SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

[nadjatheresa]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/24/arias-jury-foreman/2359903/

Looks like even Jodi Arias' fake vocabulary rubbed off on this foreman. "Momenteum"?

Maybe when she's not busy growing hair, teaching sign language or bagging up plastic CMJA can write new thesaurus entries. Or maybe she could do it contemporaneously!

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

He believed the judge would decide her fate. He didn't want the burden. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sacrablue]

JM does need to simmer down when talking to people. The high and mighty attitude is good, but some people do not appreciate it.

 

[elementary]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/24/arias-jury-foreman/2359903/

Looks like even Jodi Arias' fake vocabulary rubbed off on this foreman. "Momenteum"?

For a guy who was reported not to take many notes, he seems to have an encyclopaedic memory for parroting convict-defence team speak. Has he been watching all taped court proceedings and all the convict's interviews 24/7?

 

[Hope4More]

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

I guess I disagree that it's not their concern. If the State is going to ask 12 random people to decide whether someone lives or dies, I think they should be thoroughly informed about the process, and actually, that there should be a mandatory Q&A with the judge after instructions are read to make sure they understand what they're being asked to do.

The jury instruction process assumes average citizens have fundamental knowledge of civics, the justice system and basic logic. Maybe I'm just a cynical snot, but I don't think those are safe assumptions anymore, if they ever were.

 

[orangesandapples]

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.

Exactly. They were under no obligation to come to the conclusion that someone desired, especially not random members of the public. You shouldn't call something a failure of the justice system when in reality you're just disappointed.

It's honestly incredibly concerning to me how several people here seem to just immediately jump from "Oh this jury is so thorough" to "let's bad mouth the jury foreman (of all people!) because we don't like the outcome". It's despicable, IMO.

 

[aa9511]

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.

ETA - this wasn't intended to be a serious post btw. *returns back to reality*

I find it extremely strange in light of his comments, that they came back after a couple of hours into their deliberations asked JSS WHAT FORM TO FILL OUT if they're not unanimous. So I don't think this what a "what if" or just were going through instructions...no, that was the foremen saying to the Judge WE ARE READY TO SIGN THE LINE THAT WE ARE NOT UNANIMOUS. So something, I believe, must have been going on in previous deliberations where they already knew that they would not be able to reach a consensus on death/life. I don't know, just seems very strange. I can't wait until the whole picture comes out.

Also, the next time around, Juan should clearly imprint in the juror minds that they are TO FOLLOW THE LAW as it's stated. That means follow exactly what is written in the jury instructions for the phase. THAT MEANS THEY ARE NOT TO COMPARE THIS CASE WITH OTHER CASES THEY MAY HAVE HEARD OF.

I think Juan next time around, needs to go over the jury instructions just like he did with the other two phases, and explain to them the whole concept. That first of all if someone finds a mitigating factor, the defense had to PROVE that the factor was substanstial. Then they have to weigh whatever mitigating factors they find, with the weight of the aggravating factor. That's it....then they sign the line....I think Juan should make it seem like it's very objective and they just follow the law, to counter JW who is gonna bring morality and all that stuff into it.

 

[Maryann123]

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

Matt hadn't answered his phone until he was there????????????????
If her phone is dead, how the hello did she know Matt wasn't answering his phone. And yes.......until he was where? She F'd up, and she knew it. Too bad you are the only one that caught that!

 

[BooInFloriduh]

This was posted in Chat House News. Intersing perspective on the reality of life that JA will be facing in prison.

[video=youtube;YJTBLd-72fg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJTBLd-72fg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Sorry, that it's a copy and paste. Still new to posting and couldn't figure out how to imbed the URL.

 

[sacrablue]

He believed the judge would decide her fate. He didn't want the burden. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How in the heck could the communication lines have been so out of sorts?
The instructions as read by the Judge drone on too long and the meat is lost.
The system needs to be shortened and made clear in layman's terms.

 

[Steely Dan]

Trying to upload software now to see if it helps. I am on my old macbook. Spilled cap'n crunch on my pro

I love Cap'n Crunch. The roof of my mouth doesn't like more than one bowl every three days.

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

I was wondering the exact same thing.

JM does need to simmer down when talking to people. The high and mighty attitude is good but some people do not appreciate it.

I'm dealing with a car insurance issue and the JM technique doesn't go over well with the people you're talking to. So I stopped using it. :giggle:

 

[Pink Panther]

Matt hadn't answered his phone until he was there????????????????
If her phone is dead, how the hello did she know Matt wasn't answering his phone. And yes.......until he was where? She F'd up, and she knew it. Too bad you are the only one that caught that!

Lots of us caught it and discussed it...It just doesn't make sense. She also referred to "we" when she talked about her trip from Redding to Monterey. There is a lot of information that we don't know and probably never will...

moo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I guess I disagree that it's not their concern. If the State is going to ask 12 random people to decide whether someone lives or dies, I think they should be thoroughly informed about the process, and actually, that there should be a mandatory Q&A with the judge after instructions are read to make sure they understand what they're being asked to do.

The jury instruction process assumes average citizens have fundamental knowledge of civics, the justice system and basic logic. Maybe I'm just a cynical snot, but I don't think those are safe assumptions anymore, if they ever were.

I agree, average citizens are clueless. it's very very sad to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irisha]

OK trying to catch up.
Thread locked, everyone is now some type of gilligan pod person, and Mr. Foreperson has anyone who keeps up with this case going batpoop. Sounds about right.

After watching some interviews and reading some of the posts here I have come to the conclusion that the "jury of peers" qualification needs to be reworked.
This guy is 69 years old. Some people that age probably are more in the know, but it seems like this guy rolls on the old fashioned train. I think he was seeing more than JA, I think he was seeing his daughter, a grandaughter, niece, etc.

Does anyone think if they limited ages of juries to try and match defendants that things might be different?
Imagine a group of 25-35 years olds judging her. They would "get" the phone sex, the texts, the emails. The talk of the "rape" tied to the tree would not be as shocking, it was fantasy talk, that is all.
They would understand the concept of Travis' IM where he is pretending to "talk" to the Jodi who is peeping in (not take it as LITERAL because Jodi could not have really been seeing it and dismiss it being a joke because of the "LOL"). I understood it, he was joking about her stalking, but dangit he was also SERIOUS. Can someone 2-3 generations removed grasp it?
Please, no one be offended by this either. I know a lot of older people are right up to speed on this kind of stuff also. But I will go out on a limb and say many are not (thinking of my Dad, my Gramma. On the other hand my Mom WOULD get it). And also most sleuthers don't count because it is an entirely different breed. Not sucking up, but you all invest in knowing about people like Jodi, you get it.
I don't know. Just picturing 12 ladies and gents of around JAs age, possibly some having been through a stalker themselves and understanding how much social media has helped the modern stalker become 10 times the monster it used to be.

Do you all get what I am saying? Or am I just overtired and thinking too much on this?

:seeya:

I haven't posted since the non verdict. But have been reading and listening to this foreman. I'm a few yrs. younger than the foreman.I think you are right about the way he was seeing JA. Personally, I wouldn't have judged the sexual aspects at all. I'm to open minded. Seems typical male fantasy stuff. She never had a problem with it until she murdered Travis. Then used it against him. I do think some older generation persons might have different/stricter morals codes. Although you are supposed to set those aside. I personally don't care what anyone does sexually as long as it's consenting and this was.

So he called her names. He should have sent her to jail for the crap she was doing. He may be alive today if he had. She's alot more than what he called her.

I dated a man on and off for 5 yrs. oh the emails I sent him. Would make you:blushing: Nothing wrong with that! When he made me upset or mad, I would cuss him out, or b**ch at him in a email.:facepalm::floorlaugh: Cause I'm can be mean like that and he needed a head slap. When we split up for good I didn't kill him. In fact he just emailed me today.

 

[Steely Dan]

Matt hadn't answered his phone until he was there????????????????
If her phone is dead, how the hello did she know Matt wasn't answering his phone. And yes.......until he was where? She F'd up, and she knew it. Too bad you are the only one that caught that!

I wish a juror had, and asked a question about it. "What did you mean when you said Matt wasn't there yet?"

 

[elementary]

I was dumb founded when I read that, are you kidding me I said. Evidently they did not know that the decision (hung) ended it and a new jury would now be picked. The ball got dropped and it is my opine that mr. z is a big part of it. This truly needs to be addressed for future cases, my oh my we didn't know the next step was a new jury. wth Makes me wonder what they did do for those 13 hours.

Heh. If that's the case, it's possible that someone counted on a decisive non-decision. This kind of twist sounds like something right down the convict's alley.

 

[manzana]

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:

BBM Do we even know the levity of that? On paper or post it sounds bad but very well may be nothing. Was he injured?, did he have to go to the hospital? was it a wooden bat? I have two boys, 4 and 8, I can not count the times they have hit one another with a branch, plastic bat or rubberized, swords etc. This incident may very well just be child's play that is blown out of proportion.

Really this is not a dp case, she does not invoke fear in men, nor tv interviewers. John Couey, Wayne Gacy, the list goes on with all very deserving of the DP but Jodi, not so IMO.

 

[atthelake]

Not secret at all! Just go to
http://www.serenity-irc.net/java/java.php

Wait while it loads....type in WS nickname, WS password and room is #webseuths then click connect or enter. It can take a minute to load sometime though...and it helps if your Java is up to date :seeya:

Here is a typo in your post it should be websleuths

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[rose222]

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

I can't find his exact words but the foreman did indicate that there was some confusion regarding their question.

Had this foreman known that there would be a trial he would have tried harder to come to a verdict of life. I think he wanted life real bad. He thought a hung jury = life.

At this point if the family wants LWOP I'd be ok with it too although I prefer a retrial and death.

 

[Tenaciousdae]

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.)

One of my favorites, not to be morose but I had this sung at my grans funeral. My gran, her mum, and sisters have always been beautiful angels gently guiding our family... :heartbeat: