SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

[elementary]

Wow. I didn't read it that way at all. I think she just meant that he couldn't have anticipated that she would actually kill him.

I should have been clearer. I wasn't talking about the OP.

 

[Linda7NJ]

He thought the judge would do HIS job....

Wonder if his mommy did his homework for him?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gauntlet]

Can someone please post a YouTube of Jane Siberry and K D Lang's "Calling All Angels"? (Preferably not the live version.) I don't know how to do it. TIA. (Now I'll go and sit on the stool in the corner.)

Are you sitting by a window?

[video=youtube;KRUErh47sao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUErh47sao[/video]

 

[Pink Panther]

I'm curious as to why DB didn't want his face filmed while he was testifying and then went on tv and did an interview?

Very bizarre.

moo

 

[elementary]

That more than one person didn't want to sentence Arias to death is like a knife in the back of the Alexander family?!

Since when is deciding not to kill one person the ultimate betrayal of another? It doesn't compute.

Fallacious logic here. But I am sure that those who are anti-DP would like it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I agree his responsibility was to reach a verdict, but don't understand why you think the jury shouldn't have been told the consquences of being hung. May I ask what your thinking is on that?

Because its really not their concern. What difference would it make? Would they try harder? If so... That's BS they should have been doing their best from the start. That's their job and what they swore to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

Anyone else spent time thinking about what they would have said in the jury room to try and encourage a) conversation b) to get them to see past the manipulation. I think I could have done it even not knowing what we do.

We really don't know why the other 3 didn't vote DP. 18 may be the only juror who bought into her lies at all. IMO, the 8 jurors who voted DP must have tried their utmost to sway the 4. We only have 18's word that the jury didn't actually deliberate.

 

[seguek9]

Can someone please post a YouTube of Jane Siberry and K D Lang's "Calling All Angels"? (Preferably not the live version.) I don't know how to do it. TIA. (Now I'll go and sit on the stool in the corner.)

[video=youtube;KRUErh47sao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUErh47sao[/video]

 

[Becky Sharp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih5YhPjKIX8

Are you sitting by a window? :floorlaugh:

Yes, I geddit. :floorlaugh: Oh, the shame. :blushing:

 

[Emmi]

They held hands and shared feelings... According to him. Maybe sang Kumbaya a few times.

His sole job was to reach a verdict, not wimp out and decide he didn't want to because he believed the judge should do HIS job. If he wasn't up to doing his job he could have easily said so, he would have been replaced. That's what alternates or for. The other 11 sheep could have easily had him replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may like to imagine that they held hands and sang Kumbaya, but that doesn't answer my question.

Seems to me that no oath was broken. They deliberated, they asked questions, they voted. They did not make an oath, when they were chosen as jurors, to sentence Arias to death. In the end, most of them voted for that, but a few didn't. According to jury instructions, they were under no obligation to change their votes for the majority. The judge herself made this clear.

 

[seguek9]

I feel so different as Giligan :giggle:

 

[Angelina Frost]

Anyone else spent time thinking about what they would have said in the jury room to try and encourage a) conversation b) to get them to see past the manipulation. I think I could have done it even not knowing what we do.

Sure, but I doubt it would do any good. If you watch the Foreman on tape, you can see rigidity in his carriage. All I needed to hear was "my jury" and I knew there was no chance for a unanimous verdict. None. I won't say he fudged during voir dire, but there was no way, given his post-mistrial comments, he viewed a possible death sentence as open to ALL offenders.

You cannot argue nor reason with this particular combination of arrogance and rigidity. He is what I would call a "right fighter." There is nothing you can do, sadly. They will fashion themselves into a wall on principle, even if there is overwhelming evidence to counter their position.

The idea that he would stand behind this convicted murderer being 1) abused in any way, and 2) classifying her as otherwise "normal" prior to meeting Travis Alexander is part and parcel of a "right fighter's" syndrome.

There is nothing, save real-time video of the murderer's life from age 6 when she struck her brother in the head with a bat, up until she stuffed TA's mutilated body into the shower that would have changed his opinion. It's very, very sad.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how JM missed the potential poisonous ink in this man's pen during voir dire. He NEVER should have made it to the final 18. Awful ad infinitum and then some. :help:

 

[ahi]

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...s-out-about-trial-trouble-in-sentencing-phase

Wow, just waking up to this too. Thank you for the link.

I am NOT a fan of Judge Larry Seidlin, but he was on "After Dark" as the guest judge and although I AM for the DP in this case, I am coming to agree with his assessment. (Did I just type that?) He said the AZ system is flawed. In his opinion the jury DID decide. He said they were not unanimous for the DP so it's over... PERIOD...she gets life and the judge decides LWP/LWOP.

I still do not like the "must be unanimous" rule. I wish a 10/12 majority could be implemented instead, and in this 8/4 case I would accept the jury's decision...but couldn't if it were 10/1 or 2.

Back to your link....
Although his statements about CPreMMja disturb me...I keep going back to that ONE sentence of his "We didn't know..."

I agree with most of you that they should have asked about it a 2nd time, but honestly when the jury asked the question at the 2 hour mark...JS did not clearly answer it. She gave suggestions for them to try....i.e:
Q - "What if we are unable to come to a unanimous decision?" Remember... it appeared JS "interpreted" the question as a statement (paraphrasing) "I have been told that you are unable to come up with a unanimous verdict. Here are some suggestions to try."

If the jury went back to try the suggestions without a real answer to their question (if this mistake was truly made), then maybe it's not too farfetched to accept that they tried JS suggestions, they didn't work, so they agreed to submit the no unanimous verdict...(with no other knowledge or written information about what the possible outcome would be) and perhaps thinking the judge would then decide.

Now what if the question had been read correctly? i.e:
Q - "What if we are unable to come to a unanimous verdict?" And, JS answered with something like: "If no unanimous verdict is reached, a mistrial will be declared for this portion of the trial, and a new jury will be empaneled to decide this phase. If the new jury is also unable to reach a unanimous verdict...the decision would defer to me and the defendant could be sentenced to either LWP or LWOP." She could still offer the "suggestions" but this would have truly answered their question.

I searched for the jury instructions in the penalty phase to see if all the "what ifs" were listed for the jury, but could not find it. (If this has been made public and someone has a link to the jury instructions for this phase that would clear up my assumptions above.)

I also searched for a copy of the jury "question" page and the jury "verdict" page, to see what was explained on those.

Would really like to hear your opinions on this

 

[Linda7NJ]

i wonder why, when he was in voir dire and saw that charles manson or jeffrey dahmer wasn't sitting there, he didn't say he couldn't consider the DP for her. i wonder why he didn't say 'i don't think average americans should have to make such a choice.'

he never would have been there. he wasn't honest, IMO.

Even if he was honest and believed he could.... When he realized he couldn't because of his own personal reasons...he can be excused.
That's what alternates are for, but his ego or ignorance wouldn't allow it. IMO

I could understand something believing they could at the start, then when the time came being overwhelmed and realizing they can't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elementary]

AZLaywer was down in the Chat Room yesterday talking about this. She pointed out that the procedure in the event of a hung jury was not part of the jury instructions, so she thought it was entirely reasonable that the foreperson really didn't know what would happen if they were hung.

Thanks for the clarification! That's important information.

In a sense, that might have been a blessing. Let's just say, "hypothetically", that the foreperson was pushing his own agenda; it might be quite a shock to learn it didn't work. Pipped at the post, hoist with their own petard, etc. Rich irony, indeed! "Hypothetically" speaking.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm still mystified by this comment;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm7feyvc2z4

:30 in she says "Matt wasn't there yet."

I think there are a few more people who know a lot more about this than they're questioning deeply. JMO

 

[Maryann123]

Mr. Foreman said there was lots of discussion, some heated and emotional. It wouldn't have taken me long to see that MF wouldn't change his mind, no matter what, so why prolong everyone's agony? It could even be the "4 voted for life" blurb came from MF and isn't true. I find it hard to believe MF's claim that all the "lifers" felt TA had abused JA, unless their definition of "abused" was like ALV's describing TA not emptying his email cache as "abuse".

I wonder if the "heated and emotional" part didn't refer to the original verdict of Murder 1, or extreme cruelty, as opposed to the DP or Life. I'd love to know how the vote went for the first 2 things. I can hear them talking about extreme cruelty, and telling the others, they could find her guilty of that and still not vote for the DP. If it hadn't been for the fact that they did not have to come to an agreement in the last phase, I don't know what would have happened. I think our foreman would have voted Murder 2, if giving Murder 1 would have been an automatic DP. He was never going to do give her death. My opinion!

 

[Steely Dan]

Even if he was honest and believed he could.... When he realized he couldn't because of his own personal reasons...he can be excused.
That's what alternates are for, but his ego or ignorance wouldn't allow it. IMO

I could understand something believing they could at the start, then when the time came being overwhelmed and realizing they can't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this jury deserves a lot of credit. They're the ones who made the death penalty possible for her.

 

[Tenaciousdae]

Anyone else spent time thinking about what they would have said in the jury room to try and encourage a) conversation b) to get them to see past the manipulation. I think I could have done it even not knowing what we do.

Yes, first I think I would want to know everyone's verdict, and reason.

If they simply were against death, I would be respectful of that, but would want to know how they reached that conclusion.

I think it would have come out I the wash if their decision was based on emotion, and if their qualification was based on the number of crimes.

Also, I really think they were beyond thinking about their previous verdicts. This WAS a premeditated murder, that was done in an extremely cruel manner, in which the state allows the maximum punishment of death... The defense did not present any mitigating factors which would exclude the cm... If somebody had thought there was I would want a discussion about that.

If a question presented to the court did not come back with a satisfiable answer I would ask the question again...

If no deliberation or common debate was occurring I think I would have pointed out that error. :seeya:

 

[Sleuth5]

I feel so different as Giligan :giggle:

Funny, you look the same to me.