Verdict is in! GUILTY of MURDER ONE - Hung Jury On Penalty Phase

[AZWatcher]

Just had this conversation last night. What other sentence takes decades to be imposed? I just barely started talking about this w Samantha because she opened the door with me this week. I've never imposed anything about my opinions about anything on them but she asked so I gently shared some of the aftermath of the DP just for some kind of solace *just in case* it's needed at any point.

With that being said I have little to no doubt Juan Martinez will retry this phase, maybe get a new jury consultant, maybe do some things differently and still pursue the ultimate sentence for this ultimate evil.

But what I know personally, there would be benefits to the family and only the family should she get LWOP. Either way she will never get out of prison nor have the sorority life she imagines prison to be.

Perryville doesn't need a new Cell Bock Oprah.

 

[Lilly12]

BBM and snipped by me.

I felt really bad yesterday afternoon when the verdict or non-verdict was read. Your post made me change my mind to accept the DP of LWOP. Before that I only wanted the DP for the killer.

After reading the article of the woman just released from Perryville after 49 years, Betty Smithey, she said the worse thing about Perryville was being isolated and lonely. You are not in inmate population like the other women. If Jodi gets LWOP for the first 5 years she will be in her cell 23 hours a day. She will have to earn the privilege to have the 23 hours reduced. She will go crazy during that time. ullhair:

I am convinced if they take the DP off the table that JSS WILL sentence Jodi to LWOP! Remember, she watched Jodi's real personality come out every time the jury was not around. Judge Belvin Perry said in a recent interview that he knew Casey Anthony was guilty because she only played a role for the jury. Jodi did the same thing.

:stormingmad::stormingmad:

I am at peace now.....LWOP or DP.

crueltyuch easier. MOO

:

Yes JJ should know the real Jodi, and give her LWOP. I don't see how she can not given CRUELTY was proven by the unanimously by the jury. That is why I am so pleased the jury came back with cruelty proven even thou some could could not vote yes to the DP. Should make JJ decision for LWOP) a cinch. moo

 

[MidwestMama]

so he thought big bad JM was MEAN to her??????? good grief, did he not hear the LIES that flew out of her mouth?

i don't really care what the dismissed jurors have to say now. i want to hear from the actual jurors!!

This was the jury foreman, not a dismissed juror.
Please watch the interview here

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jodi-ari...-gma-how-they-reached-verdict-and-then-didnt/

That is not really what he says. He is talking about JA on the stand for 18 days and says Juan is aggressive, basically implying he wouldn't want to be up against Juan for 18 days.

 

[Puzzler]

Agree 1000%. AND the real evidence of the murderer's true character should be brought into the trial. This malarky that everything is "prejudicial" is patently absurd.

Agreed. It sometimes seems to me that "prejudicial" just means it might give an accurate perception of the defendant. :facepalm:

 

[believe09]

IMVHO, I think we know at least one hold out now. The foreman couldnt imagine this young lady in a crime this violent. JM was aggressive and essentially no one could hold up under a cross like that. But, he was willing to concede that there were many contradictions told by Arias. She wasnt believable.

He was able to divorce himself from the Alexander's gut wrenching statements, however. At least this was my impression.

Wow.

Worse than I originally believed. Jodi certainly appealed on some level to this foreman, imvho. Good he was willing to show compassion some where. I wish it had been to the Alexander family.

These are my impressions from a 3 minute interview mind you.

 

[Hatfield]

I'm confused, too. A few days ago, I heard an atty talking about AZ's LWOP now including the possibility of parole after serving 25 years. He said that Willmott was correct when she stated that JA would never be released from prison because JA falls under the category of the old law. Hope someone can clarify this!

JMO
I had not heard anything about the "old law". My understanding is if the DA does not want to try her a 2nd time, then they can give it to the judge. The judge would then decide either LWOP or LWP. The LWP is 25 years to life and since she served 5, she possibly could get out in 20 if parole is granted. She of course may not be granted parole too.

If they try her a 2nd time, and the jury deadlocks again, the same thing happens. The judge would then decide LWOP or LWP.

Not sure about the "old law".

 

[KMouse]

This is exactly why her best shot was with this jury. The strategy backfired, and they hung. The next one will put her down -- precisely because they wil not be near the contagion long enough to become infected.

I hope so.
However, I do not know what kind of evidence will be presented for a new penalty phase trial. Anybody have an idea what would be allowed?

 

[SusieD]

And this is why this country should have professional juries!

And when the professional jury makes decisions that you don't agree with, then what? Because they will.

 

[Lorelilly]

Disregard my question about the jury.

I found the interview with the Foreman. ...I'm shocked at what he said.

 

[Gin]

I saw the snippet this morning where the foreman talks about believing that she was mentally and verbally abused. That had to have an effect on how he presented things to the jurors.

I'm reeling from the fact that the lies worked. Abuse will be the number 1 excuse for every murder. It was all lies and it worked. Ye gods.

ITA. Abuse is the buzzword.
JMO I think it might have been quite hard to steer the jury in another direction when the foreman had such views. It takes patience and openness to continue an authentic dialog, discussion. I don't think they deliberated enough, but as bits and pieces come out, I see why they gave up.

 

[aa9511]

I always wonder what "jury of peers" really means.

This is not to say that anyone over a certain age won't understand something but really, a group of 20-somethings or 30-somethings would have immediately grasped the concept of text slang, shorthand and how much each texter is relying on their history together to communicate.

Texts cannot be analyzed at face value. That wouldn't be fair or accurate. And whether it was a joke or not, I don't know so I will have to presume the question about what the "s" word means to her was a serious question and it told me that there would be a great divide over what is an out of the blue verbal assault and what was simply a continuation of many other conversations.

When I text, I just pick up where I left off or just give an abbreviated version of something I know the other person will understand.

Anyone unfamiliar with texting would just be

YES I AGREE. This was not a jury of her "peers." Also, I think for older people it's harder to put to death a younger person. MOO. I think age did play a part in this.

 

[elementary]

I think you're right that the foreman wants to speak first before others contradict what he is saying. His message does not fit with the tone of the many questions the jurors submitted. I think he was the lone dissenter, but was able to influence others on the jury because of his position as foreman.

I am thinking the same thing! Glad to know I'm not alone!

 

[Tenaciousdae]

The video interview was awful to watch, but didn't it remind you of an honest version of CMJA? Everything she said is what CMJA would have said if she were able to ever tell the truth.

Whoa! Please tell me she is going to Perryville. This lady doesn't like snitches...

 

[Hopeful One]

I believe one of the coldest things Jodi said in her last court statement was while she pointed at her family and said she was pleading for her life and the reason "was them." How detached was this statement??? Not "my family" but "them".

It was her way to garner some sort of sympathy as she knows the jury no longer has a stitch of sympathy for JA herself. "Oh look at these innocent people. Don't hurt them!"

 

[Sleuth5]

I never saw him take a note I don't think but he was attentive.

In my experience, those who do not take notes end up in the C+/B- range on Finals (at best). Too much information in this case -- there is no way to remember your reactions without notes. Just an observation, not a criticism of the juror.

 

[aa9511]

ITA. Abuse is the buzzword.
JMO I think it might have been quite hard to steer the jury in another direction when the foreman had such views. It takes patience and openness to continue an authentic dialog, discussion. I don't think they deliberated enough, but as bits and pieces come out, I see why they gave up.

Oh vey, hearing this let's just Thank God they did come back with Murder 1.

 

[karen302]

At some point yesterday after the verdict I had to get off the forum. I understand the disappointment, anger and especially sorrow for the Alexanders. But there were a number of posts that were more than that, attacks/namecalling/hate on the jurors. I'm disappointed in that, because I thought this forum was better than that. There are some that are truly treating this like she was aquitted and I'm sorry but I don't understand that frame of mind. The woman was convicted of murder one. The cruelty aspect of it pretty much insures (IMO) that she wouldn't get parole. But reading on here yesterday, I saw comparisons to Casey Anthony. Let me say, Anthony is sipping lattes' right now in the comfort of whatever home she's in. Tell me how that compares to Arias, who at bare minimum will be stuck staring at bars for very likely the rest of her natural life?

I also keep seeing people say 'well they agreed to cruelty, why not dp' and 'they agreed to dp on the juror form'. One has nothing to do with the other IMO. When a juror says they are open to the DP, that means they are open to consider the DP. When the jurors agreed to cruelty, that meant that the crime warrented consideration of the DP, not automatically she deserved the DP.

It very easy and convienent to throw stones and hurl insults at the jurors from the luxury of sitting behind a computer monitor or mobile device when you weren't in that room. Those 4 people believed, in their opinion, that there was mitigating factors and because their opinion doesn't jive with the majority, they all of a sudden are subjected to all sorts of nasty comments. One of these days every one of us will have a strong opinion or conviction that doesn't not agree with the majority, whether that be among a group of friends or a jury deliberation room. I challenge anyone to stand by their convictions, even if others are screaming their head off at them, because it's what they believe. That takes a lot of courage and I applaud all the jurors for taking to time to discuss it and take their time until it was obvious there was no movement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way this country decides how to determine the DP. Perhaps more scutiny should be directed at that instead of the people who are subjected to the process. It's very easy to say 'why didn't they just cave in and agree' but doing that on a murder conviction versus doing that on a life/death situation is apples and oranges. We are brought up in a society where life is taught to be precious to get some guy/gal off the street and give them the ultimate decision on condemning a person, so matter who it is, is not an easy thing, nor is it an easy decision. Hopefully many people, especially those who want to cast stones, never have to go through that.

This bears repeating! Kudos cityslick!

While I understand the disappointment and the emotion behind it, attacking the jury who gave almost 6 months of their lives to working through this whole mess is WRONG. Put your emotions to GOOD instead.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Thud

Mentally and verbally abused her?

Speechless...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As difficult as it is to say this, I trusted this jury to do the right thing. They're human. They have feelings. They react to what they see and hear. If some on the jury believed that Travis was mentally and verbally abusive to Jodi, it is their opinion and must be respected. I'm not going to criticize or fault this jury because they did what they were supposed to do. They were conscientious, diligent, intelligent, and extremely patient. They followed the Judge's instructions when rendering the three verdicts.

We were all very pleased with the jury's first two verdicts because that is what we wanted. Third verdict, not so much because most here wanted Jodi to be sentenced to death. Eight members of the jury agreed, but four of them didn't. It was their decision, and I respect them for doing what they believed best given all of the evidence and testimony that they saw and heard. Some will learn more about Jodi in the coming weeks if they choose to watch or listen to media coverage and total rehash of the case. They might feel differently when they have all of the facts, but their final verdict has been rendered, and this chapter of the Jodi Arias saga has concluded. :moo:

 

[KMouse]

IMVHO, I think we know at least one hold out. The foreman couldnt imagine this young lady in a crime this violent. JM was aggressive and essentially no one could hold up under a cross like that. But, he was willing to concede that there were many contradictions told by Arias. She wasnt believable.

He was able to divorce himself from the Alexander's gut wrenching statements, however. At least this was my impression.

Wow.

Worse than I originally believed. Jodi certainly appealed on some level to this foreman, imvho.

Yes, she sure did. Frail Jodi worked. Abusive Travis worked. and sadly our Juanderful did not work because we know this juror in particular found empathy for Jodi having to sit on the stand for 18 days.

I will never understand what this man said.

 

[Hopeful One]

This trial isn't over yet. I promised myself that I'd stay till the end for the sake of Travis' family and you guys. Guess I shouldn't put away the slow-cooker and throw away the take-out menus for another couple of months. :scared: :seeya:

:yesss: