Trial Sidebar audio, transcripts released! *Discuss here*

[Love Never Fails]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

Hmmm, strange...your thinking pattern. I don't agree a comment like that implies any fleeting attraction.

 

[Marina2]

My take on Juan's comment to JW re: the compliment/joke part is that it was a compliment to JW that he would use the word "marry" and "JW" in the same sentence. It was kind of another veiled insult imo, not a Freudian slip of any kind. He was saying that she should be flattered that he would even entertain that thought.

 

[Sydni]

From the beginning I was one who believed she was guilty of cold blooded, premeditated murder. I think the foreman was one who never believed her guilt and was trying to find ways to set her free. When he couldn't, he voted for guilt to go along with the other jurors. I will never ever understand his thinking or his questions. Never.

I agree with you to a certain degree. I just feel lucky that we got the unanimous Murder1 verdict, given his obvious "doubt". I too will never understand his position ... he seems to be a rather "weird" thinker, insofar as he seems to overlook obvious facts that would point to guilt, manipulation or lies ... dunno ... just can't understand it either. And he seemed to want to believe that Travis was abusive when there was absolutely no evidence or proof of any such thing. Just that one very angry text message that we heard over and over and over .... I think most people heard something else in that message (not verbal and emotional abuse by Travis) .... just pure frustration and desperation to GET RID of his stalker and the person who was trying to destroy him ... just sayin'

But, having said that, there were also 3 others who (for whatever reason) could not vote for death ...

 

[fruity]

Oh chit....BEAR/TIGER QUESTION IS FROM JUROR 18. I knew it. I knew it when I heard his very first interview, that he's the one who asked that question. I'm venturing that a lot of the pro-defense questions are from him...but haven't gone through them all yet.

Also, he CLEARLY meant for it to be pro-defense, b/c of the part of the question that JSS left out: "Wouldn't they be answering the questions the same regardless of whether they called the animal a tiger or a bear?" OMG. And here we all were trying to lift our spirits and say, no, no, he was just testing her....no they didn't mean it like that. AND YET HE DID.

B/c of the second part of the question, that's why JW and Nurmi were so confident it was going for their side, and they brought it up when Geffner was on the stand, and even in closing I think.

And I bet you 100% that's why Mr. Foreman said he didn't like Juan talking down to us like we're stupid....because he knew it was his quesion that Juan responded to with the "goafer" analogy..."so what if it's a bear or a tiger or a goafer?" THAT"S why Mr. Foreman got so bunched up about. I knew there was something when he responded to Juan so personally, when in all of the interactions I had seen of Juan with the jury, he seemed so polite and respectful (in openings and closings).

Hmmmmm.

Members of the jury, at this phase of the sentencing hearing, you will determine whether the defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. The law that applies is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow all of them whether you agree with them or not. You must not single out certain instructions and disregard others. You must not be influenced at any point in these proceedings by conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. You are not to be swayed by mere sympathy, not related to the evidence presented during the penalty phase. You must not be influenced by your personal feelings of bias or prejudice for or against the defendant or any person involved in this case on the basis of anyone&#8217;s race, color, religion, national ancestry, gender or sexual orientation.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - *graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion**

 

[fruity]

When I heard his interview and his speculative nature and his need to reach to justify Jodi Arias's actions, I knew he was the one writing most of, if not all of the questions that were freaking us out, particularly the ones about Jodi snapping, the ones about Jodi killing because she saw no other way out, the ones about the tiger and the bear. And now I can see that I was right.

The ones about her killing to escape a violent situation and because she saw no other way angered me then and they anger me now. Maybe the other jurors set him straight because he hasn't seemed to reiterate those opinions. But how misguided are they? When women kill to escape a violent situation and because they see no other way out, it's because there really is no other way out. There is a set of factors that make it near impossible to leave. They live with and/or are married to the man. The are financially dependent and controlled by him. He won't let them leave. They have kids that they can't leave and have to think about. And they simply are too terrified that he will kill them if they do find a way to leave.

This is not Jodi's situation at all. She never lived with Travis. She never had financial dependence or ties to him. She borrowed money. But she was financially independent of him. They were not even in a relationship when the "abuse" began. She always went to him. He never went to her. She made the decision to continue going to his house and "putting herself in harm's way." When she finally decided to leave (move away to Yreka) she was free to go with no resistance from Travis. In fact, he was glad to see her go and said so to others and in his journal. If she was in a situation she couldn't get out of, he would have made her stay some how. Had her live with him where the control really would have began. Lent her money so she could stay in her apartment. He didn't. After 4 days of staying with him, he made her leave. After she left, he, again, never went to her. She went to him, of her own free will...with weapons.

