SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[TartLemon]

I don't understand why it matters HOW the individual jurors voted. They were called to do a job, not volunteered. The jurors did the best they could with processing the evidence before them.

We all see/hear the same evidence and process it differently.

There is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to change this jury's verdict. A new one must be seated.

I also don't like the jurors doing the media rounds regurgitating the case. It's over for them. They did their job.

 

[hilldeccaside]

Mrs. Arias tells HLN she learned the news by watching the television and that she was very upset over the miscommunication. She said she wanted to be there for her daughter during the announcement of this decision.

The rest of the family wasn't planning to be in the courtroom, according to Mrs. Arias. Her husband, William, is on dialysis and had to return home to Yreka, California, because of medical issues. Their son went with him and Arias' sister and husband stopped by the Grand Canyon on their way back.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/05/24/jodi-arias-mom-sandra-wanted-be-verdict

With a daughter like Jodi, that should be the least of her worries. I am beginning to think the murderer gets her inappropriate displays of emotion from her mother. MOO

 

[Jetaime]

ITA

She was a mentally ill woman



She died a horrible death

Here is her story

http://www.azcentral.com/community/swvalley/articles/2009/05/20/20090520prisondeath0521.html

Terrible. This part made me a little teary eyed: "Powell was alone Tuesday when doctors decided to remove her from life support. No family members could be found to be with her in the hospital before she died, and corrections officials said Wednesday that they have still not found a next of kin."

 

[Teresa]

Could someone post the links to the prison videos we saw earlier? Want to show hubby and can't find them now. Thanks in advance!

Teresa

 

[TartLemon]

Mrs. Arias tells HLN she learned the news by watching the television and that she was very upset over the miscommunication. She said she wanted to be there for her daughter during the announcement of this decision.

The rest of the family wasn't planning to be in the courtroom, according to Mrs. Arias. Her husband, William, is on dialysis and had to return home to Yreka, California, because of medical issues. Their son went with him and Arias' sister and husband stopped by the Grand Canyon on their way back.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/05/24/jodi-arias-mom-sandra-wanted-be-verdict

As a Mother, I understand that she wanted to be there, but it's Jodi's problem, IMO. She insists on running the show and has not a single clue what's going on.

Ms. Arias' daughter is a convicted, brutal murderer. Jodi forfeited her rights when she took Travis' right to life. It's not the court or prosecutors responsibility.

 

[aa9511]

my common sense tells me her family was not 'nearby'. we saw what happened that day. everyone was obviously told this is IMPORTANT. you MUST be here. we don't know what it is but the court wants all interested parties present so GET HERE. and by gosh, everyone DID get there----except for them.

then there's a long delay while their whereabouts is sorted out. everyone was there and waiting and they never showed up, so if there WAS a misunderstanding and they WERE nearby, they should have at the very least showed up at the courthouse LATE. but they never showed at all.

so what i believe is they were indeed out of pocket, couldn't get there, realized after the 'non-verdict' how bad that looked, and tried to backtrack from the 'grand canyon' story, which is the TRUE story, IMO.

Or I'm thinking what if counsel already knew it was a mistrial b/c it was posed as a question?? I don't know. Maybe Jodi's people told them it was a mistrial so they didn't think it was important to be there?

 

[Tricksy]

ITA

She was a mentally ill woman



She died a horrible death

Here is her story

http://www.azcentral.com/community/swvalley/articles/2009/05/20/20090520prisondeath0521.html

That is terrible. Really appalling.

 

[LambChop]

I think she meant that judging whether someone's life is worth saving is a subjective thing, and each juror's life experience is different and affects his/her decision. Mr. Foreman's reasoning was clearly faulty, but so far the other three have wisely refrained from publicly sharing their thinking. Until they do, I view the unknown lifers as misguided, but not unprincipled.

Oh wow, they really did not understand mitigating circumstances. You certainly are not to use your own life experiences because they would never be the same unless you were involved in this type of crime which means you should never be on this jury. Mitigating circumstances can be factors that may have contributed to the crime that were beyond her control. She was found guilty of premeditation so she can't use that one. The abuse as a child/adult does not apply because she planned the crime. Rehabilitation is another factor and at this prison rehabilitation is not for those serving life. They are never getting out. She is clueless in terms of "trying to help fellow inmates". There are hardened criminals who are not interested in hearing what she will have to say about prison recycling or buying her t-shirts.

As JM tried to tell them all of the mitigating factors Jodi had listed are not applicable to her because they have already found her guilty of premeditated murder. The jury does not believe Travis attacked her making this a cruel and heinous crime. She does not have to be a Charles Manson. Cruel is cruel either way whether it is one person or many. And at this level she should never walk the streets again giving her a chance to add "many" to her resume. jmo

 

[aa9511]

And this is why they were encouraged to ask questions. They were all fully aware that they could ask a question. But if you have someone who is unable to comprehend what they are reading they should not be leading the group. The judge read them and we all heard those instructions and pretty much understood what was being asked of them. Both defense and JM went over the important portions again in their closing arguments. There is no reason for this foreman to say we did not understand. It was his duty to understand, ask questions or he should have relinquished his position to someone who did understand.

I'm not blaming the jury. I'm blaming the system that does not give these jurors, considering the time and money spent for them to sit on this panel, proper instructions on how to pick a foreman and what is expected of them. Once they are picked for the jury they could go over just preliminary jury instructions so they understand what they will be required to do at the conclusion of the trial. If they have questions then there is no pressure on them in the beginning and they would have a chance to consider questions when the time comes for them to deliberate. I just think jurors need more instructions at the beginning regarding how to deliberate than at the end when their brains are scrambled. jmo

And maybe the two sides shouldn't try so hard to confuse them! For example, during closings in mitigation...Juan said there is a chance CMJA could be given life WITH parole by JSS...and then Wilmott went back and said, no no, that's not true, don't believe Juan...there is NO LAW in the books for parole. So which is true?? Then in the part of the instructions that was in done later when JSS went back and read them instructions on that part again (no one in courtroom except judge, counsel, and jurors, but it was filmed so it's on youtube)....then Wilmott said oh yeah ok CMJA could get parole, but it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

That's just one example where I feel both sides were intentionally trying to confuse the jurors (more JW than Juan, but in this case both were muddying the waters).

So I think the lawyers also need to be proper in the way they approach the juors, and if there's confusion, then the judge needs to step in because that's not right to just leave them confused like that!

 

[bettybaby00]

The very fact that she had no injuries other than the cut to her hand tells us he never attacked her. Even being stabbed he never hit her and he could have. If he had the strength to get down that hall he could have punched her out. He did not do that. Witnesses said she had no signs of injuries other than her hand. I think that needs to be pointed out to clarify it with the jury. If she can make the claim he body slammed her and a case could be made that she showed no signs of injuries then if he could still attack her he would have punched her out. If you are angry it would be a normal response. Travis was caught totally unaware and his injuries and her lack of injuries makes it obvious. jmo

I've made this exact comment several times as well. Even when fighting for his life, he didn't hurt her!!!!!

This is why her abuse claims are so abhorrent!!!

 

[sacrablue]

As a Mother, I understand that she wanted to be there, but it's Jodi's problem, IMO. She insists on running the show and has not a single clue what's going on.

Ms. Arias' daughter is a convicted, brutal murderer. Jodi forfeited her rights when she took Travis' right to life. It's not the court or prosecutors responsibility.

I love it. Let's drop the old man off and we can visit the Grand Canyon on the way back to court. There is no doubt JA is the victim of berth. This woman is nuts.

 

[DebinGA]

Mr. Arias opened a new restaurant in Yreka last summer, and reviews I've read of it are generally positive. A number of commenters appreciated the friendly owner's meeting and mingling with diners. I think Mr. A's bad health was overstated to engender sympathy and to excuse his absence from court.

 

[sacrablue]

The very fact that she had no injuries other than the cut to her hand tells us he never attacked her. Even being stabbed he never hit her and he could have. If he had the strength to get down that hall he could have punched her out. He did not do that. Witnesses said she had no signs of injuries other than her hand. I think that needs to be pointed out to clarify it with the jury. If she can make the claim he body slammed her and a case could be made that she showed no signs of injuries then if he could still attack her he would have punched her out. If you are angry it would be a normal response. Travis was caught totally unaware and his injuries and her lack of injuries makes it obvious. jmo

The only way I can see JA getting away with no injuries is the gun first theory.

 

[momtective]

Jodi age progressed.

 

[moonshyne]

OT but Debra Milke to be released soon .. possibly in a couple of weeks http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2013/05/27/romans-death-row-mom.cnn.html

This story makes me cry every time I see it. A little 4 year old boy told he's going to see Santa Claus but instead is taken to a remote area by 2 male friends of the mothers and shot multiple times in the head. Mommy is implicated by the men who say it was her decision to have her son killed for insurance money. Now because of the crooked cop who handled her case, she will walk free I don't believe for a minute she is innocent. Yes, the cop was crooked but I strongly feel she did arrange for her son to be killed. How cruel to tell a little boy he is going to see Santa and instead the poor little guy ends up killed. I hope somehow she is re-tried and that the conviction sticks. She should not be leaving death row :/ That little boy never had a chance and the cruelty factor in his murder is mind blowing. Debra does not deserve to walk free. She is guilty as sin IMO. Sorry OT but this case really gets to me

 

[hilldeccaside]

And maybe the two sides shouldn't try so hard to confuse them! For example, during closings in mitigation...Juan said there is a chance CMJA could be given life WITH parole by JSS...and then Wilmott went back and said, no no, that's not true, don't believe Juan...there is NO LAW in the books for parole. So which is true?? Then in the part of the instructions that was in done later when JSS went back and read them instructions on that part again (no one in courtroom except judge, counsel, and jurors, but it was filmed so it's on youtube)....then Wilmott said oh yeah ok CMJA could get parole, but it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

That's just one example where I feel both sides were intentionally trying to confuse the jurors (more JW than Juan, but in this case both were muddying the waters).

So I think the lawyers also need to be proper in the way they approach the juors, and if there's confusion, then the judge needs to step in because that's not right to just leave them confused like that!

When I was on a jury many of the jurors believed that we could not use circumstantial evidence to help us decide on guilt. Finally we sent that question to the judge. He responded by telling us to read the jury instructions. We had spent hours doing just that, and still they could not be convinced.

 

[sacrablue]

Mr. Arias opened a new restaurant in Yreka last summer, and reviews I've read of it are generally positive. A number of commenters appreciated the friendly owner's meeting and mingling with diners. I think Mr. A's bad health was overstated to engender sympathy and to excuse his absence from court.

If Mr. Arias has a kidney problem, he has no choice in getting his blood filtered. He might be waiting for a kidney transplant. Not a great life for him at this point.

 

[kpm]

I was listening to one interview where Marilou Allen-Coogan said some jurors believed verbal abuse, some didn't and some believed physical abuse and some didn't..............
wow, stunned some believed physical.

ETA....LINK

Here is the link....

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

 

[kscornfed]

Or I'm thinking what if counsel already knew it was a mistrial b/c it was posed as a question?? I don't know. Maybe Jodi's people told them it was a mistrial so they didn't think it was important to be there?

i just don't buy that, but whatever. everyone else knew it was vital that they be there. i just find it hard to believe sandy wasn't told the same, exact thing.

 

[sacrablue]

I was listening to one interview where Marilou Allen-Coogan said some jurors believed verbal abuse, some didn't and some believed physical abuse and some didn't..............
wow, stunned some believed physical.

Will look for video, I think it was on HLN.....

I bet there was a juror that was not to keen on all the anal sex stuff. Just sayen...