Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 11/26 -12/02/14 In recess

[katiecoolady]

The jury will not favor the Alexander family. The jury probably knows nothing about them. They are not part of this murder trial.

Actually they are. First off they are defined as victims by the State. They are afforded rights according to the Victim's Bill of Rights which are all about this murder trial and their level of participation/protection. THe jury knows quite a bit about them via their two victim impact statements delivered directly to the jury after the prosecution's initial presentation. And they know they are sitting in court every day which has a strong impact on juries (and did on the previous jury who convicted her--one juror actually mouthed "I'm sorry" directly to Travis' siblings as she exited the jury box after the hung jury).

Victims play a part in murder trials by their presence or absence and in this case victim refers to Travis Alexander AND his surviving siblings.

 

[katiecoolady]

The Alexander family is very much part of the trial, legally and otherwise. In the eyes of the law, they are victims, and have certain rights under the Victim's Bill of Rights. This includes the right to be present at, and included in, all parts of the trial where Arias has a right to be present.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/2_1.htm

Also, the jury is well aware of who they are, as Stephen and Tanisha have given Victim Impact Statements in this penalty phase retrial. They may have known who they were through media seen before they became jurors - knowledge of the case was not a bar to jury service if they believed it would not affect their ability to judge the case on evidence presented at court.

ETA: Personally I read "favor the Alexander family" as meaning it was hoped that their decision would happen to be a good one for the family, not that their decision would be unduly swayed by the family.

I wrote my post before reading yours here. Great minds and all...

 

[katiecoolady]

I tried to pick my words pretty carefully, by saying I didn't think they'd be "unduly" swayed. I agree completely that for many if not all jurors, the impact on the family will be a factor in their decision, and quite possible a very significant factor indeed. And I wouldn't think there was anything undue about that at all.

I added "unduly" as a sort of courtesy to the jurors, to indicate that I believe (or at least, hope!) that they're not a group of emotional basket cases, easily swung this way and that by whatever's thrown at them. Or in other words, that any impact that the family's experience has on them will be more than emotional - that it will be rooted in a rational clear-sighted appreciation (as it were) of the real-life horror and ongoing consequences of what Arias chose to do, and judged accordingly.

Let's not forget this ENTIRE phase is mitigation vs. aggravation, period. VIS were born from a need for victims to tell the IMPACT of this crime on their life which is part of what defines it's "aggravation"--the totality of the crime. If there were minor children of a murder victim still living, that kind of thing would be weighed right to dollars and cents in raising them (Iknow because I had to give an itemized list of lost wages and expenses attending the trial, funeral costs and other financials before SENTENCING which is where we are now).

The jury will look at the totality of basically one list of aggravating factors (including this was a beloved family member taken from his family who loved him which is WHY they are trying so hard to villify him to make the jury feel he was a throwaway person or worse yet deserved to be killed) vs mitigating which in my opinion, there still are ZERO that point to this crime. It's a simple checks and balances decision and one that the surviving victims play a role. The guilt phase not so much, but sentencing is where they have their impact, literally.

 

[Val1]

May I ask what makes you think that she's a hermaprodite? Did Dr.F. Imply this or is it your gut feeling?

It started with a gut feeling I suppose, though after seeing the pics of her "shoot" and hearing how she had had breast implants, and then I started noticing how boyish her hands, neck, etc. are, but also how obsessed she was with her makeup, hair, waxing-see quote below from Daniel Freeman, also just how she tended to look at or react to things with what I consider more of a male's viewpoint(I grew up with four brothers so I can be just as guilty of that...), it just seemed to be something that might explain her persona better than just being a jealous/possessive so and so and killing TA in a fit of rage. That her father has said she required surgery "down there" or some such thing also lends credence imo.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...it-evidence-delays-valley-womans-murder-trial

Arias' backpack was too heavy, so both Freeman and Alexander emptied makeup, brushes and hair products to lighten the load.

Here's some links to articles that may help to explain what I'm talking about better, though imo they certainly don't delve deep enough into any psychological ramifications that this medical condition may be responsible for, not the least of which would be anger, depression, insecurity, let alone the very concept of a man's brain in a woman's body on top of any physical manifestation.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/pages/introduction.aspx
http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#Start
http://www.aissg.org/stories/marie.htm#Start

 

[Val1]

I am also puzzled and wonder what is going on. I would not be surprised to read that JA is part of the Illuminati. Maybe she is a Reptilian. How about a Succubus? God, so many scenarios. I just would like to discuss the trial LOL!

Nothing going on, just people repeating things they've wondered about since the beginning of the trial as possible reasons for needing all this secrecy now ... after JA's courting the media/public through the first bit.

 

[Steely Dan]

Me neither. But maybe he kept it next to his holster on the closet shelf.

:giggle:

Your post made me want to go back and re-watch Jodi's allocution again.... During her speech, she mentions that she never had wanted to go to trial and reveal all of her and Travis's private e-mails, naughty pictures etc... that it was never her intention to try to hurt Travis's reputation etc.

I now believe that the whole reason that she and her lawyers wanted to oust the media and public from the courtroom was for the sole purpose of Jodi being able to say in her "new and improved" allocution speech that she will give, is that she tried everything possible to not allow Travis' name to be hurt any further but that it was out of her control. She'll probably blame the prosecution and the media.

BBM

If that's the case, and I'm not saying it couldn't be, then referring to Travis as T-DOGG would kind of contradict that.

 

[Katharine]

-----------
Once when JA was on the stand I heard her say they had vag. sex once. Said it was a disaster. Nothing else said about it.

And how much of what JA said did we believe?!!!!

 

[Hope4More]

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

I've been immersed in cooking and entertaining for the past couple days, so am just now getting caught up.

Why she would want to testify in secret doesn't baffle. She thrives on drama, and she feels special and entitled.

She no doubt appreciated the theatrics....the jury walking in to find an emptied court room. Centerstage- herself. Hair in little girl ponytail, looking frail and tragic. A victim.

A victim so traumatized by her parents that she couldn't bear to testify with them in the room, and too ashamed of what she had to do to sexually appease Travis to speak about it on the stand with strangers in the room.

I think it was her idea to close the court. I can imagine Nurmi telling her, no, that's impossible, her arguing back, and him pitching the idea to JSS and pinching himself on the way out that JSS had actually caved.


I bet secrecy fed CMJA 's idea of herself as a tragic star, and equally, soothed Nurmi's paranoia that his jurors race home to gorge themselves on trial coverage.

JSS had nothing to gain by granting the secrecy, though , and a lot to lose. The fact that a sitting judge in the state of Arizona saw no problem violating the Constitution of the United States to accommodate the whims of a sociopathic , convicted, DP-eligible murderer is downright scary.

 

[Val1]

And how much of what JA said did we believe?!!!!

I don't suppose you recall if she said when this one time was? Was it that last day?

 

[Luvrosco]

It started with a gut feeling I suppose, though after seeing the pics of her "shoot" and hearing how she had had breast implants, and then I started noticing how boyish her hands, neck, etc. are, but also how obsessed she was with her makeup, hair, waxing-see quote below from Daniel Freeman, also just how she tended to look at or react to things with what I consider more of a male's viewpoint(I grew up with four brothers so I can be just as guilty of that...), it just seemed to be something that might explain her persona better than just being a jealous/possessive so and so and killing TA in a fit of rage. That her father has said she required surgery "down there" or some such thing also lends credence imo.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...it-evidence-delays-valley-womans-murder-trial


Here's some links to articles that may help to explain what I'm talking about better, though imo they certainly don't delve deep enough into any psychological ramifications that this medical condition may be responsible for, not the least of which would be anger, depression, insecurity, let alone the very concept of a man's brain in a woman's body on top of any physical manifestation.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/pages/introduction.aspx
http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#Start
http://www.aissg.org/stories/marie.htm#Start

Thank you so much! Very interesting reading.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I think if it's known what the futility of the outcome is anyway from the start, the serious with which ppl deliberate and the age of deliberators becomes a factor.

Respectfully: When you brought this up the first time, I had posted that I am 64 yrs. old, one sister is 67 yrs. old, and the other is 70 yrs. old. All three of us agree that CMJA deserves the Death Penalty and we would give it to her were we on that jury. I continue to hold the position that the age of a juror is not a factor. Religious beliefs may factor in with some people, but not age, IMO.

MOO

ETA: We had a 1st Degree Murder trial here where I do know that 2 of the jurors were over 65 yrs. old. That was a couple of years ago and the 16 yr. old guy had murdered his parents then even went on to school that morning. He even looked like a Boy Scout. The Death Penalty was not on the table, though. He got LWOP.

:moo:

 

[Sweetiemom]

It started with a gut feeling I suppose, though after seeing the pics of her "shoot" and hearing how she had had breast implants, and then I started noticing how boyish her hands, neck, etc. are, but also how obsessed she was with her makeup, hair, waxing-see quote below from Daniel Freeman, also just how she tended to look at or react to things with what I consider more of a male's viewpoint(I grew up with four brothers so I can be just as guilty of that...), it just seemed to be something that might explain her persona better than just being a jealous/possessive so and so and killing TA in a fit of rage. That her father has said she required surgery "down there" or some such thing also lends credence imo.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...it-evidence-delays-valley-womans-murder-trial


Here's some links to articles that may help to explain what I'm talking about better, though imo they certainly don't delve deep enough into any psychological ramifications that this medical condition may be responsible for, not the least of which would be anger, depression, insecurity, let alone the very concept of a man's brain in a woman's body on top of any physical manifestation.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-sex-development/pages/introduction.aspx
http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM#Start
http://www.aissg.org/stories/marie.htm#Start

I agree-and also mentioned it after seeing her nudes-something is just off about her anatomy. Also, the big hands and forearms, neck and general look scream "boy" to me.

 

[kaRN]

The defender of rapists and pedophiles calling JM a misogynist is truly rich.

 

[Love Never Fails]

-----------
Once when JA was on the stand I heard her say they had vag. sex once. Said it was a disaster. Nothing else said about it.

But she is a LIAR. Repeat that over and over. Everything she says is a lie. Of course they did. But she had to say this, in goes along with all their secrets. This trial isn't about sex but obsession.

 

[Truth Detector]

IIRC, CMJA also talked about them having vaginal sex twice in the bathtub. It's rather strange that I can recall her version of their sexcapades faster than I can my own. :blushing: But maybe it's because I don't put my bedtime stories out there for all the world to hear. :shame:

BIBM

Or bathtime stories, one assumes...

:blushing: :bath: :blushing:

 

[Truth Detector]

But she is a LIAR. Repeat that over and over. Everything she says is a lie. Of course they did. But she had to say this, in goes along with all their secrets. This trial isn't about sex but obsession.

At this point, it's only about the especially cruel lying torture murderess's frustratingly pathetic attempts to save her "corrupted carcass" -- to quote perjuring LaViolette quoting TA.

 

[bsk]

Respectfully: When you brought this up the first time, I had posted that I am 64 yrs. old, one sister is 67 yrs. old, and the other is 70 yrs. old. All three of us agree that CMJA deserves the Death Penalty and we would give it to her were we on that jury. I continue to hold the position that the age of a juror is not a factor. Religious beliefs may factor in with some people, but not age, IMO.

MOO

ETA: We had a 1st Degree Murder trial here where I do know that 2 of the jurors were over 65 yrs. old. That was a couple of years ago and the 16 yr. old guy had murdered his parents then even went on to school that morning. He even looked like a Boy Scout. The Death Penalty was not on the table, though. He got LWOP.

:moo:

I think what some of us wondered was whether the DT was hoping that this one juror would see Juan as attacking Dr F too much and empathize with her/dislike him. But she has been such a pathetic and obviously biased witness that we probably don't even need to worry about that possibility, regardless of how slight the odds may have been to begin with.

 

[Ricki]

I think the Dr was trying her hardest to get Juan pissed off so he would go off on her. That is what I got out of the tweets. I believe Juan new this would be her tactic but he did not take the bait and ignored her. He never attacked her no matter what the DF team or she says. It never happened although she deserved it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

The defender of rapists and pedophiles calling JM a misogynist is truly rich.

Indeed.

During this trial I became a DP proponent for the first time, then a DP opponent, for the first time as well too. Before I felt pretty neutral on the subject.

After CFA's trial and this epic farce, I've concluded that some folks are genuinely evil, and that their complete removal from this earth is a just sentence.

But it's dfficult to have watched both trials and not feel that something is terribly wrong with the entire DP process. IMO, it can't be fixed.

Defense attorneys must be tempted to operate as if the ends justify the means. When losing means a client might or will die, how many attorneys cross the line and feel justified in doing so?



Defendants are given extraordinary latitude and rights, ironically, precisely because what they've done is so exceptionally heinous or cruel. The rights of victims' families are shrunk in correlation to the expanded rights of their loved ones' killers. There is no justice in any of that.

 

[Truth Detector]

Happy Thanksgiving to all!!! I'd like to know about JA's first 6 yrs of life; what kind of infant, toddler, young child she was.

Most of those who could tell you (e.g. Bill, Sandy, Auntie Sue Ann, Granny Caroline, and the especially cruel torture murderess herself) are either liars, have ulterior motives, or both.