SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

[nomoresorrow]

Not secret at all! Just go to
http://www.serenity-irc.net/java/java.php

Wait while it loads....type in WS nickname, WS password and room is #webseuths then click connect or enter. It can take a minute to load sometime though...and it helps if your Java is up to date :seeya:

Thank for posting this seguek9. Unfortunately I've done everything you've listed here and still no luck :banghead:. I've waited and waited, after entering my info, but nothing comes up. I'm stumped :blushing:

 

[magnolia]

Wow. I didn't read it that way at all. I think she just meant that he couldn't have anticipated that she would actually kill him.

I didn't read it that way either. I think some people are taking the Juror's words way out of context.

 

[Amster]

Somewhere on the jury form is an option to contact the judge in case a verdict can't be reached, isn't there?

 

[Steely Dan]

I hope that #5 shares her perspective with us soon...

I have a feeling that #5 was the one who asked the (word I was timed out for) question. Even though they don't put their names on the questions I think it's pretty easy to figure out who wrote what by the handwriting. Once that came out, the defense probably had her on the hit list. JMO

 

[kscornfed]

I hope that #5 shares her perspective with us soon...

if nothing else, i'm HOPING some of these jurors have contacted the alexander family.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well said. A public mood of disappointment does not equal a miscarriage of justice.

It IS despicable. It's also possibly creating a climate of fear for potential future jurors.

Perhaps it's educating a whole bunch of people that the public educational system has failed!
The population needs education. Apparently, the media is doing the job (oftentimes poorly) that the educational system isn't.

The educational system as it stands now is turning out sheep.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rose222]

Isn't it bizarre that the public is accused of being blood-thirsty, being 'emotional', wanting a witch-hunt etc when all we ever do is want Justice for the victim? Would this foreman have gotten the sort of criticism he's now getting had he not gone on national television hours after the hung jury verdict to talk about how Travis was abusive and JA should get peace?

It's strange to me that we, who are non-violent, and only express ourselves through words (often passionately) are called blood-thirsty while the actual criminals who butcher, slice and dice victims are supported and defended.

JM is right. Things are topsy-turvy in today's world...

 

[sacrablue]

I most humbly disagree. They were a death qualified jury. Now suddenly they question if death is an appropriate penalty for the crime they convicted her of and the fact that the crime was cruel. The foreman used the word "trajectory", which was the word chosen by the defense. What changed the trajectory of Jodi's life they asked? That wasn't a question they were asked to answer. Their finale question was does the crime she committed warrant a sentence of death. Suddenly they seem to finally notice that this was something they would have to deal with. Why did they think they were a death penalty qualified jury if they didn't believe that some crimes were worthy of death? If this was a 27 year old male who'd committed this crime, I don't think they'd have the same problems they faced with an attractive 27 year old killer at the time of the murder. Her age or lack of criminal conviction shouldn't enter into the deliberation of the death penalty in my view. The Boston bombers were young and one had no criminal history. Does that factor mitigate that many died and many lost legs? No.... You should not be seated on a death panel jury unless you believe that death is the penalty for murder...committed by anyone of any age. This was a poorly picked jury in my opinion and I hope next time that they take more care in selection. JMHO

It's almost as if the powers to be in Arizona said we will have a death penalty only if there is a mitigating clause to give all the convicted people a chance to get off the dp.

 

[Emmi]

I most humbly disagree. They were a death qualified jury. Now suddenly they question if death is an appropriate penalty for the crime they convicted her of and the fact that the crime was cruel. The foreman used the word "trajectory", which was the word chosen by the defense. What changed the trajectory of Jodi's life they asked? That wasn't a question they were asked to answer. Their finale question was does the crime she committed warrant a sentence of death. Suddenly they seem to finally notice that this was something they would have to deal with. Why did they think they were a death penalty qualified jury if they didn't believe that some crimes were worthy of death? If this was a 27 year old male who'd committed this crime, I don't think they'd have the same problems they faced with an attractive 27 year old killer at the time of the murder. Her age or lack of criminal conviction shouldn't enter into the deliberation of the death penalty in my view. The Boston bombers were young and one had no criminal history. Does that factor mitigate that many died and many lost legs? No.... You should not be seated on a death panel jury unless you believe that death is the penalty for murder...committed by anyone of any age. This was a poorly picked jury in my opinion and I hope next time that they take more care in selection. JMHO

I understand that you disagree with the few who did not want to sentence her to death. I do agree with them.

Bu, the point is, a death-qualified does not guarantee a death verdict. Nor should it.

 

[Maryann123]

Exactly. They were under no obligation to come to the conclusion that someone desired, especially not random members of the public. You shouldn't call something a failure of the justice system when in reality you're just disappointed.

It's honestly incredibly concerning to me how several people here seem to just immediately jump from "Oh this jury is so thorough" to "let's bad mouth the jury foreman (of all people!) because we don't like the outcome". It's despicable, IMO.

No, we've listened to him explain his reasoning, and it's not believable. Calling Jodi a 3 hole wonder, was a compliment to her. She's the one that came up with the sex play, etc. Travis just played along with her, because he liked it too! I saw no abuse on his part, until she did all the crazy stuff that made his life hell, and even then, he didn't call her the names I would have. I bad mouth him because he sounds ridiculous with his excuses for his verdict. He doesn't owe me anything, but he shouldn't be on national TV telling us the general public doesn't know what they know! 8 other people know exactly what he knows, and they got it right! It's just sad that 4 people over rule 8.

 

[ElleElle]

In the end, giving Jodi LWOP would satisfy me.

All I know is she cannot ever be let out into society.

