SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sleuth5

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
0
Squirrel friend here as well, but I wish they would stop playing chicken with me up here on our north Atlanta roads. Seems like they always wait until the last minute and then dart in front of a car !

LOL, true. I actually read about them, since I love animals. It's their predator avoidance behavior. They are hard-wired to stop, wait, then suddenly dart in some direction because this makes it difficult for a predator to capture them. So, whenever you see one in the street or at the side of the road frozen and looking at you, they are about to do that. If you assume it is going to be in front of your car, you'll probably be safe. LOL
 

Sleuth5

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
0
Hey, speaking of squirrels...

[video=youtube;65t-OzhlmvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t-OzhlmvE[/video]
 

Numbers

New Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
897
Reaction score
0
:floorlaugh:
Seeing JW and Nurmi in action, it's nearly impossible for me to see them as trial strategy geniuses, but I wonder if ALV, RS, and DrGeffner were purposely chosen because they're all 65+? I thought they were the bottom of the barrel dregs that remained after more reputable experts refused to participate, but now I'm not so sure.

Perhaps Baez contacted them to offer some words of wisdom and legal-expert suggestions.




:floorlaugh:
 

Maryann123

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
1
I don't understand why if Jodi belongs in 23 hr solitary lockdown now, why was she allowed to do the interviews before? She's just as convicted of premeditated brutal murder now as before the interviews.

What's changed?



Well, after a guilty verdict, you normally see the handcuffs slapped on, and they drag them out of the courtroom and straight to jail. Or is that just in the movies? Anyhow, that's the way it ought to be! I want to see her suffer humiliation, since that's the only thing that seems to bother her.
 

ElleElle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
7,497
Reaction score
32
Hey now. I'm a liberal, in my 60s, reasonably well educated, well read and not overly stupid, and I would have voted for death with no problem whatsoever. Same with my husband, who's 75.

Everyone has unique thoughts. It does not matter age, gender, race.

I have a male friend who is 29, knows the details of the case (saw the autopsy photos) and thinks Jodi should get LWOP, because he thinks everything was fine up until Jodi met Travis.

I on the other hand, would of voted for DP.

I was in a big doo-doo last weekend because everyone was so angry, but it's so true how we view this crime based of so many factors. However, it doesn't help if a juror forms their opinion Day1 and doesn't change, stubborn may I say, this is the impression I get from jury foreman.
 

Sleuth5

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
0
:floorlaugh:

Perhaps Baez contacted them to offer some words of wisdom and legal-expert suggestions.




:floorlaugh:

Wow, you used Baez and legal expert in the same sentence. I may never recover.
 

Sleuth5

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
0
Hey -- Music Video AND Squirrels? What's not to love?

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

Horace Finklestein

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
1
Forgive me for this War Eagle, but here goes:

A pump pellet gun and a good eye. We have the same dayam problem here -- lots of beautiful birds, too. The cardinals and the squirrels like sunflower seeds, and, as you know, the squirrels get up there & spill all the un-sunflower seed on the ground -- at least the lazy doves like that! -- and the squirrels then get the sunflowers that the cardinals should be eating.

I got three squirrels in one day -- my personal best. I apologize to the squirrel-lovers out there, but I know of no other remedy. I only do it when they are especially bad.
icon9.gif

Congrats. I'm sure its worth having an animal die in pain slowly of an infection.
 

Paintr

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,964
Reaction score
38
I have a mamma robin, who for the last 3 years has decided to build her nest on top of the fancy light fixture right above my mail box.....2 feet from my front door. She now has three chicks in the nest and dive bombs everyone who comes to my door, chirping loudly and fluttering around their head. :scared:

At least my mailman has a sense of humour about facing her every morning. He says it makes a nice change from his usual fare of nasty dogs. :floorlaugh:
 

lauraoh

Active Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
378
Reaction score
39
Well, after a guilty verdict, you normally see the handcuffs slapped on, and they drag them out of the courtroom and straight to jail. Or is that just in the movies? Anyhow, that's the way it ought to be! I want to see her suffer humiliation, since that's the only thing that seems to bother her.

The handcuffs and carting off to jail only apply to defendants who aren't already in jail. Since CKJA was already in jail and wearing a stun belt, it was unnecessary.
 

IMPondering

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Squirrel Solution LLC

[video=youtube;l3Ya6z-NlDo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Ya6z-NlDo[/video]
 

DAWN TREADER

New Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,860
Reaction score
1
Seeing JW and Nurmi in action, it's nearly impossible for me to see them as trial strategy geniuses, but I wonder if ALV, RS, and DrGeffner were purposely chosen because they're all 65+? I thought they were the bottom of the barrel dregs that remained after more reputable experts refused to participate, but now I'm not so sure.

Still think the art work shown to the jurors by CMJA of portraits of Frank Sinatra, Elisabeth Taylor and Elvis Presley was no accident.
 

atthelake

Former Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
9,979
Reaction score
19
Squirrel friend here as well, but I wish they would stop playing chicken with me up here on our north Atlanta roads. Seems like they always wait until the last minute and then dart in front of a car !

I have two chipmunks that live in my backyard. They have destroyed my backyard in North Atlanta.

But I truly have become very fond of them and have named them Theodore and Alvin. I have come to enjoy sitting on the back porch watching then early in the day and then again at dusk.

I will worry about repairing my backyard when I put my house up for sale, until then I will continue to watch and enjoy them.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
 

aa9511

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
7
I still don't get this jury. If unanimous 1st degree, and unanimous on aggravating, then the discussion during deliberations should have only been did the mitigators outweigh the aggravating factors, right? They should not have asked themselves "am I able to sentence her to death?" It was more of a q of: did the mitigating factors outweigh the crime? I thought.

Phoebeb...here are my thoughts on this after mulling over this over the weekend:

The 4 for Life, and probably all of the jurors, think there is something not right with CMJA, as in not right in her head. Her interviews, her time on the stand, her behavior in court...all lead to the conclusion that there "just not something right with that GIRL."

But in the guilt phase and aggravation phase, they couldn't really think about that. I mean, obviously she committed the crime and she pre-meditated it. That is just the fact. And obviously the crime was extremely cruel...that is also a fact.

In the mitigation phase, they could think about it. And specifically the 4 though, this girl is almost crazy or just so out-of-it. How can we put this person to death, who doesn't even seem to realize the gravity of what she's done? I FIRMLY believe this is what was holding them back. And to back up their intuition, they made themselves believe that SOMETHING MUST have happened to her to make her this way. THey began to look for justifications to explain Jodi's PSYCHO - such as well, maybe somthing happened to her when she was a child.....maybe there is some truth to her child abuse stories. Maybe all her boyfriends used her, and that set her over the edge. I'm not saying this is rational thinking - I'm saying these people were willing to go out on a limb and believe things IN ORDER TO BACK-UP THEIR FEELING ABOUT HER GENERAL CRAZINESS.

And in the end, they coulnd't put a "crazy" person to death.
 

mck16

New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
7,472
Reaction score
4
LOL, true. I actually read about them, since I love animals. It's their predator avoidance behavior. They are hard-wired to stop, wait, then suddenly dart in some direction because this makes it difficult for a predator to capture them. So, whenever you see one in the street or at the side of the road frozen and looking at you, they are about to do that. If you assume it is going to be in front of your car, you'll probably be safe. LOL

I appreciate that piece of information. I realized many years ago that that is exactly what they do. They seemingly run across the street in front of you, but then they turn and run back across the street. I have learned to drive forward slowly, stop, and wait for them to come back. Then I move forward. But, I never knew why they did that. Thanks for the clarification. jmo
 

scmom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
4,602
Reaction score
3,006
I'm still recovering from my Comcast-imposed TO. But this is what I was thinking.
[video=youtube;FG1NrQYXjLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1NrQYXjLU[/video]
 

InALandFarFarAway

Lah di freakin' dah
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
0
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The key thing I was trying to illustrate is how jurors' assumptions/biases etc, inevitably color how they view the evidence, and thus their deliberations.

Another illustration.

Here's the me that is not playing devil's advocate. After this trial I could for the first time sit on a DP-qualified jury. Before this I would have answered no, I could not impose the DP. I would also be telling the truth to say yes, I could vote for life even if the defendant is convicted of a brutal premed murder.

At this point, though, I would be a DT's worse nightmare. Yes, I could vote for life, and saying that I could would not make me a stealth DP juror. The assumption I would carry with me into the jury box, though, is that whatever is being presented in court is skewed.

The DT will try to sully the victim, and what I'll hear will not represent the full truth about the victim. I'll know that the DT has far more latitude in what they get to present, and that the story they are telling me could be nothing more that that.

I'll know that the State's burden is enormous, that pertinent evidence about the defendant wasn't allowed in, that my fellow jurors can be bamboozled by lowered chairs, crocodile tears and the defendant's choice of costume and hairstyle.

I'm not saying that I would presuppose guilt. I am saying that I'm self-aware enough to know that my assumptions would filter the evidence being presented. I would be very unlikely to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant if during deliberations we were discussing an ambiguous piece of evidence, especially if the other pieces of the evidence mosaic were falling into a guilt pattern. And, if convinced of guilt, I would listen to opposing opinions, but I would not back down.

As I said, no DT would want me on their jury.

Agree. I was also trying to put myself in a juror's shoes and determine how I would view her from what I would have gleaned from all the testimony.

If I can later, I will post how my stance on the DP changed during this trial but usually, I would be open to considering something about the defendant that's redeeming or other things contributed to it and the person most likely won't commit another crime for as long as s/he lives.

I was horrified with the Louise Woodward case here. I thought everything she said was self-serving and that she never thought she would pay for what she did. She fake cried on the stand and had periods of CMja-esque snottiness. The DA refused to consider any other charges except First Degree so the only choices for her were First or acquittal.

I did not agree she should have been faced with First Degree because even though I believed what she did was stupid, careless, reckless and idiotic, I still believed she did not intend to kill the baby. She should have foreseen that shaking an infant would result in serious harm or death in her case but it seemed a case better suited for something less than First.

I thought her background/childhood were uneventful and she had no previous issues or run-ins with the law. She was completely unsuitable for a nanny position but she wanted to be in the US and was probably willing to do anything to study here. I thought the agency who vetted her, hired and sent her here was also culpable.

Of course when she was convicted of First degree she collapsed in genuine tears because of what would happen to HER and not necessarily the heartbreak and despair she created for Marthew Eappen's parents.

Just something about Louise and my own biases re: young girls specifically and young kids in general was making me sympathetic towards her while simultaneously (and not "contemporaneously" as the pretentious CMja would incorrectly insert, lolol) being horrified by her crime.

Btw, turns out the jury was split and the jurors voting for acquittal were convinced/persuaded/coerced into voting for conviction.

Her sentence was reduced to involuntary manslaughter and time served, which was a bit over 5 years.

All that to say I get it. But as soft as I can often be, as willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and exert strongly held beliefs regarding certain crimes and those who typically commit them, no one in that room would have convinced me that CMja should be spared. Maybe I would not have been a good juror because no matter what any DT presented, a person who could singe-handedly commit such an obscene massacre does not deserve consideration. Overkill indicates a savage component that can't be fixed, cured or properly explained. And as a juror in that box, none of my previous bias regarding CMja's demographic would have applied. It would have been a hung jury with me on it.

In fact, believe it or not, lol, I would have asserted myself fully and demanded to speak with the judge regarding a foreman who appeared TO ME to be biased and/or misunderstanding the instructions.

But that's just the hard a$$ in me.
 

IMPondering

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Seeing JW and Nurmi in action, it's nearly impossible for me to see them as trial strategy geniuses, but I wonder if ALV, RS, and DrGeffner were purposely chosen because they're all 65+? I thought they were the bottom of the barrel dregs that remained after more reputable experts refused to participate, but now I'm not so sure.

Maybe The Forman was upset with JM because he destroyed these peeps his age. Makes you go hmmmmm......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top