SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the jurors on Dr Drew last night said they did discuss it (deliberate). They each had an opportunity to discuss their reasons for their choice. They discussed the reasons they voted one way or another. None of that changed anyone's mind (or at least that's the impression I got).
Because this decision is based on their OWN PERSONAL CONVICTIONS you really can't sway each other. If juror A feels her age is a reason to spare her life and you don't, you aren't likely to sway or be swayed. It is a personal issue.
I did NOT like what the foreman had to say but I also do not feel they "did not deliberate". This is the most difficult phase to come to a joint decision on because you cannot "prove your postion" with FACTS.
Also, the same juror said that the foreman did not sway anyone to change from death to life.

Discussion is not debate. Presenting a view is not debate. Deliberation means you try to sway the others by presenting a reasoned argument. I am not hearing this in that statement.
 
I'm a conservative, 65, and my husband is 69 (in August) and we both would have given her the death penalty. I can't for the life of me make this an age issue! Looks like it's not a political one either.

I am thinking that part of the age issue had to do with JA's age. She was only 27 when she killed Travis and maybe the older jurors felt she was too young to be put to death. I am 55 and to me, now, a 27 year old is a child, well since I have a 27 year old, but maybe that was part of the perspective.
 
[video=youtube;pCnNyoKuwiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnNyoKuwiM[/video]
 
Discussion is not debate. Presenting a view is not debate. Deliberation means you try to sway the others by presenting a reasoned argument. I am not hearing this in that statement.

ummm,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deliberation

try as many sources as you want, there is nothing in any definition of "deliberate" that uses the word "sway" or any other like term.

It means simply "to discuss"

In this citation, "debate" is listed as a synonym, so according to MW, disucssion IS debate and it is ALSO deliberation.
 
I am thinking that part of the age issue had to do with JA's age. She was only 27 when she killed Travis and maybe the older jurors felt she was too young to be put to death. I am 55 and to me, now, a 27 year old is a child, well since I have a 27 year old, but maybe that was part of the perspective.

27 years of age means to me she is fully grown and should be held fully accountable for her dastardly actions.

27 years of age would not have been a mitigating factor for me whatsoever. The mitigating factor is suppose to outweigh the aggravator. No way does age dismiss the aggravating factor.

In TN they put a 20 year old female on death row. They didn't look at her age but they did look at the horrible murder she did out of jealousy.

IMO
 
How is this case any different from Clara Harris, who snapped and ran over her husband three times. She got murder two and will be eligible for parole this year [which I think is ten years].

It's the same 'overkill.' And I don't think anyone would argue Clara Harris was a psychopath even given the overkill of running over her husband repeatedly. Sometimes people just snap and do outrageous things. Sometimes they are just pushed too far. Or there are extenuating circumstances.

IMO

The premeditation got JA. She didn't "snap". This was planned out, though obviously not very well.
 
From the last thread.



When I write "you" I mean the generic "you." :D

To me, the bold sentence is key.

For the life of me, I cannot craft an argument in order to play devil's advocate for this case. I've tried.

The bold sentence is why. Yes, she was able to contain her crazy until she met Travis. No doubt.

But there were many signs along the road CMja traveled to indicate the genie was just about out of the bottle.

She fixated and attached herself to men. Whenever she felt threatened, she panicked. When she panicked she'd do something desperate to retain control of the person. The first time it happened years and years ago, it was probably something cute and funny that the first love interest probably found flattering or even enchanting.

But each subsequent time was less funny, less cute and increasingly disturbing. Any time she felt threatened or rejected in subsequent relationships, the panicked response made her create drama and before long, it was downright exasperating then annoying. No one ever called her on it because it wasn't "crazy" just irritating. By the time it got to crazy, they were just happy she dumped them.

It was only a matter of time before she became lethal. So Travis could just as easily have been Walter or Brian or David or Wayne. Anyone.

I don't believe Travis did anything that any other guy in the same stage of life would have done or would do. That isn't an excuse, just a reality check.

PPL and LDS were just particulars that came along with Travis; seemed like just red herrings that threw the general public off the discussion of a murderous beast. PPL and LDS were not strange things that somehow paved the road to this disaster.

She was 27 years old, wanted to get married and have children and the biological clock wasn't ticking, it was blowing up. She knew what he had told her about Deanna being almost 30 and what that meant in LDS if she wasn't married.

She was pissed because starting over meant losing time and she felt she had no time to spare. I don't believe she loved him. She loved the future she saw with him but she was fixated and obsessed.

The more she panicked, the more she acted out and the more she acted out, the more fearful Travis became and the faster he backed off. He was trying to find forgiveness for himself and his transgressions. He probably thought it would be hypocritical to continue asking for forgiveness for himself and not extend it to CMja. (for her to call him hypocritical makes my blood boil) Travis just had no idea her crazy was about to get buck wild.

It could have been anyone. It could have been for any reason. Just paying attention to her was enough for her to build dreams in her head.

If it were only about the sex and feeling used, one good stab wound would have done it, maybe two if she missed the first time.

The savagery of the attack makes it clear TO ME that this didn't have much to do with feeling used for sex or whether or not TA should or shouldn't have had sex with her. It was rage because she wasn't going to get what she wanted and it was because he foiled her plans and he wasn't sorry about it. I'm sure she felt TA was her last hope.

Guilting him didn't work. Sexing him didn't work. Angering him didn't work. She was probably thinking WTF do I have to do here?

She was probably about ready to start over and focus on Ryan when TA discovered whatever it was he discovered and that's when the gates of hell opened for him.

In my view, she was a grown a$$ woman in the mutha of all snits behaving like an even more demented Chucky.

J M O

And with that thesis, it's off to work I go. lol

Excellent post!! :clap::clap::clap:
 
Totally agree with you. If he was such an abuser filled with toxicity, wonder why he just shrugged his shoulders and let the fact that she recklessly destroyed his BMW slide by without one accusatory or angry word? Why would he pay for her move back to Yreka since apparently his sole existence on earth was to abuse and torment her.

Why would he shrug off the countless warnings from his friends that CMja was dangerous, telling them, "She's a sweet gurl and would never do anything to hurt me or anyone."

Why out of 80,000 messages (that the DT confirmed were in existence) were the DT only able to come up with 2 examples of "abuse"?

I would never want to know what anyone's sex life entailed because it is none of my concern as long as it is between two consensual adults. What they do is their business and shouldn't be judged by anyone else's standards. And if he was a freaky deak why was she only able to produce one audio tape in which it is clear she is leading him? How do we know the little maniac didn't ask him ahead of time to please fulfill HER fantasy of being a school gurl and being tied to a tree in the middle of the woods?

Oh, we don't know that because she so selectively picked what was abusive after the fact. She betrayed HIS trust by recording what he obviously thought was an intimate PRIVATE conversation.

She lied by saying she recorded it for him because he hounded her to do it yet in all those 80,000 messages there isn't one mention of a discussion - playful or serious - about recording themselves, Travis hounding her or even asking for the tape? The diabolical schemer certainly would have made certain she brought it up 50 times in future discussions if for no other reason than to self-congratulate for lowering herself to do as he wished.

Turns out her defense strategy wasn't so stupid after all with this huge divide amongst people regarding whether Travis was abusive or not. For people to doubt the one person who had done nothing but be honest with her even when it meant upsetting her and accept what she, the consummate and proven liar, claims is absurd.

Better not ever have a bad day, lose your temper and use hurtful words in an e-mail or text. If you later drop dead, it will be open season for people to label you as an abuser with no proof other than 2 e-mails out of possibly thousands and one recording of you obviously at the end of your rope.

Oh wait. Just about everyone has sent an irrational e-mail or text or left an angry v-mail we wished we could unsend. Doesn't make us abusive and shouldn't subject us to a plot to smear our names in dog poo.
Yikes.

Great post!
All I can say is that if anything ever happens to my ex and
LE looks at some of the nasty texts I have sent to him and he to
me,I will surely be labelled an abuser and if he is the victim
of a crime, quite possibly a suspect.
 
27 years of age means to me she is fully grown and should be held fully accountable for her dastardly actions.

27 years of age would not have been a mitigating factor for me whatsoever. The mitigating factor is suppose to outweigh the aggravator. No way does age dismiss the aggravating factor.

In TN they put a 20 year old female on death row. They didn't look at her age but they did look at the horrible murder she did out of jealousy.

IMO

Maybe it's Arizona's proximity to California...
 
The premeditation got JA. She didn't "snap". This was planned out, though obviously not very well.

At least they got the guilt phase right.

This case is nothing like Clara Harris. Clara did not plan the murder of her husband beforehand.

JA started planning and plotting this murder at least by May 28, 2008 or sooner.

imo
 
Dedicated to my downstairs friends:
[video=youtube;vUaGlOJYC5o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUaGlOJYC5o[/video]
 
How are Travis' words ABUSE when they're the truth? Harsh? Yes! Abuse? NO! As Jack Nicholson once said, "You can't handle the truth!":twocents:

I didn't say I agreed he was verbally or emotionally abusive. Someone asked me for an example of things Travis may have said that could have been the reason some jurors felt he was abusive. Personally I think he was far nicer to her then she deserved.
 
He was in the shower she could have got her things and went back to where she came from and be away from him he was not going to go after her I DON'T THINK SO but If he did abuse her she caused it all on herself she went to him he did not go to her she could have left if she was so scared of him
 
Discussion is not debate. Presenting a view is not debate. Deliberation means you try to sway the others by presenting a reasoned argument. I am not hearing this in that statement.

It's true. A squirrel did propose to me once.
 
27 years of age means to me she is fully grown and should be held fully accountable for her dastardly actions.

27 years of age would not have been a mitigating factor for me whatsoever. The mitigating factor is suppose to outweigh the aggravator. No way does age dismiss the aggravating factor.

In TN they put a 20 year old female on death row. They didn't look at her age but they did look at the horrible murder she did out of jealousy.

IMO

My thoughts as to age are along the lines that other young adults will be in grave danger if this young adult is ever allowed contact with other human beings again. And that will hold true no matter how old she (and her potential victims) get.
 
Discussion is not debate. Presenting a view is not debate. Deliberation means you try to sway the others by presenting a reasoned argument. I am not hearing this in that statement.

That is the point. It is near impossible to sway someone on an issue that is based on your own personal convictions.

They did discuss their feelings. It appears each juror spoke about what their vote was and WHY. The why would have been whatever was swaying them to vote their way ie: I feel she was abused. I think she is evil. etc. This would likely (as I wasn't there I can't say or sure) have led to others saying: I don't agree. I don't feel that is important. etc.

Deliberation does NOT mean debate. It means careful consideration and discussion. Actually, I will just post the definition:

de·lib·er·a·tion (d-lb-rshn)
n.
1. The act or process of deliberating.
2. deliberations Discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue: the deliberations of a jury.
3. Thoughtfulness in decision or action

I really feel the understanding that this is NOT an issue decided on facts, but on each juror's own weighing of the facts, mitigators and personal values would help many who are so angry about the outcome.
ALL of us were disappointed. Being disappointed does not equal being angry with the juror for me.
IMO
 
Listening to HLN talking about Victim IMpact Statements -

This might be controversial, but what do you all think about next time maybe they should have Samantha and one of the other sisters, instead of Stephen? This is in NO WAY how I feel...he actually made a BIG impact on me, but I'm trying to look at it from someone like Foreman's view: He already thought Travis was "abusive" in one way or another. He probably thinks other things about Travis (i.e. sex tape) that he was not willing to say publicly. Think about it, whatever he said publicly is a MINIMIZATION of what he probably actually thinks.

In Stephen's VIS, it was apparent how much hate he has for CMJA. Samantha had a different way of coming across. If somone thinks Travis was "angry" and "abusive," then seeing his brother act that way (anger) might make them think, oh see his brother is like that it must run in the family. Since that is his brother, a male, the jurors like Foreman might have said, oh yeah, I can see Travis having the same rage in him.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT HOW I PERSONALLY FEEL. But then again, I never ever thought there would be even one person on the jury who actually believed the "verbal abuse" line, MUCH LESS "physical abuse." Juror 6 clearly said last night that there were some, meaning AT LEAST ONE PERSON, WHO BELIEVED THE PHYSICAL ABUSE.

I think Juan needs to play the same game CMJA played...play to the jury. I think next time, he should have Samantha and the younge sister who was shown in the tape of the memorial speaking about Travis, and also maybe Tanisha too.

If Steven could not sway them, then it means someone had a stone cold heart. He was the most powerful, most eloquent and the most heartbreaking, IMO.

And yet the convict's cold hearted matter of fact allocution won those hearts? What's wrong with this picture?

I want Steven to do it again, if he is able.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,661
Total visitors
2,781

Forum statistics

Threads
603,720
Messages
18,161,911
Members
231,839
Latest member
Backhand
Back
Top