Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElleElle said:
She can also flip it and say she was not on her meds the day she chose to not allocate also, therefore was not in the right frame of mind.
Click to expand...
Good point, a more difficult case to make than the opposite imo, but I don't doubt she'd try it, but with the DP off the table now it's no longer an issue.
 
Moonchime said:
BTW, I just love the applause gif. It makes me wonder about the lives of the people in the photo. They would never have imagined a world in which their images from that night would be seen by countless people yet unborn.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered who/what they were clapping for.:applause:
 
ShadyLady said:
IIRC forman said #17 took a lot of notes especially of the diaries. Why if not to talk about. Did she keep her notes?

Also, curious as to why trial observers never noticed she never spent time with the other jurors.
Click to expand...

Being the one with an agenda, I think she was/is planning to write a book and that's why she took the notes regarding the journals. However, I don't know if the jury is allowed to keep their notes. In most cases no but she could have done it to try to help her remember more.
 
Endora27 said:
Being the one with an agenda, I think she was/is planning to write a book and that's why she took the notes regarding the journals. However, I don't know if the jury is allowed to keep their notes. In most cases no but she could have done it to try to help her remember more.
Click to expand...

Writing things down does help commit them to memory easier than just trying to memorize something without writing it down.
 
Mrs G Norris said:
I actually do think it's typical of the kind of research they do on jurors these days. The minute he heard the word felon he should have pulled the records, especially considering it was in the same county ie where he had been at the time. It's his job, they're at the courthouse FGS. It's a PT fail and there is no getting around that .. also all jurors social media accounts should have been checked, hers was wide open and people on the internet could have a look as well as pull her ex husband's court documents. This is a lesson for them. Once deliberations had started it was out of JSS's hands so his attempts to remove her were way too late. An expectation of honestly is so naive, they should have taken a closer look at her, I mean, how long did it take Twitter, a couple of hours if that? Beyond that, we don't even know that she was stealth .. she had a past but perhaps she was in there with good intentions of doing the right thing and has a reserved nature, felt intimidated, couldn't make good arguments for life, we only have the other jurors opinions to gauge her on .. in this case especially whoever didn't vote for death was going to be pilloried because that's the nature of the case, it's the way it's been this whole trial.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take issue with your assumption that this was "all" JM had to do. Far from it. This was not his only case, nor was it the only case for any of JM's assistants, or any of the detectives working on this case. And I don't believe it was "all" he had to do anymore than it was "all" KN and JW and MdlR and their PI had to do. I think it was one of the things that a highly paid (thanks to the taxpayers of Arizona) PI did in concert with MdlR. I think that one of the reasons the DT's huge tab cost so much is that they did have people whose job it was to focus on the backgrounds of all the jurors in order to discover the slightest thing that could lead to a mistrial. I don't think synchronicity had anything to do with it. I think that the PI's (and to some extent MdlR's) mandate was to seek out all the available information about every juror and alternate chosen to be on the panel. IMO, the DT was holding onto that information in order to have a mistrial declared if everyone had voted for the DP. And, I would bet, they had information that could have been interpreted as damaging, no matter how innocent, on other jurors as well. I would love to see a breakdown of the money spent on the DT by AZ taxpayers, though I'm pretty sure that won't happen for quite a while, if ever.

As well, I don't think J17 felt intimidated by anything when she told the other jurors that they only wanted revenge by voting for death. IIRC, J17 refused to look at autopsy pictures, would not refer to anything but JA's fake journals and a made for TV movie and expected everyone to just go along with her. So, I think she may have been a stealth anti death penalty advocate more than a JA advocate. But that doesn't explain why MdlR tweeted the verdict on SM before it was read in court.
 
MeeBee said:
They definitely would have. It was a win win for them.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by TorisMom003 said:
But we know that some defense teams do. Who's to say that if juror 17 had voted death that Nurmi and Willmot would not have used that facebook information as a means to file an appeal. There has to be a reason why they kept that information to themselves.

MOO
Click to expand...

I'm really thankful that CMJA didn't receive the death penalty. The way it stands, she has a far less chance of ever being set free to kill again. If she had received the DP, she would have had an automatic appeal to over turn that verdict. MOO
 
I'm watching the opening statements now and it occurs to me that, knowing Nurmi was the 'social media watchdog' during the retrial, part of his zest to get so many jurors dismissed (aside from jury attrition/mistrial purposes) was to make sure J17 remained on the jury. IMO he likely sleuthed them all and knew she'd be one of the most friendly to the DT even if he didn't know about JM's previous prosecution (was it her ex or current hub at the time? I'm still a little behind on fine details).
 
For what it's worth - my :twocents: on Juror #17 - I'm just bloody glad she wasn't on the jury in the guilt phase!

I do think it imperative they track down which officer of the court released the list of juror names. Not sure what the punishment would be, but they should be exposed.
 
CLIFF NOTES- jury deliberations (Jen-Foremen interview)



Going back to deliberate: “the stress was beyond belief. “

The deliberation room was crowded: “To give you an idea we had part of Travis’s bathroom sink in the room with us….. The room was just crowded as we all took a seat around the very long table”..

Discussed mitigators first.

1. Age: 11 - NO. 1 YES (17).

2. Criminal history: 12-0 NO.

3. Remorse: 12-0 NO

4. Childhood abuse- split. 17 said it was important to her.


Discussion went to some jurors expressing unease. First vote was taken:

7 DP, 4 Undecided, 1-Life (17)


After the vote, jury agreed they wanted to look at evidence- journals and psych reports

Discussed M-5 next, physical and emotional abuse by TA. A few believed physical, most believed emotional abuse by TA.

Discussion of M-7, PTSD. 12-0, irrelevant or not mitigating.

Discussion of M-8, BPD. Most believed she had it, 12-0 not mitigating.


Next vote taken: 11-1 for DP

Looked at May 26th chat. 17 agreed with those who believed JA was being manipulative. Jurors began looking at journals and texts to figure out why TA had been so angry.



2nd day of deliberations, 1st whole day


1. Took vote. 10 DP, 1 undecided, 1- Life (17).

2. Looked at autopsy photos, but mostly spent time on journals. Jurors read from them out loud, and kept track of discrepancies between what was in journals and other evidence. 17 did not agree about discrepancies.

3. 17 mentioned seeing Lifetime movie.

3rd day of deliberations, 2nd whole day



Jurors ask 17 to explain her views. The foreman: “ 17 was just reading the journals, taking notes and talking less.”

Debate begins to get heated. Foreman: “ It was so heated and intense in the deliberation room I did feel Juror 17 was being attacked at this point but she wasn’t deliberating and it frustrated some of the jurors. “

Foreman tells 17 he is sending a note to JSS.

He says: “The jury felt Juror 17 was biased from the beginning and just wasn’t deliberating. This gave me the feeling we were a hung jury. “

Sent to JSS: “In my assessment this juror was ineffective in deliberations and was unable and/or unwilling to express her views despite repeated requests.”

A vote was taken on the question sent to JSS. 11-11 jurors were” concerned.”

The foreman wrote another question that DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SHARED OR VOTED ON:

“I respectfully request consideration of an alternate. Please advise in meantime we will continue to deliberate.”

17 wrote her own question and did not share it.

Impasse instruction given to jury.
 
@orlandomicki: FNN: Troy Hayden Discusses #JodiArias Ban, Arias' Jail Food and Answers Quest...: https://t.co/DtgXM1Wku3 via @YouTube


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One obvious conclusion: juror 17 DELIBERATED. The foreperson should not have sent a second note without taking a vote, IMO. Why did he?

Maybe 17 saw that he had written that no-vote vote and wrote her own because of it. I understand that jurors were frustrated with her, but I'm beginning to see why she shut down.
 
tweezybird said:
So please pardon my ignorance of youtube. I have it up and it says live. Does that mean I have the right "station" for the secret testimony?
Click to expand...

As of the time of this post, it appears to be live. Fox 10 has a webcast called News Now and its graphics and titles of archived shows say "LIVE" all over them even when they're not live any more, so it's really confusing.

Look for this
vos8cNu.png

in the bottom left side of the YouTube video screen window. Also, to the right of that window you will see a little chat window with comments scrolling up when the webcast is live.
 
Bluewater_Girl said:
You know Lambchop, I was thinking about that too. After the foreman sent the note to JSS, J17 sent her note as well, and we don't know what she said. After JSS spoke to 2 of the 11 DP jurors, and J17, J17 started "particpating" (which could just mean she was going through the motions as a CYA).

IMHO, Jodi did feel abused by Travis in her warped perception of reality. Most of us see that she wasn't abused, but thankfully we don't think like her. Travis did not want to share his life with her, and leading up to his death, he started calling her out on her escalating intrusive behavior. She felt extremely threatened that Travis would expose the person she really is to the world, and her mind, killing him was justified.

What if J17 relates to that, as in she thinks the same way as Jodi? We're already hearing she feels attacked and assaulted, with no credible threats against her. She doesn't like people questioning her thought processes, or motivations, even though her posture and words while deliberating are suspcious. I would have been angry if I was one of the other jurors. If you are going to hang a jury, you had better be able to give some valid reasons why. She couldn't think of one scenario where she could give the death penalty!? If asked, the first one on my list would be a pedophile that raped and murdered a child. IMO, she played the judge and the rest of the jury. She knew she had to pretend she was open to discussing a possible DP verdict, and she did just that, knowing she would not vote for death. She is anti-DP, and if she didn't realize that going into the trial, she should have known it when she couldn't provide an example of where she thought it was justified, and asked the judge to be removed from deliberations. She wants to be a victim now, but IMO she is devious. It's all for naught now, but that's my opinion with what we know at present.
Click to expand...
I agree that the murderer did feel she was abused by Travis. I think to her, she viewed his refusal to be in a relationship with her abuse. She viewed him calling her out on her behaviors and lies as abuse. She viewed him not giving her exactly what she wanted as abuse. It's twisted to us, but I think it makes perfect sense to her and she doesn't understand why no one else sees it her way.

She's a narcissistic sociopath. She views all interactions with other people only through the lens of what that person can do for her and how their actions will affect her. She never considers others or their feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 1,852 (members: 148, guests: 1,704)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
1,704
Total visitors
1,852
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,210
Messages
18,169,106
Members
232,151
Latest member
crazythunder
Back
Top