SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[Apollo]

:seeya: So, 4 were not following the rules? How can it be unanimous then?

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but maybe i'm lost in translation. lol

You lost me. :floorlaugh: I give up :truce:

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

I believe this guy was asking most of if not all the questions that were sympathetic toward Jodi that was freaking most of us out. It wasn't just Ammon who thought this. But still...

I think a pro-CMja juror or jurors asked:

Could CMja have gotten a headstart on Travis because he stopped to check his camera?

Could the bloody palm print have been left by CMja from some earlier time?

Could Travis have carried the camera to the end of the hallway

The pesky bear v tiger PTSD thing

And wasn't there a question asking the whereabouts of the roommates?

I'm sure there were a few more.

Whichever juror(s) asked the questions, s/he was all about CMja.

JMO

 

[Angelina Frost]

I read somewhere that he was the one that asked the bear/tiger question. When I heard that question, it freaked me out. Then, when Dr. D answered the question, I was more freaked out. I thought she should have passed on that question without knowing exactly what the juror was getting at. Dr D was slamming Dr Samuels for using the test answers to which Jodi was basing her answers on the Ninja story. So, this question was asking....so what? Regardless of whether it's a bear or a tiger attacking you, you would still answer the same way. I didn't like the question. I didn't like the answer.

All of the questions we didn't like were formed in a similar manner. Now we know the author. The tiger/bear question was one of the most alarming. To think that the PTSD (which to me was both irrelevant and non-existent) was tomato/tomahto with respect to the ninja story or the bogus self defense story was....crazy. Just bat**** crazy.

 

[ElleElle]

You lost me. :floorlaugh: I give up :truce:

I give up too! :floorlaugh: I'm going to switch topics, lol.

Just for the record, if I were on that jury I would of voted DP myelf because of the cruelness/premedating factors/lies/no remorse. I don't see any mitigating factors either, but the 4 who could not agree on the DP with the other 8 must of have found some mitigating factors? That's all :hug:

 

[Bernina]

Here it is. Warning: Reading this may make your stomach burn and your blood boil:

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/481669811909166

Geesh! Those people need to CHILL OUT!
Holy cats, we don't hang people in the town square anymore in Arizona, WTH? I'm just grateful that we have a 3 part system in place and CMja is looking at DP, LWOP, or.......LWP. :facepalm:

What the jurors, attorneys, witnesses, etc., DO in handling their infamy is, for the most part, up to them. Like the majority of cases, most of the information becomes "Public Record". They may be sought out by the media or choose to say "No Comment". But one needs to "tread lightly" when speaking to the media, if one decides to in the first place.

From what I learned as a witness in a murder trial/re-trial back in 1980-81, I'd NEVER want to be involved in a trial with National coverage w/o seriously covering my back.

There's honesty in reporting and then there's "Sensationalism". I watched 99% of this trial as live streaming, I didn't get sucked into the whole HLN fiasco. Maybe we need something that defines "truth in news media", make TH lawyers/ex-lawyers legally responsible for their "OPINIONS". We, as private citizens, can be sued for our "opinions" where TH's can't..........
Blah, blah, blah.....same HLN circus, different state, why the jury came to their decision, I don't know. This is NOT the end of this trial and hopefully the media hasn't scared any potential jurors from being called to bring this to a close.
JMO:moo:

 

[ElleElle]

BBM~ :cheers: My thoughts exactly.

The threats are disgusting.

I'll thank foreman for his murder 1 with aggravator.

He should have called it quits when he felt he couldn't handle making a decision, let an alternate take his spot, not threw his hands up and say it shouldn't be his job.....hoping the judge would do it for him.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I totally agree. It shouldn't be a mitigating factor in a case like this. No weight given by me. Not when someone commits their first offense in such a shockingly gruesome fashion. I really don't care that it's her first time, thanks very much.

If he really believed the mitigating factors outweighed the heinous murder she committed, fine... I honestly could respect that.

He keeps running his mouth, and every time he does... The more glaringly obvious it becomes that he didn't understand the role of a juror, he didn't uphold the oath he swore to, and he considered facts not in evidence,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[callyn]

Sure he could just said no comment but clearly the JF like being in front of a microphone. So much so, he made sure he was the first juror to speak.

Probably just my thick head, but what is JF? tia

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

ITA. He outed himself. I was really worried when I heard the question about the convicted murderer showing signs of PTSD after having "her privacy invaded." That was really late in the trial. And this guy was the foreman. Still having trouble processing this.... :facepalm:

That was the other question I couldn't remember. I think I blocked it out because it was so upsetting.

We were all struggling to make that question just be more snark but ... it was a straight up I'mFeelingForThisHoundedWittleMisunderstoodAngel.

 

[Phoebeb]

ITA. But when did Juan actually speak directly to the jury...in the beginning....and at the end. Speak to someone as if they're stupid? Wow! Those are powerful words...and I just can't remember a time when JM was disrespectful to the jury.[/QUOT

BBM
For Mr F to express that sentiment I think is very telling. He felt inferior and it showed. WoW, but I guess he knows car parts.

I agree. I don't remember any codescending tone JM used while speaking to the jurors at all. Only to the witnesses who wouldn't answer questions directly, and that was so frustrating. What is the foreperson's former occupation? Anyone know?

 

[Apollo]

I give up too! :floorlaugh: I'm going to switch topics, lol.