It's so misguided. Even if you believe the abuse, this was not a situation where she had no way out. She WAS out! Infuriating. Perhaps that is why he was forced to concede premeditation. She clearly planned it then carried it out. He also said he doesn't believe her story of self defense. Someone set him straight. But he still wants to believe the verbal and emotional abuse because it's easier.

He seems to believe, based on his questions for ALV, that there is much more to the story and it's in the journals and texts he hasn't seen. Boy is he in for a surprise. He doesn't know ALV was going on basically what they'd seen as well. That's what's so frustrating. There's no evidence that there was more to the story yet believes there must be. Jodi MUST have been abused.

Exactly. Very well said.

A woman who lives in another state and willingly goes to visit her boyfriend hardly has to kill to 'escape' from him.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oh chit....BEAR/TIGER QUESTION IS FROM JUROR 18. I knew it. I knew it when I heard his very first interview, that he's the one who asked that question. I'm venturing that a lot of the pro-defense questions are from him...but haven't gone through them all yet.

Also, he CLEARLY meant for it to be pro-defense, b/c of the part of the question that JSS left out: "Wouldn't they be answering the questions the same regardless of whether they called the animal a tiger or a bear?" OMG. And here we all were trying to lift our spirits and say, no, no, he was just testing her....no they didn't mean it like that. AND YET HE DID.

B/c of the second part of the question, that's why JW and Nurmi were so confident it was going for their side, and they brought it up when Geffner was on the stand, and even in closing I think.

And I bet you 100% that's why Mr. Foreman said he didn't like Juan talking down to us like we're stupid....because he knew it was his quesion that Juan responded to with the "goafer" analogy..."so what if it's a bear or a tiger or a goafer?" THAT"S why Mr. Foreman got so bunched up about. I knew there was something when he responded to Juan so personally, when in all of the interactions I had seen of Juan with the jury, he seemed so polite and respectful (in openings and closings).

And Juan was right and so was Dr. DeMarte. I think the Foreman acted childishly and got miffed when Juan scoffed at his stupid question.

If I had been traumatized by a bear attack for instance why would I be traumatized if I saw a tiger?:banghead: A tiger and a bear are two entirely different animals.

That is why people have specific phobias. Something traumatic could have happened in their life to make them scared of a snake or spider for example. It doesn't mean they have a phobia about everything.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I agree with you to a certain degree. I just feel lucky that we got the unanimous Murder1 verdict, given his obvious "doubt". I too will never understand his position ... he seems to be a rather "weird" thinker, insofar as he seems to overlook obvious facts that would point to guilt, manipulation or lies ... dunno ... just can't understand it either. And he seemed to want to believe that Travis was abusive when there was absolutely no evidence or proof of any such thing. Just that one very angry text message that we heard over and over and over .... I think most people heard something else in that message (not verbal and emotional abuse by Travis) .... just pure frustration and desperation to GET RID of his stalker and the person who was trying to destroy him ... just sayin'

But, having said that, there were also 3 others who (for whatever reason) could not vote for death ...

I don't think he could have made up an excuse why he didn't vote for M1 and the cruelty of the crime.

But he could make up excuses in order to give her life instead of death and that is what he did imo. It really makes no sense. Imo, this was a clear cut death penalty sentence They were to be honest that they COULD and WOULD give the death penalty if it was warranted if it was backed up by the evidence. They all agreed it was premed. They all agreed that it was extremely cruel so what in the heck happened? Juan had met his burden and then some in both phases.

They had their answer whether she deserved the death penalty by agreeing to those two things.

All I can think of is he was predisposed to be anti-death penalty and should have had enough honesty to tell the attorneys and the Judge during jury selection that as he is suppose to do. Unfortunately a person has to be taken for their word and what people say and what they think may be two different things especially if they want to be on a very high profile case.

All of the jurors had ample time to weigh whether they could vote for death. They knew going in it was a DP case. I know when I was on a death penalty case I had already confirmed in my mind that I could.... if warranted... vote for death and this was even before jury selection. I had to know the answer because I knew I was going to be asked and I knew I had to answer truthfully.

No juror with a "I 'think' I can' attitude should ever sit on a death penalty case. They should know beforehand for sure whether they can do it or not should it come to it and if they cant the Judge needs to be told at the beginning. If they decide during the case they can't then they should advise the Judge and be replaced by an alternate. It isn't fair to the state or taxpayers to have a juror who is unsure going in. It is not only a huge waste of money but also time.

