SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[MidwestMama]

This is a well-thought-out and reasonable post. I can't imagine why anyone would call it "offensive."

(Though, I want to point out that not "ALL" of us were disappointed. Anti-death penalty people, including me, were not disappointed at all.)

Thank you.
I certainly wasn't trying to be offensive, only explain my POV.
You are right. I should have said some.

 

[elementary]

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.

I have to admit, the ageism is getting on my last nerve.

The fact is that there are men and women raised and socialised in any generation with preconceived notions and lack of critical thinking. The convict just happened to hit the jackpot (with the aid of a jury consultant, I imagine).

Let's talk about how men are suckers when it comes to women. Is that any better? I don't think so.

 

[popsicle]

It amazes me still, that in going through Travis' computer, phone, journals, talking to friends....nothing, absolutely nothing was found to reflect negatively on him outside of those couple interactions with ckja. That speaks volumes of the man he was.

 

[aa9511]

just want to add, she told the jury she will never have children or be a mother "because of her poor choices" avoiding admitting her crime.

I think when she says "becuase of my poor choices" in that sentence, she's ACTUALLY SAYING HER POOR CHOICE WAS FOCUSING ON TRAVIS TO GIVE HER THOSE THINGS. IMO, she doesn't even mean "poor choices" as in the MURDER. She is sooooo twisted up in the head.

It's along the lines of her saying in another interview, that she was so "dumb" when she talked about trying to please Travis.

 

[TorisMom003]

I haven't watched one minute of juror interviews. I refuese to indulge that carp. I don't want their "vibe." My opinion is that if you go on TV to talk about jury duty you are a media hoe.

And there are posts relating exactly who said that the 4 oldest jurors voted for life.....

So a jury that put their life on hold for the past 5 months does not have the right to go on TV if they so chose to talk about and explain what happened in the course of this trial? They have to remain quiet even though WE and thousands of others are continually talking about this trail, the crime committed, the way the jurors voted, etc? For some reason that sounds like a double standard to me. This jury has had to remain quiet for 5 months. They could not talk about this case, they could not talk about how they were feeling after seeing those gruesome crime scene and autopsy photos, they could not talk about how horrible this murder was and how disgusting the defense team antics were in trying to smear a murdered victims name. Yet now they are being called media hos because they chose to break their silence and speak about it to others that may understand what they went through?

Good thing I wasn't a member of that jury, I would take great offense at being called a media ho as it would be my right to speak out if I wanted to.

MOO

 

[a/k/a me]

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.

BBM
My father would have said "27 is twice the age, of old enough to know better"
I would agree with him.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Hi to all. Earlier I posted a hit and run link to Wild about Trial's page where they are holding a "twinterview" with alternate juror #17 - Tara Kelly. Sorry I did not have time to explain all that earlier but I am actually working today. Imagine that. Anyway - you don't have to have a twitter account, you can just go to the link and watch the chat and also the twitter updates at the bottom left to see questions and answers. Juror 17 was on DD last night with Juror 6 - and she is quite funny. She was the one who asked the juror question "why should we believe you now since you have lied so much in the past?" and also she asked Dr S "what does PSTD have to do with the killing of Travis?" - she said that question actually did not get asked, but she submitted it to the judge.

Any who - if you are interested go here: http://wildabouttrial.com/wat-courtroom.html

From Wild About Trial Courtroom:


We are proud to present the first ever Twinterview (twitter interview) with juror #17, Tara Kelley aka "The Manicurist". It is scheduled to start at 2pm PDT and will be conducted exclusively through twitter. We have provided a chatroom below for you to discuss freely and we also have the WAT twitter feed and Tara's twitter feed automatically updating below the chat room. Thank you for taking part in the Twinterview!

 

[elmomom]

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.

