SIDEBAR #6- Arias/Alexander forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree. The jury was given the rules for deliberation. Do this. Do that. Don't do this. Don't do that.

They deliberated. They could not come to a unanimous decision. They were split. Being death "qualified" did not mean they were supposed to come to a death verdict. Why is this difficult to understand? That's why they had to deliberate about it...because it was not a fait accompli. And to be clear, the jury is supposed to determine death (yes/no), if they can come to a unanimous decision. It is not the family's decision in any way at this point.

For purposes of deliberating, it doesn't matter what the "next step" is after they conclude their deliberation. They do not carry the burden of what the AZ legal system mandates. IMO, the AZ process for determining the death penalty is archaic. Waaaaaay too many steps involved. It's ridiculous.

I never said they needed to reach a death verdict. Please scroll up so I don't keep repeating myself. He stated he thought the judge should decide not jurors. He said that he didn't want the burden it shouldn't belong to the jurors !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good luck with that!!!
Roflmao!
Shoot, my feelings weren't even hurt! We're yours? Lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did the foreman know that JA was being 'crucified' by us? Did he do some research? Nice word huh? 'Crucified' The woman who almost beheaded a man is now being 'crucified' by mere words. How unfair!
 
I get what you're saying, this jury is comprised of a group of 12 unique individuals. Individual thoughts, emotions, experiences, likes, dislikes.

Maybe the justice system needs an to overhaul be brought up to 21st century standards.

Have a text to vote for a criminal's execution or not.

What? Like some sort of reality show?? How do you spell "mob"? Is that what you mean by "standards"?????
 
As far as Juror #18, that's fine. Let him speak.

From their perspective, i've mentioned it originally when I joined WS.

They can't be too emotionally attached to the players in this case... it's hard, but really they should look at the facts.

Was Travis abusive? Doubt it. Did he live a double life? Yes. imo.

BBM, I disagree Elle, Travis lead a normal life as would any 30 year old, he did not hide JA, he kept his sexual life private as we all do. The vixen lured him into her world and could not let go. She made herself available with booty calls, with the hopes of changing his mind and he would ultimately marry her, she hit bottom and couldn't deal with the rejection. Unfortunately, their private sexual fantasies were twisted into sordid affairs, this does not constitute a double life, moo.
 
:cheers:

The jury also did not see the fake pedo letters that MM wrote.

All they heard was Jodi say she saw Travis on the bed with young girls pictures, spiderman underwear, pig tails etc. :facepalm:

Jodi had a plan to ruin Travis when he did not take her as his eternal love.

I still wonder what happened to the ring? And I still think her figure got busted over this ring.

I think, and this is only my opinion, that Travis broke up with Jodi but Jodi wouldn't let him slip away. I think she did anything to make him happy and keep her in the marriage race. She's probably very good in bed and knows how to use her feminine charm. Unfortunately Travis allowed himself to become addicted to her. I think she recorded the phone call and threatened to release it to his friends. That's what prompted the angry email. The angry email led to his death. She probably felt like she had put a lot of time into seducing him into marriage and now all of her work was about to be blown to hades.

She probably felt like she had at times allowed herself to be used while simultaneously using him (She probably didn't look at it as using him though.) She wanted a guy with power like Travis had in PPL, and wanted to be just as powerful and married to a well off man.


When she first took the stand she didn't seem that bad. If I had met her at a party for 20 minutes I'd have left with a positive opinion of her. More than 20 minutes and I'd have had her pegged.



I think a lot of it was that the jury wasn't allowed to see a lot of what we saw. If the parents statements to Det. Flores had been let in with a lot of other stuff we saw the verdict may have been different. JMO
 
:cheers:

The jury also did not see the fake pedo letters that MM wrote.

All they heard was Jodi say she saw Travis on the bed with young girls pictures, spiderman underwear, pig tails etc. :facepalm:

Jodi had a plan to ruin Travis when he did not take her as his eternal love.

I still wonder what happened to the ring? And I still think her figure got busted over this ring.

I think it was a picture of a little boy. (Supposedly)
 
Good question!

Think it was juror #18 who made some rather odd and potentially inflamatry remarks about TA, public in general and gave 1 very 1 sided opinion...I do believ that when the 8 who voted for the DP start to talk ..this will be put into perspective and most of us will understand a bit better...JMO
 
And now I've gotten myself worked up into a rant.

Just WTF did that foreperson think would happen if they all couldn't agree on a verdict??? SMH.

Also, is there a thread (if not there needs to be one) that addresses the sentencing part of this trial ONLY. Since I have reached my saturation point, I am thoroughly confused on just what will be presented to these new set of eyes.

So we have to go through voir dire again, to empanel a new jury. My question will be how the hell is that going to happen after all the media exposure there in Arizona. Unless somebody has been living under a rock, who is NOT going to have seen stuff about Jodi Arias??? So IMO you will be left with a jury not on the same intelligence level as the one we just finished with. Possibly a Pinellas12 situation. OMG.

I am to the point that I hope a deal is struck for LWOP in exchange for Jodi not pursuing any appeals. But I know she would NEVER take a deal. She will think she can charm the new jury....and perhaps she can. Especially if it is made up of people like this past foreperson.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ETA: I wonder how those jurors who WANTED the DP feel about forever being known as the jury that couldn't. At this point the fact that they did convict her of M1 with aggravating factors is totally, totally lost. All anybody will remember them for is that they could not finish the job.

If the County Attorney drops the DP there won't be any DEALS.
It goes straight to the judge to order either LWOP or LWP.
Then it's over. Done. Fini.

If they throw in "not pursuing any appeals" then I suppose the
defense team would have to agree to that, otherwise it would
just be a matter of them standing there with their jaws hanging
open as Hurricane Juan wisks their client off to the roach infested
slammer for the rest of her pathetic life.:twocents:
 
From the KCL thread-

Good morning all! Well I feel like my own "roving reporter" moments in the hall the day before the verdict may have stirred up some Inquiry esp w the public information officer who lets just say indicated to me there were some similar perceptions and concerns going on there. There was another media person who said "I'm glad to finally have someone to talk to about this- he's out of his mind" (well what this person called him over and over saying "I'm sorry it's just the best word "was a name Nancy Grace uses to refer to Dr. ****Samuels) and since Kiefer has some status as a local reporter for many yrs (he worked at New Times for many yrs before leaving disgruntled and going to the Republic) I think people sort of dont cross him. I sure felt that way. My friend Joi stepped in as he was spewing spitting fire about how this was never a death case to begin with, there was no pre med blah blah she tried to,say "but there is so much premeditation" and his bullying style of aggressiveness caused her to grab my hand and squeeze it in front of him. This was all IN the courtroom on a break spurred by me asking him if the jury would deliberate over the weekend. He was like a boiling volcano who once it popped all the brimstone came flying out. I am NOT the only person this occurred with. People were like wtf on this dude but you tend to back away from a pot boiling over.

But let me say this out loud. Of any person in that courtroom including the Alexanders who spewed THE MOST venom and vitriol against anyone , it was Michael Kiefer. And most of it directed at Juan Martinez. He had gotten so far off the rails he was trying to convince me that the gas can purchase and borrowing issue was perfectly normal for someone to do, "women dye their hair all the time on vacation", but the tone was like someone losing it talking about an ex they wanted to turn you against. He was clearly spewing this in the media section and the other reporter who I talked to for a LONG time that day about all this was saying how they always hoped Kiefer was sitting elsewhere so he wouldn't start up this crazy BS on them again. I'm gonna break confidentiality now and tell you he said to me on more than one occasion, "when this murder 2 conviction comes in I'm gonna walk right up to Juan Martinez and tell him to,shove it up his a$$". Verbatim.

I think the fact "his" M2 prediction wasn't satisfied he went rabid and we saw the staged DB interview, the leaked juror question which was later edited out (not before seen, recorded and discussed all over the net). What defense attorney wouldn't want a reporter on the outside to do their bidding? He went too far, his cockiness got out of control and I think there will be consequences. I think by the fact he's editing important stuff out he's being monitored. And people of influence are still watching.

