SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that is what happened. Fair enough to be rough on the defendant but foreman did not appreciate Martinez going after Alyce and Samuels so aggressively.

Even juror 6 thought Alyce knew her stuff. But juror 6 also saw Alyce as an advocate/supporter of Jodi, not an objective expert

Oh please!! JM is old too. I am older than both RS and ALV and I saw right through them. Don't make this an age issue or you make young people look stupid by being so judgmental of us older folks.
 
WHAT???? No, not possible. The jury found the aggravator BASED ON THEIR THEORY OF HOW IT HAPPENED. They defense CANNOT now go back and change the theory of what happened, just to throw out the jury's decision. The most they could do is maybe get it re-tried. There is no way, IMO, that they can just get it thrown out. WHY is the AZ supremee court even looking at it?

The appeal goes back to the trial court's ruling that it didn't matter which came first, the gun or the knife, to support the aggravating factor which qualified it for the DP in the first place. The defense argued that the DP qualification was based on the State's gun-first theory which it presented in support of DP qualification and continued to present up until the moment Horn took the stand. The defense said, no, you can't get the case DP qualified on one theory (gun first), than go to the jury on that one qualifying factor (especially cruel) on a completely different theory (knife first). If the defense is correct, the case should not have been submitted to the jury on the "especially cruel" aggravating factor in the first place.

Btw, this is just my understanding of the factual/legal basis of the current appeal. Not a commentary on how I think it will or should come out. all jmo

eta: if the defense is correct, the case wouldn't be DP qualified at all, so it wouldn't be re-tried as a capital case unless the State would have another opportunity to have it qualified. I don't know the answer to that, but I would tend to doubt it.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uiYp8xKjLM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uiYp8xKjLM[/ame]

Found it! and another little squirrel treat!
 
Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer
Today, the AZ Supreme Court will consider whether to take jurisdiction of an appeal of the death-penalty aggravator in the Jodi Arias case.



Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 4m
@tdill68 Not the verdict, but the finding of probable cause for cruelty, obtained under a different theory of how the crime went down.


Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 1m
@tdill68 But it could potentially nullify the finding of cruelty. My bet is they don't accept jurisdiction and let the case play out.

WHAT? :what:

What is this all about? Can the Aggravated Cruelty Verdict be taken away by the higher courts now?
 
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.

Webster's, other dictionaries, do not supersede the obvious.
 
Thanks. It wasn't murder one. It was some kind of 'sudden passion' murder charge, they're calling it manslaughter here, with a maximum of 20 years. But, it sounds very similar to the overkill in this case. That's assuming you do not believe premed was proven, which I don't. IMO


The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles made the decision Thursday, citing the nature of the offense as the reason.

"The record indicates that the inmate committed one or more violent criminal acts indicating a conscious disregard for the lives, safety or property of others; or the instant offense of pattern of criminal activity has elements of brutality, violence or conscious selection of victim's vulnerability such that the inmate poses a continuing threat to public safety; or the records indicates use of a weapon," according to a release from the parole board.

"That sounds like boilerplate language," Detoto said.

She acknowledged the odds were stacked against Harris being paroled on her first attempt.

"But, we always remained hopeful," Detoto said.

Harris has served half of her 20-year sentence for the July 24, 2002, manslaughter of 44-year-old David Harris

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/14/harris.trial/

Harris gets 20 years for Mercedes murder
Jury chooses upper limit of sentencing guidelines

Let's just disagree.
 
Found guilty of 1st degree Murder. Received 20 years for "sudden passion". Parole denied.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ed-for-Friendswood-s-Clara-Harris-4430944.php

Clara Harris was not even in Jodi's league! Ms. Harris' horrible husband treated her like dirt, told her she was ugly and fat (whih wasnt true), rubbed her nose in his affair. He was horribly abusive. And she was distraught when she killed him. I felt it was manslaughter.

On the other hand, we have JA. Cold, cruel, insane, unfeeling.
We have TA, who was kind, good to everyone, loved life and didn't deserve to be slaughtered!

No comparison.
 
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.

I agree. They were both very powerful but Steven's VIS was gut wrenching to me.
 
Oh please!! JM is old too. I am older than both RS and ALV and I saw right through them. Don't make this an age issue or you make young people look stupid by being so judgmental of us older folks.

Not me! This was a comment about what a juror disclosed. That the four non DP votes were ALL the oldest impaneled jurors. The comment I replied to was they thought perhaps this is why the defense called older expert witnesses, to appeal to an older jury. Samuels, Alyce and Geffner. I would never say every person over 65 would think one way only but it seems that the four on the jury did for whatever reasons
 
I am really proud of the jury for standing up for their friends and following through with the agrreement not to discuss who voted for life and their exact reasons.

I think they will be VERY surprised and betrayed when Mr. Foreman's book comes out (peddled by his son, of course), who will reveal all the back details and what each member of the jury said in deliberations. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
:tyou:
Thanks for your warm welcome last night! It took me awhile to realize that the whole squirrel thread began because of my username! :floorlaugh:

Here's my abbreviated squirrel story (then I'll stop, I promise):
So I buy this funny sticker and slap it on my car. It reads "I have animal magnetism. When I walk outside, squirrels stick to my clothes." THEN, it started HAPPENING! (Well, CLOSE! Maybe it's like JAs "law of attraction"!! :floorlaugh:)
Ever since, I always seem to be at the right place, right time. I've rescued and released several and its very rewarding. Everyone who knows me, knows the squirrel thing. It gives me comfort and laughter to know that after I die, my kids, family and friends will all burst out laughing when they see a squirrel.

I'm still a WS rookie and don't yet know how to respond to anyone (pull quotes, etc.) so I'm thanking you here. I loved all the funny & cute squirrel responses etc.
Now I'm off to read WS how to forums to figure out what I'm doing!
:seeya:
P.S. If I've posted this twice...ooops!!
 
It's so bizarre to see JA not being able to act normal at all. And it's easy to tell when she is full of anger and rage. She said 'I was a little envious that Travis was going to Cancun' which means she was boiling with anger and jealousy. And 'I felt a little betrayed by jurors which means she hates them all. The woman has no clue about how to behave in a sane and decent manner. She can't even pretend!
 
WHAT? :what:

What is this all about? Can the Aggravated Cruelty Verdict be taken away by the higher courts now?

Imo, it is not going to happen and that is why the DT didn't do it before now.

I don't think the court will even agree to hear the case .......much less strike this murder from being labeled cruel.

She murdered him three different ways.

I have no doubt Juan and the DA will answer this motion with facts and thoroughness.

I'm not the least bit worried. This is just a Hail Mary pass.

IMO
 
I have to disagree. Travis was enraged alright, he was livid, but he was doing more than telling it like it is. His response to her was not merely harsh but vitriolic, and the words and expressions he used were designed and intended to objectify, dehumanize and annihilate.

Vitriol like that cannot be taken out of context; its very source is toxic; its voice betrays someone very at home, learned, and practised with the language of hatred and abuse. It has a second-nature quality--it flows. This kind of abuse may need a trigger, but it is not a one-off, born-full-grown kind of thing.

I tend to disagree, too, that he intended, at the moment of his abusive tirade, to get her out of his life once and for all. He was dismissing her as a human being and, at the same time, paradoxically and actively engaging her. Neither of them were just going to walk away.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. Your take on Travis is polar opposite of mine. Take care.:seeya:
 
I agree. They were both very powerful but Steven's VIS was gut wrenching to me.

But we are looking at it from the viewpoint of we feel that Travis was completely innocent. Personally, Mr. Foreman didn't sound to me like he had REAL sympathy for Travi's family....seemed to be he said it in a disingenuous way just like CMJA does. He talked about CMJA with more sympathetic overtones than he did Travis or his family.

I'm coming it at it from someone like Mr. Foreman's viewpoint.
 
I am really proud of the jury for standing up for their friends and following through with the agrreement not to discuss who voted for life and their exact reasons.

I think they will be VERY surprised and betrayed when Mr. Foreman's book comes out (peddled by his son, of course), who will reveal all the back details and what each member of the jury said in deliberations. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I agree. A class act. I bet juror 17 wanted to say so much more but she held it together nicely.
 
BBM
I do not understand this part at all!! Here where I am, the younger generation talks to each other this way, and worse...all the time. I find it unsettling but not at all uncommon. Every twenty something would be classified as abusive, according to this definition.

Despite the attempts to trash the victim in order to help the murder someday walk among us, this was the only physical piece of evidence they could find, this and the email exchange with the Hughes. Considering there was over 80,000 text, email and IM messages I would say they really were grasping at straws but it also shows how even the lamest accusation a DT could possibly use to help their client may be believed by someone on the jury
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
155
Total visitors
226

Forum statistics

Threads
609,331
Messages
18,252,767
Members
234,626
Latest member
XtraGuacPlz
Back
Top