Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by LambChop, Mar 5, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ElleElle

    ElleElle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,497
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Has anyone read the full JA/TA May26 gmail?

    It was pretty interesting, and from I get out of it he was mad at her for hacking into his Facebook. He even says if she wants his passwords to just ask. I couldn't count how many times he called her a liar and how she covers her lies with more lies.
     


  2. indigomood

    indigomood Active Member

    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    excellent point (bolded by me)
     
  3. Nosey Parker

    Nosey Parker A Brit in Canada

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Based solely on what the other jurors said, and the fact that she did not come forward with the courage of her convictions, I'm leaning toward her being an 'already Arias sympathizer', who refused to change her position.

    If she genuinely felt Arias had mental issues that mitigated the premeditated killing, she would be correct in her stance. In order to find that, she would have to review the evidence and deliberate. Unfortunately for the justice system, and now for her, that doesn't sound like the case.
     
  4. LinTX

    LinTX New Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I fully expect that by the end of today twitter will be full of reports that juror#17 was seen in the desert hiding the gun and helping JA wash up.

    I understand & share the frustration, anger and disbelief that this case was handled properly, that today's version of justice is way too skewed in favor of the defense, and that JSS is due criticism. I also suspect this juror might not have been 100% honest in her voir dire, but how can we be sure all of the other 13 were? Did some of them come in determined to vote DP? Possibly. But the reactions I'm seeing are beginning to resemble picking at a scab, you know? That is not a way to heal, even if it's hard to resist. Maybe part of it is because after all these years, some of us are finding it hard to be at the end and this is a way to continue the "fight"?

    The trial is done, JA is on her way to, what for her, is going to be a very miserable life. Others may adjust well in prison, but I honestly don't think she will. I agree with Hope that this sentence will be worse for her in the long run. It also helped to remember that even if JSS had felt replacing this juror was doable, that could very likely been an appeal issue that could result in the same result we have now, LWOP. Or JSS could have declared a mistrial...same result. We've been through a very long tragic, weird at times, journey with this case. I've enjoyed spending time with you all, have learned a lot, and laughed a good bit too. I thank you for all of it, and hope to share space on another trial forum in the future. My thoughts and thanks also go to Juan Martinez, Esteban Flores, the Alexanders, TA's friends and others who fought the long hard fight for justice in this case.
     
  5. JudyBolton

    JudyBolton In memory: My dear friend Martha Mickel, kidnapped

    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't believe Juan should have had to use one of his strikes to eliminate her....this kind of a connection should have been an automatic disqualification (doubt that she disclosed it based on other behaviors and attitudes).

    Also interesting that someone reported being in courtroom during jury selection and seeing another potential juror sent home because he admitted watching the Lifetime movie. (Also doubt this juror disclosed this during selection process).
     
  6. sammie

    sammie New Member

    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did she disclose her current husband's felony conviction? His is more recent than her ex-husbands. I've only seen talk by the media that she had an ex in jail.
     
  7. daisydomino

    daisydomino Active Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I did read it. Wow, it was sad. He was really in pain and I actually started crying when I read where he typed, "You are murdering me from the inside out." And where JA typed about screaming into the phone after TA hangs up on her, "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU!" until her throat is sore.

    He wants her to tell the truth, and he specifically mentions slashing tires, passwords, and some other stuff I couldn't quite understand about flirting/sleeping around (?).

    Reading it really didn't clear up much of anything to me, except that he did love her, and she was cruel to him before she murdered him.

    ETA: I want to add that even though this gchat was not admitted into evidence in its entirety and the jury could only consider the part that was admitted, JSS has read it all. All of this, and all of lots of other evidence that we have only seen in part. I don't know what the law says on what she can consider when making her decision between natural life and possible release, but I am absolutely 100% certain that JSS is not a fan of Jodi Arias.
     
  8. deedee21

    deedee21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,161
    Likes Received:
    2,032
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Juror #17 told the others jurors that the DP equals revenge. JSS should have removed her.
     
  9. steelman

    steelman Former Member

    Messages:
    5,052
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sure the first two years of her isolation period Jodi will spend a lot of time trying to seduce the guards and trying to win favors. Male or female will probably make no difference to her.
     
  10. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,075
    Likes Received:
    13,220
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reposting, per request...... (edited some too…)


    Yes, she deserved the DP and no she didn't get it, and yes the Alexanders didn't get the sentence they wanted. But it really is exquisitely perfect how it turned out.

    If anyone thinks the DP meant different conditions at Perryville, you haven't read that the rules have changed, and how little different her day to day existence would have been in very short order if given the DP rather than LWOP.

    The genuine big difference receiving LWOP means is that she is GONE. She will be without any outside support, ever, except for a mother 1,000 miles away and the inevitable groupies she would have had either way. She can and no doubt will fantasize for a while that her one automatic appeal will set her free. The reality is the LWOP verdict robbed her of the extra dozens of years she could keep on hoping and pretending, appeal after DP appeal, that she will ever be free.

    The ex-Perryville prisoner who wrote Slumber Party in Hell book talks about how much difference it makes to be able to hold onto that hope. For many there, she says, the difference between having hope of ever getting out and knowing you’re going to die there is the difference between being able to make it through the day and slowly going insane.

    Beyond the fact LWOP will in many ways make her life worse, not better, is this: The retrial and LWOP verdict have stripped her of her precious mantle of self-proclaimed “victim.” The jury did not believe she was a victim of abuse, either physical or emotional. Worse for her, they hated that she tried to victimize Travis in court. They disliked her so much they wanted her dead. They loved the prosecutor she hates, didn't believe ANY of the lies she manufactured, including porn on the computer, on and on, point by point. Theirs is a complete and total repudiation of HER.

    It’s important to remember what DeMarte said about the necessity for JA to believe her own lies about being a victim, and for others to be convinced of those lies.
    The beauty of it…every lie she manufactured before and after murdering Travis was not only repudiated, but came back to harm her instead. The retrial revealed WAY more about her than the first, all of it sickening. Everything she wanted to hide is out in the open. After 5 months of being given carte blanche to destroy Travis and play the victim, what the jury rightfully understood was the extent to which she victimized Travis, before she murdered him up through every day she sat in court.


    And yes, it is possible that juror #17 should never have made it through voir dire, but again, the beauty of having that holdout juror is that the verdict has been TAINTED, rightfully or not. Most folks will always believe that JA should have received the DP and would have if......or, if....... That is a hugely different and better outcome than last time, when some jurors DID believe she was abused, 8-4 thought she should be spared, and nobody questioned the legitimacy of the verdict.

    And better yet, exactly because the verdict was tainted in the way it was, nobody will ever be able to say, convincingly, that even ONE of 12 jurors actually believed JA or was swayed by the DT. Not one.

    I'm sure JA understands all of this, and knows she has lost. Her latest angry tweets are evidence that's so. Whatever comfort she has that the Alexanders were grieved by the verdict won’t be enough to get her through the decades at Perryville that lie ahead for her.

    I've been popping in and out reading the threads here and get that most folks here are angry and don't agree with what I'm saying. Hugs to you....I'm totally at peace with the outcome, and hope more of y’all are getting there too.
     
  11. steelman

    steelman Former Member

    Messages:
    5,052
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those are the EXACT words Jodi used after the guilty verdict in her post conviction interview. Exact.

    After this woman got her jury summons, she obviously did a huge amount of reading and research, and was so educated in regards to Jodi that she slipped up and even quoted her.
     
  12. ZsaZsa

    ZsaZsa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    15,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But, we don't yet know what her sentence will be......... it is now in the hands of JSS and honestly, that makes me very nervous.
     
  13. Zuri

    Zuri Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,782
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I posted yesterday that Juror 17's presence on the jury would be the equivalent of me, as a homicide survivor, being a juror on a murder trial. It should not happen. IMO, it was the duty of the juror to fully and honestly disclose any relationships with counsel, however vicarious, her DV history and her knowledge of the case and any bias she had.

    IMO, this Juror 17 was not honest, if everything she is reported to have said is true. Serving on a jury is not an appropriate way to further your bias or cause. It is your duty to follow the law and leave all the emotion at the door. What is done is done. Had she voted for death and CMJA was given the DP, and all this info was revealed, CMJA would have had grounds for appeal. IMOO
     
  14. Mrs G Norris

    Mrs G Norris Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,001
    Likes Received:
    5,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are we sure any of that is true though, I'm not saying it definitely is or isn't .. I have just seen people with the same surnames get dragged into things before etc .. like I would actually want to see someone in MSM (with an editor who is duty bound to fact check) confirm all of the stuff being put out on Twitter .. the source this is coming from is notoriously sensationalist and unreliable.
     
  15. JSR

    JSR Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri

    Messages:
    6,250
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I don't know. I have a feeling though as things have been trickling in about this juror that we may not want to know what she's said on social media it would probably only anger us all even more.
     
  16. fifteen89

    fifteen89 New Member

    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AND.....the played that clip right before going to Chris Hughes to ask his reaction to the hung jury. Unreal. Like that tape is the highlight of this whole trial and Travis' life. smh
     
  17. Nana46

    Nana46 Runs with Scissors

    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 6m6 minutes ago

    Developing: MCSO looking into websites releasing personal information of #JodiArias jurors.

    Some of those "sketchy websites" may be in trouble unless they have already scrubbed the vile things they posted. IMO
     
  18. Nosey Parker

    Nosey Parker A Brit in Canada

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    One of the main things that will stay with me about this trial is how a so-called 'professional' can lower herself to the level of trash talking on social media that this woman has. For what purpose? Makes no sense to me.
     
  19. La-Cooks

    La-Cooks New Member

    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Q/A regarding Juror #17 with Monica Lindstrom
    Article here: http://ktar.com/305/1813419/ARIAS-QA

    Legally Speaking: Q&A after a mistrial in the Jodi Arias retrial leads to many questions
    SHARE STORY BY KTAR NEWSROOM, | March 5, 2015 @ 8:16 pm
    Listen: Monica Lindstrom - Jodi Arias Re-Trial - hung jury
    Mac and Gaydos talk with their Legal Expert Monica Lindstrom about why one juror spared Jodi Arias' life.

    Maricopa county prosecutor Juan Martinez speaks during a news conference to discuss the outcome of the Jodi Arias sentencing retrial, Thursday, March 5, 2015, in Phoenix. A judge declared a mistrial Thursday in the Arias sentencing retrial after a jury deadlocked on whether the convicted murderer should be executed or sent to prison for life for the 2008 killing of Travis Alexander.(AP Photo/Matt York)
    On Thursday, Jodi Arias' life was spared after a jury couldn't come to a unanimous decision in the penalty phrase of her retrial.

    The jury was split 11-1 in favor of the death penalty.

    Yes, 11-1, with the one being what ultimately saved Arias' life.

    That led to a lot of questions.

    KTAR Legal Analyst Monica Lindstrom gathered a majority of those questions -- or the main themes -- and gives her answers below.

    Did Juror 17 disclose that she had seen the Lifetime movie about Jodi Arias' life before she was selected to be on the jury?

    Monica Lindstrom: I looked back at my notes and I had written down that she had some previous experience with domestic violence and sometimes she would hit back and that she has two daughters. She was called into the courtroom individually to be questioned by the judge and the attorneys, though the questions seemed to focus on her domestic violence experience. I did not find that she disclosed she had seen "bits and pieces" of the movie, although, if she did, as long as she said she could be fair and impartial and follow the instructions and the law, she likely would not have been dismissed for cause.

    I assume the judge had untouchable discretion not to excuse this juror?

    Lindstrom: I wouldn't say "untouchable" discretion but yes, discretion. Had Judge Stephens dismissed and replaced her without enough cause or evidence, then Arias could easily argue an abuse of discretion by the judge and use that for an appeal issue. Judges have to be very careful about dismissing and/or replacing jurors.

    Can you explain the sentencing guidelines the judge had to follow? What are her options?

    Lindstrom: Arias' final sentence is now up to Judge Stephens. Since the jury hung the death penalty is taken off the table. Now Judge Stephens has to decide between sentencing Arias to natural life or life with the possibility of parole after 25 years. She will look at, and take into consideration, the aggravating factor that was found by the first jury and the mitigating factors proposed by Arias' defense. I find it likely she will sentence her to natural life, although the mitigating factors of no criminal record and the diagnoses could "mitigate" that and cause her to give the possibility of parole. I imagine there will be significant and substantial public outcry if she sentences her to life with the possibility of parole.

    Do you feel this juror should have been removed for not participating in deliberations?

    Lindstrom: I was in the room when we interviewed the 11 deliberating jurors, the two alternates and the one released juror. Their comments do not paint a clear-cut picture, much to the chagrin of social media. Although comments were made that she had an agenda, that her mind was made up, and she could not give a reason for her steadfastness.

    They also stated they did not believe she violated her oath, there were minimal deliberations and she did tell them she didn't believe Arias was the monster that was portrayed in the Lifetime movie and she had psychological issues. So, playing the devil's advocate, she appeared -- based on their comments -- to have participated, at least to some degree. Based on that, it is arguable there was not enough to remove and replace her. Regardless of whether there was, the fact of the matter is that she was not and the judge made that call.

    Is there any possibility that the #jodiarias verdict can be thrown out if juror misconduct is found?

    Lindstrom: Let's look at reality -- juror misconduct is difficult, though not impossible, to prove. I doubt very much the non-verdict would be thrown out. The guilty verdict will stand, the aggravating factor verdict will stand. There was no other verdict in this case. You cannot throw out a hung jury decision and then sentence her to death; it doesn't work that way in our system. The reality is that the state only gets two bites at the apple and both bites resulted in a hung jury.

    Will Judge Stephens be able address Jodi Arias sentencing?

    Lindstrom: Judge Stephens will be able to address anyone and everyone at sentencing. It is her time to say what she bases her decision on. Arias will have the opportunity to address Stephens, if she so chooses. When I am pro-temming (sitting on the bench as a substitute judge) I always give the defendant an opportunity to address the court before sentencing. Typically, the victims and the defendant's family and friends can also address the judge in a sentencing hearing. Will this happen here? I am not sure. The Alexanders have given their impact statements twice, though this is a different situation since we are only dealing with life sentences. If they would like to address Judge Stephens, I believe she will allow it. Additionally, should Arias' family choose to address Judge Stephens I believe she will allow it -- that is not out of the ordinary.

    Do you think Juror 17 will be investigated? If misconduct is proven how would that affect the verdict? Should Stephens have taken action?

    Lindstrom: I do not think that there will be an investigation into Juror 17 -- not unless the other 11 jurors give further explanations. And, realistically, does anyone really want to go through an investigation? I don't think anyone wants to see the sentence put off or the Alexanders having to endure further pain while this happens.
     
  20. elementary

    elementary No More Excuses

    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice