SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[aa9511]

WHy is it that after CMJA, everyone appears to me like they're fake-crying? UGH, she has forever made me cynical.

 

[aa9511]

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.

bbm

Those posts were right next to each other. I don't know who's right but either "they were the oldest jurors who voted life " is a rumor with incredible legs or the jurors didn't stand up for their "friends" at all.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: LOL!

But I think the point is that the jurors could have said A LOT MORE. They never gave specific reasons of the 4.

 

[SusieD]

Webster's, other dictionaries, do not supersede the obvious.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Do you have dictionary citations for the word "deliberate" that are different from the one I cited? Specifically any that use the word "sway?"

 

[elementary]

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

Okay, why is this getting personal here? I am not understanding. I find it offensive.

I'm going from logic. You present the facts to others who may have a different POV. I have not read anything that convinces me that there was much in the way of hammering it out from all sides in a persuasive manner. Geez, they were deadlocked within 2 hours!

And, YES, it is an issue decided on the facts to some extent- mitigating factors weighed against aggravating factors. Two out of the 3 factors you suggested are all about reason and logic. Moreover, conscience, to me has way more to do with doing the right thing than about life or death. I wish that all the factors that you suggest actually were in play. But we really don't know, do we?

With all due respect, I don't find a selective dictionary definition of 'deliberation' persuasive.

 

[nightwatch]

It's a vicious Catch-22: if she doesn't remain on the stand they may miss her subtleties but if she does remain on the stand, there's the chance someone will get sucked in by whatever funky pheromones she secretes up there, lol.

Maybe solitary confinement will have stripped away some of that protective webbing she uses. *snort*

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Emmi]

Makes you wonder why the four jurors found it acceptable for her to "snap" and murder him because of verbal abuse....but didn't find it acceptable for him to "snap" and call her really nasty names when she had pushed him to the limit. Sad that they can excuse murder but not name calling.

I must have missed the part where the jurors excused murder. I thought they had found her guilty.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Webster's, other dictionaries, do not supersede the obvious.

WORD. lol

How about "legal" definition of 'deliberate'?

Weighing, pondering, examining, consulting, discussing in order to come to form an opinion


Legal Dictionary

To harmonize a decision is a bit more aggressive than to discuss.

Another legal definition

 

[Karmady]

Makes you wonder why the four jurors found it acceptable for her to "snap" and murder him because of verbal abuse....but didn't find it acceptable for him to "snap" and call her really nasty names when she had pushed him to the limit. Sad that they can excuse murder but not name calling.

The jury charge itself explains that the mitigating factors are not intended to and need not excuse the crime. They specifically say that.

from p. 580 of the jury charges:

"Mitigating circumstances are not an excuse or justification for the offense, but are factors that in fairness or mercy may reduce the defendant’s moral culpability."

If the jury found that it was acceptable for her to snap, they wouldn't have found her guilty of premeditated murder. If they used it as a mitigating factor, that doesn't mean they excused the crime because of it. The opposite, based on the charge. jmo

 

[SusieD]

hdear:Sad thing at the moment is the jurors who the DT need to hear from have spoken but the ones JM would be helped by haven't.

spoken to the public.

we don't know what's gone on in private.

 

[lil_buddy]

Great tune!!!! I love the SNZ!!!!
(Oh crap I'm still gilligan...welcome back little buddy!!!)

Thnx. Been lurking for a few days. Not much left to talk abt these days.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_z_UEuEMAo"]Nico - These Days - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JSR]

True.

But from what the others have said it seems the holdouts believed that Jodi was verbally abused by TRavis. So if Nurmi tries to play that heavily edited tape again, where he ONLY plays Travis's words, then JM should put together another version. He should play the words said by Jodi, that Nurmi left out. JMO

I agree.

 

[deedee21]

Its possible the foreman never believed in the death penalty. He may have checked the yes box to get on the jury so he can make a political point. The comments hes has made and his hostility points in that direction.

 

[Boodles]

Makes you wonder why the four jurors found it acceptable for her to "snap" and murder him because of verbal abuse....but didn't find it acceptable for him to "snap" and call her really nasty names when she had pushed him to the limit. Sad that they can excuse murder but not name calling.

BBM. I don't think the jury's convicting JA of first degree premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances is finding her behavior "acceptable."

 

[Love Never Fails]

No problem CII. I don't know their reasoning. The juror 6 looks to be 55-60 and she did vote DP...I think the jurors who have spoken believed the non DP jurors felt Jodi had suffered verbal/emotional abuse and also her age and no prior convictions were mitigators

Two things I will never understand as mitigators.
1) Age. Does this mean if you are older, your mind can premeditate better than Jodi's? Doubt it. Evil comes in all age groups.

2) no prior convictions? She killed him three different ways. So maybe if she had just been caught stealing a bag of chips, they could have believed she is evil?

And Travis never abused her. She was the abuser.

Those just aren't mitigating factors.

I would respect the juror who says he or she just couldn't sentence someone to death, but not someone who says Jodi didn't deserve death based on a mitigating factor. JMO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Its possible the foreman never believed in the death penalty. He may have checked the yes box to get on the jury so he can make a political point. The comments hes has made and his hostility points in that direction.

He is very hostile and that seems strange to me.

 

[popsicle]

WHy is it that after CMJA, everyone appears to me like they're fake-crying? UGH, she has forever made me cynical.

Same reason every criminal on ID now looks like they have a crazy eye to me. :floorlaugh:

 

[aa9511]

spoken to the public.

we don't know what's gone on in private.

WAITING FOR JUROR 9 TO SPEAK!!!!!! Come out, Willie, we won't bite. You don't even have to smile. We will respect what you say!!! We're just curious, so please come out, come out....

 

[aa9511]

True.

But from what the others have said it seems the holdouts believed that Jodi was verbally abused by TRavis. So if Nurmi tries to play that heavily edited tape again, where he ONLY plays Travis's words, then JM should put together another version. He should play the words said by Jodi, that Nurmi left out. JMO

YES!

And better yet, made a list of her psycho behaviors....put it up on power point just like Nurmi did...you are so right!!

 

[JSR]

If y'all want to know where the age related divide came from please see the comments made by juror no 10 on JVM. She said she knew who voted for what and SHE said it was not a gender thing but it was a AGE thing meaning that none of the younger jurors voted for life. IMO juror no 6 did NOT seem "old" but according to other reports there were a few jurors that were older than no 6.


I still maintain that the graphic sexual evidence was not appreciated by the older jurors and that the older jurors. The alleged abuse seems to have struck a cord with those 4 jurors.

 

[aa9511]

If there was some sort of pact and some of the jurors broke it, even a "little" that's wrong. They told exactly who voted for life, and they said they wouldn't. In grade school they were called blabbermouths.

That's my point. They're media hoes. The only reason I wish I had watched even 5 seconds of any juror interviews would be so I would know which ones to respect. They would be the ones not talking.

What...juror 6 looks like a media hoe to you?? And juror 16?? No way, I didn't get that vibe at all from any of them, except for Mr. Foreman.

I disagree they told exactly who voted for life....do we know who exactly voted for life? I sure don't.