IMO, all of us carry around a pretty big store of stereotypes and biases and assumptions, aware of them or not. I followed the Casey Anthony trial-my first- because initially I very much wanted to believe Caylee's death had to be accidental. I just couldn't wrap my brain around how it was she could murder her own precious child for literally no reason.
It took me over a month of reading all the evidence and plenty of articles on narcissism and sociopaths to even begin to get it
At the risk of having rotten fruit thrown my way, I'll play devils advocate for a bit (perspective below is not my own).
I can understand how a juror who hasn't ever dug deep into another murder trial or case and who has never had to deal with a BPD person or the like, could have had difficulty understanding how a young woman commit such a savage murder. Enough evidence was excluded for a reasonable person to believe that the killer had lived an ordinary enough life up to the time she met Travis.
Yes she dropped out of school and hit her mother and didn't have much ambition and was extremely nosey and didn't like it when her boyfriends cheated on her. How many thousands of young women like that must there be, though.
It wasn't until she got involved with Travis that she truly went off the rails. That's just a fact.
Equipped with one set of biases, she was normal enough till then. He yanked her chains by saying he didn't want a relationship, but telling her I love you and wanting to have sex. He said awful things to her. He said to friends that she was stalking him and that he was afraid of her, but he kept calling. Whether he knew she was coming or not on June 4, he had sex with her that day instead of calling the police.
He was conflicted. Being conflicted could make him feel angry with himself and angry with her, and cause him to push and pull her.
If she has BPD, maybe that push and pull ultimately pushed her over the ledge. Doesn't make it his fault, but allows for the reality that the events leading up to the murder itself involved two people, not just the killer.
I think this is a very important post. Thank you. That took courage.
Seriously, thank you for being the devil's advocate in this because you said some things that I was thinking.
I came late to this trial. I happened to come across a small part of CMja's testimony and saw a psychopath in action. But then, I've seen other psychopaths . . . perhaps the jury had not.
At that point this trial caught my interest.
The jury only saw selected information. What we have here is a good and experienced prosecutor and a good (against the odds while dealing with a renegade client) defense team. Believe it or not, I believe that even the most heinous murderer should have a good defense team.
The jury was composed of "death qualified" people. Apparently 4 of them saw mitigating factors, but the jury as a whole were not shown all the evidence. Some of which was inadmissible.
I think the juror #6 "Nancy" has it right. She saw Jodi Arias was "playing us."
Or trying to.
CMja did not manage to "play" the jury on the premeditated (and in some cases felony murder). They found her guilty of M1 with cruelty.
She apparently "played" 4 jurors on mitigating circumstances. Again, #6 has it right. She, and others, could not force the minority to vote against their consciences and moral codes.
Interestingly enough, I saw nothing in the jurors' interviews so far (and I'll be glad to be corrected) that states that TRAVIS was the person that was thought to have mentally/emotionally/physically abused Jodi. Perhaps they were looking at the absence of family support, abuse in childhood, . . . I don't know.
I consider that this jury did a good job. They found CMja guilty of Murder 1, with cruelty.
I read with sadness the criticism of the jury. I honestly believe they did their best with the information they had. They were told, by law, to consider mitigating circumstances, and apparently 4 of them found them.
With that, I respect the 4 for holding onto their moral beliefs even though they were in the minority. And, yes, the jury of normal "death qualified" people ARE told that they should not vote against their moral convictions.
This jury did an extremely good job, even though they could not unanimously vote for death.
They did a fabulous job in that they did not brow beat those members who could not vote for the DP against their personal moral convictions.
I realize that this is a far from popular opinion here, but I respect the 4 for holding on to their opinions, and the 8 for respecting the opinion of the 4. A hung jury is part of the process in a civilized society.
Final thought, I was a person that was seriously pizzed at the Pinellas 12. That jury was lazy and in MOO very stupid.
