Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[ShadyLady]

BBM

That is what I want to know. This is the first time I heard about this.

I want to know, too....does judicial assistant report to JSS directly?? Or defense...and did they speak with foreman from first trial??????

 

[ShadyLady]

just like a case with circumstantial evidence. We often criticize juries who can't put the pieces together. Same thing here with #17. You can't isolate one part. Like, well, after the judge talked to her she did deliberate. Why would anyone believe she did? I don't because it's one piece of the puzzle.

You start from the beginning. She lied, misled and deceived the court regarding her history with the prosecutor, with felons, with criminal activity by romantic partners etc. Why did she do it? Well, in this context it can only be because she wanted on the jury and knew if she disclosed too much of the truth she would be dismissed.

Why did she want to be on the jury? Should we believe it was because she had such a strong desire to fulfill her civic duty? No, because if duty were relevant she wouldn't have lied as she also had an overriding duty to be truthful and withhold nothing that might impact her fitness for service. So, she had some other reason she wanted to be on the jury and she lied to make it happen as there was no other reason to lie. So, none of this leads to a logical conclusion that she merely wanted to deliberate just like the other jurors did.

And, lo and behold, all the other jurors and the alternates evaluated the evidence differently than her. OK, that could happen without malfeasance. But, all the jurors in the room felt from the beginning she had her mind made up, that she refused to discuss the evidence, aggravating factors, how the mitigating weighed against the aggravating. She separated herself from the group, refused to explain her reasoning. Again, this could happen without wrongdoing. But, when you put the whole picture together and not each element in isolation, I feel pretty much hit upside the head with the conclusion she had an agenda from the time she was called for jury service or at least from the time she knew it was for the JA trial.

IMO, to conclude that this was all completely kosher and this poor juror just came to a different, but equally valid conclusion from the other 11 + the alternates, requires me to suspend the kind of disbelief I only suspend for fiction. And this was all too real. And after following this 7 year extravaganza of manipulation I am not going to now fall for juror #17's follow up manipulation.

I don't pretend to know the why. Whether it's because she likes Jodi, hates the DP, hates Juan, hates society for sending felons to jail, is manipulated by her current felon husband, is delusional and has visions, I don't know or care. All I know is what the circumstantial evidence tells me. The kind of evidence that is all that is usually available to convict someone and I trust circumstantial evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence.

....ya, what you said.

...also, I hope Flores does pull her Facebook chats, etc....was #17 in contact with MDLR.

 

[Bravo]

Yep just like a Trial. Not just any one thing but the sum of it all. Sigh......

 

[Bravo]

IMO Maria should be fired for her conduct. And anything else that she deserves resulting from the Investigation.

 

[Bravo]

View attachment 71092

After some beachin' it's time for some fresh fish and cold beer
Hope your Arpaio slop is awesome today Arias
#SnoopysPier
#padreisland

Enjoy TexMex. Looks delish!

 

[RR0004]

Here's the entire tweet ( :tyou: Val1!) :

(@JMartinezUpdate) tweeted at 2:56am - 14 Mar 15:

#JodiArias Juror 17 (Formerly Juror 138) was in this batch of jurors during jury selection >>
http://youtu.be/U-j3OARmDZk

Asked if any1 knew JM. (https://twitter.com/JMartinezUpdate/status/576683428696834048?s=17)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grrr! Just typed out an entire post...and poof, it's gone!!

But, IMPO, she lied. We can go around and around on this, but for me...it's on tape...she did not tell the truth.
I had a PS to my other post...and it was this: anyone who received a juror's notice around the time of the resentencing trial (and it was probably noted in the news as well when this happened), had to think, wonder, wish, pray that this may have something to do with being seated for the Arias case. And, it could have gone either way...either they wished they could be seated on the jury...or they prayed this wasn't for the resentencing. But, if they didn't remember knowing then that they somehow had a connection to this case, I would imagine having received notice, someone may have reminded them about Juan being their former mate's prosecutor. Unless they lived in a bubble and had absolutely no discussion, conversation, or curiosity about any of this...which, IMPO, I find highly doubtful. Again...I'll say, what are the odds? Sorry, I must be a real cynic, because I don't believe for one minute that this person didn't know exactly what she was going to do.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If you haven't seen this yet you may be interested. https://twitter.com/jmartinezupdate/status/576683428696834048

That's great, thanks! I'm starting to thing that Twitter should be in charge of jury selection instead of the courts ..

 

[Bravo]

When I saw that slop in the Interview I almost upchucked. It takes a lot for me to get queasy. The texture alone would not allow me to swallow it.

 

[geevee]

I just re-watched the sentencing phase of the Amanda Hayes trial which took place in North Carolina.

