Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #1

[Tuba]

Yes, they could identify with her. Then there are the battered women and what has come back to us is that they are offended by what they consider Arias's specious claims of abuse. Still, there may be some in the jury pool who do buy her allegations and are in sympathy. Especially with a development based on strength in numbers which rounds victims into a sort of club that is mutually supportive.

 

[Tuba]

Creeped out. The killer's protests to Detective Flores haunt me. If she were going to commit the murder, she would wear gloves, "I have lots of gloves!" Who thinks like this? Someone who is a candidate for Repeat Offender. I believe she deliberated in Yreka over this detail. She visualized her Psycho mayhem and murder of Travis and it required not only his helpless placement in the shower but her ability to take him unawares, seemingly up close & personal to take his picture with the door open. Gloves would raise immediate suspicion, particularly since Travis was not game for such photos.

However, we know from her answers in the interrogation, she thinks gloves useful when killing someone by your own hand. She decided they would betray her intent and spoil this plot she concocted. But perhaps another time.........

 

[Hez]

I'd give half my savings to see her lose her temper and go crazy right there in court! I can also picture the poor Judge, with her soft and soothing voice, saying 'Ms Arias, please just answer the question' while Juan shakes his heads and glances at the jury with the ' do you see what I have to put up' look. Lol.

BBM - If she does, the jury will get to see her do her Taser-dance thanks to the special belt she has to wear in court. It will look kind of like this :happydance:, but with less smiling and way more drooling.

 

[Hatfield]

Yes, the jury can ask questions. They did at the Bryan Hulsey trial which just closed arguments today for the penalty phase. Martinez is the prosecutor in this case.

Interestingly, the jury submitted questions of an expert who had been on the stand for almost two days and none of the questions could be asked. While the judge does instruct the jury that nothing should be read into this, human nature has to come into play when something like this happens.

I was reading over on that thread and found a news link that said some things that sounded awfully familiar. Check out these comments. Sounds just like our case here. LOL

"Our judicial system is very broken," Bonner said. "I believe to the point where the accused rights are so focused on and the victim doesn't have any rights."

Bonner said her experience with Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez has been great, but she has grown concerned that Hulsey is purposely delaying the trial.

"The defendant is using the system to delay the inevitable trial," she said.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...olice-officer-killing-trial-delayed-2013.html

 

[ilovewings]

I know my opinion will not be popular but I wish the Travis family would agree to have this skanky, manipulating, vile murderess get life in prison and be done with it. I know it is possible she could get out after 25 years, but 25 years is a heck of a long time from now. She is making a mockery of the justice system and it is going to get out of control with a judge who does not control her courtroom.

 

[Hez]

I know my opinion will not be popular but I wish the Travis family would agree to have this skanky, manipulating, vile murderess get life in prison and be done with it. I know it is possible she could get out after 25 years, but 25 years is a heck of a long time from now. She is making a mockery of the justice system and it is going to get out of control with a judge who does not control her courtroom.

25 years isn't that long. She wouldn't even be 60 years old! Still young enough to get out and meet and become obsessed with a new victim. She needs to go away for the rest of her natural (and hopefully very short) life and never been seen or heard from again. JMO

 

[imawitch]

BBM - If she does, the jury will get to see her do her Taser-dance thanks to the special belt she has to wear in court. It will look kind of like this :happydance:, but with less smiling and way more drooling.

we so need a funny button along w/ the thank you button lol you nailed it

 

[geevee]

I was reading over on that thread and found a news link that said some things that sounded awfully familiar. Check out these comments. Sounds just like our case here. LOL

"Our judicial system is very broken," Bonner said. "I believe to the point where the accused rights are so focused on and the victim doesn't have any rights."

Bonner said her experience with Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez has been great, but she has grown concerned that Hulsey is purposely delaying the trial.

"The defendant is using the system to delay the inevitable trial," she said.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...olice-officer-killing-trial-delayed-2013.html

Take a read though some of the minute entries on his case, some of his monkey-wrench throwing tactics were rather eye-popping.

 

[ilovewings]

IMO she won't get death anyway and this entire circus will have served only to indulge her attention fix

 

[krkrjx]

25 years isn't that long. She wouldn't even be 60 years old! Still young enough to get out and meet and become obsessed with a new victim. She needs to go away for the rest of her natural (and hopefully very short) life and never been seen or heard from again. JMO

...especially since she's already been in jail for what, 6 years? 6.5?

Even though current law makes it impossible for her to be paroled that could change over the next dozen or so years. I think if she is given ANY chance at parole, she will get out one day. She's a psychopath, no remorse and no conscience. That makes it too easy for her to kill again. She must be incarcerated for the rest of her life with parole not an option.

 

[rose222]

Bernina just mentioned on another thread that if the jury in the Hulsey case is unable to reach a verdict and they decide to retry the penalty phase again then that would mean a delay in this trial as well. I'm losing my mind waiting for this trial!!:gaah::shame::banghead:

 

[rose222]

...especially since she's already been in jail for what, 6 years? 6.5?

Even though current law makes it impossible for her to be paroled that could change over the next dozen or so years. I think if she is given ANY chance at parole, she will get out one day. She's a psychopath, no remorse and no conscience. That makes it too easy for her to kill again. She must be incarcerated for the rest of her life with parole not an option.

Don't you have to admit guilt before you can be paroled? She cannot stick to her 'I was defending myself. I was abused' excuse. She'll have to admit that she murdered him in cold blood and express great remorse for her actions. That she will never do.

 

[Ranchgirl]

I know my opinion will not be popular but I wish the Travis family would agree to have this skanky, manipulating, vile murderess get life in prison and be done with it. I know it is possible she could get out after 25 years, but 25 years is a heck of a long time from now. She is making a mockery of the justice system and it is going to get out of control with a judge who does not control her courtroom.

I agree. The only reason I hope she gets death is because the Alexander family wants it. Frankly, after reading what one of our members has endured with a death decision, I would go for life. And, she gets no more pub.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[krkrjx]

Bernina just mentioned on another thread that if the jury in the Hulsey case is unable to reach a verdict and they decide to retry the penalty phase again then that would mean a delay in this trial as well. I'm losing my mind waiting for this trial!!:gaah::shame::banghead:

Is that definite? That it would have to happen prior to this retrial, that is.

Wouldn't they just take care of this one and delay that one?

I do not expect that jury to hang, just asking about why that one would have to go first and this be delayed in the event it is hung.

 

[krkrjx]

Don't you have to admit guilt before you can be paroled? She cannot stick to her 'I was defending myself. I was abused' excuse. She'll have to admit that she murdered him in cold blood and express great remorse for her actions. That she will never do.

You may be onto something. If she can never admit guilt and show remorse she will never be set free.

Maybe.

Depends on how convincing she can be uttering words of regret that she does not mean.

 

[janx]

Yes, it's anybody's guess the jurors that will be selected at the end of next month. That is, if there are no surprises before the 29th. Just because a lot of Sleuths and much of the public think the Arias claims of domestic violence are pure spinach, among those who are called & survive voir dire may be people predisposed to believe men are curs. I've met a few who are quite excitable when examples of bad male behavior are brought up & who enjoy piling on with generalizations of their own. The point being that the bent is not obvious on the surface. And then there is the hardened type, married to a whole belief system based on men as dominating rotters, and who can conceal their bias at will.

On the other hand, we have foreman Z, who sees a pitiable woman and new jurors who may share his view of Arias. She is very practiced at appearing vulnerable and pathetic, as we remember from her tearful whining in the masked intruder Confession #2 interrogation, the rolling tears in court and her emotional collapse on the stand. Far be it from me to claim those were faked. I believe they occur when she knows she is caught out and is clearly perceived for what she is and what she has done.

So the upcoming selection is a game of chance and there are no funds on either side for a keen eyed jury consultant to shift the odds. Who do you think Arias and Martinez will seat? Any guesses?

I have no idea except to say that Martinez did fairly well last time. Most of the jurors must have had a sense of logic. Foreman Z was competent in that respect.

And she may have practiced a lot at appearing vulnerable and pathetic, but that doesn't fool people like Det. Flores and the jurors who found her guilty, unanimously, of murder I. Her act was not convincing. It was ludicrous, especially in the interrogation room. It was like somebody trying out for a school play.The facts, science, and logic were overwhelmingly against her. That's why the verdict was such an easy one, apparently.

How do you see the next jury selection?

 

[janx]

Tuba....

It's impossible to use jury #1 to accurately predict if gender will play the same role as on #1, or if gender was determinative at all.

That said, I think women are more likely to be unsympathetic to her, and much more likely this time around to respond harshly if they think she's being manipulative.

Imo age matters. Middle-aged women are preferable than 20-somethings who might identify with her underachieving, unambitious, drifting lifestyle.

If I were a jury consultant I would also be looking for jurors who seem at least somewhat self righteous or overly firm about their own beliefs, because I think they'd be least tolerant of a murderer willing to blame or smear the man she slaughtered.

PS....just because she's been convicted of premeditated murder doesn't mean she won't try to argue that the jury got it wrong. Remember during her allocution when she held up the survivor T-shirt? To the jury who had convicted her?

And said (I paraphrase)- " I know you don't all believe me that I was abused- that is your right-- but DV is a personal issue for me and one I care greatly about. "

I predict lots of too clever by half, smarmy , manipulative, self pitying play-victim assertions like that.

Hope4more, I agree with you about everything except the age of the women on the jury, and I may have misread your thoughts. 20-somethings (myself included at the time) are capable of making some horrible decisions, but some learn from those pretty fast. Hmmm...what questions would be logical, prudent, and allowable to ask them? I wonder about the contents in the questionnaire now.

 

[HMSHood]

I know my opinion will not be popular but I wish the Travis family would agree to have this skanky, manipulating, vile murderess get life in prison and be done with it. I know it is possible she could get out after 25 years, but 25 years is a heck of a long time from now. She is making a mockery of the justice system and it is going to get out of control with a judge who does not control her courtroom.

She should never see another day of freedom ever. Preferably, she should be executed.

 

[atthelake]

BBM - If she does, the jury will get to see her do her Taser-dance thanks to the special belt she has to wear in court. It will look kind of like this :happydance:, but with less smiling and way more drooling.

OMG!

I'm a house guest on vacation..sitting on the back screen porch of their house after they have turned in for the night.....and I think I just woke them, and their neighbors.... by laughing so hard at 12:14 am!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Hatfield]

I agree. The only reason I hope she gets death is because the Alexander family wants it. Frankly, after reading what one of our members has endured with a death decision, I would go for life. And, she gets no more pub.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One of the things I am mad about is that the previous jury did not come to a final decision. Their default should have been LWOP and at least be a successful ending.

Maybe I am thinking about it wrong but it seems to me the jury should have talked about their impending deadlock and since they were not unanamous for DP, then everyone should have agreed to Life then and at least "make a decision" and have successful ending. Their job was to come to a decision and successful conclusion.

I dont think they thought through this at all. I think some of them did not realize the consequences of them not deciding. I really think some of them thought they were just putting it in the judges hands to decide. I dont think they knew they were just passing the buck to a new jury.

My logic may be twisted but if I was on that jury and we could not all agree on DP, well that means that deciding on LWOP would be a good default sentence to prevent this case going to an entirely new jury that is going to most likely end up with not everyone wanting DP either.

I will be really surprised if a new jury will all agree on DP. If they do, then this will all be worth it. But I suspect it will be similar in that a few jurors will not be able to give DP. I just hope this time if that happens the jury is wise enough to at least have their default be LWOP because that way they can at least make a decision.

It is so important the jury at least makes a decision one way or the other. Dont let the judge get a hold of this case.