BBM.
I think some people think the death penalty should be reserved for career criminals, serial killers, people who murder repeatedly, people who are the "worst of the worst" etc. Having no prior convictions goes to demonstrate that this killer does not fit those descriptors, so I can certainly see this as a mitigating factor to some.
For me, having a mental disorder like BPD is a mitigating factor. I think about it this way - does the BPD excuse the crime? No, it doesn't prevent her from understanding the wrongfulness of her actions. Would she have committed the murder if she didn't have a BPD or other personality disorder? Probably not, so to me it would be a mitigating factor.
No one can say that the jurors who voted "life" voted wrong. You can say you would have voted differently, but opinions are not wrong. They weighed their own beliefs and came to a conclusion based on their own opinions. Despite what some have claimed, the decision on penalty is not black and white or logic and analysis, but very much personal belief. They were instructed to find their own mitigating factors within the evidence presented, and give them the weight they chose for themselves.

 

[SusieD]

JA does not need children just of the thought she might do to a child makes me sick to my stomach

Here's my version of Jodi as a mother

Big pregnancy announcement
Lots of showers (she is kinda greedy)
Blogs, pictures, Jodi's pregnancy would be the biggest thing to hit the west, Facebook would charge her for all the extra pics (how do you take those face selfies and get that belly in there too?)

Then.....

dramatic miscarriage, very dramatic, probably caused by intruders who attacked her.


because while Jodi would revel in the attention she got from pregnancy (in my version, it's fake) there's no way she'd allow a baby to steal attention from her. Never.

A pregnancy would be a commodity Jodi could play up. Same with the grief after losing the baby. But an actual baby? She'd throw it in a dumpster if , we know how much she values human (and pet) life.

 

[SunnyinMO]

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.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[fran]

STOP IT NOW!

:tos:

Please stop with the snark and personal comments.

Nothing can happen until court resumes. The jury has spoken. The trial is done up to this point. Let's not use this time to turn on our fellow posters.

Agree to disagree and move on ..............

There are hundreds of cases on Websleuths that are begging for attention. Please take this break in this case to see if you can be useful in finding a missing person or solving another crime/murder/mystery.

We love all our peeps and appreciate you taking time to participate in Websleuths. But there are some posts on this thread that were a little out of line. Please go back and review your most recent posts and if you think they COULD be viewed by another member as attacking a fellow poster, please edit or delete before I have a chance to get back to it.

Thank you for understanding. If we can answer any further questions, please contact a moderator by pm.

Sincerely,
fran

:seeya:

 

[MidwestMama]

This is a well-thought-out and reasonable post. I can't imagine why anyone would call it "offensive."

(Though, I want to point out that not "ALL" of us were disappointed. Anti-death penalty people, including me, were not disappointed at all.)

Oh, and wanted to clarify:
I was disappointed at the results, but not because she didn't get DP.
I do feel she deserves DP but if she got LWOP I would be fine with it.
It was the lack of resolution for Travis' family that disappointed me.
Breaks my heart this isn't over for them.

 

[popsicle]

http://www.wral.com/jury-hands-down-death-sentence-for-shaniya-davis-murder/12493723/

This jury took 40 minutes to decide on the death penalty today.

Justice? It sure doesn't feel like it to me. Nothing can fix the horror and betrayal that was committed against this innocent child. It feels empty and hollow and beyond sad. That said, I am grateful for the jury's decisions. I am glad he will be punished for this crime, but there is no "winning."

And how long before the appeals and allegations of "he got the DP unfairly because he's black" allegations begin? Ten...nine...eight...

I just never ever want to see his face or hear his name again.

Not sure how good an appeal will be in regards to the DP, he chose not to put up a defense during the penalty phase and accept his fate of death. He made it easy for this jury in every possible way imo.

 

[Jane Jetson]

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.

That makes a lot more sense than "She's got a purty face - Travis musta turned her bad!"

:twocents:

 

[Wishbone]

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.

According to these jury instructions sympathy is not to sway the jury…….


PENALTY PHASE
Capital Case 2.1 − Nature of Hearing and Duties of Jury
Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.
The law that applies is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them whether you agree with them or not. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others.
You must not be influenced at any point in these proceedings by conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. You are not to be swayed by mere sympathy not related to the evidence presented during the penalty phase
http://www.azbar.org/media/58847/4-capital_case_instructions_revised_2011.pdf

 

[aa9511]

Hi to all. Earlier I posted a hit and run link to Wild about Trial's page where they are holding a "twinterview" with alternate juror #17 - Tara Kelly. Sorry I did not have time to explain all that earlier but I am actually working today. Imagine that. Anyway - you don't have to have a twitter account, you can just go to the link and watch the chat and also the twitter updates at the bottom left to see questions and answers. Juror 17 was on DD last night with Juror 6 - and she is quite funny. She was the one who asked the juror question "why should we believe you now since you have lied so much in the past?" and also she asked Dr S "what does PSTD have to do with the killing of Travis?" - she said that question actually did not get asked, but she submitted it to the judge.

Any who - if you are interested go here: http://wildabouttrial.com/wat-courtroom.html

From Wild About Trial Courtroom:


We are proud to present the first ever Twinterview (twitter interview) with juror #17, Tara Kelley aka "The Manicurist". It is scheduled to start at 2pm PDT and will be conducted exclusively through twitter. We have provided a chatroom below for you to discuss freely and we also have the WAT twitter feed and Tara's twitter feed automatically updating below the chat room. Thank you for taking part in the Twinterview!

Too lazy to look it up...is PDT Arizona time?

 

[KPinMN]

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.

IMHO, you are painting Travis with a very broad brush for very small, and infrequent, incidences. At one time in my life I was an inch from my mother's face and screamed FU at her. I wouldn't call that verbal abuse, it was my reaction to her chronic emotional abuse and mind games, just like Travis was responding to Jodi's mind games (you saw her twisting things on the stand, those are mind games and they clearly came second nature to her) and emotional abuse (I'll kill myself if you leave me - from interviews of Sky Hughes). While I can say I don't like that I screamed that, regardless of the circumstances, at my mother so many years ago, I can't and won't consider that verbal abuse. The same goes for the incidences with Travis. MOO

 

[dani]

Many of you have said you will move on to the Andrea Sneiderman trial. I hadn't heard about that case and decided I will just take the summer off and enjoy my beautiful Oregon.

I was taking a little break from my daily life this morning and turned on ID TV. I missed the 1st 5 minutes, but anyway the show was about a guy named Humi (?) Neuman who was on trial for murdering a guy named Rusty, husband of a co-worker. Well, guess who shows up on the witness stand? Yup! ANDREA SNEIDERMAN. It didn't even take 2 commercials before I decided that Oregon will still be just as beautiful in the fall. (Besides…I've seen most of it twice over anyway.) I'm HOOKED! :banghead:

 

[lisasalinger]

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.

I agree that the 2 mitigators you have listed above are not appropriate factors at all for leniency in this case.

However, it sounds like from what the jurors are saying, including the foreperson, that the mitigator that made the difference was verbal abuse, plus potential abuse by the parents, not the two that you have listed. Some felt that it was relevent enough to vote life.

I think we could all debate mitigation for hours upon hours here, and never agree, much like the jury. Like many others have said, mitigation is a personal thing. There is no definitive right or wrong answer.

Abuse is one of the best mitigators out there and defense teams know it. How many times do you hear it get thrown around in cases.. and it makes everybody pause for a moment. Some see through it, some don't. As much as I don't like it, it's a smart move for the defense to use it.

And that makes me even sadder and sicker for victims. But that's part of our system. Hard one to swallow.

 

[aa9511]

According to these jury instructions sympathy is not to sway the jury…….


PENALTY PHASE
Capital Case 2.1 − Nature of Hearing and Duties of Jury
Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.
The law that applies is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them whether you agree with them or not. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others.
You must not be influenced at any point in these proceedings by conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. You are not to be swayed by mere sympathy not related to the evidence presented during the penalty phase
http://www.azbar.org/media/58847/4-capital_case_instructions_revised_2011.pdf

Wishbone, his interviews were OOZING with sympathy for CMJA. So sorry, not buying that. He can't pick and choose. It does NOT say you CAN be swayed by sympathy for the defendant.