The Jury Speaks Thread

[SyraKelly]

He calls people stupid-REALLY Mr.FP

Even now that he has learned more about her-he still thinks she is not a danger-again REALLY Mr.FP


SMH

 

[mangetoute]

Nah...she's not a menace to society. She was only trying to flee in a rental car with a new gun and knives in it.

Juror #18 calls people "stupid". Really? Sounds like verbal abuse to me.

Seems to me like Juror #18 isn't done with his 15 minutes. I respect the juries decision but I do not like the way Juror #18 has manipulated the press since the beginning. First, the jurors decide not to speak until after the weekend, but Juror #18 comes out right away..throwing all his peers under the bus and not honoring their agreement. Now, he goes and gives another "exclusive" that he was one of those who voted for Life...duh! We all knew that. If he really wants to be left alone by the public, maybe he should stop flaming the fire. JMO

You make good points, but the jury didn't know that. Given what the jury heard in court (and what they didn't hear), I think the foreman made a perfectly reasonable job of explaining the decision that he and others reached. It's not as if they found her not guilty.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Link: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Arias-jury-foreman-voted-against-death-penalty-211014911.html


:stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad: I just finished watching the above link of foreman's interview ...

He definitely has an agenda and I will NOT be surprised IF he writes a book -- as he said he would like to do so ...

:furious: And I bet he has an agent lined up right now :furious:

And if I say any more about foreman I will be on a long vacay so I will have to :silenced:

:seeya:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This is very telling. If he actually has now heard all the other facts, all the other things about the convict and her behaviour, and has dismissed them, he definitely had/has an agenda.

I guess it's easier to shift responsibility and be at peace in giving life, than living with giving death.

Interesting, too, that he couldn't stay out of the limelight, nor has he appeared with other jurors.

RBBM: Good point ... I think the other jurors are avoiding him like the plague !

They don't want to be anywhere near him -- even the ones who voted for life along with foreman are not being seen with him ...

But it could be the other way around : foreman does NOT want to be seen with any of the other jurors ... ya know, it would take away from his "spotlight" ...

Reminds me of someone else who does not like anyone else getting the attention except her

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

He calls people stupid-REALLY Mr.FP

Even now that he has learned more about her-he still thinks she is not a danger-again REALLY Mr.FP

SMH

BBM:

:seeya: Every time I read something foreman said, I go :

Whiskey . . . :drink:

Tango . . . . . . . . .

Foxtrot . . . . . . . . .



:seeya:

 

[Quester]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

 

[kscornfed]

I agree age makes no sense as a mitigator. As if she'd appreciate the wrongness of murder...if only she were just a bit older? TA certainly didn't abuse her. He reacted when she provoked him, but that isn't abuse.

unless you're a teenager, i don't get age as a mitigator, period. how old do you have to be for it NOT to be a mitigator? she's apparently too young. who's too old? and how old do you have to be before being OLD is a mitigator??

this guy's a maroon, IMO. i'd like to sit down and ask him a few questions myself, but i'm sure the other jurors got nowhere with him, so it would be a waste of my time, most likely.

 

[wonders]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?QUOTE]


BBM
I don't think that's what happened. Each juror was polled after the non -verdict was read and answered yes if it was their vote.

 

[Quester]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

BBM
I don't think that's what happened. Each juror was polled after the non -verdict was read and answered yes if it was their vote.

Yes, I agree ... when polled each juror confirmed that that was their vote at that time. I wasn't disputing that.

BUT ... If they all were resolved that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict, why did it seem to come as such a shock and surprise to some/all of the jurors that the Judge declared a hung jury and mistrial at that time?

What were they expecting/hoping would happen? More instruction from the Judge? Which could lead to more deliberation? Or ???

ETA: Was the foreman equally shocked and surprised by the Judge declaring a hung jury and mistrial?

 

[IMPondering]

Link: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Arias-jury-foreman-voted-against-death-penalty-211014911.html


:stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad: I just finished watching the above link of foreman's interview ...

He definitely has an agenda and I will NOT be surprised IF he writes a book -- as he said he would like to do so ...

:furious: And I bet he has an agent lined up right now :furious:

And if I say any more about foreman I will be on a long vacay so I will have to :silenced:

:seeya:

Well remember his son's FB page said his dad always wanted to famous! Douche'

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Well remember his son's FB page said his dad always wanted to famous! Douche'

:seeya: Yes he did, and I forgot about that ! He will be Infamous !

:seeya:

 

[fifteen89]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

I don't know that that isn't a possibility. If you start at about 7minutes into that video, The interviewer (talking about the foreman) says "he too was disappointed by the outcome"

Foreman: "We all felt like we failed. When we found out it was a mistrial"

Interviewer interrupted him and says: "You felt like you failed?"


Why doesn't the interviewer ask him what does "when we found out it was a mistrial" mean???


ETA: And then at the end when talking about people saying the system isn't working:

Foreman says: "The system worked perfectly except that in Arizona, which we had no idea, that they're gonna do the penalty phase again."


So if he had known it would be a mistrial and the Prosecution would have the option of re-doing the penalty phase......what would Mr. Foreman have done then?

How early was the question asked 'what happens if we can't agree on a verdict?' Did the foreman know he wasn't going to change his mind because he wasn't going to actually deliberate?

 

[cosmos]

As I recall, it was a called a unanimous verdict of no unanimous decision. And they polled the jurors individually to confirm that they were unanimous. Then at some point the judge said the word "mistrial" and I don't know about jurors but I was pretty darn confused at that point. I continued calling it a verdict until much later when it fully hit me that it was in fact a mistrial.

 

[azwriter]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

Great post Quester. Certainly something was amiss. The media tuned in when the jury came back but there was nothing mentioned on the broadcasts about a verdict, maybe just another question for the judge. In fact, as a HLN viewer, I was quite surprised when the judge said the word "verdict." I even questioned the dead air in the room by saying, "Oh there's a verdict."

But there wasn't a verdict.

Since that day I have been puzzled as to why a verdict form was even presented in court. And wonder how that mistake could be made. My times on a jury, even though I wasn't a forman, I learned the different forms and how they were to be filled out. It's a pretty strict process and not that difficult to figure out.

If the judge recognized the verdict form, that's what she called it.
I like what you're getting at with the long, long shot. And, I can see a strong possibility there was something more planned than just using the wrong form.

It would be a great question to discuss with the other jurors as to how the wrong form was presented to the court.

JMO

 

[cosmos]

The verdict form has "No unanimous agreement" as an option.

The jury was unanimous in that they all selected "No unanimous agreement."

They were not given the wrong form. It was the verdict form.

They were surprised when they heard the word "mistrial" but so what?

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

Link: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Arias-jury-foreman-voted-against-death-penalty-211014911.html


:stormingmad::stormingmad::stormingmad: I just finished watching the above link of foreman's interview ...

He definitely has an agenda and I will NOT be surprised IF he writes a book -- as he said he would like to do so ...

:furious: And I bet he has an agent lined up right now :furious:

I don't think I'd read a book by someone on a jury; THEY simply do not have the entire picture. Period. It would be like reading Cliff Notes.

 

[JudyBolton]

I don't think I'd read a book by someone on a jury; THEY simply do not have the entire picture. Period. It would be like reading Cliff Notes.

I totally agree - if someone wants to know what *really* happened they would get a much better picture by reading the threads here on Websleuths!! SO many great researchers, note takers, and masters of detail post here!

 

[JSR]

He calls people stupid-REALLY Mr.FP

Even now that he has learned more about her-he still thinks she is not a danger-again REALLY Mr.FP


SMH

That to me was the most alarming thing he said that he felt Jodi was not a danger to society. I don't have any earthly idea how you could look at those photos of Travis and believe she isn't a danger. It just doesn't make sense. He must have really been besotted with her.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't think I'd read a book by someone on a jury; THEY simply do not have the entire picture. Period. It would be like reading Cliff Notes.

:seeya: Exactly ... I never have read one by a jury either ...

And there was lots of evidence that this jury did not get to see and hear because it was not allowed in ...

But JMO, I do not think it would have mattered with this "foreman" -- he obviously had an agenda and it was NOT Justice for Travis ...

Foreman should have NEVER been on that jury ...

MOO !

 

[dog.gone.cute]

That to me was the most alarming thing he said that he felt Jodi was not a danger to society. I don't have any earthly idea how you could look at those photos of Travis and believe she isn't a danger. It just doesn't make sense. He must have really been besotted with her.

:seeya: I totally agree with you, JSR !

And just jumping off your post here, which gave me an idea ... FWIW :

BBM: I sure wish the reporter would have asked jury foreman :

IF Jodi were a "male" who slaughtered a "female" like Jodi slaughtered Travis, would foreman have felt that "he" was a danger to society ?

I bet his answer would have been totally different ... and I bet he would have voted for the DP ...

Of course, all JMO and MOO !

:moo: