Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #3

[bsk]

Hi everyone - I haven't been back here much since the original Arias trial. I have a question...

I forget the exact way he worded it, but I happened to catch a moment of JVM a couple nights ago and one of the guests said something about Foreman Z from the original trial consulting with the defense attorneys. I know it's normal for prosecutors and defense attys to talk to/learn from jurors after a case is over. Is that all that he was talking about, or is there some on-going relationship between Z (the main reason we are going through all this again) and JW/KN as some sort of advisor or consultant?

Thanks.

 

[T-4-2]

Many think she's an evil genius. Wrong. Just one more example of how clueless and self-serving jodi really is. She thought her plan was brilliant and she'd never be looked at as prime suspect. Dumb dumb dumb!

Btw love your posts!!

Thanks! It's nice having nice people to conversate with. (Nurmi will never live that down.)

The smartest thing the devil ever did was to convince people he didn't exist.* The smartest thing Jodi ever did was to devise a convincing "good girl" act, one that was good enough to hide her true nature and intentions. No denying she got way more than just a foot in the door with Travis and his friends. But then the disguise started wearing thin, the evil started to peek through, and Travis & Co. realized they'd been duped. She must have gone very quickly from great, to nice, to OK, to unpleasant, to weird, to creepy, to disturbing, to crazy, to scary. Maybe dangerous. Unfortunately they didn't realize that she was actually a threat to their lives. (I just realized something myself: we've known Jodi a lot longer than Travis did.)

The main reason she was able to establish any kind of rapport with this crowd had nothing to do with her being a "genius," and everything to do with them being trusting. I was going to say naive -- but that's not fair. How could they possibly have been expected to really understand that Jodi could slash throats as well as tires? Travis evidently joked about "hatchet-murderers," but clearly he didn't think she posed a serious threat. Maybe to his reputation (I still think she was blackmailing him with the phone sex tape), but not a threat to his life. Or anyone else's. She had her murder kit in her car when she was arrested: gun and knives. Was she on her way to kill someone else? The chaotic crime scene she left in Mesa suggests that killing Travis was a lot harder than she thought it would be, but he still wound up dead in the end. Maybe she had learned a few things from that experience and was heading out to kill again. She could probably have done just that, had she been a slightly less incompetent criminal.

To give credit where credit is due -- people who think Jodi is an evil genius are half right. Evil? Definitely. Genius? Not in the least. Which is a good thing.

* This is a line from a movie which shall remain nameless. There may be one or two of you who haven't seen it, and I don't want to spoil anything.

 

[grammieto5]

Hey everyone, Good morning  OK so there are three things I’ve learned, 1) even though JA has been found guilty of murder she is not a convicted murderer until she has been sentenced, 2) this jury should not know about this case even though they are expected to sentence JA to LOWP or the DP and 3) JA is allowed to wear her personal clothes, if she wore her prison clothes the jury might think she was a criminal????????????? The strength of the Alexander family is amazing!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Hey everyone, Good morning  OK so there are three things I’ve learned, 1) even though JA has been found guilty of murder she is not a convicted murderer until she has been sentenced, 2) this jury should not know about this case even though they are expected to sentence JA to LOWP or the DP and 3) JA is allowed to wear her personal clothes, if she wore her prison clothes the jury might think she was a criminal????????????? The strength of the Alexander family is amazing!

Considering that she butchered an innocent man, it's pretty incredible isn't it?

 

[josie1986]

Is the jury selection still off for today ?

 

[janx]

Is the jury selection still off for today ?

Do you mean "on"? :seeya: It's only about 7:40 in AZ right now--maybe in an hour or so?

 

[rose222]

Having to dismiss jurors who have already made up their minds sure is a bummer. It's not an easy thing to vote for death. It's huge. It's one of those things that a person will probably think of during the last hours of their life...'I voted to put someone to DEATH!'. We need jurors who are filled with indomitable courage to do the right thing. I hope we find them.

 

[Renee110]

I think the jury selection is ON for today….. at least that was the last I heard.

 

[ncgramma]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming Oral Argument on 10/1/14 at 10:00 a.m. in this
division.

 

[Truth Detector]

Hi everyone - I haven't been back here much since the original Arias trial. I have a question...

I forget the exact way he worded it, but I happened to catch a moment of JVM a couple nights ago and one of the guests said something about Foreman Z from the original trial consulting with the defense attorneys. I know it's normal for prosecutors and defense attys to talk to/learn from jurors after a case is over. Is that all that he was talking about, or is there some on-going relationship between Z (the main reason we are going through all this again) and JW/KN as some sort of advisor or consultant?

Thanks.

Yes, that's true according to at least one source.

Nurmi/Willmott interviewed Zervakos and his recommendation to them was that they keep their client off the stand this time.

"When her attorneys interviewed Zervako [sic], he recommended “they keep Arias from testifying,” labeling her as “her own worst enemy.”

Source: http://guardianlv.com/2014/09/arias-trial-a-2-5m-price-tag-video/

 

[dog.gone.cute]

For Today:

@michaelbkiefer:


Schedule: hearing at 10 a.m. Wednesday;

100 more jurors come in at 10:30 that day

Judge Stephens canceled the 100 for Wed. afternoon.


Link is on previous thread at:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ncing-of-Jodi-Arias-2&p=11033186#post11033186

 

[east2west]

Yes, that's true according to at least one source.

Nurmi/Willmott interviewed Zervakos and his recommendation to them was that they keep their client off the stand this time.

"When her attorneys interviewed Zervako [sic], he recommended “they keep Arias from testifying,” labeling her as “her own worst enemy.”

Source: http://guardianlv.com/2014/09/arias-trial-a-2-5m-price-tag-video/

Now he's a impromptu Jury Consultant? I wanna be one too.[emoji4]

 

[Kensie]

Anything happening today in Killer Land?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WAT: https://twitter.com/WildAboutTrial



Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 16h / 16 hours ago

Heading back down to #JodiArias tomorrow for another 100 possible jurors. Voir dire next week. Go team go!!


Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 3h / 3 hours ago

Good morning friends. How are you doing?


Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial · 2h / 2 hours ago

Jury Selection Resumes In #JodiArias Retrial http://www.wildabouttrial.com/jury-selection-resumes-in-jodi-arias-retrial/ …


------------------

:loveyou: ya gotta just luv WAT !

 

[Kensie]

Thanks Dog.gone. I need to get to work and will check in later. TIA to the wonderful folks that keep people like me updated.

 

[Tuba]

When Zervakos was impaneled, he was charged with the duty to determine the facts of the case and to view them with impartiality. He had convinced the lawyers and the judge that he could be impartial, through the questioning, plus the voir dire and his answers. After delivery of the verdict, found: first degree aggravated murder with premeditation, the penalty phase ended unsatisfactorily. He had served and was released from his obligations.

Up he pops as an advocate. He has sympathies for the defendant, which he does not conceal. There are factors, aspects of presentation and hidden persuaders that he reacted to. He is keenly aware of them and wants to convey them to the defense for use in the penalty trial. These are not facts, they are susceptibilities. He had them, he thinks other jurors might be influenced by them too. We know why the sentencing failed and just what his participation in that was. He did not meet his obligation (which he freely assumed) to enter deliberations and remain impartial and to confine himself to the facts found. Consider whether you think he would approach the prosecution with the same helpful intent. He is not Jo-Elan Dimitrius, he was the foreman.

Impartial, favoring neither, unbiased. A concept quite opposed to harboring sympathies, even pity for the accused. If bsk is disturbed by what this man represents, so am I.

 

[rose222]

Yes, that's true according to at least one source.

Nurmi/Willmott interviewed Zervakos and his recommendation to them was that they keep their client off the stand this time.

"When her attorneys interviewed Zervako [sic], he recommended “they keep Arias from testifying,” labeling her as “her own worst enemy.”

Source: http://guardianlv.com/2014/09/arias-trial-a-2-5m-price-tag-video/

Now he's a impromptu Jury Consultant? I wanna be one too.[emoji4]

At least three of the alternate jurors have stated that they would have voted for death. The three lifers initially wanted to vote for death. This foreman guy is THE reason the jury was unable to reach a verdict of death. Even now, after having access to all the evidence, he's still defending Arias. If ever the day comes where Arias is put to death this Zervakos guy will be right there with her family supporting and 'loving' her. Yes, he's THAT sort of guy.

 

[Truth Detector]

Now he's a impromptu Jury Consultant? I wanna be one too.[emoji4]

Very well, east2west.

Know all websleuthers by these presents, I hereby dub thee, east2west, Jurati Consultus.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

At least three of the alternate jurors have stated that they would have voted for death. The three lifers initially wanted to vote for death. This foreman guy is THE reason the jury was unable to reach a verdict of death. Even now, after having access to all the evidence, he's still defending Arias. If ever the day comes where Arias is put to death this Zervakos guy will be right there with her family supporting and 'loving' her. Yes, he's THAT sort of guy.

:seeya: Hi, rose ! I totally agree !


I hope and lease: that this Re-Trial of the Penalty Phase does NOT have any jurors like that previous foreman because it will certainly end up "hung" ...

:gaah: Then, JSS will have to sentence CMJA, and I absolutely do NOT trust JSS giving CMJA the proper sentence for the crime she committed against Travis.

:moo:

 

[krkrjx]

BBM - IMO, she already handed the defense an appeal issue on a silver platter by reversing herself and not allowing this portion of the trial to be televised. The defense will say that because she allowed the guilt and aggravation phase to be televised, she denied the defendant her rights to a fair trial and whole a new trial should be granted. So, yeah, I definitely paused to 'think' about that and the potential impact of her decision to ban live cameras from the courtroom for this penalty phase re-trial. And yes, we have a right to be annoyed that the victim was killed over 6 years ago and his family is still waiting for justice to be served, thanks to the interminable delays in this case. Meanwhile, the Michael Dunn 1st degree re-trial is scheduled to conclude today and be handed over to the jury for deliberation, and that entire process including jury selection took around a week, which demonstrates that the wheels of justice don't have to turn painfully slow. With the news that this case has already cost Arizona taxpayers 2.5 million dollars and counting, I'm sure those people will also exercise their civic duty to ask why this is happening and how it could be done better in the future.

Totally agree with everything but what I have bolded.

I believe an appeal will be filed on that issue, but will not be successful. There would have to be some proof that cameras in the courtroom caused the verdict to go the way it did and that had this not been televised the verdict would have been different. I cannot figure any way that anyone could convince an appeals court that the killer would have likely been found not guilty if the trial had not been televised. Her witnesses refusing to testify? BS on that one. They could have been subpoenaed. Or testified off camera. Nope--they didn't testify because they feared what could happen to them if the LIED under oath. IMO.

Here's the kicker: If they testify this time, and lie because they feel more comfy doing so without a camera in the room, they should still fear what could happen to them. Again, IMO.