VERDICT WATCH - Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Retrial Day 43, Part 2

[east2west]

Where are executions carried out in AZ?
In Texas women on death row are housed in TDCJ Mountain View unit in Gatesville. They are taken to the prison in Huntsville (160 miles away) where the execution chamber and men's death row is located

I think at the state prison in Florence, AZ. ?

 

[Steve44]

"Well, I don't understand what that means. Does it mean I was lying when I said I wanted the death penalty, or does it mean it was lying when I said I didn't? I don't know." (Shrugs)

:maddening:

Or after Ryan Owens asked her "Hearing what the jury heard, and seeing what they've seen, would you kill you?" She coyly caused the world to lose their collective corn flakes by saying, "Well, I don't believe in the DP, so that would be no." A more honest answer would have been, "I no longer believe in the DP since I'm now directly subject to it, but before that, I not only believed in it, I was its perverted little sister."

 

[josie1986]

Good morning.

Another day of waiting again.

I said to my OH on Saturday that I guarantee that it will come down on Wednesday because he was coming over....said he'd take my phone away so I can't check...he was swiftly told that wasn't happening lmao :floorlaugh:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wendiesan]

Whatever the verdict, I really would like to see some people hauled into court for committing perjury and slander during their testimony as "experts".

 

[Steve44]

Whatever the verdict, I really would like to see some people hauled into court for committing perjury and slander during their testimony as "experts".

I hope their reputations speak for themselves, and develop a chronic case of don't know when to shut up.

 

[TDoc72]

Saw this pic on twitter (not sure who made it)

 

[Steve44]

Saw this pic on twitter (not sure who made it)
View attachment 70551

I hope the champagne bottle is empty or contains something else appropriate to the occasion.

 

[Steve44]

double post deleted

 

[DebinGA]

For some reason I think it could be about mental issues of JA's. jmo

Could be anything though.

"I treated this patient with BPD and...or I've studied this disorder for a long time due to my xyz"

BPD has different symptoms. Different meds. From what I understand.

I think it's JA's mental issues too. IMO the ferocity and over-kill of TA's murder might seem "mental" to a juror or two. A CA jury hung on whether Betty Broderick deserved first degree murder. A second jury agreed on second degree. JA and BB, both "crazily" obsessed with their victims, murdered the one who'd spurned them because they couldn't have any peace as long as the ex was alive and enjoying life ... especially with someone else. I'd have no hesitation giving JA the DP, but I can see a juror thinking JA was driven by something "off" in her to do it, instead of a cold, calculated "I'll kill him to collect the insurance" or "so I can marry my lover" kind of way.

 

[josie1986]

I think it's JA's mental issues too. IMO the ferocity and over-kill of TA's murder might seem "mental" to a juror or two. A CA jury hung on whether Betty Broderick deserved first degree murder. A second jury agreed on second degree. JA and BB, both "crazily" obsessed with their victims, murdered the one who'd spurned them because they couldn't have any peace as long as the ex was alive and enjoying life ... especially with someone else. I'd have no hesitation giving JA the DP, but I can see a juror thinking JA was driven by something "off" in her to do it, instead of a cold, calculated "I'll kill him to collect the insurance" or "so I can marry my lover" kind of way.

It may well be that but I said the other night probably about 4 threads ago....if this is where they are stuck surely they should start to think if the BPD is as bad as some of them may be thinking why oh why would juan bring it in if it was?

I wish they could know the DT went so hard again using the whole 'mental illness' thing last time around but are more than happy to use it now.

Oh..and I've described jodi as 'mental' and 'crazy' before but not in the actual sense that she is if you get what I mean,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Susza]

Okay, I'm not sure how to put this so I make sense but here goes anyway. I am against the DP. But, I am not going to make up reasons why she should not get the DP. I am on here, Wonderful Websleuths, following this DP Retrial for Sentencing. That's what this is. She was already found guilty of Premeditated Murder, right. It was long ago decided that this was/is a DP trial and at this point DP Retrial for Sentencing. Whether it should be a DP trial is a moot point ....so that is why I am not arguing against whether she should get DP or not. I am trying to follow this and be as objective as I can. According to Law, JA committed Premeditated murder. There is no question about the Premeditation. It was not spontaneous. TA's death was not an accident. So...I'm not going to say "burn the witch" but if the Jury can find their way out of the fog created by the Defense, look at the evidence and not see JA as "this girl, that girl" basically not a "girl" at all and see her for what she is: A convicted Murderer that committed a Premeditated Murder AND they toss the unproven "p" accusations - their vote should be DP. I don't like it but I will never be in their position. At jury selection I would have said that I was against the DP..But these Jurors didn't say that and here they are. Boy oh my oh gee that was a lot of rambling wasn't it and still not sure if I got to any point...

Thank you, okiedokietoo. I share your point of view but wasn't able to describe it as well as you did.

 

[Madeleine74]

There is no guarantee that a killer will get the DP even with a "death-qualified" jury. BTW, a death qualified jury means no one is against the DP and will consider it for the defendant, but that doesn't mean in the end they will sentence a defendant to death if, after hearing all the evidence and deliberating, they don't think it's the right sentence in that case. It's not a by-the-numbers calculation and there is subjectivity which makes the outcome uncertain until the 12 people tasked with deciding work together and decide or fail to decide. If it was simply a matter of "you commit murder you get sentenced to death" we wouldn't need a jury system. This is the system this country is founded upon. There are other countries that have a system some here are wanting (Pakistan, Afghanistan).

Arizona's bifurcated sentencing law in which another jury can be empaneled to decide death if the first jury hangs on that decision seems counterproductive and wasteful. That's the law I'd want to see changed if I lived in that state. A jury should get one shot at it and if they hang then the default is LWOP, just like it is in other states that have the DP.

One other point: a jury can't sentence someone to death because of a slimy defense strategy that tries to shift blame onto the victim. What happens as a result of defense attorneys working on a perp's case after the perp is arrested, is not part of the case for a jury to weigh. A jury can use the things said during cross-examination and the defense's case to determine if they believe the defendant or any of the witnesses, but in and of itself, 'trashing the victim' is not an aggravating factor of a crime.

 

[cady]

Thank you, okiedokietoo. I share your point of view but wasn't able to describe it as well as you did.

Same here. Thanks to both of you. JMO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Today is my 5th anniversary with Websleuths, and I believe there will be a verdict today in the Jodi Arias case. DH has always felt that the retrial jury will hang like the first one, but I remain hopeful that they will render a unanimous verdict.

 

[TexMex]

For some reason I wish they would just be unanimous one way or the other.
12 for LWOP or 12 for DP.

 

[cady]

If there is no consensus and a mistrial is declared, will the cameras roll? My understanding is that cameras will be allowed for a VERDICT. Hope I'm wrong. JMO

 

[Luvrosco]

I read up on Marissa Devault because,Sanders always refers to her case on his blog. I was saddened to see she got LWP.

 

[Steve44]

"Well, I don't understand what that means. Does it mean I was lying when I said I wanted the death penalty, or does it mean it was lying when I said I didn't? I don't know." (Shrugs)

:maddening:

When she said "Just because I've lied in the past doesn't mean I'm a Liar by definition, by character." I wish Ryan Owens would have said, "Speaking of definition and character, I've always believed that character was defined by ones actions."

 

[ohreally]

There is no guarantee that a killer will get the DP even with a "death-qualified" jury. BTW, a death qualified jury means no one is against the DP and will consider it for the defendant, but that doesn't mean in the end they will sentence a defendant to death if, after hearing all the evidence and deliberating, they don't think it's the right sentence in that case. It's not a by-the-numbers calculation and there is subjectivity which makes the outcome uncertain until the 12 people tasked with deciding work together and decide or fail to decide. If it was simply a matter of "you commit murder you get sentenced to death" we wouldn't need a jury system. This is the system this country is founded upon. There are other countries that have a system some here are wanting (Pakistan, Afghanistan).

Arizona's bifurcated sentencing law in which another jury can be empaneled to decide death if the first jury hangs on that decision seems counterproductive and wasteful. That's the law I'd want to see changed if I lived in that state. A jury should get one shot at it and if they hang then the default is LWOP, just like it is in other states that have the DP.

One other point: a jury can't sentence someone to death because of a slimy defense strategy that tries to shift blame onto the victim. What happens as a result of defense attorneys working on a perp's case after the perp is arrested, is not part of the case for a jury to weigh. A jury can use the things said during cross-examination and the defense's case to determine if they believe the defendant or any of the witnesses, but in and of itself, 'trashing the victim' is not an aggravating factor of a crime.

It is correct that trashing the victim is not an aggravating factor. What trashing the victim does is erase the mitigating factor of remorse. The defense taking the slime highway in this case has shown that Jodi has no remorse for the murder. IMO.

 

[ohreally]

Oops duplicate post.