The Jury Speaks Thread

[Moonchime]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias...sentence-death/story?id=19231911#.UboGpJxIO71

Arias said. "If you're not abusing me and attacking me and threatening to kill my life, there's no reason to fear."

That's an odd way of saying (threatening to kill me)

I've thought a lot about the way JA used this wording. It's almost as if she was going to say--"Threatening to kill my life-style." Who uses the terminology threatening to kill my life??? It's extremely odd, to say the least.

Yet, when it came right down to it--JA did savagely murder Travis because he refused to allow her to live the life-style she wanted. He killed her dreams by breaking it off with her. When Travis told JA that he wanted to pursue Mimi and marry a good Mormon girl, JA seemed to think she had the right to brutally murder Travis. He threatened to kill her life-style. The life style she had dreamed of having.

She is a psychopath and I'm so thankful that she was found guilty of M1.

 

[ncgramma]

Sample Maricopa County Jury questionnaire for a 2008 Death Penalty case:

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/Dale_Hausner_questionnaire.pdf

 

[ncgramma]

I've thought a lot about the way JA used this wording. It's almost as if she was going to say--"Threatening to kill my life-style." Who uses the terminology threatening to kill my life??? It's extremely odd, to say the least.

Yet, when it came right down to it--JA did savagely murder Travis because he refused to allow her to live the life-style she wanted. He killed her dreams by breaking it off with her. When Travis told JA that he wanted to pursue Mimi and marry a good Mormon girl, JA seemed to think she had the right to brutally murder Travis. He threatened to kill her life-style. The life style she had dreamed of having.

She is a psychopath and I'm so thankful that she was found guilty of M1.

Travis "killed the life" she was manipulating to create. That is PRECISELY why she is a danger to society. No one who got in the way of the life she wanted would be safe.

 

[Swirlz]

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/jury-forman-reveals-how-looks-do-matter-agressive-style-doesnt-work-and-how-travis-mental-and-emotional-abuse-played-in-the-decision/

A link to Dr. Lillian Glass' Blog--and her thoughts on the Jury Foremen's Reasons for not voting for the DP.

It's kind of weird because Lillan Glass thinks the defense team had JA looking too plain and "frumpy" in court but that was what Casey Anthony did and it got her off.

 

[IfIMay]

I don't the GZ trial will never be decided fairly, regardless of where one stands on his guilt or innocence. There will be too many stealth jurors lying to get on the jury. And another thing.....it's Florida.

I cannot get involved in that one. Florida. Sequestered jury.

I think this foreman CAN apply the DP.. but he made his bias very clear. male serial killers only. He can't put a "young pretty woman" to death. If any one deserved it, it is FJA. And he couldn't do it.

 

[Moonchime]

Here's a link to a video showing CMJA today in her prison stripes and shackles. One of the Jurors also spoke to the reporter.http://www.azcentral.com/video/2495195658001

 

[Karmady]

I take long breaks from here due to this (Jodi) case. I come back and read and im not sure why because it just all pisses me off all over again.

I will repeat for the zillionth time....the jury system is severely broken and does not work in its present form....and you gave a great real life example as to why....as if jury 18 didn't do so already.

Even with all the jury experts in the world, lying, manipulating, incapable people will get through and decide cases where their morality, reason, logic, comprehension, etc...or lack thereof...is the deciding factor in a case.

I find it rather horryifying.

I didn't follow the CA trial here.....but I can understand people's distain for the entire CJ system after that case. I feel it now. It will take me awhile to get over it.

I have nothing but ill words to say about jury #18. At least Jodi gained a new friend to keep her company during her time in jail. @@ Anyone who defends the likes of Jodi in any capacity is no better than her, IMO.

I don't think this is a death penalty worthy case because of the circumstances. A killing in the context of a dysfunctional intimate relationship with no financial or other non-relationship-specific motive. Unlikely to be repeated. There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less. There are others who have walked completely. Am I "defending the likes of Jodi" and am I "no better than her" because I think the death penalty isn't warranted? The obvious answer is no. I haven't killed anyone. Therefore I'm per se not "as bad as Jodi."

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't think this is a death penalty worthy case because of the circumstances. A killing in the context of a dysfunctional intimate relationship with no financial or other non-relationship-specific motive. Unlikely to be repeated. There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less. There are others who have walked completely. Am I "defending the likes of Jodi" and am I "no better than her" because I think the death penalty isn't warranted? The obvious answer is no. I haven't killed anyone. Therefore I'm per se not "as bad as Jodi."

Still, ignoring the obvious danger signs she exhibited, and thinking someone who planned and executed a murder, complete with near-beheading, won't harm anyone else is pretty bad.

Not sure I follow the arbitrary standard of "other people did worse things" as some kind of mitigator. Who cares?

 

[lil_buddy]

I don't think this is a death penalty worthy case because of the circumstances. A killing in the context of a dysfunctional intimate relationship with no financial or other non-relationship-specific motive. Unlikely to be repeated. There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less. There are others who have walked completely.
Am I "defending the likes of Jodi" and am I "no better than her" because I think the death penalty isn't warranted? The obvious answer is no. I haven't killed anyone. Therefore I'm per se not "as bad as Jodi."

How does the fact that there are people who "have walked completely" support your assertion that this is not a DP case?

There are ppl on DR who have committed lesser crimes with far less evidence than in Jodi's case (2 examples off the top of my head would be Scott Peterson and Jarvis Masters).

While it is true that "There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less", we would need to see a statistical breakdown of such cases to make meaningful inferences.

Have you computed the likeliness that Jodi would kill again?
If so, what is your estimation of this probability?
On what statistics do you base this estimation?
To support your assertions, it would be helpful if you could provide the following quantities:

(A) Total number of convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Occurred in a state with the DP
(iv) Qualified for DP
(v) Murders after conviction
(vi) Apparent motive
(v) Sentence

(B) Total number of non-convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Murders (total)
(iv) Apparent motive


PS- Check out Jarvis Masters please. That case is really messed up.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/masters-jarvis-jay.htm
Jarvis Jay Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YESorNO]

How does the fact that there are people who "have walked completely" support your assertion that this is not a DP case?

There are ppl on DR who have committed lesser crimes with far less evidence than in Jodi's case (2 examples off the top of my head would be Scott Peterson and Jarvis Masters).

While it is true that "There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less", we would need to see a statistical breakdown of such cases to make meaningful inferences.

Have you computed the likeliness that Jodi would kill again?
If so, what is your estimation of this probability?
On what statistics do you base this estimation?
To support your assertions, it would be helpful if you could provide the following quantities:

(A) Total number of convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Occurred in a state with the DP
(iv) Qualified for DP
(v) Murders after conviction
(vi) Apparent motive
(v) Sentence

(B) Total number of non-convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Murders (total)
(iv) Apparent motive


PS- Check out Jarvis Masters please. That case is really messed up.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/masters-jarvis-jay.htm
Jarvis Jay Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, lil_buddy :seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

Besides the CA bogus verdict there was.... Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson. Overwhelming forensics in all cases! I like the idea of "Professional Juries".

BBM

Me, too.

 

[YESorNO]

I have to ask. Why on earth would you think a professional juror would still not be human and make judgment mistakes? He/she would still judge someone by their own life experience.

A professional juror could still make judgement mistakes and would judge according to his/her life experiences.
But, they would know the law and how it works and not make the mistake that the foreman made (about letting the judge make the decision about the verdict and was so surprised there was a mistrial instead of a decision).

Where is everyone? I'm the only one talking?? :seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

The foreman should never have been on any jury. Ever. He doesn't know how to apply common sense, science or evidence. JA should never walk the streets again. I wonder though, if he ever lived in Pinellas County, Florida?

BBM


:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[YESorNO]

Here's an interesting paper about jury's, if you're interested:


http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2012/05/LeibFromPublisher.pdf

 

[YESorNO]

PS- Check out Jarvis Masters please. That case is really messed up.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/masters-jarvis-jay.htm
Jarvis Jay Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(resp.snipped)
Wow. I think Masters getting the DP and his "partners" getting life was so unbelievable (well, maybe not unbelievable, but I can't think of another appropriate word- fill it in for yourself :blushing. :scared:

 

[YESorNO]

Back to jurors.

This is the JURY GAME. I haven't played it yet, but I bookmarked it to play later:

http://www.texaslre.org/jury_game/jury_game.html

 

[Karmady]

Still, ignoring the obvious danger signs she exhibited, and thinking someone who planned and executed a murder, complete with near-beheading, won't harm anyone else is pretty bad.

Not sure I follow the arbitrary standard of "other people did worse things" as some kind of mitigator. Who cares?

About the arbitrariness, I think sentencing someone to death for things that other people do, or worse, and get off with life, a lighter sentence or no sentence at all is far more arbitrary. I'm not talking about her going free. I'm talking about LWOP (or its functional equivalent under AZ law) or death. Not opening the door and sending her home. Consequences for crimes, especially life v. death shouldn't be fortuitous, imo.

Regardless, I don't think it's pretty bad to think she's not likely to harm someone else. I don't and I feel fine about it. We can agree to disagree about that.

 

[Karmady]

How does the fact that there are people who "have walked completely" support your assertion that this is not a DP case?

There are ppl on DR who have committed lesser crimes with far less evidence than in Jodi's case (2 examples off the top of my head would be Scott Peterson and Jarvis Masters).

While it is true that "There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less", we would need to see a statistical breakdown of such cases to make meaningful inferences.

Have you computed the likeliness that Jodi would kill again?
If so, what is your estimation of this probability?
On what statistics do you base this estimation?
To support your assertions, it would be helpful if you could provide the following quantities:

(A) Total number of convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Occurred in a state with the DP
(iv) Qualified for DP
(v) Murders after conviction
(vi) Apparent motive
(v) Sentence

(B) Total number of non-convicted murderers (a large randomly chosen sample)
Broken down by
(i) Gender
(ii) brutality of crime
(iii) Murders (total)
(iv) Apparent motive


PS- Check out Jarvis Masters please. That case is really messed up.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/masters-jarvis-jay.htm
Jarvis Jay Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know anything about the Masters case, but I'll check it out. As for Scott Peterson, I'm not sure how his crime is less heinous. Less bloody and stabby, yes. But the man killed his wife and his very own about to be born child and his established motive was what -- another woman, life insurance. Idk, but killing your own about to be born child and your wife, his mother, rates much higher on the heinous crime scale. There's a coldness to killing your own baby that distinguishes it, imo. Kind of like the guy who killed his wife then took himself and his two boys out in Utah was it? But that's jmo.

 

[lil_buddy]

I don't know anything about the Masters case, but I'll check it out. As for Scott Peterson, I'm not sure how his crime is less heinous. Less bloody and stabby, yes. But the man killed his wife and his very own about to be born child and his established motive was what -- another woman, life insurance. Idk, but killing your own about to be born child and your wife, his mother, rates much higher on the heinous crime scale. There's a coldness to killing your own baby that distinguishes it, imo. Kind of like the guy who killed his wife then took himself and his two boys out in Utah was it? But that's jmo.

Apologies. I was referring to the fact that there was far less evidence in that case.

 

[Karmady]

Apologies. I was referring to the fact that there was far less evidence in that case.

I didn't follow it, but all the posts I've read here agree that he did it and that the sentence was correct. All I know is that the suspicion was that he dropped her off a boat that he owned and that her body turned up in the area he was believed to have taken her based on evidence (marina records maybe? and his own testimony) and that his girlfriend was for real and that he lied alot about various things. There's no dispute that the deceased was his wife and that she was hugely pregnant with their own son when she died.

I know he didn't admit killing her, but was anyone dubious about the evidence that he did? I haven't seen anyone here defending him, but I've only read bits and pieces.