SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[AuburnSchnauzer]

IMO more info from other jurors is needed before I can judge what was done. Did all the jurors know they were handing in a non-unanimous verdict or did they think they were asking a question or for help?

Doesn't matter - The Jury Foreman himself said they DID NOT DELIBERATE. That was his choice. IMO

 

[deedee21]

Sometimes people check the box that states they are for the death penalty when they are not. They want to make a political point. Im leaning in that direction based on his hostility toward JM.

 

[kpm]

Glad you liked that. Henry nails it.

If you are reading, Dr. Samuels, for your edification, may I present:
Low Self Opinion

Nope.

Good job! Did u do it on your Ipad? Please tell if so

 

[aa9511]

Tired of what, sitting? Short court hours, lots of 1/2 days, 4 day week and compulsory no homework by judge's order. Watched a couple million state $ go by, not to mention the victim and that killer.

They sit 13 hours throw up their hands and sorry, that's it? Tell me you would have meekly agreed when judge asked "is this your verdict?". Could have said, "No judge, I think we can try longer to agree".

A lot of people would have said that. Foreman cooked the result.

Juan can consider a second banana on a penalty phase retrial. Doesn't have to be just him. Forebozo didn't like him, liked the sweet girl that never even killed anybody before and just had to lie. Plus she showed her patoot, so she must have been abused, right Forebozo?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: I shouldn't laugh, but I am!!!

Yea, now that you put it that way...I see your point. Plus, even on deliberation days they were starting at 10 am and ending at 4:30!! So yes, you're right...lol.

 

[polleypockets]

Oh Wow...CANNOt ARGUE LACK OF REMORSE??? WTF?????? I'm blown away that he can't argue that even in the PENALTY PHASE. ugh. Now I get it. And CMJA talked about being "sorry" in her allocution, which Juan couldn't rebut. So it all makes sense now.

i found it - this is the motion that precludes juan from arguing lack of remorse during the penalty phase

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092012/m5404143.pdf

 

[thefragile7393]

Tired of what, sitting? Short court hours, lots of 1/2 days, 4 day week and compulsory no homework by judge's order. Watched a couple million state $ go by, not to mention the victim and that killer.

They sit 13 hours throw up their hands and sorry, that's it? Tell me you would have meekly agreed when judge asked "is this your verdict?". Could have said, "No judge, I think we can try longer to agree".

A lot of people would have said that. Foreman cooked the result.

Juan can consider a second banana on a penalty phase retrial. Doesn't have to be just him. Forebozo didn't like him, liked the sweet girl that never even killed anybody before and just had to lie. Plus she showed her patoot, so she must have been abused, right Forebozo?

If we were mentally exhausted just watching here, imagine how it was for them in real life. Listening to JA for one day was enough to drive me batty. Then you can't go home and decompress and talk about what you heard and saw. Perhaps one should walk in those shoes before criticizing.

I personally would have been DONE at that point too. Yeah those were short days they worked but those days were likely really mentally exhausting. Shoot, after a 6 hour day at one of my jobs all I want to do is sleep because of all the ish that goes on. Listening to all that malarky would have been worse. Most people also work 5 day a week jobs, so they also weren't getting full pay periods in at their jobs (and jobs around here often make you use your PTO and they will not pay you regular pay for jury duty. If you have no PTO you are SOL) and they would get reimbursed only up to maybe 300 bucks. Hmm so now I am listening to all that crap, can't decompress, can't talk about it, I am running out of PTO at work and now am getting into unpaid leave just to serve on this jury and I have a family to help feed, clothe. Yeah sounds awesome, sign me up! Come on now, it would not have been a picnic to be on that jury. Most trials take less than a month...try giving up 5 months putting up with all of the above and come back and let me know how life is going.

You can only beat a dead horse several times before you realize that it isn't coming back to life. If those 4 were going to be LWOP and not changing their minds...what point would it be to keep going and going? And going and going? If NO ONE is going to change their minds then good grief, end it for the love of goodness. I mean come on lets be real here, this is a jury deliberation not a brainwashing. You can't MAKE someone change their minds on something when they don't want to. JM has no second banana and is the prosecutor on the case. He will stay to the end.

 

[kpm]

Doesn't matter - The Jury Foreman himself said they DID NOT DELIBERATE. That was his choice. IMO

Riiiiigggggttttthhhhh....in my best Juan voice.....he lead the jury, he steered the boat, he handed in a verdict form....

ETA: and curiously every friend and relative for Travis was there for a so called question and not one person was there for her....why, did they know? Did they avoid the backlash of being there?

 

[polleypockets]

I remember Nancy Grace saying that the Judge could send them back to continue deliberating once again, but she wasn't given that choice by the Jury Foreman, was she? He was under the impression that if the jurors couldn't agree then the Judge would just sentence LWOP or Life.....Wow.

it was completly the judges call, she could have kept them in deliberation if she wanted, the foreman has no say so in that decision, so judge must have felt the jury was to divided to come to a decision, but TH's (si take it w/ a grain of salt) all said they think the judge declared a mistrial very early, and that normally they would have been sent back for more delieration

 

[aa9511]

Re: Finding new, unbiased jurors --

I think they can definately do it. I mean, look at Juror 9 (older guy with white ponytail walking out to the light rail). He doesn't strike me as the type who would normally watch HLN or something. Seems like he probably does stuff during the day, listens to NPR, and goes to sleep. Maybe PBS news also.

