Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #5

[turaj]

@TrialDiariesJ just posted this... I haven't read it all the way through yet but is an interview with the foreman

http://thetrialdiaries.com/exclusivethe-foreman-from-the-jodi-arias-trial-speakshear-his-story/

edited to add, found an interesting note as I'm reading (bbm):

"We cross referenced journals and text messages and wondered why Travis was so mad. . We however did find something that wasn’t brought out in court. It was a text from Jodi Arias to Travis Alexander stating to him she needed to speak to the Bishop about the sex stat. We felt this may have been the trigger for Travis’s anger."

more concrete information and thanks to the poster and to Jen for this interview...and I'm sure most here will not agree with me but this makes it crystal clear to me that j17 did deliberate...it is all spelled out in detail and no wonder jss did what she did...foreman seems very honest and honorable. I don't think any juror should be subjected to cussing and probably worse in a closed room and I believe if you read this account carefully that is when she really shut down. I think the foreman was very honest about j17 and how it went and he has no choice but to tell the judge they were hung...if you read the entire account clearly j17 did give reasons...did look at the photos and for her the mitigating factors were important...I am confident there is nothing that the court is going to do regarding j17...

 

[LambChop]

If it is not your opinion you have to provide a link, otherwise your post will be removed.

 

[Hope4More]

From the Jen- foreman interview, about the May 10th call. I'm totally impressed whith how much this jury figured out with so little information or time (compared to what we know)


I was very curious to know what the Foreman thought about hearing it and digesting what was said. “The sex tape was rather shocking and embarrassing.” The call happened on May 10th, 2008 and the Foreman noticed that during some of Travis’s statements in this phone call Jodi would stop and ask him to repeat what he said. “I heard her saying “what?” to Travis on the call”

It was then the Foreman said it clicked that Jodi was recording this sex call and this is when the pre meditation began, “I felt this was evil planning.”



http://thetrialdiaries.com/exclusive...ear-his-story/

 

[Hope4More]

more concrete information and thanks to the poster and to Jen for this interview...and I'm sure most here will not agree with me but this makes it crystal clear to me that j17 did deliberate...it is all spelled out in detail and no wonder jss did what she did...foreman seems very honest and honorable. I don't think any juror should be subjected to cussing and probably worse in a closed room and I believe if you read this account carefully that is when she really shut down. I think the foreman was very honest about j17 and how it went and he has no choice but to tell the judge they were hung...if you read the entire account clearly j17 did give reasons...did look at the photos and for her the mitigating factors were important...I am confident there is nothing that the court is going to do regarding j17...

I agree with virtually everything you said. She did deliberate. The jury chose their foreman wisely- he seems honest, honorable, AND perceptive, AND he did his best to engage #17.

But, I don't blame the other jurors for getting angry or cussing. She deliberated, but she didn't follow the jury instructions. Maybe 17 was doing her best, maybe not, but she wasn't explaining WHY she believed certain things were mitigating. She misunderstood or ignored the first step of the process in any case. The DT had to establish (granted, with a low burden of proof) that each and every mitigator was true, and the jury had to decide if the DT met that burden of proof for each mitigator BEFORE deciding whether or not the mitigator meant she deserved mercy.

From what I understand, she wouldn't listen to what the others said about the burden not being met on mitigators, even when they showed her evidence that indicated the mitigators she was clinging to were lies. She simply decided several were mitigating, proven or not, and that was that. She would have frustrated me beyond all measure in that situation. The other jurors' anger may or many not have made her shut down, but NOTHING they did or said made her refuse to change her mind. It's all on her.

 

[Wizzy]

more concrete information and thanks to the poster and to Jen for this interview...and I'm sure most here will not agree with me but this makes it crystal clear to me that j17 did deliberate...it is all spelled out in detail and no wonder jss did what she did...foreman seems very honest and honorable. I don't think any juror should be subjected to cussing and probably worse in a closed room and I believe if you read this account carefully that is when she really shut down. I think the foreman was very honest about j17 and how it went and he has no choice but to tell the judge they were hung...if you read the entire account clearly j17 did give reasons...did look at the photos and for her the mitigating factors were important...I am confident there is nothing that the court is going to do regarding j17...

JMOO, I agree with you. She (#17) did deliberate and agreed with much the others thought. JudgeSS knew that the other jurors ( or one or more) were indeed beyond the allowed rules of deliberation with their behavior toward #17.
Just goes to prove every vote counts and everyone is different and has a different opinion. moo.

 

[Hope4More]

On twitter:

JA is completely busted. She's on a 42 day restriction (in other words, until she's carted off to Perryville):


1. no video chats
2. no phone calls (except with legal team)
3. no commissary
4. 23/24 solitary, absolute.


She's appealing via the regular inmate grievance process. Good luck with that, JA.

 

[elementary]

I agree with virtually everything you said. She did deliberate. The jury chose their foreman wisely- he seems honest, honorable, AND perceptive, AND he did his best to engage #17.

But, I don't blame the other jurors for getting angry or cussing. She deliberated, but she didn't follow the jury instructions. Maybe 17 was doing her best, maybe not, but she wasn't explaining WHY she believed certain things were mitigating. She misunderstood or ignored the first step of the process in any case. The DT had to establish (granted, with a low burden of proof) that each and every mitigator was true, and the jury had to decide if the DT met that burden of proof for each mitigator BEFORE deciding whether or not the mitigator meant she deserved mercy.

From what I understand, she wouldn't listen to what the others said about the burden not being met on mitigators, even when they showed her evidence that indicated the mitigators she was clinging to were lies. She simply decided several were mitigating, proven or not, and that was that. She would have frustrated me beyond all measure in that situation. The other jurors' anger may or many not have made her shut down, but NOTHING they did or said made her refuse to change her mind. It's all on her.

I believe she gave the perception of deliberating. Yet in their guts, the eleven knew there was something wrong with her. Kinda like the feeling you get when you're up against a sociopath or someone with a character disorder. Considering her background and her lying under oath, I don't for one minute believe she was open to deliberations; she already had a personal agenda, probably a vendetta. She cried 'victim' and manipulated the system to her advantage. That is all. IMO, all you need as a target is someone who is honourable and will bend over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt. From the sound of it, in this case it was easy pickings. The sadistic, murdering convict would be proud.

 

[daisymae]

WOW Who posted the tweet?

 

[ZsaZsa]

On twitter:

JA is completely busted. She's on a 42 day restriction (in other words, until she's carted off to Perryville):


1. no video chats
2. no phone calls (except with legal team)
3. no commissary
4. 23/24 solitary, absolute.


She's appealing via the regular inmate grievance process. Good luck with that, JA.

:happydance::happydance::happydance:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Good Morning, Y'all !

Just checking in for updates ...

Question: Any word as to whether or not the Sentencing Hearing will be LIVE-Streamed on 4-13-15 ?

JMO but I expect the Nurmi and Willmott to file an objection to live-stream ...

:gaah:

So it is going to be interesting to see what JSS does ...

:gaah:

 

[ZsaZsa]

I believe she gave the perception of deliberating. Yet in their guts, the eleven knew there was something wrong with her. Kinda like the feeling you get when you're up against a sociopath or someone with a character disorder. Considering her background and her lying under oath, I don't for one minute believe she was open to deliberations; she already had a personal agenda, probably a vendetta. She cried victim and manipulated the system to her advantage. That is all. IMO, all you need as a target is someone who is honourable and will bend over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt. From the sound of it, in this case it was easy pickings. The sadistic, murdering convict would be proud.

IMO She should never have been selected. Her close association with violent criminals should have shown that. IMO In her mind any mitigating circumstance was enough to outweigh ALL the aggravators.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

On twitter:

JA is completely busted. She's on a 42 day restriction (in other words, until she's carted off to Perryville):

1. no video chats
2. no phone calls (except with legal team)
3. no commissary
4. 23/24 solitary, absolute.

She's appealing via the regular inmate grievance process. Good luck with that, JA.

:seeya: All I can do is :

:happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance:

and

:happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance:

and another

:happydance::happydance::happydance::happydance:

 

[bettybaby00]

I agree with virtually everything you said. She did deliberate. The jury chose their foreman wisely- he seems honest, honorable, AND perceptive, AND he did his best to engage #17.

But, I don't blame the other jurors for getting angry or cussing. She deliberated, but she didn't follow the jury instructions. Maybe 17 was doing her best, maybe not, but she wasn't explaining WHY she believed certain things were mitigating. She misunderstood or ignored the first step of the process in any case. The DT had to establish (granted, with a low burden of proof) that each and every mitigator was true, and the jury had to decide if the DT met that burden of proof for each mitigator BEFORE deciding whether or not the mitigator meant she deserved mercy.

From what I understand, she wouldn't listen to what the others said about the burden not being met on mitigators, even when they showed her evidence that indicated the mitigators she was clinging to were lies. She simply decided several were mitigating, proven or not, and that was that. She would have frustrated me beyond all measure in that situation. The other jurors' anger may or many not have made her shut down, but NOTHING they did or said made her refuse to change her mind. It's all on her.

I agree with a great deal of your post. She deliberated much more than what I initially believed based on the snippets we were getting. This foreman was good, he did an excellent job based on my impressions from this interview. In particular he handled the questions to JSS regarding #17 in an open and respectful manner. It would be interesting to know how the other jurors responded to JSS's questions. I feel it wasn't right that #17 kept her note to JSS secret.

I can't say she was a stealth juror. I feel, based on this article she came into the deliberations with a mindset similar to LaViolett and the JAII supporters. In other words, meaning that as someone who has experienced DV, anyone claiming DV is telling the truth and that person should be viewed as a victim above all else. All MOO

I didn't notice, is there any indication when this interview took place? Was it immediately after, or in the last few days? I can't believe the "verdict" was only a week ago today, and it would be interesting to hear his viewpoint that have transpired over the last week.

Several interesting tidbits...his perception of how Jodi set up the sex tape, and his feeling of outrage over travis's alleged verbal/emotional abuse vs the reality of ALL the text messages that were never presented.

It's a lot to absorb, and I'm conflicted above #17s motivations.

Eta. Meant to say also, I definitely don't believe she should have been on this jury. Her past experiences with DV and her husband(s) incarcerations should have made her a NO. Wonder why Juan didn't strike her?

 

[geevee]

OMG about the text saying she wanted to go to the Bishop!!!


Check out the May 26th chat (link: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?271785-Travis-Alexander-s-Journals-and-text-messages

page 9 (summary of whole text) and page 10 (all of what she said during the chat).



Going to the Bishop was one possibility I considered, and I think the jury got it right that was part one leading to the exchange on May 26. Now I am 100% convinced that the sex tape was the part 2 she waited to tell him.

She must have told him- I'm going to the Bishop because I need to for my spiritual well being (how was he going to argue against THAT?) and then, Travis, I'm also going because I recorded that sex call, the phone was stolen, someone is going to listen to it, and I'd rather tell my Bishop now, before that happens.

What an evil evil evil evil horrible twisted killer.

'Morning Hope (and everyone - feels so good to be able to say that again! ). I was able to read here occasionally during my trip just to stay in the loop and I thought you'd nailed it on the journal thread about her going to the Bishop and that being the basis for Travis' anger. I'm really sorry the jury wasn't able to come to a verdict but with what I've been able to read it was never going to happen, still haven't read everything and lack some details about J17 but I've read the minute entry for what transpired the day I left and the following (hung jury day). Will be able to converse more clearly once I catch up some more.

 

[Hope4More]

WOW Who posted the tweet?

Trying to abide by LambChop's prohibition by not posting the link. The Juan Tie guy tweeted it.

 

[Meemaw12]

http://www.examiner.com/article/jod...g-minors-jail-sheriff-joe-bans-key-supporters


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ZsaZsa]

I agree with a great deal of your post. She deliberated much more than what I initially believed based on the snippets we were getting. This foreman was good, he did an excellent job based on my impressions from this interview. In particular he handled the questions to JSS regarding #17 in an open and respectful manner. It would be interesting to know how the other jurors responded to JSS's questions. I feel it wasn't right that #17 kept her note to JSS secret.

I can't say she was a stealth juror. I feel, based on this article she came into the deliberations with a mindset similar to LaViolett and the JAII supporters. In other words, meaning that as someone who has experienced DV, anyone claiming DV is telling the truth and that person should be viewed as a victim above all else. All MOO

I didn't notice, is there any indication when this interview took place? Was it immediately after, or in the last few days? I can't believe the "verdict" was only a week ago today, and it would be interesting to hear his viewpoint that have transpired over the last week.

Several interesting tidbits...his perception of how Jodi set up the sex tape, and his feeling of outrage over travis's alleged verbal/emotional abuse vs the reality of ALL the text messages that were never presented.

It's a lot to absorb, and I'm conflicted above #17s motivations.

Eta. Meant to say also, I definitely don't believe she should have been on this jury. Her past experiences with DV and her husband(s) incarcerations should have made her a NO. Wonder why Juan didn't strike her?

It took place on the morning after the verdict..

 

[Hope4More]

I believe she gave the perception of deliberating. Yet in their guts, the eleven knew there was something wrong with her. Kinda like the feeling you get when you're up against a sociopath or someone with a character disorder. Considering her background and her lying under oath, I don't for one minute believe she was open to deliberations; she already had a personal agenda, probably a vendetta. She cried 'victim' and manipulated the system to her advantage. That is all. IMO, all you need as a target is someone who is honourable and will bend over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt. From the sound of it, in this case it was easy pickings. The sadistic, murdering convict would be proud.

I think it's impossible to argue that she belonged on the jury. She didn't. She should have been stricken during voir dire, if not for anything else (history of DV, etc) then because her first husband was prosecuted by JM. I really want to know why JM didn't keep her off. He is so meticulous, so committed to the case, so detail oriented, such an adept reader of jurors, and has such a phenomenal memory, that I have to believe there is a really good reason why he didn't. I hope we find out exactly how it happened that she was allowed on.

Past that, even if it was a " perception" of deliberating, that was legally sufficient. Her sentence would have been overturned on appeal if JSS had removed her.

 

[turaj]

I agree with a great deal of your post. She deliberated much more than what I initially believed based on the snippets we were getting. This foreman was good, he did an excellent job based on my impressions from this interview. In particular he handled the questions to JSS regarding #17 in an open and respectful manner. It would be interesting to know how the other jurors responded to JSS's questions. I feel it wasn't right that #17 kept her note to JSS secret.

I can't say she was a stealth juror. I feel, based on this article she came into the deliberations with a mindset similar to LaViolett and the JAII supporters. In other words, meaning that as someone who has experienced DV, anyone claiming DV is telling the truth and that person should be viewed as a victim above all else. All MOO

I didn't notice, is there any indication when this interview took place? Was it immediately after, or in the last few days? I can't believe the "verdict" was only a week ago today, and it would be interesting to hear his viewpoint that have transpired over the last week.

Several interesting tidbits...his perception of how Jodi set up the sex tape, and his feeling of outrage over travis's alleged verbal/emotional abuse vs the reality of ALL the text messages that were never presented.

It's a lot to absorb, and I'm conflicted above #17s motivations.

Eta. Meant to say also, I definitely don't believe she should have been on this jury. Her past experiences with DV and her husband(s) incarcerations should have made her a NO. Wonder why Juan didn't strike her?

I do not think that she could get beyond her feelings of domestic violence based on some of her own personal history...jurors are asked if they can put that aside...apparently she could not. I guess I don't know what is so hard to understand about that...it was up to the state to not have her on there. Just because you say and think you can put that aside does not mean you can...so many are attributing so many motives to j17...does anyone here really know her...I think the foreman got to know her and I don't at all hear him saying she came with an "agenda"...I hear him saying they had one person that could not come around to the majority thinking. Also there seems to be one that changed a couple of times...theywere not all on the same page until after a couple of days. According to the foreman they all deliberated...only at the end did she shut down and none of us really know what the conversations were that led to that shut down.

 

[kim.kitchenstupman]

I think she deliberated but she had her mind made up from day one. She wasn't going to falter or follow the law. Just my opinion. ..