SIDEBAR #5- Arias/Alexander forum

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoozoo

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
RBBM. I truly hope JSS was mistaken by the wording of juror 18. But what sticks out to me is that he wrote in there "@ this time". That leads me to believe they were deadlocked at that time. I think the reason they wanted clarification so soon after deliberation is because it wasn't just ONE holdout juror. It must have been pretty split. 6/6 or 6/7 etc. And out of overwhelming frustration- the question was then posed to JSS. JMO but it makes sense (to me at least). Hope Im wrong! :seeya:

BBM
IIRC, the question according to the court twitter said, "@ this STAGE" - to me, this implied the jury wondered if at this PHASE of the trial (PENALTY phase versus GUILT or AGGRAVATION phase), the procedures would be different IF they got to a point where they were not in unanimous agreement. Here is a post I made yesterday regarding this:

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. Here is the quote posted earlier and attributed to azcental although I have NOT been able to confirm it is an accurate quote so please consider that:
The jury sent a handwritten note on an official question form to the judge. It said: “If the jury is unable to come to a unanimous decision @ this stage, do we notify the judge of this on the form (verdict) or do we just tell the judge her instruction on the bottom P. 10 on the final jury Instruction-Penalty phase?”
IMO the "her" in "... tell the judge her instruction on the bottom of P.10" is a typo and should read "per".

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.
 

Love Never Fails

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
60,969
I agree with the post that said she's developed a taste for killing. When she said in her allocution that she knows the Alexanders grieve because of her, and that Travis had his last photo with Samantha because of her, etc., I really felt that she was happy and satisfied with her "work." And remember how she was drooling to get a look at the crime scene photos with Flores.

Something about the twisted look of satisfaction in her face reminds me of seeing Dennis Rader's excitement during the recitation of his crimes. She's also detached in the same way he is and she also can apparently fake a life in the same way he did..... Not saying she'd be the next BTK but....

Well we don't know for sure if rope was involved with Travis. But torture him she did. She could easily be like BTK, easily. Beginning with her family. There was a reason she had knives and a gun in her rental car the day she was arrested. Jury doesn't kow that and it just blows me away that JM could not tell them!!

I did not care for JSS and her may rulings in favor of the defense.
 

Puzzler

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
418
Reaction score
9
I agree with the post that said she's developed a taste for killing. When she said in her allocution that she knows the Alexanders grieve because of her, and that Travis had his last photo with Samantha because of her, etc., I really felt that she was happy and satisfied with her "work." And remember how she was drooling to get a look at the crime scene photos with Flores.

Something about the twisted look of satisfaction in her face reminds me of seeing Dennis Rader's excitement during the recitation of his crimes. She's also detached in the same way he is and she also can apparently fake a life in the same way he did..... Not saying she'd be the next BTK but....

I'm still wondering about her previous experience with killing. Stabbing someone in the heart and nearly decapitating them does NOT seem like a first-time thing to me. Her story about Doggy-boy was also extremely fishy. Does anyone else think she may have killed animals prior to killing Travis?
 

nadjatheresa

Former Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
431
Well we don't know for sure if rope was involved with Travis. But torture him she did. She could easily be like BTK, easily. Beginning with her family. There was a reason she had knives and a gun in her rental car the day she was arrested. Jury doesn't kow that and it just blows me away that JM could not tell them!!

I did not care for JSS and her may rulings in favor of the defense.

Good point. She enjoys torturing.
 

Veritas_Vita

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
421
Reaction score
0
I totally agree but that is not a finding they can use.

Sacrablue -

If the juror is thinking JA was young/had no priors - and cannot render DP on that basis, I would think they weren't paying attention to the trial.

I would remind them that it was 27 year old who pre-meditated a cruel, vicious murder. I would remind them that JA never took responsibility for her actions, she offered NO remorse for her crime. I would remind them of the lies, attempted cover-up to avoid responsibility.

Then I would ask them if they would be comfortable with JA *possibly* being paroled one day.

Would they want this vile creature living in their community one day?

moo
 

Steely Dan

Former Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
30,559
Reaction score
78
ITA! Jury, do not put this in JSS's hands!

Oh and good morning :seeya: I am in an extremely foul mood today, I have no idea why, but I will just try to sit on my hands.

I hope this Jury had a good night's sleep, and will deliver the right verdict for this .

BBM

It could be worse. You could be in a fowl mood. :chicken:
 

Truth Detector

Your Humble Observer
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
0
This is AZLawyer's response from the legal thread, she thinks there was a misunderstanding & I agree with her:

Originally Posted by JusticeJunkie
There is some conflict as to whether JSS received a QUESTION - what happens if we can't agree, or a note STATING THEY COULD NOT AGREE.
I see that as a HUGE difference. But my question is this:

If JSS was only asked a question of what would happen if they are unable to agree unanimously on a verdict:

Is she able to explain that they may be replaced with a new jury, or is that not allowed?

ETA: Another question. If they DID say they were unable to reach a verdict, why wouldn't that have been on the actual jury form rather than a note?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZLawyer's response:

IMO Judge Stephens could and should have told them about the second-jury procedure.

Based on the media reports about the note, it sounds like they weren't sure what form to use.

Sadly, because of what JSKS said, especially given her precise wording, the facts regarding the "juror question" are apparently thus:

[video=youtube;bXvcrEx9T7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXvcrEx9T7Y[/video]


JSKS gavels and states for the record that parties and counsel are present, jury is not. She dons her spectacles, holds up a piece of paper, and states that the Court has received a "juror question". By inference, she holds a question/note form, not the jury's sentencing form.

She bids counsel approach.

They do and discuss.

The jury enters.

She states for the record that all parties remain present, joined by the jury.

She states precisely, her remarks directed toward the jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have received your note indicating that you are unable to come to a unanimous decision."

BBM

She was not ambiguous. There is no cause to attempt to re-interpret her plain words.

Disappointing to most of us, true, but what will be gained by trying to explain away this reality?

The alternative view is that JSKS was misrepresenting to the jury their own "question", which was actually not a question but a communication to her from the jury that they were deadlocked.

Yes, I'm disappointed, but I'm still not buying into the cockamamie spin that the jury merely wanted to know how to fill out a form.

While I don't hold her in high regard, I doubt that JSKS was lying yesterday.

Perhaps it's a good thing that the jury then deliberated several more hours.

We shall see what today brings.
 

NanKelley

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
191
Reaction score
516

SmokeyGirl

New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
OK- Snow White.

I'd put money on Jodi admires herself in a mirror all day.

Drawn in court.

$(KGrHqZ,!hwFD+W!)0DcBRCBpwgq6!~~60_35.JPG


Snow White witch:

magic_mirror_evil_queen_snow_white.jpg

Unfortunately real life gets in the way and I don't always have time to post. I do however, read as many postings as possible.


This was linked by other WS's when the drawing first came out. Strange that of all things to draw, she would purposefully choose something having to do with a religion that she converted to because of Travis.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/masonic_and_mormon_symbols.html


But then again, Jodi has a purpose in everything she does. She knew that this drawing would be made public.

She has always tried to stay one step ahead of everyone...
she left home at 17 BEFORE her parents kicked her out,
she left Darryl for Travis because Travis could give her things that D wouldn't/couldn't
she tried to figure out what the police had before giving any information on what happened to Travis
she re-designed her defense after she knew what the state had on her, so that her story would seem more plausible
she threatened the prosecution with dragging the Alexander family through the mud if they didn't agree with the plea bargain she sent them
she attempted to play the victim so that the jury would give her a lessor sentence

...to be honest... her list is so long that I can't possibly capture all of them.

I hope and pray that the jury can see through all of this. I pray that if there are any holdouts for the DP, that rational discussion can convince them that she will not change, that her list of things to accomplish in jail are pale in comparison to the list of things that Travis will never be able to do.

My heart goes out to the Alexander family. I pray that they can find consolation in whatever verdict the jury decides.

MOO
 

SusieD

New Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
864
Reaction score
1
Let's say you got a juror who is asking for life because he/she believes JA has no priors and was too young.
How does one change this opinion?

I would start with emphasizing, like Juan did, that this penalty was about the crime, about Travis' brutal death, not about the life of Jodi.

I would try to relate it all back to the crime.
 

dog.gone.cute

Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
15,653
Reaction score
1,945
I do not support them if they don't give the death penalty. If they are morally unable or opposed to the death penalty they are not allowed to be on the jury...this case is the ultimate example for a death penalty being necessary.


:rocker: I totally agree ! And they will NOT get my support either IF they do NOT give her the DP ...

MOO !
 

sunsetbeach

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
2,203
Please please please let this be over TODAY. I really thought this jury would come back with death in just a couple hours but I hope they do not prolong this any longer. Give the Alexander family some peace and justice.
 

DeAnnaMisrahi

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
435
Reaction score
1
ITA! Jury, do not put this in JSS's hands!

Oh and good morning :seeya: I am in an extremely foul mood today, I have no idea why, but I will just try to sit on my hands.

I hope this Jury had a good night's sleep, and will deliver the right verdict for this .

I know that you all don't have a lot of faith in JSS because of her... uh, "milquetoasty" demeanor, but I truly think she was just trying to be careful. I think she is worried about the verdict being overturned on appeal and wanted to give the defense team as many allowances as she could, without giving in into their every demand. I mean, she HAS denied a lot of things that they have asked for. I can't see her, for a minute, giving JA anything other than LWOP. She has seen the same photographs that we have, and heard the same evidence. She also gets to see JA in ways that NO ONE outside the attorneys get to see. She sees what is actually happening behind the scenes. As frustrated as we all are with the antics of Jodi Arias, you KNOW that the judge has to be more frustrated.

JSS has had her actions analyzed, dissected, and criticized, this ENTIRE trial by the media and trial watchers alike. I am not saying that the media, or other outside forces, should or would influence her decision on Life with or without parole, I'm just saying that I seriously doubt that she actually FAVORS JA, in any way, which is what would be required for her to have seen all of this evidence, and still think that JA should have a shot at a life outside of prison one day. She knows the REAL JA, because she gets to see it firsthand. This has to be one of the most heinous cases she has ever seen in her court.

So, I am going to give JSS a lot more credit than most seem to be giving her and say that, if it actually comes down to her decision, she will NOT give JA life with parole. Because if there is anyone who deserves to rot in prison, it is someone who did what JA did to Travis.

:moo: :moo: :moo:
 

GoAskAllie

New Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
0
I didn't find anything confusing about the meaning of the question that has been attributed to Juror 18--assuming it's legit. It was "what if" question that asked for procedural clarification, not a declaration that the jury was deadlocked.

The Maricopa County Superior Court Twitter account (courtpio) posted the following tweet yesterdayJury's question is what to do if they can not reach a verdict #JodiArias Judge is giving them further instruction The substance of this tweet matches the nature of the juror question as reported by Michael Kiefer.

The crux of the confusion stems from what happened in Court. In her response to a juror "note" (Judge's word, not mine), the Judge very clearly took the note to mean that the Jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision. Before she addressed the jury, she called the attorneys up to the bench to review the note. One person "misreading" the note is one thing, but four people--including Juan Martinez--well I have to say, that's hard for me to reconcile.

The Judge gave the Allen charge as if she had been informed the jury told her they were deadlocked. Her actions didn't fit with either the information tweeted by the Court's public information officer or the question that was supposedly asked by Juror 18.

We can only wait. The jury put in a full day of work Wednesday after the two morning interruptions (one to inform them of an omitted jury instruction and the other to address the so-called "deadlock) and I take that as a good sign. I hope the jury reaches a unanimous decision one way or another. I would hate for the Alexander family to have to endure the process of impaneling a new jury to hear evidence before deciding on a sentence.

If for some reason, this jury decides on life rather than the DP, I fully believe the Judge will sentence her to LWOP. Here's why: JA has been found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and seven of 12 jurors ALSO found her guilty of felony murder. The same jury also found that Jodi was guilty of murdering Travis in an especially cruel manner, making her death penalty eligible. Whatever some may think of Judge Stephens, she will not give Jodi the opportunity to walk among us a free woman. She knows Jodi perjured herself on the witness stand, she is privy to all the shenanigans that went on in the sealed proceedings, she knows that Jodi has been "tweeting" through her minions, she knows (and has no doubt watched/read) about the countless post-conviction TV interviews. Most important of all, like the rest of us, Judge Stephens has not seen anything close to remorse from the mouth of Jodi Arias. If it comes down to Judge Stephens deciding on which version of life Jodi gets, it will be "without parole." I know that won't satisfy many people here, but I'd rather see a verdict from THIS JURY than having the Jodi show go on a day longer than it has to. MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top