I'm sure there are others like him, or like Jurors 6 and 16. 6 and 16 definatley seem like they could keep an open mind even if they saw something in the news.

let's just hope for the best. WHOEVER THE JURORS ARE THEY SHOULD PICK THE FOREMAN BASED ON WHOEVER LEAST WANTS IT. Please PLEASE NEXT JURY, DO NOT PICK THE PERSON WHO NOMINATES THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Riiiiigggggttttthhhhh....in my best Juan voice.....he lead the jury, he steered the boat, he handed in a verdict form.....

And I wonder who in that jury decided that nobody was to talk about who voted for death and who voted for life or.....Covering a$$ in my opinion by the JF. We already know that at least two of the four women voted for death. It is safe for me to assume the JF voted for life. JMO

Edit: I wish all of the eight jurors that voted for death would speak out for Travis and his family. Process of elimination...

 

[MidwestWoman]

BBM - I would like to have documentation of this

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...at-life-is-like-inside-the-perryville-complex


All I can do is post the link. Go to www.abc15.com, check for pieces written by Angie Holdsworth posted on 05/10/2013. Go to google and search "Jodi Arias verdict: Valley woman shares what life is like inside the Perryville complex"

If you need documentation, then you must search for it yourself. The website link is for desktop view. A mobile device may not be compatible with the interview link.

 

[kpm]

And I wonder who in that jury decided that nobody was to talk about who voted for death and who voted for life or.....Covering a$$ in my opinion by the JF. We already know that at least two of the four women voted for death. It is safe for me to assume the JF voted for life. JMO

Edit: I wish all of the eight jurors that voted for death would speak out for Travis and his family. Process of elimination...

ETA: and curiously every friend and relative for Travis was there for a so called question and not one person was there for her....why, did they know? Did they avoid the backlash of being there?

 

[DairyGirl]

Nancy Grace Fiery Prosecutor

A revealing profile with Nancy Grace on her days as a hard nosed prosecutor. Originally aired April 1995 on CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gket-DOwIsU



:seeya:

Who was that soft spoken woman and what did Nancy Grace do to her?

 

[Nymeria]

Plus she showed her patoot

*Snipped by me for comic relief* No disrespect to Hats serious post....

Sorry, but that just made me LMAO! :floorlaugh:

 

[mollyf]

Good job! Did u do it on your Ipad? Please tell if so

No, I'm on my Mac and it was complicated.

Replace the < and > below with the square brackets BBCode likes. If I use them, it messes up the instructions.

• I clicked "share" on the video I want to post
• I copy only the last letters and numbers in the short URL YouTube provides
• In the Reply window here on WS, I type
• <url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOURSTRING
• Then immediately after that string of letters and numbers, I type
• ">Name of video</url>

Not as easy or fun as AuburnSchnauzer's instructions, but it's the only way it works for me on my Mac in the Safari browser.
Good luck!

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

it was completly the judges call, she could have kept them in deliberation if she wanted, the foreman has no say so in that decision, so judge must have felt the jury was to divided to come to a decision, but TH's (si take it w/ a grain of salt) all said they think the judge declared a mistrial very early, and that normally they would have been sent back for more delieration

Could the Judge still do that if the JF turned in a VERDICT FORM claiming they couldn't agree? I don't think so - Not even in the State of Arizona.

Edit: JMO

 

[thefragile7393]

Who was that soft spoken woman and what did Nancy Grace do to her?

I can tell taht was in the 90's or 80's...scary hair and that dude's glasses looked like something from The Buggles. Her hair looks much better now.

 

[Nymeria]

fftobed: G'Night all. Happy trails to you....

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...at-life-is-like-inside-the-perryville-complex


All I can do is post the link. Go to www.abc15.com, check for pieces written by Angie Holdsworth posted on 05/10/2013. Go to google and search "Jodi Arias verdict: Valley woman shares what life is like inside the Perryville complex"

If you need documentation, then you must search for it yourself. The website link is for desktop view. A mobile device may not be compatible with the interview link.

She claims that women have killed themselves there. That is like CMA saying she didn't kill Travis. That was my only point...:seeya:

 

[DairyGirl]

:scared::scared:

I think she just rambles on when she's trying to distract people from the real point. I don't think her ramblings have ANY truth to them. Everything is lying, either lying on the spot or planned lying.

For example, during some of the juror questions, she gave odd responses (surprise, surprise). But then when I would go back and listen to them again, I realized that before she would answer the question, she would go over in her mind what answer would best suit her story. And she would then give that answer. For example, with the question...."would you have ever turned yourself in if you hadn't gotten caught?" And she does a long pause...and then says "I honestly don't know the answer to that." Well, at first glance it would seem like the obvious answer she would want to say is "yes of course!!" because she would want the jurors to think she just made a "horrible mistake" in her actions after the killing. BUT THEN SHE THINKS IN HER HEAD THAT IF SHE SAYS THAT, IT WILL CONTRADICT HER OTHER LIE, WHICH WAS THAT SHE NEVER WANTED HIS "SECRETS" LIKE PEDOPHELIA AND SEXUAL LIFE TO COME OUT ("EDIFY'/"DE-EDIFY"). So see that's what the long pause was for...because she was stuck in between two lies and in the end, she didn't answer the question b/c either response would have gotten her stuck.

Basically what I'm saying is that EACH statement that comes out of her mouth is for a reason. NOthing is the truth. Everything is to try to manipulate and make the person think something she wants them to think.

I think when JA heard that question she must of figured that if she said yes the jury would know she was lying through her teeth. She had no intention of ever getting caught. But if she said no they would know what an un-remorseful murderer she was. So she said she didn't know. Which was a lie. She knew damn well that if she could have gotten away with it she would have happily. That was the plan all along. She had nearly 6 weeks to turn herself in if she was going to. Instead, even when asked point blank she told one bold faced lie after another. Does that sound like a person that would have even considered turning herself in?