She faced the same judge, Hon. Donald Stephens, who sentenced her husband, Grant Hayes, to LWOP after he was found guilty of first degree murder in the killing and dismemberment of Laura Ackerman.

Judge Stephens took a novel approach to dealing with the jurors' privacy issues; he announced in court that the jurors were NOT excused from the case until they were safely back home, or wherever they chose to be after the trial. Meaning, anyone who followed them, etc. would face contempt charges should they attempt to ambush any of the jurors.

I watched both of those trials, Judge Stephens runs a very well-managed courtroom and the live streamed trials there are so well done, no hoopla or distractions from the proceedings, it's a pleasure to watch their trials. I think I've seen at least three different judges in trials there and none resembled what we saw in the Arias trial.

 

[RadarLuv]

1:05:00

Here it is

http://bluesharp1911.wix.com/courtchatter#!jodi-arias-pretrial-hearing-10062014/c1bdz

It is located at the end of the video - last 10 minutes.

 

[fifteen89]

I know. I've concluded (though I forget every other day) that the only way to live with the injustice of that (and so much else) is to know, 100% and absolutely, that there is no justice on earth that could be meted out to her that would be just enough. Nothing. Not death (I'm being cruel in saying that, not kind) and nothing short of death.

The very people we most want to punish and to suffer are the very people least likely to be genuinely affected by what we feel or what can be imposed upon them. Their inaccessibility is what maddens many of the rest of us.

What I also know for 100% though, for myself, is that the things that make these unusual people beyond reach are the same reasons they will NEVER feel actual joy, or love, or simple content. Is that good enough? Nah, but it's a start.

BBM
EXACTLY! I think back to Jodi's tears during the VIS during the first trial. Was that what she thought people expected to see from her? Was she secretly smiling inside thinking 'I caused that pain' and relishing her power?

She's never had to use her own words to describe how she killed Travis. Yeah, she wants to say it was self defense, but she'll never acknowledge how brutal it was. She gets asked "Did you kill Travis Alexander?" and she gets to simply say "yes". She refers to "Travis' death" not his slaughter/murder. She refers to it as "that" not her stabbing him over and over and over, slashing his throat and shooting him in the head.

 

[wendiesan]

But first it required you to make the judgement call of "knowing" the prosecutor and you made it based on your criteria, and it met and maybe exceeded your criteria: interacting directly with the prosecutor during a social weekend. And I would answer the same way as you. Now, if you had never interacted directly with the prosecutor and not been in a social setting with the prosecutor, but knew who he/she was and what they did and could recognize them and someone in your family or a loved one had dealings with that person (but you did not have dealings with that prosecutor), would you still have answered "yes" to knowing that person? If someone else answered "no" to the same question (same scenario) would they be lying?

Actually, yes.
If I "knew who that person was", knew the person's name, what that person did for a living, could recognize that person by sight and/or the sound of his/her voice, was aware that my lover had dealings with that person, of course I would "know who that person was". You set up the question in a way that would make it impossible to truthfully answer in any other way.
Whether or not I personally had any dealings with that person, I would know who that person was.

If I had a significant other/lover/boyfriend/baby daddy whose trial I had been present for, and whose prosecutor I had seen every day of that trial, I would know who that person was. If I said I didn't know the prosecutor, yes,I would be lying.
The question wasn't "Are you friends with the prosecutor or the defence attorneys or the judge or the defendant?" Nor was the question "Do you hang out with any of the parties involved with this trial?" The question wasn't even "Do you stand to gain anything by being a member of the jury for this trial?"
The question was valid.
The word "know", with all its meanings, is a valid English word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1.to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
I know the situation fully.
2.to have established or fixed in the mind or memory:to know a poem by heart;
Do you know the way to the park from here?
3.to be cognizant or aware of:
I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report:
to know the mayor.
5.to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive):
to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another:
to know right from wrong.
7.Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.

(my bolds)

IMO, every person knows (as in recognizes or is aware of or is acquainted with or apprehends with clarity) on various levels, and to varying extents, many other human beings. Some people are strangers. Some are nodding acquaintances. Some are people we see rarely, some are people with whom we deal with day to day as next door neighbours. There are some with whom we share beliefs or circumstances on a regular basis, such as fellow church goers or club members or classmates or instructors. Fewer are professionals whom we see once or twice a year, but whom we trust. And then there are people with whom we share social gatherings, and all the kinds of friendships that develop over time from the most casual to the deepest and strongest and rarest of trust. And then there are family members whom we may be close to or estranged from for whom we may hold various degrees of affection and love. And we have lovers, husbands and wives who blend physical passion with emotional ties. For those people for whom we hold the most affection or responsibility, we, IMO, are very aware of the people with whom they deal.

When someone significant in our lives is involved in something as emotionally intense as a court case, I think we are interested enough to recognize the key players--the prosecutor as well as the defence attorney(s).

I have no doubt that J17 recognized JM.

 

[Hope4More]

WOOT!!!!! My son just won second place in a city wide competition for historical research papers! Research rules! Looking forward to doing some on 17's ex, but not before some serious celebrating.

 

[katiecoolady]

In addition, a background check on her would not have revealed this infornation since she is not the one with the record.

EXCELLENT point.

 

[ZsaZsa]

just like a case with circumstantial evidence. We often criticize juries who can't put the pieces together. Same thing here with #17. You can't isolate one part. Like, well, after the judge talked to her she did deliberate. Why would anyone believe she did? I don't because it's one piece of the puzzle.

You start from the beginning. She lied, misled and deceived the court regarding her history with the prosecutor, with felons, with criminal activity by romantic partners etc. Why did she do it? Well, in this context it can only be because she wanted on the jury and knew if she disclosed too much of the truth she would be dismissed.

Why did she want to be on the jury? Should we believe it was because she had such a strong desire to fulfill her civic duty? No, because if duty were relevant she wouldn't have lied as she also had an overriding duty to be truthful and withhold nothing that might impact her fitness for service. So, she had some other reason she wanted to be on the jury and she lied to make it happen as there was no other reason to lie. So, none of this leads to a logical conclusion that she merely wanted to deliberate just like the other jurors did.

And, lo and behold, all the other jurors and the alternates evaluated the evidence differently than her. OK, that could happen without malfeasance. But, all the jurors in the room felt from the beginning she had her mind made up, that she refused to discuss the evidence, aggravating factors, how the mitigating weighed against the aggravating. She separated herself from the group, refused to explain her reasoning. Again, this could happen without wrongdoing. But, when you put the whole picture together and not each element in isolation, I feel pretty much hit upside the head with the conclusion she had an agenda from the time she was called for jury service or at least from the time she knew it was for the JA trial.

IMO, to conclude that this was all completely kosher and this poor juror just came to a different, but equally valid conclusion from the other 11 + the alternates, requires me to suspend the kind of disbelief I only suspend for fiction. And this was all too real. And after following this 7 year extravaganza of manipulation I am not going to now fall for juror #17's follow up manipulation.

I don't pretend to know the why. Whether it's because she likes Jodi, hates the DP, hates Juan, hates society for sending felons to jail, is manipulated by her current felon husband, is delusional and has visions, I don't know or care. All I know is what the circumstantial evidence tells me. The kind of evidence that is all that is usually available to convict someone and I trust circumstantial evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence.

FWIW - the last name of her first husband, the one she says abused her - Alejandro. Or, if you anglicize it, Alexander.
Coincidence?

 

[Soulsad]

Yes FL, I agree completely. Did you watch her arm movements? I believe I saw her stabbing motions 3 times. Just chilling.

Soulless is a great word, especially for Morgan. Talking about stabbing her friend: "It didn't feel like anything. It was like air". "People who trust you become very gullible. It was sort of sad."

Morgan is the leader, I'm guessing?

 

[katiecoolady]

I want to know, too....does judicial assistant report to JSS directly?? Or defense...and did they speak with foreman from first trial??????

And pardon me while I beat the dead horse I've beaten back to life only to beat again to death and now again, but just HOW...HOW did Michael Kiefer know and REPORT the jury foreperson from the first person. The juror who led that jury to a mistrial and betrayed his fellow jurors by having media in his home the very next day while speaking (incorrectly) for all of them and just who happens to work in a media form (radio) and who just happens to share the same opinion and many of the same identical verbage as Michael Kiefer? Who was supposed to report objectively but....you know...we know.

:deadhorse:

 

[ShadyLady]

Observation on voices:

Susan Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IowgsYwFM0g&index=8&list=PLtLGs9ocrowIlC0B8V6Bni0rIFcBQQLBm

Jodi Arias

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkHlfnWCe9g

 

[MeeBee]

just like a case with circumstantial evidence. We often criticize juries who can't put the pieces together. Same thing here with #17. You can't isolate one part. Like, well, after the judge talked to her she did deliberate. Why would anyone believe she did? I don't because it's one piece of the puzzle.

You start from the beginning. She lied, misled and deceived the court regarding her history with the prosecutor, with felons, with criminal activity by romantic partners etc. Why did she do it? Well, in this context it can only be because she wanted on the jury and knew if she disclosed too much of the truth she would be dismissed.

Why did she want to be on the jury? Should we believe it was because she had such a strong desire to fulfill her civic duty? No, because if duty were relevant she wouldn't have lied as she also had an overriding duty to be truthful and withhold nothing that might impact her fitness for service. So, she had some other reason she wanted to be on the jury and she lied to make it happen as there was no other reason to lie. So, none of this leads to a logical conclusion that she merely wanted to deliberate just like the other jurors did.

And, lo and behold, all the other jurors and the alternates evaluated the evidence differently than her. OK, that could happen without malfeasance. But, all the jurors in the room felt from the beginning she had her mind made up, that she refused to discuss the evidence, aggravating factors, how the mitigating weighed against the aggravating. She separated herself from the group, refused to explain her reasoning. Again, this could happen without wrongdoing. But, when you put the whole picture together and not each element in isolation, I feel pretty much hit upside the head with the conclusion she had an agenda from the time she was called for jury service or at least from the time she knew it was for the JA trial.

IMO, to conclude that this was all completely kosher and this poor juror just came to a different, but equally valid conclusion from the other 11 + the alternates, requires me to suspend the kind of disbelief I only suspend for fiction. And this was all too real. And after following this 7 year extravaganza of manipulation I am not going to now fall for juror #17's follow up manipulation.

I don't pretend to know the why. Whether it's because she likes Jodi, hates the DP, hates Juan, hates society for sending felons to jail, is manipulated by her current felon husband, is delusional and has visions, I don't know or care. All I know is what the circumstantial evidence tells me. The kind of evidence that is all that is usually available to convict someone and I trust circumstantial evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence.

The foreman used an interesting word in his presser when referring to this juror not deliberating. Pride. He said in the end it seemed to become more about pride than a genuine belief for her. That tells me she'd state a belief then when questioned to explain herself further she'd feel "attacked" and stop trying.

I think we've all known people who don't like being confronted about their opinions. My mom is very bad about this. She can say something but the second you try and have a debate or disagree or question her about it she runs off and blocks you out and plays the victim. It's worse when the person is confronted with strong evidence that they are wrong because they do not want to admit to themselves or anyone else that they may be wrong.

She would list a mitigator that was important to her and when questioned further she'd withdraw. She would not explain. They'd get frustrated, she'd feel attacked. It's that they are wrong for trying to pressure me to agree with them and I don't have to explain myself or my reasons all while deep down knowing the reasons she won't explain herself is because there is no explanation for it and she knows whatever she says it will be pointed out to her how wrong she is. The more they tried to reason with her the more withdrawn she'd become. They tried to show her autopsy pictures and again the pride rears its head. She doesn't want to see them because she hates that they are trying to convince her of something she doesn't want to see. How dare they.

That's how deliberations go, I've heard. They are intense and heated and there can be yelling and swearing. The deliberations in the guilt phase were said to be heated. They're not trying to pick a restaurant, they are making a heavy decision that will affect a lot of people. You want to get that right. Think how frustrating it must be to go into a room and have someone see something so completely differently from you when it is so clear to you. I mean look how at each other's throats we are on this board and we're not even in the same room. Same thing.

As far as the foreman pushing 17 to see what the rest of the jury saw, what's wrong with that? That's what he's supposed to do, right? That's what the judge sent them back for right? To try harder? I don't see what was wrong with using the autopsy photos. That's exactly what they're there for. I remember reading they did they exact same thing in the Scott Peterson deliberations with a picture of the dead fetus and it convinced someone to vote for death.

It could have been a communication breakdown. What the foreman saw as a good faith effort to see the other juror's side of things, she might have seen as harassment and an attempt to force her to look at them out of spite and make her feel bad and attack her. Again, how frustrating would it be if you were trying to show someone something to help them see your side and they just refused out of pride?

You would have to be pretty naive to go into a deliberating room to think that people would just accept what you have to say without challenging it or trying to change your mind. I think they'd respect her opinion more if she explained her position better or didn't feel she had an agenda.

That foreman seems pretty astute. He picked up on things I never even thought of. He just didn't seem to be the kind given to emotion based on his trial diaries interview. He looked at evidence and saw it as it was and was pretty fair to both sides. I think he really tried with her. For the whole jury to feel this way about one person says a lot to me. I don't think we should just ignore them.

 

[katiecoolady]

I know. I've concluded (though I forget every other day) that the only way to live with the injustice of that (and so much else) is to know, 100% and absolutely, that there is no justice on earth that could be meted out to her that would be just enough. Nothing. Not death (I'm being cruel in saying that, not kind) and nothing short of death.

The very people we most want to punish and to suffer are the very people least likely to be genuinely affected by what we feel or what can be imposed upon them. Their inaccessibility is what maddens many of the rest of us.

What I also know for 100% though, for myself, is that the things that make these unusual people beyond reach are the same reasons they will NEVER feel actual joy, or love, or simple content. Is that good enough? Nah, but it's a start.

I don't have enough words to express how much I love this post. :blowkiss: