KatieCoolady Holds 'Court' - The Dedicated KCL Thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have a feeling Bill is the type that just won't look if he thinks he will learn he was wrong. He'll hear enough from acquaintances to know it though.

Yeah, that "wasn't instantaneous" bit was a biggie - and she knew it too. A oops look flashed over her face for a second and she tried to fix it, but I was wished the reporter had reminded her those pics had times on them.
Having read one of the "foreman's" interviews this AM at RadarOnline, (taken from Inside Edition no less) where he says:
Jodi Arias Jury Foreman Speaks Out — ‘This Girl Was Crucified In The Court Of Public Opinion’

Makes me think he was one of the hold outs.. and the very last person who should have been foreman.. although it is obvious to me why he was picked foreman. Once he had dug in, no matter what he reads or sees at this point, I don't think he will ever change his mind.
 
I do believe they are. Have heard from 3 main players who are all united to go forward.

I am sending love, prayers and hugs to you today Katie. KNOW THAT Juan Martinez will learn much from what has been divulged and use that as ammo in the next go. :rockon::rockon: I know that you have NEVER waivered and I respect you so much for that! Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Arias continues giving interviews to the media. Discuss her latest interview here:
 
For those of us who are religious/spiritual the word of God always proves itself to be the absolute truth. There is always trouble in the world. Always suffering...We can try to minimize injustice here in this world but we can never get true Justice. Thank God this place is just a pit-stop and not our true Home.

I'm glad that there was a mistrial. After listening to the foreman I can't help but wonder what he would have said/done if he had somehow voted for DP and returned a verdict of death. I can just imagine appeal after appeal...For some reason this delay will ensure that whatever sentence JA is given that it will be permanent. Thank God for the little and not so little things...
 
I'd be interested to hear how he was selected. I didn't see it but other trial watchers saw him sleeping in the jury box or at least appearing to. He never took a note that I saw. But it was their decision- curious.

I must tell you a funny. This is a TRUE story. I was twenty three years young, on a jury. We had a restroom right in the jury room, I had to use it quickly before we got started. When I returned to take a seat at the long conference table, someone said to me, "We decided you should be the foreperson." :floorlaugh::facepalm::stormingmad:
I thought they were joking. I was only gone three minutes, max, and they were supposed to be waiting a sec till I even got there to sit down. Moreover, I was young enough to be some of their grandchild. Just by the way they dressed each day and in our discussions at lunch, it was obvious some of them were far better educated than I was, and certainly they all had more life experience. It was that sad,tired and pitiful. I literally laughed out loud and said "Get out of here," in a slang voice that would have made my high school classmates crack up.

Katie, it could be that no one wanted the responsibility. None of them wanted to be the Jodi Arias foreperson to be perpetually have that attached to their name, whatever the verdict may become. ( Think of the lengths and lies some folks will come up with not to have to serve any jury duty, whatsoever.)

Unlike this gentleman, once I did move to the seat at the end of the table, I became a leader, despite my age. NEVER in a million years would I , even at that age, thought, ok folks we are not going to try to persuade one another, we are not going to be asking one another to justify their opinions, we are simply going to discuss. What I inferred from that comment of his was let's take a vote now, and whatever it is...it is, call it a day.

In any case, it could be that they liked, trusted and respected him from their many months of chit chat in the jury room as they waited so very often, OR it could be that no one else wanted to do it. Since he is broadcast media, I feel he would have seemed to be familiar with public speaking and that alone may have been what shyer jurors lacked.

Hearing him now, especially the eight that held firm for death must know that next time in life, if posed with a question to lead or follow they will jump up and find their voice.:stormingmad:

If one is going to sit next to the emergency door on the airplane, they damn straight better be able to as you say "Dig deep", and find their capacity to be amazing in the time of difficulty. Otherwise, they better take a seat at the back of the plane, or admit they cannot/should not serve on this jury. Much like the seat at the emergency door, it is not for the ones who will hide their face in the person next to them, unable to face the problem that calls for action. It is for the leader who will jump up and rise to the occasion. I always wink at the person I see next to that door on the plane, and I also do not avoid it being me.
 
Too eerily similar to what DB said about her in his interview with Kiefer's azcentral interview IMO.

I thought the EXACT same thing. His comments were ENTIRELY way too similar to DB's interview.

