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

[Alexander family fan]

Exactly. I've already posted about the self-promotion and overt campaigning. Sounds like this jury foreman did just that - promoted himself to be the foreman. :moo:

You may expect a book in very short order, Jodi Arias jury, fog, fraud and fatigue, or something to that effect. MOO

For what is worth, two of the four times I have been on a jury I was asked to be the foreperson, which I was honored to do. The other two times it was a man who volunteered. Strong personality or no, they still only get one vote, same as the other juror members. Do not be fooled thinking that the foreperson may have moved folks off their fundamental beliefs just because he held that title. On the contrary, it sounds like some walked in there and announced their stance, folded their arms and refused to deliberate. What he should have done, if that were the case, is sent a note to the judge advising her of this, asking them to be removed. :stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad: That is what I would have done rather than asking two hours in, hmmm....what if we cannot get it together, what form should we use. I infer that he did not, as indeed he was one of them. MOO

 

[raisincharlie]

Dontcha know that when you find that the victim's family is going through he$$ and you admit it's gut-wrenching the first thing you do (as a foreman) when you give your post-hung jury interview is to blame the murdered victim for having been abusive.:steamed:

I'm waiting for the other jurors (regardless of whether they voted for death or not) to tell us how horrible JA is and how much they feel for Travis.

Amen Rose

 

[Soliloquy]

Maybe Jodi's emotion at the verdict was because she was scared she couldn't remember her lies for the retrial?

lease:

Unfortunately, she has already started to bolster them based on this trial, as all good sociopaths do. She has learned that she didn't emphasize enough in her PDS test, so she has now (according to the snippets of interviews I have heard) fabricated a story about her fellow inmates telling her that she screams and cries out in her sleep from her nightmares. She has completely turned on the victim as a full-blown abuser in all of her interviews now and even quotes ALV's words from the trial (i.e., just because I lied, it does not make me a LIAR, etc.). She has learned a lot from her despicable enablers and will bring those skills and lies as well as her old ones into her new trial.

 

[ZsaZsa]

My BBM.

It was Wilmott's big moment. The telling reaction is just after the verdict announcement, when she turns to a crying Jodi with a smile on her face. That interaction speaks volumes.

I don't blame the jury one bit. They had limited information on which to base their verdict. Few people ever have dealings with a true female sociopath. They are rare. With the limited information at their disposal, I can understand how they came to that verdict. They were not given enough to join the dots correctly and get a full picture. It would have appeared to them that there had to be something 'missing'. They mistook Travis' complete frustration for abuse. Even Travis had her pegged at the end.

What's what happens when the murderer's 'rights' are protected to the detriment of the victim. The Jury should be able to see all the information and get a true picture of this sociopath.

 

[grammieto5]

Professional juries would violate the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers.
And honestly don't you think after listening to a number of brutal cases that these professional jurors would become desensitized? And maybe compare one trial to another? As in "well this case isn't as bad as the last one I was a part of and we didn't give them the DP so we shouldn't here".The problem is the exclusion of relevant evidence in order to somehow protect the defendant...ie too prejudicial. :moo:

I agree with you on the "too prejudicial" part!!!! By professional I mean juries knowing the law and understanding the law. Understanding when a jury is told to not let your personal feelings decide how you vote, you are supposed to follow the law. If a person is to be tried by a jury of ones peers, going by what I've read in a few posts here this jury was not CMJA's peers. One poster wrote he/she thought while looking at the jury get on the bus they looked like a group of seniors getting on the bus. Maybe, as someone posted earlier death row should be changed to life row. I would be happy with that, except for child predators, they should all be put to death the first time.

 

[Maryann123]

i'm not going to get into the age debate again, although it still rubs me the wrong way since i'm 64.

AZ is FULL of older people. when my friend moved there at 55, all the women in the neighborhood thought she was a threat to their marriages because she was so young! LOL. they would barely speak to her for a long time.

but i STILL maintain that us antiques have lived life and have learned things those in their 40's have yet to learn. we've seen the world change in miraculous ways----i remember getting our FIRST tv!! we're not stupid and we're not out of touch with what's going on in the world.

i know you didn't mean that as an insult---i get it. but i felt i had to respond to it.[/QUOTE

You're 64, I'm 65 and my husband is pushing 69. We all KNOW Jodi should have gotten the death penalty. It's not an age thing. I know I'm going to insult some people, but the truth is, stupidity knows no age! Have you ever heard the old saying about old people becoming grumpy? That's not accurate. The grumpy old people were grumpy young people once. If you age and get dementia, then you don't have your ability to reason. That wasn't the case with the jury. All of them had their minds intact, they would have voted the way they did when they were 20, just like they did yesterday. Young people will only get it when they age. You don't change your values with age. You just don't!

 

[jojomonkey]

Thanks. I'm speculating that it was 8 men for death and the woman let their mothering nature take over stronger than their common sense. Guessing...

That mothering instinct is strong. If any juror has a daughter of similar age, it's entirely possible that could play a role.

This is embarrassing to admit, but when they caught the 19 year old Boston bomber, my first instinct was "oh no, don't hurt him" because, and ONLY because, he strongly resembles my 16 year old son. As heinous and horrific a crime as he committed, I saw my son in him and was actually feeling bad for him at one point. Not anymore, but that initial image of seeing my son's image was heartbreaking for me. I don't think I could be a juror on his trial for that reason alone.

