SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[InALandFarFarAway]

Double post

 

[MeeBee]

I think a pro-CMja juror or jurors asked:

Could CMja have gotten a headstart on Travis because he stopped to check his camera?

Could the bloody palm print have been left by CMja from some earlier time?

Could Travis have carried the camera to the end of the hallway

The pesky bear v tiger PTSD thing

And wasn't there a question asking the whereabouts of the roommates?

I'm sure there were a few more.

Whichever juror(s) asked the questions, s/he was all about CMja.

JMO

Could Jodi have built up rage that burst like a dam when the gun went off and she snapped?

Do women ever kill their abuser when they see no way out?

Have any of your patients ever killed their abuser.


I agree with the other poster who said they sounded like they were formed by the same mind. It was my opinion at the time that most of if not all of these q's were coming from the same person. They all had this speculative tone and certain lack of reasoning. They were reaching, with their emotions, to find something to exonerate Jodi. They just sounded like the same person, you know? Now we know who it was. He connected emotionally with her and is looking for things to justify her actions and behavior. His reasoning isn't sound. How can he say he thinks she was indeed abused verbally and emotionally? Based on one text? I think he's thinking there is more there that he wasn't told. I think he is right but will be really surprised to hear that it's not quite what he thinks. Jodi absolutely tormented Travis.

 

[callyn]

Jury Foreman.

lol, yep it was my thick head :blushing: Thanks!

 

[kscornfed]

If he really believed the mitigating factors outweighed the heinous murder she committed, fine... I honestly could respect that.

He keeps running his mouth, and every time he does... The more glaringly obvious it becomes that he didn't understand the role of a juror, he didn't uphold the oath he swore to, and he considered facts not in evidence,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it got worse the longer he talked.....and then he talked some more.

Let's forget the 'possibly should not have been on a death qualified jury' part for a minute. I have another beef with him.

the OTHER stuff----he hopes she finds peace and comes to grips (what?) with herself. And he'd like to talk to her. He'll never forget the look on her face when the guilty verdict was announced, kind of blowing off the pain in the Alexander family by lumping it in with how bad the Arias family is hurting, blah blah.....
Did it ever occur to him how much those words would hurt TA's friends and family? At a time when they're just about tapped out completely and are the living VICTIMS in this case, could he have maybe just edited himself for their sakes?

 

[Phoebeb]

There was a tweet from CMJA yesterday. Is this really from her? Or just Bering doing it on her own? Someone else take over for Bering?

Wonder if it's her stupid sister

 

[MeeBee]

All of the questions we didn't like were formed in a similar manner. Now we know the author. The tiger/bear question was one of the most alarming. To think that the PTSD (which to me was both irrelevant and non-existent) was tomato/tomahto with respect to the ninja story or the bogus self defense story was....crazy. Just bat**** crazy.

Yes! Like I said, just reaching for things to save her. They didn't make sense and ignored real evidence.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

All of the questions we didn't like were formed in a similar manner. Now we know the author. The tiger/bear question was one of the most alarming. To think that the PTSD (which to me was both irrelevant and non-existent) was tomato/tomahto with respect to the ninja story or the bogus self defense story was....crazy. Just bat**** crazy.

Oh my goodness, I thought I was the only one on this board completely freaked out by the PTSD bear v tiger question.

That question bothered me for days and days because it conveyed to me the juror thought, "Why are you splitting hairs? Doesn't matter if it's a tiger or a bear attacking; trauma is trauma."

 

[TDoc72]

It would thrill me no end if JA came to court with short short hair because she is so vain about her hair.

*snipped by me

Reminds me of whatever show aged Jodi's pic to show us what she'd look like in the future. I don't have a link, but it was like an older lady with a shaggy bob. And Vinnie Politan said, "oh look, she's still donating her hair!" I giggled for a good 10 mins.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Could Jodi have built up rage that burst like a dam when the gun went off and she snapped?

Do women ever kill their abuser when they see no way out?

Have any of your patients ever killed their abuser.


I agree with the other poster who said they sounded like they were formed by the same mind. It was my opinion at the time that most of if not all of these q's were coming from the same person. They all had this speculative tone and certain lack of reasoning. They were reaching, with their emotions, to find something to exonerate Jodi. They just sounded like the same person, you know? Now we know who it was. He connected emotionally with her and is looking for things to justify her actions and behavior. His reasoning isn't sound. How can he say he thinks she was indeed abused verbally and emotionally? Based on one text? I think he's thinking there is more there that he wasn't told. I think he is right but will be really surprised to hear that it's not quite what he thinks. Jodi absolutely tormented Travis.

How is it that he voted for M1?

Maybe deep down in the recesses of his soul, he knows she's guilty as homemade sin and needs to be locked up but that whole icky weirdo connection he made telepathically with her prevented him from sending her to the death chamber. That's all I can come up with to explain it.

 

[Karmady]

If he really believed the mitigating factors outweighed the heinous murder she committed, fine... I honestly could respect that.

He keeps running his mouth, and every time he does... The more glaringly obvious it becomes that he didn't understand the role of a juror, he didn't uphold the oath he swore to, and he considered facts not in evidence,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not to be nit-picky, but okay, nit-picky - especially cruel and heinous have completely different definitions in the jury charges. Especially cruel focuses on the pain suffered by the victim.

Here's a part of the jury charge:

The term “cruel” focuses on the victim’s pain and suffering. To find that the murder was committed in an “especially cruel” manner you must find that the victim consciously suffered physical or mental pain, distress or anguish prior to death. The defendant must know or should have known that the victim would suffer.

Especially Heinous or Depraved
The term “especially heinous or depraved” focuses upon the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, as reflected by the defendant’s words and acts. A murder is especially heinous if it is hatefully or shockingly evil, in other words, grossly bad. A murder is especially depraved if it is marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration. To determine whether a murder was “especially heinous or depraved,” you must find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exhibited such a mental state at the time of the killing by engaging in at least one of the following actions: [list only the options that apply]

 

[indicat]

Oh my goodness, I thought I was the only one on this board completely freaked out by the PTSD bear v tiger question.

That question bothered me for days and days because it conveyed to me the juror thought, "Why are you splitting hairs? Doesn't matter if it's a tiger or a bear attacking; trauma is trauma."

I think this juror asked that too and this is the reason he thinks JM spoke down to them, ie: him as JM really went off with that question even adding a gopher to the mix. I understood what Juan was doing but I bet he didnt like it.

 

[Garlandy]

Here it is. Warning: Reading this may make your stomach burn and your blood boil:

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/481669811909166

Thanks for the link and the warning rose222. Well you know that old saying 'think before you speak,'.. both father and son should maybe repeat that over in their head a few times if they don't want to hear people's responses to their comments. On the page where the son wrote all that someone wrote in and asked him if he saw pictures of Travis and the crime scene and asked him if he would feel differently if that had happened to his son. Thought that pretty much put it into perspective, but something tells me it would have been lost on the JF and his son.

 

[Myvice]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this as well. Threats are never okay, imo. In fact, they're quite illegal. I don't find the topic tiresome. I find it essential because it is completely nuts that people who have no attachment to this case other than watching it on tv are injecting themselves into it by making threats to the people who ARE involved directly. I can excuse the family members due to emotion, but not the spectators. It's disturbing to me -- really disturbing. I sincerely hope that every person who's made a threat to anyone involved in this case, either side, is prosecuted for it.

ITA. Those making threats on either side are wrong. It would be interesting to know exactly who these people are.

Has any info come out about the bomb threat person? That's insane!!

ETA: I would also like it verified that there actually were threats to some of those that made the claims. I think making the claim if it's untrue is just as bad. MOO

 

[Bernina]

Not sure if this is accurate, but there was a voicemail left to JSS, apparently.

It is and I think there was a sealed hearing about around the same time Tri- Color got booted. I believe it was put in with the documents that are posted on the County Court site. I saw that right before, maybe a day or 2, before Tri-Color was excused. But, it wasn't the reason "why" she was excused.

 

[Linda7NJ]

not to be nit-picky, but okay, nit-picky - especially cruel and heinous have completely different definitions in the jury charges. Especially cruel focuses on the pain suffered by the victim.

Here's a part of the jury charge:

The term “cruel” focuses on the victim’s pain and suffering. To find that the murder was committed in an “especially cruel” manner you must find that the victim consciously suffered physical or mental pain, distress or anguish prior to death. The defendant must know or should have known that the victim would suffer.

Especially Heinous or Depraved
The term “especially heinous or depraved” focuses upon the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, as reflected by the defendant’s words and acts. A murder is especially heinous if it is hatefully or shockingly evil, in other words, grossly bad. A murder is especially depraved if it is marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration. To determine whether a murder was “especially heinous or depraved,” you must find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant exhibited such a mental state at the time of the killing by engaging in at least one of the following actions: [list only the options that apply]

Thank you.
I meant it like "horrid" or "depraved" in my above sentence. Sorry for the confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I've seen a few murder cases in my area in North Carolina. I think the Arias case, had it happened here, might not be one the DA would go for the DP. Why? Well, our county DA is quite selective on DP cases. Not every murder 1 case is a DP case. The last 2 DP cases the jury voted for LWOP in each. DP cases are difficult to win and never a slam dunk.

This is the state that tried and convicted ex Green Beret Jeffrey MacDonald who bludgeoned and stabbed his wife and 2 little girls to death in 1969. Took 10 years and the feds had to try the case after the army failed to, but he was finally convicted of first degree murder. No DP. I consider that case more heinous and cruel than Arias' case. Two little girls. One was 5 the other was only 2. He killed 4 people, including the fetus his wife was carrying (would have been his first son).

Last year the retrial of wife killer Jason Young was finally held and finally won by the state. Murder 1. No DP on the table. He bludgeoned his pregnant wife over the head at least 30 times, his 2 yr old daughter apparently witnessed some of this, he drugged the little girl to get her back to sleep and left her with her dead mommy for many hours the next day, until he was able to find an excuse to get his sis-in-law to come over to the house where of course she found her dead sister and little niece. The little toddler had walked around in her mommy's blood and had even put one of her doll babies next to her dead mommy's head. Death toll: 2. Mommy & male fetus. The killer was conveniently out of town at that point. Compared to Arias? This was worse, IMHO.

It seems Arizona is also very selective on death penalty cases as well. They certainly aren't rushing out and asking for death on every female that commits first degree murder nor all the males that have committed them.

I don't really know of a state that is not selective when bringing a death penalty case. It has to be above and beyond what society is willing to accept and this is certainly one of those case that should be a death penalty case and that is why the DA went for it. During these past five months I have really seen very little opinions that JA does not deserve the DP. The majority believes this is the right and just sentence. The DA would be remiss in his duties if he had not done so. The murderer who cruelly kills someone three times over that is defenseless and naked certainly deserves no less than death.

It is an individual call by each DA that has jurisdiction over the area the crime occurred in. In this one the DA made the right call.

If the roles had been reversed and Travis had murdered Jodi in the very same manner then this absolutely would have been a death penalty case and rightly so. Just because this murderer happened to be a cold remorseless female who murdered an adult male it should never make any difference to a DA and thank goodness.......THIS TIME .......it didn't.

The only difference if it had been a male defendant is the jury would have come back with a unanimous vote for death, imo.

IMO

 

[Myvice]

I totally agree. It shouldn't be a mitigating factor in a case like this. No weight given by me. Not when someone commits their first offense in such a shockingly gruesome fashion. I really don't care that it's her first time, thanks very much.

Inspite of the fact she had no history as an adult, she quit school before graduating to move in with a guy. She had a poor work history and would leave work or not show up for work if she had personal issues.

To me, criminal history is just a record of poor decision making, which I felt was obvious. MOO

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

Fun question...Identical twins have the same DNA..Do they have the same finger prints and why or why not

 

[panthera]

Could Jodi have built up rage that burst like a dam when the gun went off and she snapped?

Do women ever kill their abuser when they see no way out?

Have any of your patients ever killed their abuser.


I agree with the other poster who said they sounded like they were formed by the same mind. It was my opinion at the time that most of if not all of these q's were coming from the same person. They all had this speculative tone and certain lack of reasoning. They were reaching, with their emotions, to find something to exonerate Jodi. They just sounded like the same person, you know? Now we know who it was. He connected emotionally with her and is looking for things to justify her actions and behavior. His reasoning isn't sound. How can he say he thinks she was indeed abused verbally and emotionally? Based on one text? I think he's thinking there is more there that he wasn't told. I think he is right but will be really surprised to hear that it's not quite what he thinks. Jodi absolutely tormented Travis.

BBM

There is a LOT that the Jury didn't hear about, however, they are sworn to only deliberate what is presented as evidence during the trial. Based on some of the questions, it does appear someone was looking for an "out" or way to at least explain her actions. Obviously the majority didn't believe her version of events or that she was a victim of some type of abuse.

MOO

 

[Garlandy]

I haven't been around much today and haven't seen all the interviews, so I was wondering has it come out yet why on earth this person was chosen to be the jury foreman? I would love to know how that happened.