclosed. 

Moreover, JSS is unfit to sit on the bench due to her blatant lack of judicial impartiality; her inability to run a re-trial with even a modicum of decorum; and, her allowing JA & Co. to run amok. It is one thing for a judge to "bend over backwards" to give a defendant the right to put on a defense. It is another thing to hamstring the State and not even allow them to put on the state's case. JSS has precluded Juan Martinez from exposing the truth about Jodi Arias, a convicted murderer-- to an excessive extent, that other judges do not do:-- i.e. in the Bryan Wayne Hulsey capital murder trial, the defendant's animal abuse was cited in the penalty phase... JSS has not allowed Juan Martinez any mention of JA's animal abuse. 

Finally, it is clear to conscientious trial watchers that JSS has allowed JA & Co. to put Travis Alexander on trial. This is not a mitigaiton case-- it's an appellate case-- and that is in violation of the rules governing a final penalty re-trial. The jurors are currently being asked to determine JA's guilt; not her penalty of the DP or Life, by virtue of the incompetent, biased, and corrupt manner that JSS is adjudicating over this nightmarish farce. Farce, because even if one could stretch the imagination to rationalize that Travis Alexander should be put on trial-- not Jodi Arias-- then shouldn't both sides be heard as to his character, since he is not alive to defend himself??? Jodi Arias brutally slaughtered him to death. Instead, JSS allows JA & Co. to malign the victim with bald-faced lies; perjurious testimony; and, false "affidavits". 

Whereas, Juan Martinez is not allowed to expose that Travis Alexander was a kind and decent man (e.g. JSS wouldn't even allow Deanna Reid to say that Travis was a loving dog owner, who made provisions to leave his beloved dog, Napoleon, to her)... Why? Nothing good is being allowed in about Travis. And yet,when Juan Martinez can prove that Jodi Arias was a promiscuous slag, JSS precludes any testimony regarding Skank saying that she had "magic" in her panties, in response to Abe's comment that she was not wearing the Mormon's magic panties. Nothing about the fact that Skank convicted to Mormonism is allowed in-- which would show the hypocrisy inherent in the defense team's claim that somehow Travis Alexander & Deanne Reid were "sinful" for betraying their "vows of chastity"-- whereas, Skank banged every man who bought her a cup of coffee:-- and, ergo, Travis Alexander is portrayed in a negative light-- nothing good about him is allowed in. Skank is falsely painted as a nice, little saint-- and, nothing negative is allowed in about her.

Is this justice??? NO! It's injustice!!! JSS is an incompetent, biased, and corrupt judge-- and, although the AZ media is covering-up the "Omnibus Hearing" now postponed until May 2015-- JSS's collusion in engineering delays on behalf of the convicted murderer in order to give this brutal convicted murderer the chance to have her DP (if and when the jury is allowed to decide the matter) taken "off the table"; and thus, invalidating a potential jury decision, should they find for the DP, is wrong... it's wrong ethically, and I believe that it is wrong legally too!!!





http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodiarias-rebutted

Update on: The Omnibus Status Conference Motion

MINUTE ENTRY 


1:33 p.m. This is the time set for Status Conference relating to the consolidated Motions to Strike the Notice of Intent to Seek Death Penalty. 




http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012015/m6672988.pdf

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Stupidity speaking By: Monica Lindstrom

Legally Speaking: Jodi Arias is winning and here's why


ja has won nothing except for delaying her "welcoming" to her last home on Earth; Perryville Prison.  



http://ktar.com/305/1802845/Legally-Speaking-Jodi-Arias-is-winning-and-heres-why

Today's news report on what happened in court today By: The Trial Diaries.

The Trial Diaries  




The daily news report on what happened in court today.  







http://cdn.bimvid.com/KTVK/2319fc3d95107e167fb1ccb75d4b0561ae76920c_fl9-360p.mp4

Is this why the DT won't let any of ja's "buddies" testify? Is this why the DT doesn't want ja to testify?

Under A.R.S. § 13-2702, perjury is a class 4 felony, and a conviction could lead to a sentence of up to 3.75 years in prison. A person commits perjury by lying under oath about an issue material to a case. A person also commits perjury by lying about a material issue while not under oath if the statement is given under penalty of perjury (in an affidavit, for example). If a person lies under oath about an issue that is not material to a case, they commit the crime of "false swearing" under A.R.S. § 13-2703. False swearing is a class 6 felony, and a conviction carries a sentence of up to 2 years in prison. If a person lies to an official in connection with an official proceeding about an issue that is material to a case while not under oath or penalty of perjury, they commit "unsworn falsification" under A.R.S. § 13-2704. Unsworn falsification is a class 6 felony, and a conviction carries a sentence of up to 2 years in prison. A person also commits "unsworn falsification" if they lie about a material issue while not under oath or penalty of perjury to an official in connection with an application for a benefit or license; this type of unsworn falsification is treated as a misdemeanor.

Read more: http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/1s8hp-penalty-purgery-mesa-arizona-commited.html#ixzz3QAjeWi4Y




Although the elements of perjury vary between individual states and federal law, the elements of perjury are similar. In order for a person to be charged with perjury, he or she generally must have 1) been sworn in or made a solemn legal promise to tell the truth; and 2) made a false statement or told a lie on purpose. Prosecutors can sometimes prove that a defendant lied by showing inconsistency in prior statements made by the defendant. For instance, if a person testifies one way in a deposition and another way in court, and the statements conflict with one another, this is solid evidence of perjury even if the prosecutor cannot prove which of the statements was untrue.
Most states and the federal government have an additional requirement, that the misstatement was material or important to the proceedings in which it was made. If a witness was testifying in case about a robbery of a diner, for example, lying about whether he saw the defendant at the diner would be material since seeing the defendant at the scene of the crime would be relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Lying about what he ate for breakfast, on the other hand, usually wouldn't be a material misstatement that would result in a charge of perjury.

Witnesses who are not the lawyer’s client

In a civil or criminal trial, if the witness who intends to give false testimony is not the attorney’s client, the attorney is duty-bound not to call that witness. No matter how much the attorney’s client wants that person to testify, the lawyer can just say no.

Witnesses who are criminal defendants

But what happens when the witness is the defendant himself in a criminal case? In a criminal trial, defendants have the absolute right to testify, even over their attorney’s objections. Because a lawyer cannot stop a client from getting on the stand and lying, many lawyers will move to withdraw from the case. But judges will want to know why the attorney is making this request, and here is where the attorney faces a difficult choice. Divulging his client’s plans may amount to a violation of the attorney-client privilege; but if the attorney refuses to give a reason for his request to withdraw, the court may not grant it.
In such a situation, the attorney may be required to call the client to the stand, knowing he or she will lie. If this happens, the attorney must simply allow the client to testify in narrative fashion and not ask questions or otherwise guide or direct the testimony (this is the ABA “model rule”). That way, the attorney avoids participating in the perjured testimony.





Tuesday, January 27, 2015