There isn't anything the defense and MK would do that would shock me. And that's all I'm going to say. But if what I think might have happened then shame on the foreman, DT, and MK. But to the DT and MK all is fair in love and war right? What's little ole ethics?
 
The problem is if the 8 jurors come forward the 4 who hung the jury will also be revealed --- if that's a problem -- we may just be stuck with the foreman, who thankfully, appears to have covered most of the bases (media outlets).
 
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 kept wishing there was a GOOD investigative reporter who noticed the same things we did. Are they all in each others' back pockets??
 
The problem is if the 8 jurors come forward the 4 who hung the jury will also be revealed --- if that's a problem -- we may just be stuck with the foreman, who thankfully, appears to have covered most of the bases (media outlets).

IMO there are only 3 unknown life holdouts. If that was even the split among the jury we might have an inaccurate count. Who knows. But based off many bases covered we already know that vote,

Frankly I'm shocked he voted for M1 at all.
 
alternet jurior told arizonia republic ..she would have voted dp Jodi showed no remorse and didn't believe abuse...none will tell who didn't want dp but gender had nothing to do with it.

Hi there. Do you have a link? I'd love to see or read this! Makes my day:rockon:
 
Regarding:


By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press
Updated 5:32 pm, Friday, May 24, 2013

PHOENIX (AP) — They were 12 ordinary citizens who didn't oppose the death penalty. But unlike spectators outside the courthouse who followed the case like a daytime soap opera and jumped to demand Jodi Arias' execution, the jurors faced a decision that was wrenching and real, with implications that could haunt them forever.

In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?

"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.

~Snipped~


Zervakos described a deliberations room full of tears and spinning moral compasses as each juror struggled to come to grips with their own beliefs about what factors — including Arias' young age at the time of the killing and her lack of criminal history — should cause them to show mercy and spare her life.

"You've got Travis Alexander's family devastated, that he was killed, that he was brutally killed. You've got Jodi Arias' family sitting in there, both families sitting and seeing these humiliating images and listening to unbelievably lurid private details of their lives, and you've got a woman whose life is over, too," Zervakos said. "I mean, who's winning in this situation? And we were stuck in the middle."

Read more:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/artic...ath-decision-unfair-4545378.php#ixzz2UMFjUzOZ




My two cents~


A RANT I WISH THESE JURORS COULD READ~
I think this foreman is an idiot---and a whiner. I am sorry but I do. I blame the laws in part for their failure to allow the prosecution to present ALL the facts of the case. The defense is allowed to present all manner of truly ridiculous pap in the name of "mitigation" of the defendant, not to mention the huge lies about Travis---NON EXISTENT slander that made up most of their case!

In the first place, Jodi was no kid when she killed Travis. She was in her late 20's. I'll bet if you looked at statistics, most murders are committed when killers are in their 20's and 30's. I STILL MAINTAIN THAT IF THIS WERE A MAN, THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD HAVE BEEN A NO BRAINER.

Mercy? Mercy? This jury really had misplaced sentiments, and have attributed to Jodi a level of humanity that SHE DOES NOT POSSESS.
Almost everyone of Travis' friends who met Jodi could sense that she was "not right", that she was "bad news" and many warned him----not one or two people, but many!
Some had reactions of her being "off" to downright "evil", but almost all said she was MANIPULATIVE.
This is a person who was bad news and exhibiting psychotic behavior for many years before Travis came into her life. She was a liar and a stalker long before she met him.

This jury was not shown in no uncertain terms that Travis was NOT abusive; that the few times he lost it with Jodi, he called her things because of HER ABUSE OF HIM! SHE was the stalker. SHE was the manipulator. She lied repeatedly, sneaked around and spied on him, slashed tires, went behind his back invading his bank info, emails, and phone calls. It was only AFTER she had done this to him over and over that he got hurt, angry and felt betrayed and used and called her on it! Sure, it would have been nice if the prosecution could have presented some more evidence for this that was precluded, but I 'got' it. I think most of us 'got' it from what did come out in court.

Sorry but these jurors failed. I think that most of this info was there if they bothered to look, but they let sympathy for Jodi blind them to WHAT SHE TRULY IS!

I wish---I hope that these jurors will now take the time to see all the interrogation tapes, the in-jail interviews, and hear Chris and Skye Hughes on the talk radio show tell the story of their friendship with Travis, their experiences with Jodi, and the emails they wrote.
I hope they will all take the time to see and read interviews with other men Jodi attempted to manipulate or use, with people she actually did confront and threaten, and with people who witnessed first hand her lies and a dark and soulless side of her.

Lack of criminal history? Just because Jodi didn't snap and kill someone before is hardly a reason for mercy for this monster. Even Jack the ripper had a 'first time'. Some people have NO conscience. They are not capable of empathy or mercy for anyone else. They live their entire lives using, manipulating, and lying to others to get what they want. Some people are just bad or evil through and through and they NEVER CHANGE. Jodi Arias is one of these people.

I don't think these jurors really listened to Dr. De Marte. If her testimony were not as censored as it was she probably could have really laid it on the line, but even so, she tried to get across these facts. She made it clear that Jodi doesn't have real emotions, and 'mirrors' what she sees in others. Her actions are often wildly inappropriate and always, always self-serving.

Jodi is a stone cold killer who does NOT deserve mercy. The factors mentioned by the foreman are ridiculous, and pale in comparison to her heinous actions---and some of those jurors couldn't SEE THAT?!
UGH. I am disgusted with them. They say they didn't find her believable, and yet THEY CHOSE (SOME OF THEM) TO BELIEVE SOME OF HER LIES, while dismissing others. They let emotion for the WRONG person get in the way, as they looked through rose colored glasses at someone who THEY CONVINCED THEMSELVES was a woman possibly able to be 'rehabilitated'. This guy says the system was flawed, because he felt he was in the middle between a rock and hard place. Oh boo hoo---NO WAY. YOU didn't really look at all the facts, Mr. Foreman (and the other jurors who feel this way). You had a JOB to do. You weren't supposed to be doing that at that point in the first place! The verdict and cruelty factors had already been ajudictated. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO WEIGH HER 'MITIGATING FACTORS' AGAINST HER VICIOUS PRE-MEDITATED SLAUGHTER OF A MAN---(A MAN SHE HAD BEEN EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY TERRORIZING AND SEXUALLY MANIPULATING!)

I am more than sick at the NON-decision that they have come to. I am sickened at some of their rationales. I hope with all my heart that they DO seek out ALL the facts with regard to Jodi and Travis, and I hope that they are truly, truly horrified by her when they do.
 
I kept wishing there was a GOOD investigative reporter who noticed the same things we did. Are they all in each others' back pockets??

I don't think that's it. I just don't think there would be a way to prove what we all think happened. The foreman isn't going to admit it and neither is MK. And neither will the DT or DB.
 
Regarding:

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press
Updated 5:32 pm, Friday, May 24, 2013

PHOENIX (AP) — They were 12 ordinary citizens who didn't oppose the death penalty. But unlike spectators outside the courthouse who followed the case like a daytime soap opera and jumped to demand Jodi Arias' execution, the jurors faced a decision that was wrenching and real, with implications that could haunt them forever.

In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?

"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.

~Snipped~


Zervakos described a deliberations room full of tears and spinning moral compasses as each juror struggled to come to grips with their own beliefs about what factors — including Arias' young age at the time of the killing and her lack of criminal history — should cause them to show mercy and spare her life.

"You've got Travis Alexander's family devastated, that he was killed, that he was brutally killed. You've got Jodi Arias' family sitting in there, both families sitting and seeing these humiliating images and listening to unbelievably lurid private details of their lives, and you've got a woman whose life is over, too," Zervakos said. "I mean, who's winning in this situation? And we were stuck in the middle."




My two cents:

A RANT I WISH THESE JURORS COULD READ~
I think this foreman is an idiot---and a whiner. I am sorry but I do. I blame the laws in part for their failure to allow the prosecution to present ALL the facts of the case. The defense is allowed to present all manner of truly ridiculous pap in the name of "mitigation" of the defendant, not to mention the huge lies about Travis---NON EXISTENT slander that made up most of their case!

In the first place, Jodi was no kid when she killed Travis. She was in her late 20's. I'll bet if you looked at statistics, most murders are committed when killers are in their 20's and 30's. I STILL MAINTAIN THAT IF THIS WERE A MAN, THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD HAVE BEEN A NO BRAINER.

Mercy? Mercy? This jury really had misplaced sentiments, and have attributed to Jodi a level of humanity that SHE DOES NOT POSSESS.
Almost everyone of Travis' friends who met Jodi could sense that she was "not right", that she was "bad news" and many warned him----not one or two people, but many!
Some had reactions of her being "off" to downright "evil", but almost all said she was MANIPULATIVE.
This is a person who was bad news and exhibiting psychotic behavior for many years before Travis came into her life. She was a liar and a stalker long before she met him.

This jury was not shown in no uncertain terms that Travis was NOT abusive; that the few times he lost it with Jodi, he called her things because of HER ABUSE OF HIM! SHE was the stalker. SHE was the manipulator. She lied repeatedly, sneaked around and spied on him, slashed tires, went behind his back invading his bank info, emails, and phone calls. It was only AFTER she had done this to him over and over that he got hurt, angry and felt betrayed and used and called her on it! Sure, it would have been nice if the prosecution could have presented some more evidence for this that was precluded, but I 'got' it. I think most of us 'got' it from what did come out in court.

Sorry but these jurors failed. I think that most of this info was there if they bothered to look, but they let sympathy for Jodi blind them to WHAT SHE TRULY IS!

I wish---I hope that these jurors will now take the time to see all the interrogation tapes, the in-jail interviews, and hear Chris and Skye Hughes on the talk radio show tell the story of their friendship with Travis, their experiences with Jodi, and the emails they wrote.
I hope they will all take the time to see and read interviews with other men Jodi attempted to manipulate or use, with people she actually did confront and threaten, and with people who witnessed first hand her lies and a dark and soulless side of her.

Lack of criminal history? Just because Jodi didn't snap and kill someone before is hardly a reason for mercy for this monster. Even Jack the ripper had a 'first time'. Some people have NO conscience. They are not capable of empathy or mercy for anyone else. They live their entire lives using, manipulating, and lying to others to get what they want. Some people are just bad or evil through and through and they NEVER CHANGE. Jodi Arias is one of these people.

I don't think these jurors really listened to Dr. De Marte. If her testimony were not as censored as it was she probably could have really laid it on the line, but even so, she tried to get across these facts. She made it clear that Jodi doesn't have real emotions, and 'mirrors' what she sees in others. Her actions are often wildly inappropriate and always, always self-serving.

Jodi is a stone cold killer who does NOT deserve mercy. The factors mentioned by the foreman are ridiculous, and pale in comparison to her heinous actions---and some of those jurors couldn't SEE THAT?!
UGH. I am disgusted with them. They say they didn't find her believable, and yet THEY CHOSE (SOME OF THEM) TO BELIEVE SOME OF HER LIES, while dismissing others. They let emotion for the WRONG person get in the way, as they looked through rose colored glasses at someone who THEY CONVINCED THEMSELVES was a woman possibly able to be 'rehabilitated'. This guy says the system was flawed, because he felt he was in the middle between a rock and hard place. Oh boo hoo---NO WAY. YOU didn't really look at all the facts, Mr. Foreman (and the other jurors who feel this way). You had a JOB to do. You weren't supposed to be doing that at that point in the first place! The verdict and cruelty factors had already been ajudictated. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO WEIGH HER 'MITIGATING FACTORS' AGAINST HER VICIOUS PRE-MEDITATED SLAUGHTER OF A MAN---(A MAN SHE HAD BEEN EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY TERRORIZING AND SEXUALLY MANIPULATING!)

I am more than sick at the NON-decision that they have come to. I am sickened at some of their rationales. I hope with all my heart that they DO seek out ALL the facts with regard to Jodi and Travis, and I hope that they are truly, truly horrified by her when they do.
 
KCL - did you catch Ripper Street at all?

That's my favourite - the drop dead gorgeous Matthew Macfadyen as Inspector Reid, Jerome Flynn as Sergeant Drake and American actor Adam Rothenberg as Captain Jackson?

It takes a bit of getting into mainly because the dialogue is very authentic 'Victorian' .. and I know a few got turned off after the first episode, but I stuck with it and came to absolutely love it. They are currently filming the second series in Dublin. It was shown on BBC America I think?

If you haven't seen it - here's the UK trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhV5K9F39g

Uh...yes, please.
 
All that trial and they deliberate for 13 lousy hours? Thanks, judge heck of a job. What kind of a tinker toy verdict is that? A "Not unanimous" unanimous verdict, what where they sick of the lunch menu?