It doesn't mean they have to give the person death of course if they find the mitigating factors outweighs the aggravators.

BUT in the Arias case the mitigating factors didn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the heinous cruel murder of her victim. Not only the way she murdered him but the way she revictimized him after death by lying through her teeth about Travis knowing he is voiceless and cant defend himself. Those two things alone far outweighs any foolish mitigating factors the DT listed.

I think the four that drank the Koolaid were probably two men and two women or the Foreman talked them into voting with him. Sometimes a Foreman thinks they have more power/weight than they actually do and some jurors can become confused and think being Foreman does give that person more power. So these other three may have felt they should side with the Foreman. He seems to have a very domineering personality anyway. Maybe they weren't critical thinkers themselves and were easily led.

IMO

 

[Truth Detector]

And Juan was right and so was Dr. DeMarte. I think the Foreman acted childishly and got miffed when Juan scoffed at his stupid question.

If I had been traumatized by a bear attack for instance why would I be traumatized if I saw a tiger?:banghead: A tiger and a bear are two entirely different animals.

That is why people have specific phobias. Something traumatic could have happened in their life to make them scared of a snake or spider for example. It doesn't mean they have a phobia about everything.

IMO

Perhaps the foreman had personal feelings for the defendant.

 

[JudyBolton]

I think the four that drank the Koolaid were probably two men and two women or the Foreman talked them into voting with him. Sometimes a Foreman thinks they have more power/weight than they actually do and some jurors can become confused and think being Foreman does give that person more power. So these other three may have felt they should side with the Foreman. He seems to have a very domineering personality anyway. Maybe they weren't critical thinkers themselves and were easily led.

IMO

Yes I agree - I think the foreman has exposed himself in several ways.... his statements that she was a "girl" and that she didn't "look like a murderer"...and then breaking the agreement with the other jurors not to talk until Tues. yet jumping right onto GMA as soon as he could. I think he wanted to be on the jury - I think he wanted to impact their results and in 3 cases may have done so. I also believe if he were the only one he would not have agreed on DP with the other 11.

The bits of biographical information I've read also supports a strong - type A personality that would attempt to do this - a radio host, builds muscle cars with his sons, previously sold real estate - none of this is bad but just fills in tidbits of his personality. Do you think a person like this would NOT try to persuade others to agree with him? Do you think he "volunteered" to be foreman?

I also believe HE was the one that initiated the "pact" that no juror would do interviews until Tues. knowing that he wanted to be the first one to get all of the attention. All of this is JMHO of course

 

[ktgirl]

And Juan was right and so was Dr. DeMarte. I think the Foreman acted childishly and got miffed when Juan scoffed at his stupid question.

If I had been traumatized by a bear attack for instance why would I be traumatized if I saw a tiger?:banghead: A tiger and a bear are two entirely different animals.

That is why people have specific phobias. Something traumatic could have happened in their life to make them scared of a snake or spider for example. It doesn't mean they have a phobia about everything.

IMO

Just my opinion, but this analogy never made any sense to me.

A bear and a tiger have a lot more in common than a situation two ninjas breaking into someone's house, murdering someone you claim to care about in front of you, & threatening to murder you than a situation where you enter a "fog" and kind of remember killing your lover because he was angry and charged at you.

I mean we can at least say bears and tigers are both mammals, live in the wild, are found in zoos, etc.

 

[aa9511]

When I heard his interview and his speculative nature and his need to reach to justify Jodi Arias's actions, I knew he was the one writing most of, if not all of the questions that were freaking us out, particularly the ones about Jodi snapping, the ones about Jodi killing because she saw no other way out, the ones about the tiger and the bear. And now I can see that I was right.

The ones about her killing to escape a violent situation and because she saw no other way angered me then and they anger me now. Maybe the other jurors set him straight because he hasn't seemed to reiterate those opinions. But how misguided are they? When women kill to escape a violent situation and because they see no other way out, it's because there really is no other way out. There is a set of factors that make it near impossible to leave. They live with and/or are married to the man. The are financially dependent and controlled by him. He won't let them leave. They have kids that they can't leave and have to think about. And they simply are too terrified that he will kill them if they do find a way to leave.

