http://www.eveningsun.com/nationworldnews/ci_23314542/jury-arias-case-gives-up-after-no-consensus
Snippet from article:
"You heard (prosecutor Juan) Martinez say she was only 27. ... She's old enough that she should have known better," Zervakos said. "I didn't look at it that way. I'm looking at 27 years of an absolutely normal everyday young woman that was living a life that was perfectly normal. Then something changed the trajectory of her life after meeting Travis Alexander, and it spiraled downhill from there."
That quote was very similar to Darrel Brewer's quote to azcentral (Keifer):
It went something like, "Jodi was perfectly normal young woman until she met Travis Alexander and the PPL and the Mormon religion".
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/articles/20130520jodi-arias-darryl-brewer-interview.html
And then, I wondered how Keifer had access to what the juror question was yesterday (see page 42 or 43 of legal questions plus my original question on "how is Keifer privvy to juror questions"). Keifer removed this juror question from his article at 12:55 am yesterday. Another sleuther claimed that Keifer was bragging about seeing the juror note but when I checked his twitter account, that statement was also removed.
What the hay?
Me too....ITA with your post before this one.....something is very off here.
Jodi wants to say JM is a bully. Patti wants to say she recieved threats. Brewer said he could not make it to the court becaused he was stalled. He did not elaborate. Jodi will try to use the above among other things to get an appeals court to give her a new trial. It wont work. Its so transparent.
Yes - but I worry at the same time about exposing this, you know?
I hope a mod doesn't think this is out of line. If so feel free to delete.
KCL do you think the jury foreman know Kieffer?
Doing my best to stay positive I'm feeling really really really lucky that we got the M1. Not that we will ever know but I wonder just how many jurors saw the Darryl Brewer testimony via interview before they flipped out of the box.
I asked many people at the courthouse this question- how he obtained and published this sealed info including Beth Karas, Karen Arra the PIO, Jeffrey Gold, Wild About Trial and Chris Williams from Ch 12. More than one of those people found it inappropriate at best and suspicious at worse. He was also parading around like a peacock that day in a shirt and tie, not his normal attire as if he was prepared for something.
Does Michael Kiefer write for the USA Today/lohud.com?
I love Beth Karas and I remember her telling us that the public will not know what questions are asked. A lot of people here had great hopes when they got to see that question, but it threw up a big red flag for me.
Based on seeing the snippets of the interview of the jury foreman, I am VERY grateful this jury was able to come to a guilty vote.
From what this man says, it sounds like the jurors were about at the end of their rope by the time it got to the penalty phase, no? I cannot imagine how they were able to go through the jury instructions, deliberate, and come to a vote in the short amount of time up to their first question. Did I hear him say that nothing changed after that first vote? That no one tried to change anyone else's vote? Or am I misinterpreting?
I am also just astounded that this jury did not know the consequences of them not reaching a decision. Or was that information not a part of their instructions?
I am not going to post my opinion of this particular juror. But I will say that he seems to have been operating under some misconceptions. Such as that the public would know less about the case than the jury did. That just doesn't even make sense! Why did he think the jurors were not allowed to read about the televised trial?
AS we are on exactly the same page here.
Yes - but I worry at the same time about exposing this, you know?
I'm finding myself sad wishing my CEO had stayed on the jury and become foreman like I'd imagined.
This is like a "compromised verdict". They find the crime qualifies legally for the DP but the criminal who committed it does not.
Ill say with DP appeals this kind of thinking/arguing is the norm. It's just more prolonged and expensive and honestly appalling.
abc 15 foreman says didn't like jm thought he was talking down to them..didn't mention defense attys.
What are you worried about As? I find a reporter editing stories after the fact very unusual/suspicious esp in a trial like this.
I'm finding myself sad wishing my CEO had stayed on the jury and become foreman like I'd imagined.
This is like a "compromised verdict". They find the crime qualifies legally for the DP but the criminal who committed it does not.
Ill say with DP appeals this kind of thinking/arguing is the norm. It's just more prolonged and expensive and honestly appalling.