Just for the record, if I were on that jury I would of voted DP myelf because of the cruelness/premedating factors/lies/no remorse. I don't see any mitigating factors either, but the 4 who could not agree on the DP with the other 8 must of have found some mitigating factors? That's all :hug:

Oh happy day---we agree on something!! :seeya:

 

[cubbeegirl]

I want for an interviewer to pose the question to these jurors as to did they really actually deliberate? I would also like to know what they consider deliberation and I would like to know if they feel that there were people or persons on that jury that just were not going to listen to anyone else point of view.
I also want some clarification about them not being aware of their non decision causing a mistrial.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Probably just my thick head, but what is JF? tia

Jury Foreman.

 

[ElleElle]

Geesh! Those people need to CHILL OUT!
Holy cats, we don't hang people in the town square anymore in Arizona, WTH? I'm just grateful that we have a 3 part system in place and CMja is looking at DP, LWOP, or.......LWP. :facepalm:

What the jurors, attorneys, witnesses, etc., DO in handling their infamy is, for the most part, up to them. Like the majority of cases, most of the information becomes "Public Record". They may be sought out by the media or choose to say "No Comment". But one needs to "tread lightly" when speaking to the media, if one decides to in the first place.

From what I learned as a witness in a murder trial/re-trial back in 1980-81, I'd NEVER want to be involved in a trial with National coverage w/o seriously covering my back.

There's honesty in reporting and then there's "Sensationalism". I watched 99% of this trial as live streaming, I didn't get sucked into the whole HLN fiasco. Maybe we need something that defines "truth in news media", make TH lawyers/ex-lawyers legally responsible for their "OPINIONS". We, as private citizens, can be sued for our "opinions" where TH's can't..........
Blah, blah, blah.....same HLN circus, different state, why the jury came to their decision, I don't know. This is NOT the end of this trial and hopefully the media hasn't scared any potential jurors from being called to bring this to a close.
JMO:moo:

Great post! :rocker: and BBM~ I watched the trial online and stayed as far away as I could from Channel 30 (HLN) :giggle:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hello everyone!:seeya:

I have missed posting with my WS buddies this past week but my adorable hubby took off on vaca to remodel my bathroom from top to bottom and will be finished tomorrow. OMG its gorgeous. Yippee!

But we did stop long enough to watch the heartbreaking news when the non-verdict came in To put it mildly we were both angry, highly upset and devastated for the Alexander family.

Since then I have gotten to see the foreman's weird interview blitz. I have a lot to say about those but don't have the time to post them now. I will say this, I very much disliked him and his attitude. Maybe he is planning on becoming JAs PR manager.

I just now saw the other three jurors' interview who voted for death. It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear from those who were filled with commonsense and logic.

Its too bad this case wasn't tried in Tennessee. That jury kept their eye on the evidence and the cruel nature of the murder. Age, gender nor race did not matter. My hats go off to jurors that get it right even when it is a hard decision to make.

Here is an article about the youngest woman ever sentenced to death.

Tennessee’s only woman on death row - and the youngest woman ever to be sentenced to death in the U.S. - has denied trying to kill a fellow inmate.

Christa Pike was 20 when she was given a death sentence for torturing and murdering classmate Colleen Slemmer, 19, out of jealousy in 1995.

Now the killer, 36, is hoping to overturn an attempted murder conviction after she tried to strangle another prisoner using a shoe string in 2001.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ow-inmate-Tennessee-prison.html#ixzz2USB1x700
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[kpm]

I think it shocked her when Flores calmly says, "I don't believe you". She thought he'd hug her and say, "Thank God! You're ok!"

Oh I know, she was so sure DF would be so grateful she made it out alive.
Her little baby voice explanation finally did not work on a man !

Her pathology fascinates me to no end....I am able to read what she wants to convey but I can't tell when she is lying. Meaning if I was just listening to her tell a story I would have no idea when she lies....scary

 

[Lilly12]

FYI, but as part of the 'rules,' he and the other jurors were allowed to do that. They did not have to go with the list the defense team provided; they were legally permitted to consider other mitigating factors--specifically ones they came up with themselves.

Can they? I know they can nullify in the guilt phase, I didn't know they could in the penalty phase. Lean something new every day. moo

 

[Phoebeb]

Here is Juror #9 leaving court...

He does not look happy!

http://www.azcentral.com/video/2405455571001

I sure hope Juror 9 talks eventually, I would love to hear what he has to say. He's so mysterious at this point.

 

[Maryann123]

I think a pro-CMja juror or jurors asked:

Could CMja have gotten a headstart on Travis because he stopped to check his camera?

Could the bloody palm print have been left by CMja from some earlier time?

Could Travis have carried the camera to the end of the hallway

The pesky bear v tiger PTSD thing

And wasn't there a question asking the whereabouts of the roommates?

I'm sure there were a few more.

Whichever juror(s) asked the questions, s/he was all about CMja.

JMO

I believe the majority of those negative questions came on the same day, and nearly back to back. Now that I know jurors put multiple questions on one sheet of paper, it makes sense. The question about where the roommates were, came early on, so that one was benign. Checking camera, carrying camera, and bloody palm print were disturbing questions. Somebody was looking for something to hang his/her hat on.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Great post! :rocker: and BBM~ I watched the trial online and stayed as far away as I could from Channel 30 (HLN) :giggle:

Ditto! Live streaming is the way to go!

I won't be tuning into hearing to any of these jurors either. I thank them for getting to M1 + Aggravator.

They were dismissed! Good-Bye! Thank you!

Im Already aggravated with Forman... They need to keep their mouths shut. Go back to their lives...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk