oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,718
I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute. Willing to dodge the rotten apples or oranges
Let's give 17 the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say she wasn't a stealth juror, and by that I mean she didn't try to get on the jury just to hang it. She thought she'd walk in and see a "monster," but instead who she saw and heard was a woman she could relate to about being abused. She was predisposed to believing DV, and when it was presented to her, she believed it.
She wanted to focus on the mitigators because that's what she thought she was supposed to do. Early on, she was not alone in her vote against the DP. One by one the other dissenters swung to the DP and then she was very alone. Eleven to 1. Five jurors walked back to deliberations and immediately voted death. That's strong conviction, and it doesn't sound like they were the quiet types. The others who swung to death were persuaded by deliberations, were not coerced, had to overcome personal religious beliefs (at least some of them), and were not going to be persuaded back or allies of the 1.
17 wanted to focus on the journals because she believed the journals best reflected who JA really was and what she thought. JA speaks about suicide a lot in those journals, and I'm willing to bet those entries about depression and suicide rang some bell in 17. 17 felt sympathy for her, believed what she read about JA's pain, connected it to DV, and thought it was important for the other jurors to understand just that. They didn't.
17 attached her beliefs to mitigators. She was offended the other jurors didn't believe JA, and felt personally attacked when the jurors stated their disbelief, especially as their disbeleif became loud and felt hostile.
When asked....or, rather, when the 11 DEMANDED she tell them of a scenario in which she imagine giving the DP, she didn't answer because she thought that whatever she said would be used against her somehow. She didn't see the question as straightforward... she felt the 11 weren't interested in her opinions- they'd been rejected, but just another way to beat her down until she agreed with them. So she didn't answer.
That is one scenario, anyway.
Possibly.
But if so, I am still totally shocked that anyone who had truly suffered from abuse would fall for JAs claims. Its mind boggling to me and I have seen several cases where jurors were abuse survivors. In fact every time I serve on a jury I have to go into great detail about being abused by my ex-husband and I have been selected 5 times to serve. Not once did my own experience enter my verdict or deliberations. I looked at the totality of evidence searching for substantiations for any claims made.
There was a case in NC where a female murdered her husband who was divorcing her. She claimed he had abused her for 20 years. I remember there was at least one on the jury that either had suffered from abuse or had a family member who had. Not one person on that jury believed the defendant. In fact they felt she was the one who had tormented him before she wound up murdering him. Just because a juror has abuse in their past isn't a surety they are going to fall for the female defendant's pack of lies. I would say #17 is a rarity instead of the norm. Or I hope like hell she is.
But I guess there really are some people that simply believe abuse claims if they have been abused themselves. I cant wrap my mind around that though because domestic violence survivors usually have a keen sense when hearing false claims of abuse and can smell the BS a mile away.
If she was going to look at the case fairly she should have removed her own abuse history from deliberations and shouldn't have let it cloud her vision.
Even JAs claims of abuse had no ring of truth to them. When looking at them overall ...even including both claims of abuse by Travis, and her family.. they were very shallow claims, and had inconsistencies all in them.
I truly hope she is never on another jury. Many brutal murderers suffer from some type of personality disorder... yet certainly know right from wrong, and may also deserve death like JA. If we start excusing murderers with personality disorders then victims are going to continue to be shortchanged when it comes to the just and correct punishment.........just like Travis was, imo.
I still find this juror very immature. What difference does it make what JA looks like? Does #17 really believe that premeditated murderers must look like a monster? I find that ridiculous. Didn't she even realize like the others that JA was trying to manipulate the jury into believing she was one way instead of the true monster she really is? She sure played right into JAs hands.
Its interesting that out of all the people that I have talked with about this case in the past few years who are genuine survivors of abuse..........not ONE has ever believed JA suffered from abuse. They don't even believe she suffered abuse at the hands of her family.
And we all know by now when JA testifies it is in that full flat affect of hers exhibiting no emotion or genuine truthfulness. Why juror #17 didn't pick up on that is odd because when a survivor is talking about real abuse they have experienced in their lives the tone and inflection is raw with emotions. Yet #17 bought it even though she even admitted that she saw no remorse from Arias.