If the trial continues on, so will Jodi's so called fame. Throw her in the pen, and throw away the key. At least we know she cannot kill another man.

 

[Tipstaff]

How is it the TA used JA for sex but JA isn't
painted with the same brush. She used TA and other me with sex. She is still attempting to use this in interviews with men.

While the murder 1 conviction is correct I wonder what happened to the jury between the guilt and penalty phase?

 

[Whack A Mole]

Thank for posting this seguek9. Unfortunately I've done everything you've listed here and still no luck :banghead:. I've waited and waited, after entering my info, but nothing comes up. I'm stumped :blushing:

If you see a little puzzle piece on the screen, Java needs permission to run. Mine had a little message at the top of the screen to say okay to run Java this time. I got in on the first try. :seeya:

 

[rose222]

And by the way, we have every right to praise the jury at one point and then criticise the same jury at another time. We didn't take a marriage vow! 'In sickness and in health, in stupidity and brilliancy..' Nuh uh. People even vote for presidents and then regret their decisions at a later time. We're free to do what we want.

 

[RadarLuv]

I understand that you disagree with the few who did not want to sentence her to death. I do agree with them.

Bu, the point is, a death-qualified does not guarantee a death verdict. Nor should it.

No, but it should require........A VERDICT.

 

[Gin]

Well said. A public mood of disappointment does not equal a miscarriage of justice.

It IS despicable. It's also possibly creating a climate of fear for potential future jurors.

JMO, Maybe it will create a climate of personal responsibility. Being open to listening, discussing, setting aside prejudices., (ageism isn't just about over 50, it's also about possibly justifying why a sweet young thing might have to murder... Cause she's so cute, there must have been a great reason ...). I hope juries carefully ponder each and every jurors input, and not just form a solid opinion extremely early on in deliberations.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Isn't it bizarre that the public is accused of being blood-thirsty, being 'emotional', wanting a witch-hunt etc when all we ever do is want Justice for the victim? Would this foreman have gotten the sort of criticism he's now getting had he not gone on national television hours after the hung jury verdict to talk about how Travis was abusive and JA should get peace?

It's strange to me that we, who are non-violent, and only express ourselves through words (often passionately) are called blood-thirsty while the actual criminals who butcher, slice and dice victims are supported and defended.

JM is right. Things are topsy-turvy in today's world...

The air is thick with the stench of hypocrisy on that front. If the situation were reversed by rote, and TA was the convicted murderer instead of JA, how do you think the foreman would have voted?

They can save the "witch-hunt" stuff for someone else. It's an insult when you have a murderer courting the media like a reality starlet. Pardon the so-called peanut gallery for being irked that a remorseless kewpie doll can babble and primp and smirk and flirt all day when Travis Alexander has been in a grave for five years.

 

[bznbear]

The jury did no such thing. One juror and only one juror of 12 stumbled out of the jury room, rushed home, turned on the TV, and to his dismay realized he was not going to be greeted as a civic hero. Instead, all the heads on TV were shaking in unison, chanting, "the jury failed, they didn't finish the job of putting this savage killer to death,"

Eleven other jurors saw and heard the same response. Eight jurors who I'm sure felt passionately that she deserved death have not spoken out to counter what 18 is saying, nor to talk about the process. I suspect that is in part because they are exhausted, heart broken for the Alexanders, and very upset that the jury hung.

Three jurors who voted for life have not spoken out either. They know they are on the "wrong" side of public opinion, but apparently feel no need to rush to the cameras to explain their reasons. Whatever they are. Perhaps 3 entirely individual and differing reasons, none off them matching 18's. I suspect that they are exhausted, conflicted, heartbroken for the Alexanders, and very upset the jury hung.

THEY are the jury, and well deserving of appreciation and gratitude. And then there' s 18, who feels the need to explain to us that it's not his fault, don'cha know, who insists on being front and center, who keeps talking and talking even though clearly he is digging his own hole deeper and deeper, and who shows no recognition that people are appalled by what he's saying, as he is very satisfied with himself and the pearls of wisdom he's granting us,.

Yes? No wonder why hearing him hits doubly hard.

Good day WSers! Hope, this is a great post! I haven't read or watched anything CBK (convicted brutal killer) related since the non-verdict. My DH told me about the foreperson speaking out, so I had to get a glimpse of his "thinking".

I was very dismayed and flashed back to that other trial not to be mentioned. This is only my second trial, and I broke my oath to never watch another by following this one.

I hope #18, about whom I worried when I heard his weak "yes", takes the time to find out a little more about the CBK's "normal" life before June 4, 2008.
Somehow, I think it may not matter to him.

I believe #18 may have known he would never vote for the DP. So I have to wonder, why the sudden consensus for aggravation? Was that supposed to be a consolation prize, so to speak?

I am not angry with the jury. It's the lack of any sentence that upsets me, and I can't help thinking someone threw up a roadblock immediately. The deadlock after only 2.5 hrs was real.

I wonder how the Alexander family would have felt about LWOP. Would they have accepted that, knowing at least it was an answer? Still praying for them, and hoping they'll gain some measure of relief knowing CBK is still going to prison, most likely forever.

 

[ElleElle]

I wonder what #5 would of voted if she had stayed on the jury.

I have a feeling that #5 was the one who asked the (word I was timed out for) question. Even though they don't put their names on the questions I think it's pretty easy to figure out who wrote what by the handwriting. Once that came out, the defense probably had her on the hit list. JMO

 

[Sleuth5]

Perhaps it's educating a whole bunch of people that the public educational system has failed!
The population needs education. Apparently, the media is doing the job (oftentimes poorly) that the educational system isn't.

The educational system as it stands now is turning out sheep.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not from my classes.