SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[rose222]

I love Wrestler's answer to whether it was hard to get over the initial (innocent)appearance. He laughs and says ' not once the evidence started flowing' Amen!

ETA: Can we call him blue eyes? Such brilliant, blue eyes!

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

If it isn't maybe we can get tweets from our WS court watchers!

I agree , but problem with getting tweets, summaries, etc... is ya only get theTH, JC, JVM, tweeter's perspective..Me, I like to hear things for myself..I am not so naive to think TH, msm will give the WHOLE truth and CONTEXT ..

 

[kscornfed]

It is their job and they are allowed. If you ask me, both defense attorneys made it clear they did not care for JA getting anything less than DP. In their own subtle ways, not overt, they have their law licenses to protect.

huh? you think they wanted her to get the DP? is that what you're saying? cuz i don't believe that at all.

 

[MidwestMama]

Hey All... Last juror interview I saw was the 3 including Maureen on GMA ... Sorry to ask but (I searched first) ... Any new jury interviews? TIA

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[TexMex]

well, the premeditation was the most solid evidence you'll ever see. i never thought any of them could even argue it wasn't premeditated, even if they wanted to. you simply can't explain away the theft of the same caliber gun days before the murder, renting that car 90 miles from home, cellphone silence the whole time she's in AZ, and....

THE GAS CANS!!!!!

it simply can't be done.

Didn't Jodi know one thing that drew suspicion to Scott Peterson was cell silence for the morning his wife went "missing"?

 

[sweetmop]

This is an ABC News Exclusive...
And, all three of these jurors voted for the DP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jurors-sentenced-death-matter/story?id=19259867

 

[21merc7]

For those of you interested in how a juror could go visit a murderer after the trial, Google "Robert Durst".

Short version: Durst is a member of an enormously wealthy NYC family. His wife, a medical student, "disappeared" and was never found. He also had a friendship with a woman whose Daddy was in the mob. She continued this friendship with Durst for decades. One New Year's Day, she was slaughtered in her LA home. The cops wanted to question Durst, but he disappeared.

It turned out he was living in Galveston, TX, where he dressed and lived as a woman. He got into a fight with a neighbor, shot the guy in the head, then dismembered the body and threw the parts into trash bags, which he then dumped into Galveston Bay. The problem was, the bags started to wash ashore. The only body part not found was the victim's head.

Durst was tried for murder, and was represented by Dick DeGuerin, one of the hot shot defense lawyers in the country. Durst claimed self defense, and took the stand. He gave his version of the story. The jury decided to acquit, since the head was not found and the State could not determine the trajectory of the bullet to contradict Durst's story! Not only that, because he stayed in jail for a while for some other charges, multiple jurors used to go visit him!!! I have no idea where he is now, but he's walking the streets somewhere.

Interesting, I haven't looked it up.

How does it apply when JA finally admitted to murdering Travis? She may have given more than one admission. We don't know.

She will be in jail for a very long time at this point, and maybe life, we don't know.

If you want more on jury studies, that we can do, but it does not apply.

 

[LambChop]

One of many points you are sharing here. I've had neighbors tell me they simply did not like an attorneys attitude and display, so they chose to vote against the theatrics. Scary to hear and to know.

Yes, it is since it cause the defendant to have a new trial if it was a defense attorney they did not like. In jury instructions this is what they mean when they ask you to set aside your personal feelings, that includes the attorneys.

 

[ShadyLady]

True, but you get to question the jurors much more in depth in a DP case. Imagine how JM feels right now?

Juror 18 could have easily have said that in his opinion there were mitigating issues and that's why he could not vote DP...

BUT WHY HIT Juan Martinez BELOW THE BELT??????

What purpose?

I call Bull**** on him. Still.

He sat the whole time with his arms crossed [per Katie]. He was not open to prosecution argument.

 

[MidwestMama]

BBM

3 jurors on GMA this morning???? What??? When was this, do they have GMA on Sunday?

Help! Link Please!! Someone, anyone....

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-jury-members-experience-19259344

 

[Nymeria]

I like this game.

4. Willmott comparing a blast from a 25 to someone with an arrow stuck in their head, while crossing Dr. Horn.

5. Willmott's version of Al Capone's vault when crossing Dr. De Marte, "So if a person is no longer alive, you cannot get any information from them, is that what you are telling us?"

BBM

Anyone else picture Wilma with one of those joke "arrow through the head" things when they read that? :floorlaugh:

 

[MidwestMama]

Juror 18 also has me baffled. It sounds like he was set on hanging that jury the moment he walked in the room. He didn't even want to deliberate. After 2 hours of "deliberating" he asked the judge what should they do now since they are a hung jury. He says he thought a hung jury meant the judge would just give her life. Odd. That's what he wanted so he wanted the jury hung so he would get his way. It makes me wonder who the other three who voted for death really were. I wonder if they just decided to vote that way so it wouldn't look this one guy hung it all up and he would be publicly crucified. IDK...we already know 3 who voted for death and I am getting strong vibes from juror #9 that he was a death vote and was very saddened and frustrated by the outcome.

Has #9 spoken? (besides the getting on the bus video?)

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Well, there are. They are called jury consultants. Perhaps the most famous is JoEllan Demetrius, who picked the OJ jury for the defense. Robert Hirshhorn is probably the best. They don't just pull this stuff out of thin air. They do focus groups, mock trials, etc. using the facts of the particular case they are working on. Some lawyers poo-poo jury consultants and think they know their community well enough to have a feel for things (Marcia Clark infamously disregarded what her jury consultant told her in the OJ case). These folks don't come cheap, but I have found the good ones to be invaluable when a client can afford it.