It will be interesting to see what shenanigans he pulls between now and the re mitigation hearing. I do know but can't say more that we will be hearing from an alternate soon. I'd like to hear from ALL of them and of course more from my CEO.

Edited to add when I say roving reporter I mean I asked several media people what they thought about that leaked question being published. I just kept asking questions like "should we know the foreperson at this stage?"
 
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.

Reductio ad absurdum, IMO.
 
I never said they needed to reach a death verdict. Please scroll up so I don't keep repeating myself. He stated he thought the judge should decide not jurors. He said that he didn't want the burden it shouldn't belong to the jurors !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say you said they needed to reach a death verdict. I was agreeing with your post that what happens in the legal process after deliberation is not part of what the jurors were to concern themselves with while deliberating.
 
How did the foreman know that JA was being 'crucified' by us? Did he do some research? Nice word huh? 'Crucified' The woman who almost beheaded a man is now being 'crucified' by mere words. How unfair!

Even more curious how he came to that conclusion if he indeed did research on the killer, one would think he would be mortified at her actions not ours!
 
Gotcha! But you don't think Jodi's lack of criminal history is not a mitigating factor?

The "tire slashing" is not because Travis never reported it, nor the stalking.

If he did, that would of erased that mitigating factor, no?

We know she stalked him extensively etc... but the jury didn't.

Yes, the jury foreman to me is in the same pool as Gus S. and Dr. Samuels. Let's see... all mid 50's or later white males. Jodi's perfect targets.

I would have voted for the death penalty on day 3 of the trial. But I would have 100% respected the jury's decision if they decided on life, although the window of her getting out in 25 years made me physically ill.

I don't believe their were mitigators at all, but again, if the jurors disagreed, I would respect the choice.

The idea that it was 1) hung and 2) led by a murderer-sympathetic foreman is what bothers me. That was (imo) the worst verdict, being NO verdict. The Alexander family has suffered and suffered and suffered. It just plain sucks.
 
No problem!

It's the reason I homeschool. I want to raise a kid that gathers information and can make his own informed option.
Not one that just listens and knows how to follow others directions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My hat goes off to you linda! I homeschooled my then teenage daughter. She learned so much and at her pace. It really inspired her. She graduated at 16 and went right into college.
 
Rosemary Pierce, my heart aches for you having to watch your son going through what he has to endure. HUGS for you and your son.

Let's all take this time to rest and recover, especially you. I have a feeling it will take at least 6 months to be ready for re-trial of the sentencing phase...I can't believe JSS even put July 18 as a possiblity. There is no way possible the defense is gonna be ready at that time. What was JSS thinking?

I suspect, if they go through with it, we'll be back watching the trial in January of '14.

Thanks aa. Jan 2014? I can wait. However long it takes.

[video=youtube;rx3PW1mqadA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx3PW1mqadA[/video]
 
In watching one of the interviews with a Jury member, am I correct in what I think I hear? He says something to the effect of "When we heard there was a mistrial, we were devastated"

huh? What did he think would happen. I apologize if I have this wrong...but I swear I heard that?
 
i would think, if nothing else, mr. foreman would watch the ease with which she lies and realize she ain't RIGHT! the lies roll off her tongue so smoothly, so convincingly. how could a NORMAL person lie like that? and she lied to HIM. she lied to ALL of them. and her lies were intricate and detailed.

she didn't just develop that talent after she met TA, for pete sake!

And if honest JA turned into a liar to cover up what she did then why does she continue with all the lies. Supposedly she is now telling the truth and has no reason to lie yet she still does.
And while we are talking about JA's lies, I heard a interviewer marvel at her brutal honesty when she claimed she didn't know if she would have turned herself in if she hadn't been caught. There is no way she ever would have turned herself in. Why would she have worked so hard to avoid her presence being known in Az if there was a chance in he!! she would of turned herself in? Her whole goal was to get away with murder and never get caught. She had a good month and a half to turn herself in and it was never a consideration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
2,356
Total visitors
2,474

Forum statistics

Threads
594,303
Messages
18,002,382
Members
229,362
Latest member
undefined.value
Back
Top