Verdict is in! GUILTY of MURDER ONE - Hung Jury On Penalty Phase

[Sleuth5]

The jury foreperson is usually a strong-minded individual...but some of the statements that he made seem to show that he was rigid in his opinions and may have leaned on some of the less sure jurors...."We couldn't allow ourselves" "My jurors""It had to"...I have mixed emotions about it I guess, because that's the purpose of deliberations, but him speaking in absolutes just rubs me the wrong way. What do you think? BBM...

"But we couldn't allow ourselves to be emotional and for that I am very proud of my jurors, they did a fantastic job of holding it together - though it was a different story when we got into the jury room. Speaking about Travis Alexander, he said: 'I am very sure in my own mind that Jodi was mentally and verbally abusedby him (not by Mr. Alexander..by "him") . Is that an excuse? Of course not. Did it factor into the decision we made? It has to."

Good job, Litigatrix. "The decision 'we' made," no, the decision that four of you made. I agree -- this language is troubling. Suggests a rather entitled, elitist attitude. Perhaps later revelations will temper that tone, but he sounds like he's talking about people who work for him, not jurors with whom he was collaborating on a verdict. I'm agreeing with you on the tenor of his comments leaning toward some preconceptions. Again, I think he might have found some notes extremely useful. :moo:

 

[Ransom]

Friends, does anyone have a link to the GMA interview with foreman. I'm just getting out of meeting and heard that he gave interview. What all did he say? Did he say they bought the pedophilia and physical abuse, or just the ugly words in that final message about you are the worst thing that ever happened to me? Did you get the impression how he voted? Thanks in advance.

I bet men all over America are thinking, my God, in a heated fight, I may have said some really choice words, but I wouldn't think they add up to mitigation for someone murdering another.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jodi-ari...-gma-how-they-reached-verdict-and-then-didnt/

 

[ShadyLady]

OH, that is very interesting...

I think there needs to be some investigation done on this issue.
(I am REALLY biting my tongue so I don't post exactly how I feel and earn a TO)

HOW did Darryl know what reporter to call when he decided to speak?? Michael Kiefer? A presecutor that would give him softballs? Sympathetic to defense. The defense had to be involved.

Why wasn't he asked about the arguments Jodi said they had and why he changed his testimony on the JA's trip to Meza? And how responsible was Jodi to get *advertiser censored* but quit paying mortgage?

AND why was he never asked how a remote control ended up in Jodi's car. :stormingmad:

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Why couldn't the judge be the one who explains the concepts of DP, LWOP & LWP. It seems that the lawyers can make it more confusing or misleading on purpose. This just doesn't make sense to me.

Some states have "truth in sentencing" laws, which lets the jury know precisely what the effect of their verdict will be (i.e., 30 years for burglary might be reduced to 10 with good behavior, just as an example). Interestingly, in Texas, there was a change in the law a few years ago. Prior to the change, the choice was death or life (which meant the possibility of parole). The legislature (over the strong objections of District Attorneys) passed "life WITHOUT the possibility of parole". Since then, death penalty sentences have gone down pretty dramatically.

Yes, one has to wonder what it takes to get a death sentence these days. I heard a woman on HLN the other day who said she wouldn't vote for death in the Arias case because she wasn't a serial killer.. :banghead:

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

I don't want this to come across as an insult or anything. It is not meant that way.

This is MOO. When I saw the jury getting on the bus after the verdict I was stunned to see the age demographics. To me they looked like they were getting on a seniors casino weekend bus. Honestly, that was my first thought and my second was that may have been part of the problem there. That generation may not "get" how relationships are these days or how people text each other. They may have looked at Jodi as somebody who could be their daughter.

I agree. I think it would be naive to believe demographics did not play a substantial role.

 

[Garlandy]

I could be totally wrong here, but listening to the jury foreman this a.m. and his words about JA being verbally abused.... makes me wonder if some of the jury thought JA committed the murder because of some things Travis said to her - that lead to her snapping. My thinking (and I have read tons on sociopaths, psychopaths and personality disorders) is that some people that are evil get a certain thing in their head and won't stop until they have carried it out, they are completely obsessed and it is their own demented thinking and nothing more that makes them commit such a brutal act. Most people when they are rejected move on, they don't kill the person because they can't have them. I feel some people might over think this aspect and may think JA had to have a deep seeded, complex reason for why she killed Travis. I don't think for one moment she snapped the day she killed Travis - she couldn't have him... he was a dead man walking...it was as simple as that. Jmho.

 

[KMouse]

The "abuse" wasn't even listed as a mitigating factor. :banghead:

 

[Colt46]

I can understand the foreman's statement about connecting the brutality of the crime when looking at Jodi. Sometimes I look at her and I just can't believe she slit another person's throat. Just imagine what it takes to do that to someone?

Look at her hands - they're almost as creepy as her eyes! I have never seen such gargantuan hands on a woman. Yesterday, when she held her hands to her face, they practically enveloped her entire head. Poor Travis - he never had a chance.

 

[Amster]

They can be played in court. I hope they play the one where she says she is not dangerous unless someone attacks her again...

I saw the foreman this morning on GMA and was stunned to hear he thinks she was abused. THERE was NOOOOOO evidence of that.

None.


I hope today people will honor this jury. I hope they will not disparage or attack them.
They did what they were supposed to. She is Guilty of Murder 1. She is guilty of the Aggravator Extreme Cruelty.

In a lot of states the jury does not decide sentence or even have a change to vote for Death. The big victories were won.

Stand firm for the Alexanders. They need us!

I will not be honoring a juror who believes Travis Alexander abused Jodi.

 

[raisincharlie]

some think this is a minor point, but to me, it's big. i really think you should appear in court the way you were when the crime you're charged with was committed. i think this practice is manipulative and dishonest and misleading.

That is a typical defense approach and tactics. Used all the time. Is it manipulative, dishonest, and misleading - definitely but it is common practice to try and hide truth.

 

[TXProfessional]

Just throwing this out there and I am in no way a lawyer, jmo. The problem with the abuse issue is that the state was held to a higher set of standards on what could be presented to the jury (rules of evidence?) than what the DT could present. We would have had a completely different outcome if the following had been allowed;

~Clancy Talbot testify to bathroom issue
~Slashed tires and Lisa to testify to what happened in CONTEXT
~Sky Hughes to testify given her concerns and direct conversations with Travis--especially 1) the fake inmateA stalker email, 2) the ENTIRE email that the DT used only part of, 3) inmateA threatening suicide if Travis left her and 4) the refusal of inmateA to leave her house after being told to do so as well as finally kicking inmateA out permanently
~Ex roomate of inmateA testifying that JA had a revolving door of men during the 6 months that they roomed together and then asking inmateA to move out

IIRC it was said that these things were TOO PREJUDICIAL yet inmateA was allowed UNSUPPORTED allegations of physical abuse and pedophilia. So it is my opinion that if a defense is allowed to make claims without evidence, then the state should be allowed to present facts that WITH actual evidence .

With all due respect (and I love our system), this part of our justice system IS BROKEN but not because it isn't good. But because it has not evolved to address the "woe is me" defendant, nor the gender-bias issues that come to bear. Clearly, there are the "woe is me" issue with males but it is the female defendant that we are not equipped to safeguard our legal system from. We live in a world where defendants like inmate Arias exist, this NEW type of female criminal is on the rise over the last decade, they are cunning and exploitive. They will stop at nothing to exploit the rights they are afforded in our justice system with excuses, lies and pretty faces. We have to reform the justice system accordingly.

 

[josie1986]

Did you guys see a guy on the bus (when media tried to talk to juror 9)? He said he is not for the death-penalty but had he been on this jury he would have voted for death!

http://www.azcentral.com/video/2405627568001

wont load for me on any browser :scared:

 

[cityslick]

Some states have "truth in sentencing" laws, which lets the jury know precisely what the effect of their verdict will be (i.e., 30 years for burglary might be reduced to 10 with good behavior, just as an example). Interestingly, in Texas, there was a change in the law a few years ago. Prior to the change, the choice was death or life (which meant the possibility of parole). The legislature (over the strong objections of District Attorneys) passed "life WITHOUT the possibility of parole". Since then, death penalty sentences have gone down pretty dramatically.

Yes, one has to wonder what it takes to get a death sentence these days. I heard a woman on HLN the other day who said she wouldn't vote for death in the Arias case because she wasn't a serial killer.. :banghead:

That's because the DP is subjective. What exactly are the qualifiers for DP? I'm pretty sure if you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers.

 

[Sleuth5]

I could be totally wrong here, but listening to the jury foreman this a.m. and his words about JA being verbally abused.... makes me wonder if some of the jury thought JA committed the murder because of some things Travis said to her - that lead to her snapping. My thinking (and I have read tons on sociopaths, psychopaths and personality disorders) is that some people that are evil get a certain thing in their head and won't stop until they have carried it out, they are completely obsessed and it is their own demented thinking and nothing more that makes them commit such a brutal act. Most people when they are rejected move on, they don't kill the person because they can't have them. I feel some people might over think this aspect and may think JA had to have a deep seeded, complex reason for why she killed Travis. I don't think for one moment she snapped the day she killed Travis - she couldn't have him... he was a dead man walking...it was as simple as that. Jmho.

BBM I think you're probably right, and that decision may have entered their minds very early on. Logical, normally thinking people look for normal explanations for events. On the other hand, this jury -- all of them -- voted guilty for premeditated, aggravated murder. If they did allow that "snapping" nonsense to enter into the equation, they were not paying attention to the jury charges they received -- or the defense argument, which did not offer that as an explanation. Unfortunately, wouldn't be the first time juries didn't adhere to the legal instructions they were given to guide their decision-making process.

 

[Elley Mae]

Until I hear from the 4 ? as to their decision why they couldn't decide, I have zero respect for what they have done.

 

[ahi]

I think a fast track DP should be reserved for those who ask for it as opposed to being given a sentence of LWOP they don't want to live out. Other than that, the DP should be removed in the states for practical reasons. It is so expensive and sucks states dry of cash. Much more costly than LWOP and in most cases takes forever to even carry out. More die of suicide or other illnesses before they are ever executed. (except in Texas!) I think LWOP is ideal. There should be plenty of closure knowing the perp will be locked away for natural life. I would rather die than be locked up until death, personally. LWOP is not getting off easy by any means. I hope the Alexanders consider this. They have been thru so much, are exhausted in every way possible and deserve to get back into their lives and start living.
My opinion only.. and I completely respect whatever choices the Alexanders feel is the best outcome, as I am not standing in their shoes.

Great post. Thank you for putting it in words that my head wouldn't accept yesterday.

This is MOO, prior to the split being announced I posted that to prevent this "no unanimous" verdict perhaps implementing legislation for a 10-2 majority would at least help in reducing the possibility in cases where a juror(s) might not have told the truth regarding the DP question.

Then... the 8-4 split was announced! And, when I heard it was 4 jurors...that's 3 more than I was thinking. With that many, I have to respect what the jury had to do. However, with a 10-1 or 10-2 I would not be satisfied.

I was wondering...Do any of you think that the system should be more uniform across the states? e.g. In Florida, defendants must be found guilty by a unanimous vote, whether for theft or murder. But when it comes to the ultimate punishment phase, a jury majority of 7-5, gets DP. So...in FL she would be on death row today.

 

[nanny1]

I also believe the foreman spoke on emotion..I'm also baffled that he felt Jodi was abused. You know I thought for some strange that some of the woman may have falling for the abuse,now I think maybe it was three other men and the foreman. I think they may have drank the Jodi koolaid. Sorry if this offends anyone. Just my feeling. I hope juror number 18 sees the post interviews,would love to hear what he has to say after those.

 

[La Louve]

I'm trying to catch up from yesterday. Does anyone know if Tuba weighed in (astrologically) on the verdict yesterday? I'd like to know her take on what happened.

edited because I misspelled Tuba.

I saw a Tuba post about moon transitting from Libra into Scorpio, while the jury was still deliberating. Probably in the last Penalty Phase thread.

 

[21merc7]

Yes, one has to wonder what it takes to get a death sentence these days. I heard a woman on HLN the other day who said she wouldn't vote for death in the Arias case because she wasn't a serial killer.. :banghead:

There may be some truth in the serial killer statement. It seems in our new politically correct, overly sensitive society, DP is highly frowned upon. I'm guessing the majority of younger jurors would never even contemplate it? While I am opposed to DP, I was surprised in this case that it was not given.

If we want to be lovey dovey, I say let's all be hippies again, lol.

I think they were there too long. I am looking at all the lengthy DP trials for normal citizens and noticing a no DP return. I hope someone is doing a professional study on it.

 

[oaktree]

I am surprised reading about the jury forman that the state got a M1. Boy how scary, that it could have gone the other way, NG.

Exactly!! That's why I think the jurors made a deal during the first verdict, and some jurors agreed to murder one in exchange for not coming back with a DP verdict.

Think about it. For the first two verdicts, the jury took much longer than we thought, but for the last phase, they said they were split right from the beginning. It doesn't seem possible that a jury that was detail oriented and took their time, would become deadlocked from the beginning without methodically going through the evidence.

Something doesn't smell right.