It's not a black or white choice either. We learn from jury consultants what questions to zero in on. So, just because you might be an older male doesn't automatically disqualify you, but it just sets up a bit of a red flag.

When we have big cases that put us on the executive level radar, we will have a team of them. I did not believe in the "science" of what they do and I scoffed but looking at the reports they compile and the almost FBI profile-esque analysis was startling.

They are really, really good at what they do.

I did not like Demarte saying that JA's actions were immature, like a teenager. I still cringe when I hear that. JA is hard core psychopath. Manipulative like Ted Bundy. As cruel. As everything.

I didn't like it because I didn't want them to think of her as some bratty incorrigible teenager who had a bad day and was just in need of a bowl of hot soup and a grilled cheese sandwich.

I didn't want any of them to suddenly start feeling maternal or more appropriately, paternal. Oops.

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

21merc, for me this seems like an important issue if the new jurors will be told that PW did not testify due to being threatened, imho this could ellicit protectiveness in jurors.

So to my way of thinking this information should be presented to discredit what inmate arias told the juror's about PW during her allocution. Among many, many other things but thats for another discussion.

I do not know what the new jury will hear or not hear but if they get to hear the inmate's allocution...IDK

If I remember correctly, PW cannot testify because Juan will question and impeach her on drug and other reported issues. To me that is no threat it is a reality..Ya get your witnesses as they come...baggage and all..Not JM fault

 

[momtective]

Jodi Arias Jurors: 'She Is Sentenced to Death No Matter What'

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jurors-sentenced-death-matter/story?id=19259867#.UaJoWJyGcrf

 

[21merc7]

Yes, it is since it cause the defendant to have a new trial if it was a defense attorney they did not like. In jury instructions this is what they mean when they ask you to set aside your personal feelings, that includes the attorneys.

But real humans never do.

 

[ShadyLady]

People!!! Delete any post about juror's personal lives...quick!

 

[kscornfed]

For those of you interested in how a juror could go visit a murderer after the trial, Google "Robert Durst".

Short version: Durst is a member of an enormously wealthy NYC family. His wife, a medical student, "disappeared" and was never found. He also had a friendship with a woman whose Daddy was in the mob. She continued this friendship with Durst for decades. One New Year's Day, she was slaughtered in her LA home. The cops wanted to question Durst, but he disappeared.

It turned out he was living in Galveston, TX, where he dressed and lived as a woman. He got into a fight with a neighbor, shot the guy in the head, then dismembered the body and threw the parts into trash bags, which he then dumped into Galveston Bay. The problem was, the bags started to wash ashore. The only body part not found was the victim's head.

Durst was tried for murder, and was represented by Dick DeGuerin, one of the hot shot defense lawyers in the country. Durst claimed self defense, and took the stand. He gave his version of the story. The jury decided to acquit, since the head was not found and the State could not determine the trajectory of the bullet to contradict Durst's story! Not only that, because he stayed in jail for a while for some other charges, multiple jurors used to go visit him!!! I have no idea where he is now, but he's walking the streets somewhere.

yep, he's free as a bird and he's killed 2 people, probably 3. that was some crazy trial, and dick de guerin is crazy good at getting people off. and durst had the money for a first rate defense and got what he paid for.

this guy even stalked the JUDGE!!! remember?

 

[ShadyLady]

Perhaps he saw Juan's sarcasm as talking down to them, like the whole "what's a girl to do?" and the skateboarders with screwdrivers thing. I guess I can understand that but not sure why he'd take that personally since Juan was clearly not talking down to them but to Jodi, using sarcasm to outline the ridiculousness of her story. Since he felt something for Jodi, though, that may be our answer.

So glad this guy was at least able to think logically and give her M1, in light of what we've learned (convinced this was also the juror asking the sympathetic questions, like, "did she snap?" and "large scale public accusation?" which also gave me pause at the time because, if he was obeying the admonition, how would he know how large scale the accusations were?)

I bet Mr. Bill Z did not have a choice. He knew it would cause a mistrial if he did not give in. I hope one of them does write a book, one of the DP jurors. I'd buy it asap.

 

[Jane Jetson]

I think the only thing which would be a mitigating factor, or give me pause, if I was on that jury deciding Life/Death would be her BPD.

Now, if we do what the jury instructions say, we're first supposed to prove if it was "suffienciently proven." Well, I think it was proven by Juan, so that's proof, but at the same time the defense was trying to disprove it by saying no no, the BPD symptoms DeMarte found were actually from PTSD. But since I don't believe the PTSD, I would have to say that the BPD is accurate. However, the defense did muddle the water, but I will still say it's sufficiently proven.

Then I'm supposed to weigh it against the aggravating factor. Considering that she was NOT insane like in the sense of person who does not know what they're doing and not aware of what they're doing, then it doesn't "make up for" the severity of the crime. She was not mentally ill like we think of the people in asylum wards and things. Yes, she has some problem, but that doesn't outweigh the crime.

Also, her having BPD was something that COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED by someone before. It's not Travis' fault that she didn't seek help for her problem. It's not even her parents fault if she refused to listen to them. It's not really her fault b/c I'm assuming part of the problem for people with this problem is that they are not aware they have a problem. But that still is not a factor that outweighs the crime, because it was not Travis' problem whether she had BPD or not.

Therefore, the mitigating factor does not outweight the aggravating = my vote is for the death penalty.

Other things I would consider are her age and no prior criminal history, but it doens't outweigh the aggravating factor. Even together with the BPD, it doesn't outweigh aggravator. So therefore, death penalty.

I'm not a dp person, but do appreciate your analysis. I wonder what percentage of killers that have murdered someone SO savagely have borderline personality disorder? Or even just murderers, period - what is the distribution?