SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[InALandFarFarAway]

Lol :floorlaugh:

And the diplomatic, careful way she said it: "... and there's innate evil ... CMja is the latter ..." So polite. But so right!:floorlaugh:

 

[my_tee_mouse]

The alternate juror said she feared for the life of any juror who voted for life so she would not identify them, but then she identified them pretty much by saying it was mostly the older ones. So the older ones, according to this alternate juror, should feel that their lives are now threatened.

Pardon me, but this is wrong. moo

Funny, but I think it is just the opposite: Those that voted against death have given JA a window of opportunity for getting out of prison someday (if it winds up being LWP); and, therefore, those that voted for death should sleep with one eye open until JA dies.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Are you OK with retrying the guilt phase after a hung jury? Because that's done all the time.

Yes, I am.

I just don't think it's fair that if the 12 people that heard everything can't decide the penalty ... Another jury without hearing all of the evidence can decide someone else's fate.

For the record, if they returned a verdict for life or death... I'd be okay with it.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[prima.facie]

Great post! I have no proof, but I totally believe there is a good chance they used focus groups or something like it. The word ABUSE came up winner winner chicken dinner. It seems to make some people feel "better" about a horrific murder, gosh, well, there had to be a good reason such a cute thing (ugh) had to kill. Ummm..no. :banghead:

We need juries that come with the ability to use critical thinking skills, not firmly held bizarre biases with no basis in fact.

I cant remember if I have posted this before or just thought about it....

I know a few people who are super nice but should never ever be on a jury. They have zero critical thinking skills, lack judgment of character, lack the ability to know when someone is pulling the wool over their eyes, are the most gullible people ever and have no logical basis for many of the decisions they make in their life. But you have to know them to know these things about them because well, they are so nice and can hold a good conversation....at first. If they were called to jury duty, I am pretty sure they would be picked to be on a jury and I would fear it would be a serious case such as this....

There are so many people out there who are not fit to be on a jury, yet they get through time and time again.

I just don't have the confidence in the system like many do because of this. I admit, im very jaded, but it is based on life experiences and observations of human behavior, etc. Not something I am proud of (being so jaded), just how I am.

when they are going through the jury screening process, it is just too easy for unfit people to get through, IMO. With that said...I don't have an answer on how to fix it....

 

[Fuskier]

I can understand your thinking..however, for me, the forensics tell a different story, and I don't give a blankity blank what the DT says, dr. Horn didn't lie, or "change his story." The fact that he made an off hand comment PRIOR to doing/completing and writing up his report dose not equate to a change in "his story."

The way I envision it, he was stabbed in the heart, possibly the other wounds to his chest, and was stunned into disbelief, shock. once she began attacking him from behind his ability to fight back was reduced. Moreover, it seems evident his automatic response was flight rather than fight and given that it all happened so damn fast he never stood a chance.

Im not trying to open up the whole which came first issue...This is all IMO, MOO and all that

Thank you for raising important points:
Firstly, the science of Forensics tell the story. Travis naked, defenseless & vulnerable in the shower.
Secondly, he would most likely have been stunned & in 'shock' having been stabbed.
Thirdly, the evidence shows that his response was 'flight' not fight.
Three very important points IMO. :ditto:

 

[aa9511]

I'm also guessing #1. When the jury was polled her 'yes' was very weak. I know many people thought it was the placement of the microphone but I just didn't hear it that way. At this point, I'm surprised by the M1 conviction.

I knew from the first time I read KCL's description of No. 1 CHURCH LADY. That pretty much says it right there. I also have issue with HOUSEWIFE, who I think also voted for life.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, I am.

I just don't think it's fair that if the 12 people that heard everything can't decide the penalty ... Another jury without hearing all of the evidence can decide someone else's fate.

For the record, if they returned a verdict for life or death... I'd be okay with it.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the first 12 could decide the penalty, but they were hung.

The new 12 will hear all the evidence relevant to the penalty. It will be a much longer penalty phase this time for that reason.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It's because each state is supposed to be sovereign--a federation of independent states. Our federal government has become much stronger in the last couple of hundred years, though, so it's easy to forget that the states were originally supposed to govern their own affairs.

I understand it from a legal perspective. I just don't agree with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DebinGA]

I'm 62 and I think JA would be happier on death row than in the Perryville general population. I would have voted for the dp rather than gum up the works by being a holdout, but we won't really know what the 4 unnamed lifers were thinking unless we hear from them. I think JA's 3-week stint on the stand caused more than just Mr. Foreman to bond with her enough to spare her life, even while recognizing she is evil and should never be free.

 

[thefragile7393]

One person, who did not even deliberate, says she's not going to break her commitment to keep the jury decisions private, but then blabs that the "older people" didn't vote for death? And now it's being generalized to say "no old people should be on the jury!"? Really?

I don't understand why people cannot accept that this group of diverse people deliberated and concluded as they did. It was not a mistake or an error. They did what they were supposed to do: deliberate to try to come to a unanimous decision but not compromise their values/beliefs in order to do so.

In our opinions, we may have felt a certain outcome was appropriate. That doesn't make our opinion the 'correct' one.

Juror number 10: "interview me! I want to be on TV! I will tweet about the case all day....everyone pay attention to me!" That's what I perceive. So good, she'll get her attention. That doesn't make her opinions irrefutable facts. They're just her opinions.

Because when it comes to applying the law our own values and beliefs can be really skewered. And foreman's were really skewered...just as a for instance. Hence why I realllly prefer professional juries of ppl who are trained to take emotion, beliefs and experiences and set them aside and decide based on known facts. Because the way it is now..I don't see how it is fair to anyone. Never have. It isn't what we have to work with currently true....but when you have people like the foreman basing his decison on skewered things...leaves a bitter taste with ppl.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cosmos]

Pretty sure that not a single poster has said anything about every murderer deserving death. Also pretty sure that each poster here understands that not every murderer will be executed. I also know for a fact that talking about Jodi Arias needing/not needing the death penalty and getting upset about the lack of a death penalty verdict in this case will NOT get the death penalty banned altogether. Now while we (as a whole) do inspire others out in the world to stand up for victims rights, we do not have the power to change the laws of every state in the entire US not to mention any other countries that may have the death penalty. ALL of us are allowed to post our thoughts, feelings, ideas. It is not reserved for only those that happen to agree with us.

Bottom line, over exaggeration is not a good thing either and the bolded is most definitely a complete over exaggeration IMO.

MOO

It was an exaggeration for me to say that getting upset about this one trial would lead to the death penalty being banned.

Let me try rephrasing. The system in Arizona has been refined over many years to be in compliance with laws and judicial rulings which is how they got the jury instructions that they have. It did not come about overnight, and it is not intentionally arbitrary and capricious.

If the "perfected" process is still not getting justice for victims not satisfied with life in prison, and the remedy of executing every murderer is not available, then don't you think that will only encourage more states to ban the death penalty simply because it is not bringing the closure that people expect it to? Consider the extra stress of a death penalty case on everyone involved, with the extra stress of not being able to guarantee justice. Why continue that system?

 

[Quester]

Secrets from the Jodi Arias jury
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/05/28/jvm-arias-juror-speaks?clusterId=1411#videoplayer

 

[LambChop]

Death penalty or life either way I'm ok with that. But I really want to hear Jodi complain about having to eat bologna sandwiches AGAIN!!!

Jodi only get peanut butter. Bologna was the Florida case.

 

[AZlawyer]

Because when it comes to applying the law our own values and beliefs can be really skewered. And foreman's were really skewered...just as a for instance. Hence why I realllly prefer professional juries of ppl who are trained to take emotion, beliefs and experiences and set them aside and decide based on known facts. Because the way it is now..I don't see how it is fair to anyone. Never have. It isn't what we have to work with currently true....but when you have people like the foreman basing his decison on skewered things...leaves a bitter taste with ppl.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

But when it comes to the penalty phase, the jurors are supposed to examine their consciences, not just coldly look at the facts.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well, the first 12 could decide the penalty, but they were hung.

The new 12 will hear all the evidence relevant to the penalty. It will be a much longer penalty phase this time for that reason.

What you you think about selecting another jury?
Are these jurors expected to know nothing of the case? If thats the case...That leaves a bunch of folks that live under a rock!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thefragile7393]

I'm 62 and I think JA would be happier on death row than in the Perryville general population. I would have voted for the dp rather than gum up the works by being a holdout, but we won't really know what the 4 unnamed lifers were thinking unless we hear from them. I think JA's 3-week stint on the stand caused more than just Mr. Foreman to bond with her enough to spare her life, even while recognizing she is evil and should never be free.

But in gen pop...she has access to.ppl...manipulating, spinning stories, wah wah wah...access to privileges by being a model prisoner. Yeah she is happy with attention and ppl giving it to her

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TXProfessional]

It's because each state is supposed to be sovereign--a federation of independent states. Our federal government has become much stronger in the last couple of hundred years, though, so it's easy to forget that the states were originally supposed to govern their own affairs.

AZLawyer, you get my vote for POST OF THE YEAR!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Secrets from the Jodi Arias jury
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/05/28/jvm-arias-juror-speaks?clusterId=1411#videoplayer

I'm not seeing the secrets... Can you paraphrase ? Please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

One person, who did not even deliberate, says she's not going to break her commitment to keep the jury decisions private, but then blabs that the "older people" didn't vote for death? And now it's being generalized to say "no old people should be on the jury!"? Really?

I don't understand why people cannot accept that this group of diverse people deliberated and concluded as they did. It was not a mistake or an error. They did what they were supposed to do: deliberate to try to come to a unanimous decision but not compromise their values/beliefs in order to do so.

In our opinions, we may have felt a certain outcome was appropriate. That doesn't make our opinion the 'correct' one.

Juror number 10: "interview me! I want to be on TV! I will tweet about the case all day....everyone pay attention to me!" That's what I perceive. So good, she'll get her attention. That doesn't make her opinions irrefutable facts. They're just her opinions.

Juror #10 has NOT tweeted about this case.

 

[prima.facie]

IMO the fault lies with the education system. Logic, critical thinking skills, common sense and the inability to apply them in a meaningful way appears to be a huge problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

education system has nothing to do with it...or else a school that was teaching it would turn out entire graduation classes with kids who had "Logic, critical thinking skills, common sense and the inability to apply them in a meaningful way".... or you would have entire graduation classes completely lacking. and that just is not reality.

may sound mean but some people just don't have what it takes...they are lacking something in their brain....you can teach them until you are blue in the face and some still wont "get it".