Penalty Phase - Verdict Watch #3

Status
Not open for further replies.

sammie

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
685
Reaction score
0
I'm confused

This morning when the Judge called the Jury in to read instructions, I heard somewhere (don't know where maybe HLN) that the Jury had NOT started to deliberate yet.

Then the Jury sends in a question soon after.

How could they have been hung if they were still going over jury instructions or not deliberating?

Very confusing....

I believe they meant they had not yet started deliberating THIS MORNING. I think the judge wanted to add that instruction and they were told to hold off deliberating this am until the judge was able to do that.
 

leebee52

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
2
:floorlaugh:I stopped drinking alcohol ten years ago because it was becoming too important to me and that scared me. Replaced it with sweets, snacks and bread. I sure looked GOOD back in my drinking days. :floorlaugh:

Your liver thanks you. I've seen a few Cirrhosis deaths...it ain't pretty.
 

AZWatcher

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
1
Lol, this is me:

Doctor: Do you drink?

Me: No, I used to...Well, occasionally, on holidays....Sometimes on weekends.....I might buy a bottle of wine after a long day....Yes, I'm a total booze hound.

My stock is answer is ..

Do you drink?
Yes, I drink occasionally
What do you mean occasionally?
I mean I drink only on days that end in the letter "Y".
 

sammijo

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Please excuse me as I rant.
Alright, I don't get it. At all. The interviews. I don't get any part of it. I don't get the interest in talking to the interviewers who spoke with her, or what went on when the cameras were off.

I don't care what questions she was asked, for the most part. She's never going to answer honestly, she's always going to be manipulative, she's always going to blame everyone else. Travis is always going to be vilified, she's going to trash his family, she's going to glorify herself and talk about her legions of fans and how fantastic she thinks she is and what a crusader she is for all sorts of causes. She's going to attack anyone who "challenges" her.

Nothing will ever be different with this felon. She will always be a lowlife. She will always be a narcissist. She will always be a liar. She won't ever feel empathy. She won't ever feel regret, compassion, or any other human feelings. She won't be honest about what happened or what she did. She will always exploit everyone and everything she can. She will always use those around her. She will always be a psychopath. She does not care who she hurts but she cares how much she hurts them and hopes she can inflict more and more pain.

I haven't seen the interviews and don't intend to. I don't care if others do, but I really don't understand it. I don't understand the reporters and news stations tripping over themselves to interview her or taking the interviews when she has her felon friends set them up. This is someone who will always be willing to talk. She will never refuse the opportunity. She's not a special person. She's not an exclusive interview. She doesn't have any big revelations. There is no value in what she says. It's purely self-promoting and hurtful for a lot of people who love Travis and infuriating to those who are sick of this beast. She is boring, unsophisticated, vain, lacking insight, and she's cold. She has no charisma. She has nothing to offer. She is unremarkable. She is pathetic and desperate and should not be rewarded or given a platform or a stage.

I don't understand the supply or the demand for interviews with the murderer and I never will. There is nothing that could come out of her mouth that I want to hear or will ever believe and I won't indulge her with my time. I do think these reporters seem quite proud of themselves for "getting" these interviews. I much prefer to spend my time focusing on the victims, families, and survivors who deserve the time and attention.

:rant:

On the reporters being "quite proud of themselves" for getting interviews. I agree and I don't get what they have to be proud of. At all.

This depraved narcissist is BEGGING for the spotlight. It can't stand when no one is paying attention to it.

It's not like they've been granted an audience with a great benefactor or celebrity that rarely does interviews.

I'm with you. The whole interview thing makes no sense. Why would anyone need to hear it lie some more. That's all it does.

All I've seen is what HLN has replayed and I've already turned that off. Enough! I'm ready for a verdict and ready for it to fade away to the nothingness it is.

Just MHOO.
 

Becky Sharp

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
849
Reaction score
10
Common sense: If you were on that jury and were sticking to your opposing belief, would you sit there for this much additional time being convinced by anyone else? NOPE. No one on that jury is going to hang this up. No one who is voting for Life would sit there this long and listen to the opposing argument if they weren't able to budge....

Take a deep breath!

I agree. They're not in a Henry Fonda movie.
 

ElleElle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
7,497
Reaction score
32
Maybe the hold-up is Jodi's mental instability ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

basilcat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
1,742
Reaction score
83
My weatherbug went off for SNOW :eek:
We've dropped 20+ degrees since lunchtime!! Its pouring and very windy....got the garden covered.....hope it makes it...

.....woah...:scared:
That's crazy Seque... Gardens are often hardier than we think...
....but...even we don't have snow!:floorlaugh:
Make a nice fire...pour a glass of wine and watch the frolicking bears and zombie turkeys...:seeya:
Take care friend...cheers!
 

marlap

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
5
I have a really dumb question. Forgive me, as I had a lot going on when the trial initially started and I wasn't following like I am now.

When they were selecting a jury and they were in the voir dire process, wouldn't they have asked the potential jurors if they had a problem with giving a death penalty verdict?

Yes, they did....but it could there was a juror who in their mind reserves the DP for child killers, so the jury is having to bring around a person like that to show them that cruel is cruel...whether child or 30-year-old man is murdered.

PS. Not a dumb question at all, in fact an excellent question.
 

Nore

New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
6,586
Reaction score
20
Website
Visit site
I have a really dumb question. Forgive me, as I had a lot going on when the trial initially started and I wasn't following like I am now.

When they were selecting a jury and they were in the voir dire process, wouldn't they have asked the potential jurors if they had a problem with giving a death penalty verdict?

----------------------------------

They did. They had to be DP. ready to be on this case, DP case from the get go. They all agreed they were. :seeya:
 

discogirl

New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Just saw this on FB from The State Vs JA & it made me feel better:

The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
A message from a member of this page. I've copied it out verbatim but have left out the poster's name. If you wish to come forward, please do so in the comments:

"I have unfortunately been in prison where she will go, and TRUST ME!!! She will NOT be the Predator..she WILL be the Prey!!! Prison is WAAAY different than that safe little jail she is in now!!! She's in for a rude awakening!!! And what she said about starting programs and clubs and helping the "illiterate" inmates..NEVER going to happen!!! She's going to be in COMPLETE isolation for AT LEAST five years, and after she manages to "program down" to a lower classification....she still needs to realize that's she's now an INMATE!! The State runs every aspect of your life, so NO she won't be contributing ANYTHING to society!! The closest she'll get is a 50 cent an hour job as a GED tutor..but that will take her YEARS and YEARS to get that "privilege". And her smug, superior attitude she has, all that's going to get her is beaten up and robbed!! So, it would be in her best interest to just SHUT UP FOR ONCE IN HER LIFE and get OK with the fact that as soon as that gate closes behind her at the "Perryville Complex" sign, nobody cares that she's Jodi Arias...for the rest of her disgusting life, all anyone will know about her is her INMATE NUMBER!!!"
 

thistle

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
558
Reaction score
209
Pretty funny- Dr. Drew said she's not even a good psychopath, for not anticipating that people would want to hear that she's sorry...
 

Meemaw12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
1,067
OK...I am confused.

I get there was the tweet put out by the courthouse that there was a question about "IF we aren't unanimous, what do we do?" (paraphrased)

But that is NOT what JSS said. At all. She said (not paraphrased) "I got your note that you were NOT able to come to a unanimous decision..."

So I get that it would be really nice to come to the possibility that they were just clarifying jury instructions...that's not what JSS said.

What am I missing???


Yes, JSS did say that and it is confusing.

My thoughts are last evening setting time, this morning read instructions or maybe start last evening, finish this morning.

Just doesn't seem like enough time for Jurors to debate and reach a hung jury in the time frame this morning for a death penalty case. IMO.

I know if it were me, even though I would vote death I would take as much time as needed to make sure every Juror was satisfied with their decision.

No need to rush IMO.
 

zoozoo

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
OK...I am confused.

I get there was the tweet put out by the courthouse that there was a question about "IF we aren't unanimous, what do we do?" (paraphrased)

But that is NOT what JSS said. At all. She said (not paraphrased) "I got your note that you were NOT able to come to a unanimous decision..."

So I get that it would be really nice to come to the possibility that they were just clarifying jury instructions...that's not what JSS said.

What am I missing???

Jury may be more detail oriented and focused than judge right now and judge didn't thoroughly understand their note. JMO
 

G&AMom

Verified Mikette
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
11
:floorlaugh:I stopped drinking alcohol ten years ago because it was becoming too important to me and that scared me. Replaced it with sweets, snacks and bread. I sure looked GOOD back in my drinking days. :floorlaugh:

I actually almost never drink because it's not good for me (medication conflicts) and it's too expensive. But the last couple of weeks . . . . plus I do have this arrogant, egotistical blowhard of a brother-in-law who managed to turn 65 last year without ever having held a job for a single day. So alcohol is sometimes in order to maintain family peace. Fortunately, I only see him twice a year (and we have Thanksgiving down to 2 hours max).
 

Tracey4AU

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
3,768
Thanks Tracy4AU for bringing this to my attention.:seeya:
To zoozoo
WOW You have really been paying attention, thanks so much for this explanation.:rockon:

Welcome! I only wish I had thought of it myself! :blushing:
 

KathrynL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
3,032
One of the interviewers from last night asked her about when Juan was cross examining her on the stand. When he asked about her not backing down from him, part of her answer included "because I was secure in MY truth"

You'll notice she didn't say she was secure in THE truth, just her truth.

I did notice. Smirky smug demon playing her games. Whatever, she will fade from view after she's off to prison no matter what. You know Betty Broderick is still rotting in jail because she's sticking to her story too. Could have been out long ago. Jodi will never get out, no matter what the jury decides. :jail:
 

Liebchenmutti

Court Junkie
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
2,144
Reaction score
1,186
Last time I took my preschooler to a dr. apt. w/ me, she got all bent out of shape when I responded no to that question.

Dr: "Do you drink?"
Me: "No."
Kid: "YES YOU DO!!!"
Me: "No...I really don't!"
Kid: "You drink all the time!"
Me: "What?! No... she means water...tea..."
Kid: "You even had some this morning!"
Dr: o_0

This is why I will not own an "adult toy"--my monsters will find it & present it to my MIL during a visit, I'm sure. They have previously taken a box of tampons to throw all over the floor to play with, and taken a pair of my hubby's underwear & thrown them by the front door. His coworker came to the door & my DH's underwear was right there in plain sight. (That one WAS funny, though!)
 

Angelo

There will be justice for Mr. Harrod
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
1,511
Don't have all the links and can't get them right now because I am ellipticallling (word or not?!), BUT I have a theory about the jury's ? This AM:

If you watch the judge reading jury instructions on YouTube croakerqueen day 3 part 2 starting at 14 min (final jury instructions), she reads the paragraph quoted earlier in this thread about letting the judge know if they are not unanimous.

Then watch when the judge gives the final, FINAL jury instructions about the verdict form on YouTube croakerqueen day 3 part 4 (rebuttal and charge to the jury) starting at 10:44- there she describes three boxes for the jury to choose from to check for their verdict (death, life, or "no unanimous agreement").

iMO the jury was going through these instructions and realized that the first part said to tell the judge if they were not unanimous but the second part said to mark the box on the verdict form if they ended up not unanimous. They wanted clarification.

Also, someone earlier posted that they asked "at this stage" in the note to the judge - I think they may have meant "at this phase" - ie during the PENALTY phase ("stage") do they let the judge know if they are not unanimous as they would have done during the GUILT or AGGRAVATION phase ( verdict forms on those did not have a box for "no unanimous agreement" IIRC) or do they check the daggum box on the verdict form?

I think it is a very detail oriented jury and they stumbled upon the conflicting instructions about what to do IF they ever ended up in a position of not being unanimous. I don't blame them for asking for clarification.

Sorry if this is crazy with typos - hard to elliptical and type on iPad "contemporaneously".

Thank you. I watched the videos and the judge did say to do two different things in the event a unanimous verdict could not be reached. Seems like the foreperson was asking for clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top