CO - James Holmes Trial - *Penalty Phase* #4 - LWOP

[Jinkasaurus]

I don't know why she has a different recollection from the many many other witnesses who testified about the shooting. And I'm assuming she might not have testified because her account was so very different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My suspicion is that her memory could have been somewhat distorted (which would not be uncommon in such a highly traumatic situation), and when faced with media interviews shortly after the incident, it also made for a more compelling story. I'm not saying she is lying - just that the circumstance both at the time and then after the event influenced her memory and perceptions about what happened.

If the PT had found any other people to validate her recollections, there is no way they would have left that out of the trial, IMO.

 

[KaaBoom]

You can't possibly know that for certain.....but, it makes people feel better to hear it. Silly? What a strange word considering the topic.

We know that for certainty based on the past experience of the US justice system. People are not let out of a life sentence without good reason, such as new evidence, or a serious error in their trial. Thats not going to happen in this case.

 

[Maisiebelle]

My suspicion is that her memory could have been somewhat distorted (which would not be uncommon in such a highly traumatic situation), and when faced with media interviews shortly after the incident, it also made for a more compelling story. I'm not saying she is lying - just that the circumstance both at the time and then after the event influenced her memory and perceptions about what happened.

If the PT had found any other people to validate her recollections, there is no way they would have left that out of the trial, IMO.

Who knows why she gave that account. She was traumatised. No doubt about that. But it does seem that her version was slightly embellished and it could be why she wasn't invited to testify.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whiteorchids]

Well, now he'll have to mix it up with the other "regulars" in prison -- he won't be as "private" as he would prefer.

Yes he will be. He's high profile he will be in protected custody and also that he murdered a child. So they will keep him separate for his safety.

Unless he is grouped together with other child killers and pedophiles

 

[Maisiebelle]

@7Marshall: BREAKING: Juror 17 - 9 in favor of death penalty, 2 wavering, one solidly against. #TheaterShooting http://t.co/Mo1TCZgGAK




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maisiebelle]

@JeremyHubbard: "I don't think there's any doubt (the shooter) got what he wanted." -DA Brauchler @KDVR #FOX31 #theatershooting http://t.co/ZjVIZKKo41



www.twitter.com/jeremyhubbard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KaaBoom]

I don't think so. JH paid his rent, bills, hygiene was good, dressed nice and was able to function in that regard. This is where I'm baffled my 32yr old son has schizoaffective disorder, I've been dealing with this 12 years. My son is seriously mentally ill. He cannot function. He hears voices daily, delusions.

I don't see any similarities in my son and JH.

They were both severely mentally ill. In the past they would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. Now they are sentenced to LWOP. A substantial number of Americans are not comfortable with executing mentally ill people.

 

[Whiteorchids]

Yep one stealth juror.

 

[Maisiebelle]

@JesseAPaul: Juror 17, she is declining to give her name, called the experience "life changing." http://t.co/BWemTTornt

www.twitter.com/JesseAPaul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bsk]

I have never heard that you have to be pro-death penalty to be on a jury.

The gist of the reply above is that you are supposed to be open-minded and willing to consider the death penalty, not that you have to be "pro-DP" per se.

When a DP is not rendered, if it ends up 11-1 you don't know (unless one of the jurors goes public) whether:
a) Someone lied to the judge about being open-minded. (That's a stealth juror).
b) Someone was truthful but found something they felt was of high enough mitigation value to prevent them from choosing DP. (Honest difference of opinion.)
c) (between the two ends above) Someone thought they could vote for it and thinks the defendant probably deserves it, but just couldn't bring him/herself to be the deciding vote when the time came. (I wouldn't call that a stealth juror.)

 

[Amster]

I would never be on one, but I was just pointing out that if I was on one, forcing me to deliberate longer would not change my mind, and I don't think it would change most peoples minds, no matter which side they are on.

If you are truthful, you will never serve on a DP jury. So, it's a moot point, really.

 

[Maisiebelle]

@larryryckman: See further details on jury's deliberations, reaction from families and prosecutor, at http://t.co/cldiz5j6U0 #theatershooting

www.twitter.com/larryryckman


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KaaBoom]

I don;t think there's a death penalty in Connecticut, is there?

I thought the hypothetical was if he was being tried by this same court in Colorado.

 

[Maisiebelle]

Read juror interview here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ter-sentencing-james-holmes-to-life-in-prison

(It's not really an interview. It seems she just made a comment or two)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whiteorchids]

They were both severely mentally ill. In the past they would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. Now they are sentenced to LWOP. A substantial number of Americans are not comfortable with executing mentally ill people.

Whose they? I was talking about my son who has severe schizoaffective disorder. JH doesn't exhibit any of the severe symptoms my son has.

 

[Tssiemer]

:facepalm:No liberals would pardon him. Give me one example of a liberal who has ever pardoned a mass-murder.

I'm liberal. I say he needs a firing squad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bsk]

@7Marshall: BREAKING: Juror 17 - 9 in favor of death penalty, 2 wavering, one solidly against. #TheaterShooting http://t.co/Mo1TCZgGAK

(snipped the picture for space)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More deja vu. The original Jodi Arias jury delivered the 1st degree murder conviction. In the penalty phase, the jury chairman was deadset against DP and in the end I think 3 other wavering people joined him. He seemed to be a stealth juror, but at least he came through on the conviction. Then there was a second penalty phase since the first one hung, and it was 11-1 with a person who was undoubtedly a stealth juror. If she had been on the first jury it seemed obvious they would have hung on the murder charge, so it could have been worse.

 

[Tssiemer]

I have never heard that you have to be pro-death penalty to be on a jury.

Don't they ask that if the case, they could sentence someone to death?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maisiebelle]

@Noelle_Phillips: Juror 17 would not give her name. Said she was a real estate contract attorney. Said the decision was not taken lightly by anyone.

www.twitter.com/Noelle_Phillips


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amster]

Whose they? I was talking about my son who has severe schizoaffective disorder. JH doesn't exhibit any of the severe symptoms my son has.

He doesn't, and never has, had the symptoms my nephew has, either. Diagnosed 2 years ago.....voices, delusions, violence, incarceration, institutionalized ( until stable on drugs)....no evidence whatsoever that Jimmy the Killer ever had any of these. Yet, people will still believe it. They have to, I guess.