This is not Jodi's situation at all. She never lived with Travis. She never had financial dependence or ties to him. She borrowed money. But she was financially independent of him. They were not even in a relationship when the "abuse" began. She always went to him. He never went to her. She made the decision to continue going to his house and "putting herself in harm's way." When she finally decided to leave (move away to Yreka) she was free to go with no resistance from Travis. In fact, he was glad to see her go and said so to others and in his journal. If she was in a situation she couldn't get out of, he would have made her stay some how. Had her live with him where the control really would have began. Lent her money so she could stay in her apartment. He didn't. After 4 days of staying with him, he made her leave. After she left, he, again, never went to her. She went to him, of her own free will...with weapons.

It's so misguided. Even if you believe the abuse, this was not a situation where she had no way out. She WAS out! Infuriating. Perhaps that is why he was forced to concede premeditation. She clearly planned it then carried it out. He also said he doesn't believe her story of self defense. Someone set him straight. But he still wants to believe the verbal and emotional abuse because it's easier.

He seems to believe, based on his questions for ALV, that there is much more to the story and it's in the journals and texts he hasn't seen. Boy is he in for a surprise. He doesn't know ALV was going on basically what they'd seen as well. That's what's so frustrating. There's no evidence that there was more to the story yet believes there must be. Jodi MUST have been abused.

Wow! You have just stated everything SO CLEARLY. Thank you for that!! I wish Mr. Foreman could have read this!!

I wonder if it would have been beneficial for Juan to put a (different) domestic violence expert on the stand in rebuttal? I'm thinking he would be allowed to do that by law, but not sure. Since CMJA is the defendant who's claiming abuse, I don't know if he was allowed to do that or not. I think it would have been extremely helpful to have someone tell the jury what you just said...how she was free to go, Travis was in no way controlling her, he let her go, she kept coming back to him, even the phone sex tape she initiated it, etc. etc.. She could have also read the "thousands" of documents that ALV read, and testified about them, so some jurors would not feel like there was anything more to the story than there really was.

I'm guessing Juan felt like he obviously had enough pre-meditation evidence, and he didn't want to focus more attention on CMJA's abuse claim. That would make sense. That would have just doubled the time spent on talking about abuse, b/c JW would have crossed the witness longer than Juan did on direct. I feel like he did the right thing, I think, for the guilty phase, but that left the door open for some of the defense's story to get through for penalty phase.

I just wonder what the 4 jurors response would be if you laid it all out so clearly for them? Would they say that even though she was in Yrecka, he was somehow emotionally abusing her over the phone? Well then the response would be, she was the one who was calling him....and she didn't have to pick up the phone when he called her. Even the May 26th text, it starts out with Travis saying something like, I responded to your "dire" request. Meaning she had staged some drama for him to respond to.

I honestly believe that, because this case was so long, some of the jurors got out-of-touch with reality. They got sucked into Jodi-land. Especially ones like Mr. Foreman, who seemed to take great pride in his supposed un-bias and giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt because "our system is innocent until proven guilty." I believe some took it to the extreme in over-analyzing every single piece of information and forgetting the part about seeing it through the eyes of a "reasonable person" and what a "reasonable person" might have done in that situation. Living in Jodi-land makes you live in an alternate universe, consisting of a psycho person who's pretending to be a normal person. It's easy to get sucked into something like that, when on the outside they appear so "normal." I know they did, b/c it happened to me, too....sometimes when I would step back and think, geesh, how would a normal girl react in this situation, everything would suddenly become CRYSTAL CLEAR. But I was used to seeing everything through a Jodi-lens, where everything is dramatized and exxagerated. OMIGOSH he said a mean word to me = I perceived it as the end of the world, felt like a used piece of toilet paper, and just wanted to kill myself, so I just killed him instead. And all the while saying it like it's the most normal thing in the world.

 

[aa9511]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

Madeleine74, I have to admit I kind of get your point! I think JW was/is very passionate about the case and about her job, and Juan is too, so it kind of makes sense that he would be subconciously attracted to her "passion." I think everyone knows that JW seemed a lot more in charge than Nurmi did, and I think that she earned some respect from Juan in the fact that he knows she is doing her job to the maximum degree, which he does too. She did pick up steam and by the end was very energetic.

I'm sure he's used to all the shenanigans defense's do, so he doesn't take it personally or doesn't attribute it to the opposing attorney personally.

I don't know. No rotten tomatoes here too, please. :truce:

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

Another question From 18: argh, I am getting completely annoyed with this guy.....

In your opinion, did Travis ever sound angry in his journals? Please explain. ***BBM

Did he speak negatively of any of the women he was seeing? Please explain?
***BBM Also he writes, any of the women he was seeing....writing it like Travis was DATING all of the women ALV mentioned, and at the same time??? Remember ALV went down the list of women he had at some point texted with? I do NOT Get this guy. He was NOT SEEING all these women, he was JUST TALKING TO THEM. OMG. aggggghhhhh.

What was your overall impression of Travis, based solely on his journal?

Seriously, I am thinking that the Alexander family is lucky to have gotten a verdict at all with this guy. I had this sense there was SOMEONE on that jury trying to find an excuse to let her off the hook. Thank goodness there weren't any halfway decent excuses for this guy to hang his hat on. Good grief.

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

Just the fact that Juror 18 went out and gave interviews ASAP when they had agreed to wait until after the holiday tells me what I need to know about him. Luckily he was able to be reasoned with to a degree. So, I am just happy that they got the conviction of 1st degree murder. Dude is something else though.

 

[MeeBee]

Y'all are going to throw rotten tomatoes at me but here goes anyway....

Where there's smoke there's fire...JM mentioning 'marriage' to JW, even in the context of "I'd want to f'ing kill myself" is (to me) not a sign that he hates her...but a subconscious admission of a ...possible...however fleeting, attraction. He brought that up, she didn't. Marriage implies a sexual relationship. Now do I really believe JM thinks he's attracted to her? Heck no. But subconsciously...let's say a psychotherapist like Dr. Demarte would find that remark interesting. Plus, JM later referred to that as a "compliment" and a "joke" (i.e. not an insult). Hmmmm....interesting.

</ducks and runs for cover>

You know something, I sort of had this thought too when I read this comment. I don't think he likes her very much at all, and I don't think he's in love with her or anything (he kind of made that clear with his "I would f---ing kill myself, lol). But there may be an underlying attraction. She's a nice looking woman with a nice figure.

It's that dichtonomy. It's like when you know someone or work with someone that you just cannot stand and hate but they're attractive and you can't help that you are attracted to them, you know? And then it just pizzes you off even more.

 

[aa9511]

You know something, I sort of had this thought too when I read this comment. I don't think he likes her very much at all, and I don't think he's in love with her or anything (he kind of made that clear with his "I would f---ing kill myself, lol). But there may be an underlying attraction. She's a nice looking woman with a nice figure.

It's that dichtonomy. It's like when you know someone or work with someone that you just cannot stand and hate but they're attractive and you can't help that you are attracted to them, you know? And then it just pizzes you off even more.

Lol...yes, MeeBee I know what you mean. I think more of her physicality, it's the mental part that he's maybe attracted to. Like they could sit up all night talking about the case and legal terms, etc.. Speaking all legal dirty talk. hahahahha. And I do think she's attractive in her own way, and she sure likes to, ahem, enhance her body with the figure-hugging suits. Which Juan had to basically stare at her backside for the extremely loooonnnngggg time she was up there. :facepalm:

But I know what you mean.

 

[RR0004]

I am reading through the juror questions. The one question about Ryan Burns is funny, 'Jodi, why did you leave Travis' house and then go make out with Ryan Burns when you told us you're a one man woman?'. I suppose if Jodi had been asked that, Jodi would have just said, 'Oh, I told you the truth. Travis was dead then, so I was just moving on'.

...and let's not forget, she was single.

 

[nells]

Lol...yes, MeeBee I know what you mean. I think more of her physicality, it's the mental part that he's maybe attracted to. Like they could sit up all night talking about the case and legal terms, etc.. Speaking all legal dirty talk. hahahahha. And I do think she's attractive in her own way, and she sure likes to, ahem, enhance her body with the figure-hugging suits. Which Juan had to basically stare at her backside for the extremely loooonnnngggg time she was up there. :facepalm:

BBM: This is funny; I wonder if she thought of trying to distract JM deliberately (though, apparently unsuccessfully) in that way...

 

[kaRN]

And Juan was right and so was Dr. DeMarte. I think the Foreman acted childishly and got miffed when Juan scoffed at his stupid question.

If I had been traumatized by a bear attack for instance why would I be traumatized if I saw a tiger?:banghead: A tiger and a bear are two entirely different animals.

That is why people have specific phobias. Something traumatic could have happened in their life to make them scared of a snake or spider for example. It doesn't mean they have a phobia about everything.

IMO

ITA. Who lies to a therapist about the cause of their trauma anyway. That alone should have been the red flag IMO.

 

[nursebeeme]

The jury was unanimous on first degree premed murder and that includes the Foreman. Is the Foreman the guy who was catholic that was reported on?