If you want to split hairs then I can accommodate. I did not state that she withheld vital information as a fact. Even so, how can you doubt that she would have been ditched as a juror if that fact had come to light in voir dire? It's logical to infer that.
As for consorting with felons, my point is one has to be naive/uninformed to believe that she is not involved in the criminal culture and all that means. There is such a thing as a sociopathic family mindset, rather like the Mafia. I have no evidence to believe differently. That she got on the jury mentioning that she consorted with felons- she minimised the kind of felony happening there, and forgot things like hubby with murder 1.
'She withheld in deliberations' means that she held back any explanation for voting the way she did. The rest of the jurors did not get any explanation nor were given any argument to persuade them to her understanding and conviction.
Yes, she is crying 'victim'. My opinion. Never said it was a fact. In totality, to me it seems shady. But I'm thinking now, that if she were on trial she would get off given the prevalent 'abuse excuse' culture.
Her felon husband wants money and this is not suspect? 'Okay, and'? Again it's the totality of a criminal culture and mindset that I see. It's a duck.
As for the elephant in the room, lying about being a victim of DV. Why ever not suspect that, suspect that she has an agenda, like maybe revenge, sticking it to the man and that whole criminal culture? I don't know if she has been a victim, and maybe she has, but in her case, especially given that other victims of DV are not seeing her reaction as valid, and regarding the totality of her behaviour, it's not looking good for her in terms of truth. I also want proof of the 'overwhelming consensus that the very fact of being a victim of DV was reason to disqualify her' because as I recall, victims of DV were accepted on the jury.
Yes, people are finding excuses for J17,IMO.
There are indeed, people analysing her inner life. Proof is in the posts.
No, being a true victim has been blurred by relativism. Generally. Happily it has not lost its meaning here, overall. But not totally. IMO.
Honestly? I'm gobsmacked. So J17 is an anti- hero of some sort? Some karmic avenger?
Seems to me like a tainted verdict. I could live with LWOP if it had been achieved honestly. This makes everything suspect and depressing about the justice system as well. So who won? J17?
An anti-hero or karmic avenger? That is not what I said or meant. If I'm understanding you, it sounds like you are upset that she didn't get the DP. I'm not, so maybe a difference of opinion begins there. I've said from the beginning I think she deserves the DP, and I was positive, up until the day before the jury officially hung, that the jury would give it to her. I was devastated the day when it became clear the jury would hang again.
But I also thought- and posted weeks before the non-verdict- that IMO the perfect (fantasy) outcome would be that a 12-0 jury would decide she deserved the DP, but that they wouldn't give it to her, because they knew that:
she would never be executed, so there was in reality no "death" to be imposed,
that giving her the DP would allow her the hope of appeals for many dozens of years, and giving her LWOP meant robbing her of that hope,
that the DP appeals would be extraordinarily painful for the Alexanders, and though they wanted the DP and would likely be upset and angry in the short term she didn't receive it, hopefully they would find a semblance of peace earlier on because LWOP meant she'd be out of their lives.
In my scenario of weeks ago, the jury would vote Life, then immediately hold a press conference. In the press conference jurors would tell the world they didn't believe any of her lies about Travis, that they knew she didn't feel remorseful at all, and that they spared her the DP not out of mercy, but because they thought LWOP was the greater punishment.
Well, it was a fantasy scenario that could never happen, but what did happen was pretty darn close. 13 of 14 jurors didn't believe her, knew she wasn't remorseful, held that press conference ,and IMO, by default handed her a huge loss by depriving her of the DP.
And then there is 17. Yes, precisely, it is a tainted verdict. It will ALWAYS be a tainted verdict, no matter what happens next. I would be far more upset, though, if I thought 17 was actually convinced by the evidence that TA was abusive and voted accordingly, or if she thought JA was remorseful and voted accordingly, and thus hung the jury. Or if the public THOUGHT that's what happened. Bottom line for me: Taint= nobody believes that's what happened.
I'm good with that, when I look at the verdict from the single-minded perspective I freely confess I have at the moment. What was most important to me about the outcome was that the jury not believe her horrible lies about Travis, and that they be angry about her victimization of Travis in court. That's what happened. The taint means nobody believes even 1 person genuinely believed JA.
In the larger perspective. Whatever the truth is about 17, it doesn't for me make "everything suspect and depressing" about the justice system. The depressing aspect thing happened for me all along the way. I find it depressing that a DT got away with intimidating and wearing down a trial judge so much that she violated the Constitution, knowingly, and with forethought, in service of a smirking psychopathic butcher. I remain appalled and disgusted that the justice system allowed a killer to seize a second chance for mitigation and to twist it instead into an opportunity to spew vile lies about her victim for 5 months, and to exact revenge on any and all she hated by humiliating them in open court.
I’m depressed, disgusted, and appalled that the justice system allowed nameless faceless lying witnesses, that it permitted the DT to stall the trial for months with irrelevant, baseless, and dirty diversions, motions and personal attacks on opposing counsel, that it looked the other way when a mitigation specialist conspired to hide funds and smuggled papers out of court and out of jail in service of a killer, and who actively sought to provoke public anger in order to justify why the public was to be distrusted and excluded from a public trial. On and on, but I’ll spare you and stop there.
And there is 17, again. The justice system in AZ owes the public a full explanation of what happened. That includes a factual and detailed account of what 17 was asked in voir dire and her replies. All of it. If that account exposes her as a liar (including by omission) she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for every imaginable reason, including as a warning to future potential jurors. There is nothing sympathetic about a person who lies for any reason, much less for gain, much less in an attempt to subvert justice.
As I’ve said, I jumped into the 17 discussion to play devil’s advocate. I also said that I expected to have rotten apples and oranges thrown at me for my efforts, and I haven’t been disappointed.
I don’t particularly like the expression “I don’t have a dog in this race” (is that saying it right?), but on the matter of 17, close enough. I’m not trying to split hairs with you or anyone else. My profession, temperament, and inclinations all conspire to make me particular and pesky about facts and evidence, and uncomfortable about serious accusations being made –doesn’t matter who or what, without evidence.
I’m glad some here are sleuthing whether or not 17 had to have known JM, and am looking forward to hearing what is uncovered.
