SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

[AuburnSchnauzer]

This woman gets it...she saw Jodi just as JM presented her. :clap:

Notice Kiefer was not present for this interview.....

 

[cubbeegirl]

Who thought Jodi would be released?
The Jury?? :banghead:

People on the pro-jodi sites...:facepalm:

 

[ElleElle]

"If you missed @chriswnews interview with Juror 6 in the #JodiArias trial,watch here: http://www.azcentral.com/video/2410041098001 … | Follow him for future updates."

 

[cubbeegirl]

This woman gets it...she saw Jodi just as JM presented her. :clap:

Yes... I like her..wish they would get the rest up... I am tired !

 

[Plumeria5]

People on the pro-jodi sites...:facepalm:

So did they have to return all the Welcome Home party supplies? :facepalm:
Well, if they got them at Walmart, it's all good. They can get CASH back. :floorlaugh:

 

[Dana]

This woman gets it...she saw Jodi just as JM presented her. :clap:

It's a shame she wasn't the Foreman. She sounded like she had lots of common sense.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

People that don't respect our legal justice system in America have no dam business on a jury pool. Just wanted to say that.

 

[cubbeegirl]

So did they have to return all the Welcome Home party supplies? :facepalm:
Well, if they got them at Walmart, it's all good. They can get CASH back. :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ElleElle]

I suppose so, but he let her in on Jun4 and sex with her.

Well, let's turn that around. Wasn't it miss stabby that wanted all that sacred sex with TA? I'm sorry, and I am no prude but I think she was one nasty girl and always pushing the sex. So why did she feel TA needed to commit to her?

 

[Dana]

So did they have to return all the Welcome Home party supplies? :facepalm:
Well, if they got them at Walmart, it's all good. They can get CASH back. :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[Tenaciousdae]

I just made myself mad again...

She's crying victim about being objectified, yet she's the one driving, flying all over the world for it... THEN she lets her attorney show her stuff at every whim for her benefit!! Even if it was a hot playboy spread, I'm not sure I would be real cool with that picture being free willied every time nurmi got into his sex is bad talks...:blushing:

She's just a .... Not good person!:seeya:

 

[kaRN]

Read/watch the the link if your interested, and form your opinion.

Mine's formed. :seeya:

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/155071/travis_alexander_emails_about_jodi

The Hughes have stated Skye wrote that email to get CMJA to leave him alone, not to protect her from mean Travis. If Skye had been truly concerned about CMJA, she would have been called as a witness. :moo:

 

[ElleElle]

haha! I guess, i'm a girl and think different? I assume you are male species? :seeya:

LOL. Very. Good. Point.

 

[Dana]

I suppose so, but he let her in on Jun4 and sex with her.

You're positive 'he let her in'?

Frankly, I'm tired of the sex in this thread, I think there was a little more to the trial

 

[ElleElle]

Yes, both Deanna and Linda did not like the PPL thing.

Was this job the PPL job? Deanna didn't like that either iirc.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

She wont be escaping in a recycling truck.

:floorlaugh: I must now go to bed because that made me burst out laughing. I was imaging her pretending she was on a stalking trip and squeezing herself into one of those bins.

 

[cubbeegirl]

Nite all... I will have to watch rest of interview tomorrow..
Jeez...wonder what we will hear tomorrow..
Today the foreman tells us that they were shocked when a mistrial was ruled due to their no decision....
Jodi supporters thought she would be released due to mistrial...
Yikes !

 

[ElleElle]

BBM~ Not dating? But taking her to Cancun? I know she tried to call it off, but they were seeing each other and to me that's dating.

Why did TA need to marry every g/f he dated? Deanna had a job in another state and wanted to finish things she planned first. Linda didn't like TA's job, Mimi and TA weren't even dating.

 

[KandyKane]

Thanks for posting all these. Will get to them tomorrow. I'm wondering if all these jurors were not really death qualified to begin with. How can this be investigated?

THat's what I'm thinking. All I'm aware of is that in order to be considered capital punishment qualified as a juror is that they believe that capital pushment is justified and that they wouldn't have any problem condemning a defendent to death according to the law.

I think that they all believed that going into the process but had opinions about capital punishment that are different from the law, and I don't think when questioned that was delved into. For example, the foreman said in one of the many articles written about his comments is that she wasn't a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson. Well, if that's the only kind of person one is willing to give the death penalty to then they can't be considered qualified. They all very quickly agreed that she qualified for the death penalty because of the heinous nature of the killing, yet at least one juror - the foreman - really DIDN'T think she was death penalty qualified because she wasn't as horrible as a serial killer.

The foreman at least should not have been considered death penalty qualified because by his own statement he wasn't willing to believe what the law determined as who was death penalty deserving and decided that on his own personal feeling that no one is deserving unless that are as terrible as a serial killer. Who knows if other jurors felt the same way. Where the fault lies as to how someone like that gets qualified when they shouldn't, I don't know. I think it has everything to do with what questions are asked of each juror and how much it is delved into about their beliefs concerning the death penalty. It's clear to me that had they known about the foreman's now admitted beliefs concerning the death penalty he wouldn't have been considered qualified.

The only thing the jurors at that stage were supposed to be considering where justifiable mitigating factors, and clearly there were none. And considering that Jodi was still trashing the victim and pretending that she was a victim of domestic violence by Travis when the jurors had already all agreed was a lie should have pointed to their deciding that her continued lies, lack of remorse and not having a single person who knew her willing to testify on her behalf made any actual mitigating factors null and void.

Clearly, some of these jurors were not applying the law but on personal feelings about the death penalty and probably a desire to pass the buck on the decision making off to the judge. Considering the all believed that if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision that the judge would make the decision for them then there is no way they tried very hard to come to that unanimous decision and were far too willing to pass the buck so they didn't have to.

What really bothers me is that they all agreed that they would not try to sway anyone's opinion as to each others' personal decisions, but that was their JOB. How else could they possibly come to a unanimous decision if they didn't actually deliberate and try to come to a unanimous decision? That's what deliberating MEANS. If a jury tries their best to come to a unanimous decision but is unable to because of one or more jurors being unable to be swayed to one side or the other THEN it's considered a hung jury, but these jurors didn't even do their due diligence and TRY to come to a unanimous decision... they all just went with their own personal decisions and that was that. They made no attempt to actually deliberate and try to come to a unanimous decision which was REQUIRED since the decisions were split.

It's my opinion that the jury totally dropped the ball for two reasons: they were unaware of what would occur if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision and all believed that if they couldn't they could pass the buck onto the judge so they didn't think they had to really bother coming to a unanimous decision, and they didn't ASK what would happen if the were unable to come to a unanimous decision. Since they all agreed that they didn't know this then why in the world did they not ASK?

Second, they all agreed not to attempt to sway anyone's opinion when that is their JOB. Once they knew that their decisions were split they were obligated to at least TRY to come to a unanimous decision, and that REQUIRES the jurors trying to sway each other to agree to either side. Sitting around for all those hours doing nothing but personal soul searching and while believing that they could pass the buck of the decision onto the judge is exactly what they WEREN'T supposed to be doing. It was their JOB to deliberate and at least TRY to come to a unanimous decision, and that doesn't happen without each juror attempting to sway the jurors with opposite opinions to their side... sitting around soul searching one's own opinion doesn't cut it since no one is going to change their opinion that way, and it isn't going to do anything toward their coming to a unanimous decision either one way or the other.

For these reasons I believe the jurors totally dropped the ball in not doing their due diligence in at least TRYING to come to a unanimous decision and believing they could pass the buck of the decision making off on the judge. I don't blame the foreman for this since they ALL agreed not to actually TRY to come to a unanimous decision and they ALL decided that no one was to ask the judge and clarify what would happen if they were unable to come to a unanimous decision. To me, that stinks of their all not wanting the burden of the decision making on themselves and wanting to pass it off on the judge and why they didn't even bother trying to sway opinions to one side or the other so that they COULD make their way toward a unanimous decision.

Personally, I'm glad this jury was excused and another one is going to be taking their place. They were so exhausted from the ridiculous amount of time this trial was allowed to drag on an on, and I believe that contributed a LOT to their totally dropping the ball for the penalty phase. Though the new jury will have to go over all the evidence, they won't have to sit and listen to days and days of testimony since they'll be going by the testimony already given, it won't take nearly the amount of time as the trial did, and they'll be fresh and mentally able to actually do their due diligence in trying to come to a unanimous decision without being exhausted and emotionally drained.

I'm very curious what to expect with the process of how the new jury is brought up to speed in order to even be charged with making the decision. So far I haven't seen any information of this anywhere.

 

[aa9511]

I was somewhere the other day (in a locker room), where they had tile on the ground and walls...lighter in color than Travis' bathroom, but size and style were the same. I got a flash picture of Travis' bathroom in my mind.

And I thought....I wish someday someone takes CMJA back to that bathroom and makes her sit in there for a day or two. Preferably right before her execution date, so they take her straight from the bathroom and put the needle in her. I think that is the ONLY thing that would affect her. Just make her sit there and FORCE her to re-live what happened. In isolation and think about everything that she caused in that bathroom. I don't know, maybe she is so evil that it won't shake her. But I imagine that that would be a great punishment for her b/c then she won't be allowed to escape it in her mind....she will have to sit there and she will have to re-live it and she will have to think about it.

I think it's a shame that she is allowed to escape from the memories, not in a "fog" sense, but in the sense that she does not allow her mind to go there. She is allowed to block it out by drawing, by sitting in court, by talking to her lawyers, but decorating her jail cell, by talking to her parents when they visit, by doing media interviews, by talking to the guards everywhere, by talking to her "roomates", etc, etc..

Put her in that bathroom and make her re-live it.