If there isn't another stealth juror on this particular case (and I do believe the Foreman was one) then this decision shouldn't be hard.
If the jurors truly told the truth and can apply the death penalty if it is warranted in this case then they should recommend she be put to death.
The decision that death is the appropriate and just punishment should be based on these factors. 1) The planning and aforethought that went into the premeditation before it was carried out. 2) The cruel and heinous sub-human nature in which the defendant murdered the victim. 3) The aftermath where the defendant not only hasn't shown one bit of remorse but has also told countless lies to re-victimize the victim for their own personal gain.
What should be excluded, imo. is the gender of the murderer and even the gender of her victim. The premeditation/crime/ and what she has done afterwards should only be weighed when coming to a decision.
I have seen other death penalty cases that didn't have nearly this much solid evidence in it and death was given. There is no need for a confession when the insurmountable evidence shows guilt beyond all doubt as it does in this case. The only reason JA finally had to admit she killed Travis is she couldn't refute the evidence showing she did. Until then it was 'you need to look at the roommate' 'I wasn't there' 'the ninjas did it' and then on to 'Travis made me do it.' She changed her story because she knew the evidence showed she indeed was the guilty one.
I have been on a jury that was a death penalty case and when I was asked if the evidence supported death could I consider it and I truly meant what I said when I told them that I could. I would never ever lie to the court knowing all along I couldn't vote a verdict of death if it was supported by evidence, and not one of my fellow jurors, lied either.
So if these jurors are also honest and look at the aggravating factors in this case they will know hands down the aggravating factors far outweigh any foolish mitigating factors trumped up by JA and the DT.
In fact, imo, personally, I have seen that juries don't like it when the defendant doesn't take full responsibility for their own actions but instead tries to make excuses why they did such a hideous thing to another human being. What we do see if the defendant is a female that excuse is tried in just about every case. It is like females in the justice system have a tattoo on their butt that says 'oh don't forget the abuse excuse.' Gahh, I am so sick of it. None of this would even be brought up if she was a male defendant and over 750K men a year call 911 because they were being abused by a female domestic partner. Just like Travis should have called and reported his abuser and stalker but men are the least likely to report DV when the predator is a female.
The thing the jury needs to keep in mind, and any DV expert will say this, the last thing an abused victim will do is travel 1000 miles to be with the abuser that is no longer around them. When someone is really abused when the abuser either moves away or the victim does is the first sigh of relief they have had during the entire abusive relationship.
But what they also need to keep in mind is when a truly abused victim (Travis) finally gets to the point they cant take the abuse any longer and tells their abuser to leave them the hell alone it is the most dangerous time in that victim's life. Travis is proof of what can and does happen when they finally have the courage to tell their victimizer 'no more' and 6 days later Travis Alexander was slaughtered.... just like so many victims of DV have been and will be in the future.:(