Wilmott and Nurmi are laughing their azzes off at this chump. You get a load of this guy? What does it take foreman? Who gets the DP in your book? This guy will never live this down, betcha.

Why is it always the judge's fault? The judge is there to make sure Jodi gets a fair trial. So far that has happened. There is always going to be an issue with jury when it comes to death. It is so easy to say that we could do it but some people when it comes down to actually following the judge's instructions fall back on the excuse they were not attorneys and did not understand the instructions. Perhaps when the judge reads instructions to the jury they should be allowed to have a question and answer session at that time so they fully understand what is expected of them. Many people today have comprehension problems just because they have never learned to be problem solvers. Never had to logically think things through because it's easier to just ask, or today google an answer in plain English. But certainly not the judge's fault.

I also don't think defense is happy with this other than it gives them another chance at a new jury to correct their errors. In the same respect there is a good chance the next jury will have seen her interviews. They don't have to stayed away from the news, they just have to be able to set aside their opinions of what they have seen. There are many people out there that can do that and people who have not followed the trial that closely to make Jodi their whole life. So I see them very easily being able to pick a jury because it should be a short trial for them to fulfill their duty. jmo
 
Having read one of the "foreman's" interviews this AM at RadarOnline, (taken from Inside Edition no less) where he says:
Jodi Arias Jury Foreman Speaks Out — ‘This Girl Was Crucified In The Court Of Public Opinion’

Makes me think he was one of the hold outs.. and the very last person who should have been foreman.. although it is obvious to me why he was picked foreman. Once he had dug in, no matter what he reads or sees at this point, I don't think he will ever change his mind.

I didn't listen to Foreman's interview, just seen clips...enough to make me ..ahem. Can someone answer please...was he taking a lot of notes? Submitting questions or bulldozing his way into being foreman? I'm sensing a "type" about him. And Travis was crucified by a sociopath allowed to slander him in death because the law is on the murderer's side. Dead men cannot sue.
Why is Mr. Foreman the only one making media blitzes, just like Jodi?
 
The problem is if the 8 jurors come forward the 4 who hung the jury will also be revealed --- if that's a problem -- we may just be stuck with the foreman, who thankfully, appears to have covered most of the bases (media outlets).

You just gave me a thought, DT: I wonder if the remaining jurors made a pact not to talk to the media so that no one would be identified (and vilified) for their vote. Maybe Mr. Foreperson broke that pact.
 
I could be wrong, but I think the 'innocent until proven guilty' quote from the foreman might be being taken out of context or getting muddled. I'm basing what I'm about to say on the abc interview, when he was talking about her time on the stand.

I personally got confused by a quote earlier and I got the context wrong (I didn't realise that he made the comment about wanting to defend her because she was trashed by the media in the context of "I found out after the admonition was lifted" and I said that he shouldn't have known the media was trashing her and he shouldn't have let it sway his decision while deliberating). So I'm definitely not directing any criticism towards you. The same thing happened to me. To be honest I'm a bit reluctant to defend him because I wasn't impressed by what he said, but I think in all fairness his words should be used correctly.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-trial-jury-foreman-interview-william-zervakos-19248927

Starting at 3.30 - whether her time on the stand hurt or helped her:


There could be another quote, I've only listened to this interview (I think, it's a bit of a blur). And I'm sick of his voice now that I've listened to that part about 20 times while I typed it out!! But to me, that part sounded like he was saying "we were meant to think she was innocent until we proved her guilty, but her time on the stand made that part hard for us".

Just moo.
I'm confused.. she confessed so how could she have been innocent?
 
Part of the jury instructions should include an instruction that the jury foreman understands those instructions and will follow them. This jury did not follow one of the judge's instructions she clearly told them which was do not let emotions interfere with your judgment and follow the instructions as they are written. They let their own personal emotions interfere with what was presented as fact. The foreman chose to let his personal feelings interfere with the fact that Jodi clearly lied to him but he believed she was telling the truth about abuse. JM said the list had no mitigating circumstances that were related to the crime which is true. It seems as if juries today just do not want to follow their instructions and then claim they did not understand. So maybe there should be some type of instructional class prior to them sitting down for a trial so they understand the terminology before they even get started on the basic trial. This would be fair to the defense and the State, so there is no mistakes regarding the general terminology of jury instructions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
209
Total visitors
311

Forum statistics

Threads
608,995
Messages
18,248,309
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top