 

[deanna82437]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the "age" thing, but IMO that has nothing to do with a person's technology awareness or abilities. Some 70/80 year olds are every bit as proficient as the younger generation. Totally depends on the individual. All JMO.

Bringing in age as a component in this trial keeps it real. Advertisers use demographics to tailor to their targeted audience. It isn't a dig, just the fact of life.

ALV not understanding what she was looking at and that what she did have were snippets of a larger conversation escaped her and a few members of the jury. Those jurors looked to her for guidance when other jurors would have instantly understood that Travis not responding for 3 hours did NOT mean he was angry during that time. It simply meant he didn't get back to his phone and look at the message for three hours. Then he picked up the conversation and responded.

ALV didn't get that partly because she had no clue what texting was all about and partly because as she pointed out, in HER generation things weren't done like that. People didn't speak to each other like that. The words held a different meaning for her because she was basing it on her social culture.

 

[coup de grace]

Yeah Wilmott did a good job in her closing because there are always those that just want to blame the parents. If we put Jodi's claimed abusive childhood in perspective...she actually had/has a decent family compared to many others, and her childhood issues that never got resolved and simmered into adulthood, are no excuse for her premeditated crime!!

 

[Southern_Meadow]

IMO we are so lucky that we didn't get manslaughter!!! So lucky because it does seem like they think this abuse caused the murder and it's a small step closer to her "snapping". We should all be very grateful.

Yet some are not. There's still lots of bashing of them going on. I appreciate them finding her guilty of 1st degree murder and accept and respect their verdicts -- all 3 of them. It is what it is and speaking badly of them doesn't change anything.

 

[Dmacky]

Here are the Jurors getting on the bus as they leave the courthouse.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/2405490606001

 

[RadarLuv]

I love Ryan Smith too! He's a hottie.

There is a live chat with Ryan @ 2EST/1CST/12MST/11AZ (PDT). I am already logged on

http://www.livestream.com/hln_tv?ut...i-chat&utm_campaign=hln_tv&utm_content=hln_tv

 

[grammieto5]

As soon as you have professional juries you will have corruption. It would never work as well as the 'duty' option.

JMO

LOL oh like there is no corruption already, of course I understand it's all so the criminals can have a fair trial.

 

[coup de grace]

That mothering instinct is strong. If any juror has a daughter of similar age, it's entirely possible that could play a role.

This is embarrassing to admit, but when they caught the 19 year old Boston bomber, my first instinct was "oh no, don't hurt him" because, and ONLY because, he strongly resembles my 16 year old son. As heinous and horrific a crime as he committed, I saw my son in him and was actually feeling bad for him at one point. Not anymore, but that initial image of seeing my son's image was heartbreaking for me. I don't think I could be a juror on his trial for that reason alone.

IT's good that you recognize your bias though and would disqualify yourself.
Kudo's on your insight!!

 

[pinkie60]

I believe the murderer never referenced the prison but rather the location - Perryville is the prison, she referenced Goodyear which is a town near the prison. Apparently no one, not even the mitigation lady, bothered to tell her she was dellusional in thinking she could do the things she listed. Was it made up for the jury, of course it was. It is also dellusional to think that she would actually volunteer to serve others, she serves no one but herself.

on the perryville website, it says they make use of all prisoners to maintain the prison, grounds. I don't believe this is true of the maximum/ lumley unit. since they only get 1 hr a day out. can someone clarify? Maybe after 5 years after she's shown good behavior she can go down to medium security, then will be allowed to have a job in there.( She calls it a career). I think they have to sign up for a job and then it is granted or not. That's if she gets life.
If she is on death row, i don't think they work, they stay locked up 23 hrs a day until their execution?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Dontcha know that when you find that the victim's family is going through he$$ and you admit it's gut-wrenching the first thing you do (as a foreman) when you give your post-hung jury interview is to blame the murdered victim for having been abusive.:steamed:

I'm waiting for the other jurors (regardless of whether they voted for death or not) to tell us how horrible JA is and how much they feel for Travis.

I'm sure that Jury foreman would never lose his temper with someone who stalked him, entered his home via his doggy door, slashed his tires twice and
generally harassed him to the point he was scared for his life.... he might be called abusive if he did!

 

[molly333]

I do too Hindsight. My thought is that we need to have a minimal qualifying test/questionnaire for people to be jurors.

And I truly believe that we should have a stringent qualifying process for Death Penalty cases--perhaps naming them something along the line of a Death Qualified Juror/Jury.

Outofstatelawyer, what are your thoughts?

The Jury foreman has been on tv. He looks like a very smart man to me.

I'm sure he could pass any test without a problem.

The verdict had nothing to do with tests, common sense, or misunderstanding the law.

This case should have been plead out from day one at murder two.

It was never a DP case.

But this Jury gave us murder one. We should count our lucky stars.

IMO

 

[katiedid2]

I woke up depressed and crying! It's so heartbreaking to see what this this doing to the alexander family.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

i have a question. why DID travis go on that rant?

 

[LinTX]

Yes, listening to him speak is more depressing to me than the non verdict.

He failed to see the psychopath. Hope he starts seeing it now, though I doubt it. He will have to justify his grievous error.

I'm not sure it's as much that he failed to see it as he wasn't shown it. So much of what we know is hearsay and couldn't be presented to them. I do wish a picture of her abuse & manipulation of TA was given to this jury, because I don't think they even got a taste of what she put him through. I also don't think they got a hint of how reluctant he was to see the real person and realize what she was...he was too kind and they only heard the angry words that finally erupted. But they never got the why...