Trial Sidebar audio, transcripts released! *Discuss here*

Hat

New Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Quote:
"...what judge in their right mind would let Arias have parole.? "

Pish-tosh. They ain't any suchova thing as no parole. Loopy governor can commute a sentence (like Arnold say), Supremes could rule AZ dungeons too deep, law could be changed, Zimmerman Telegram redux. Lots of ways.

Where there's life there's hope. Only dead is dead.
What hope she leave Travis Alexander?

She gotta go.
 

scubagrannie

New Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I'm curious about this nurse! There is no way a practicing catholic should have been on the jury. Do you happen to have a linky? :blushing:

Please do tell why you think "a practicing catholic" shouldn't have been on the jury.

IMO "a practicing catholic" isn't much different than a "practicing jew, mormon, protestant, buddhist, etc." If a person rises to practicing their faith in works and deeds in their daily life, then it would be most difficult to seat an impartial death-qualified jury of any sort. For CMJA to have a "jury of her peers" then perhaps the courts would need to find persons with zero morals combined with sociopathy and very low impulse control.
 

rob

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
21
After ALV was caught in her various lies and exaggerations, I don't get why she was allowed to continue testifying. It's scary to think we had a liar testifying and affecting the outcome of a murder trial of all things. What are people thinking?? Dangerous and scary.

I can't believe she was allowed to continue AND got paid big money for obvious lying!
It should have been allowed be to said how many people evaluated Jodi and didn't get used because their opinion wasn't what the defense wanted to present. When does that info come out, about who got paid for what?
 

Love Never Fails

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
10,877
Reaction score
60,098
I agree with you to a certain degree. I just feel lucky that we got the unanimous Murder1 verdict, given his obvious "doubt". I too will never understand his position ... he seems to be a rather "weird" thinker, insofar as he seems to overlook obvious facts that would point to guilt, manipulation or lies ... dunno ... just can't understand it either. And he seemed to want to believe that Travis was abusive when there was absolutely no evidence or proof of any such thing. Just that one very angry text message that we heard over and over and over .... I think most people heard something else in that message (not verbal and emotional abuse by Travis) .... just pure frustration and desperation to GET RID of his stalker and the person who was trying to destroy him ... just sayin'

But, having said that, there were also 3 others who (for whatever reason) could not vote for death ...

Sydni,
If they couldn't vote for death, they should be up front and just say it and they should not have been death qualified to sit on this jury. As for the foreman, he has made it difficult for anyone to understand him. Travis by all accounts was a good fellow and Jodi was the abuser in every single way. So when he states he thinks Jodi was verbally or mentally abused, he becomes a laughing stock. I think any one of us would have abused her plenty before we allowed her to get away with this! Jmo.
 

Love Never Fails

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
10,877
Reaction score
60,098
I don't think he could have made up an excuse why he didn't vote for M1 and the cruelty of the crime.

But he could make up excuses in order to give her life instead of death and that is what he did imo. It really makes no sense. Imo, this was a clear cut death penalty sentence They were to be honest that they COULD and WOULD give the death penalty if it was warranted if it was backed up by the evidence. They all agreed it was premed. They all agreed that it was extremely cruel so what in the heck happened? Juan had met his burden and then some in both phases.

They had their answer whether she deserved the death penalty by agreeing to those two things.

All I can think of is he was predisposed to be anti-death penalty and should have had enough honesty to tell the attorneys and the Judge during jury selection that as he is suppose to do. Unfortunately a person has to be taken for their word and what people say and what they think may be two different things especially if they want to be on a very high profile case.

All of the jurors had ample time to weigh whether they could vote for death. They knew going in it was a DP case. I know when I was on a death penalty case I had already confirmed in my mind that I could.... if warranted... vote for death and this was even before jury selection. I had to know the answer because I knew I was going to be asked and I knew I had to answer truthfully.

No juror with a "I 'think' I can' attitude should ever sit on a death penalty case. They should know beforehand for sure whether they can do it or not should it come to it and if they cant the Judge needs to be told at the beginning. If they decide during the case they can't then they should advise the Judge and be replaced by an alternate. It isn't fair to the state or taxpayers to have a juror who is unsure going in. It is not only a huge waste of money but also time.

It doesn't mean they have to give the person death of course if they find the mitigating factors outweighs the aggravators.

BUT in the Arias case the mitigating factors didn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the heinous cruel murder of her victim. Not only the way she murdered him but the way she revictimized him after death by lying through her teeth about Travis knowing he is voiceless and cant defend himself. Those two things alone far outweighs any foolish mitigating factors the DT listed.

I think the four that drank the Koolaid were probably two men and two women or the Foreman talked them into voting with him. Sometimes a Foreman thinks they have more power/weight than they actually do and some jurors can become confused and think being Foreman does give that person more power. So these other three may have felt they should side with the Foreman. He seems to have a very domineering personality anyway. Maybe they weren't critical thinkers themselves and were easily led.

IMO

ITA. You said it best.
 

Jane Jetson

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
619
Reaction score
0
I think the jury foreman was completely the wrong person to have taken that position. I don't know if he took it because he was overbearing and wanted to from the start or what ,but he would have irritated me if I was one of the jurors. Regardless of what anyone else thought I would have wanted to make my own mind up based on what evidence I heard and in my opinion he was not what was needed in a jury foreman.

Moo completely, but I've sometimes wondered if Mr. Ponytail went galloping out of there because he could no longer take Mr. F. Like you, I couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't have taken someone that discouraged deliberation because he wanted to save Little Missy's hide.
 

Niner

Long time Websleuther
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
64,165
Reaction score
194,493
I know this is the wrong thread, but if I post this in the Sidebar thread it will get lost...

Would like to know the DATE of the next court session for CMja - ?? was it June 20th??

TIA!!! :seeya:
 

DAWN TREADER

New Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,860
Reaction score
1
I think the jury foreman was completely the wrong person to have taken that position. I don't know if he took it because he was overbearing and wanted to from the start or what ,but he would have irritated me if I was one of the jurors. Regardless of what anyone else thought I would have wanted to make my own mind up based on what evidence I heard and in my opinion he was not what was needed in a jury foreman.

For anyone who may know ...

Have any of the jurors (including alternates or dismissed) explained how the jury foreman was chosen? Has the foreman himself explained how he became the "foreman"?

Addendum:

Still haven't found an answer to my question but while looking came across a new interview with the foreman who explains why he voted for the DP and what he thinks about justice for Travis's family. (FYI please let the video play out as they added additional footage from a later broadcast)

http://www.azfamily.com/video/?id=211014911&sec=528732
 

AngelWings444

New Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
6
Please do tell why you think "a practicing catholic" shouldn't have been on the jury.

IMO "a practicing catholic" isn't much different than a "practicing jew, mormon, protestant, buddhist, etc." If a person rises to practicing their faith in works and deeds in their daily life, then it would be most difficult to seat an impartial death-qualified jury of any sort. For CMJA to have a "jury of her peers" then perhaps the courts would need to find persons with zero morals combined with sociopathy and very low impulse control.

Devout catholics are opposed to the death penalty. I'm not going to debate religion. They were all death qualified, but it makes me wonder. Agree with everything you said about the killer. :seeya:
 

Truth Detector

Your Humble Observer
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
0
Oh where do I start?

You think a jury member was trying to hook up with the murderer? Was he gonns break her out of prison first or ???

So Zervakos has to break her out of prison to have personal feelings for her?

Since when?

Doc 'Scamuels' certainly didn't...
 

Truth Detector

Your Humble Observer
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
0
Nope. There were no ad hominems coming from the defense that I know of. If you know of one, please share it.

I'd estimate that 90+% of the DT's unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and patently false claims regarding the victim were ad hominem attacks more commonly known as out and out character assassination:

  • They stated categorically that Travis Alexander was a pedophile.
  • They stated categorically that he was physically violent with the convicted torture murderess.
  • They stated that he attacked her and that he formally announced his intention to kill her, thereby establishing a foundation of prevarication with which to support the bogus self-defense testiphony.
  • And on, and on...
 

Truth Detector

Your Humble Observer
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
0
I know this is the wrong thread, but if I post this in the Sidebar thread it will get lost...

Would like to know the DATE of the next court session for CMja - ?? was it June 20th??

TIA!!! :seeya:

It's actually an un-designated status conference (planning/scheduling meeting).

From JSKS' court docket calendar:

CR2008-031021 6/20/2013 8:30 Status Conference - Undesignated
Parties: State Of Arizona, Jodi Ann Arias
 

Tiger09

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
10
To one Tiger from another Tiger - Not much has been released yet. Everything that has been released so far is included in this thread...War Eagle! :seeya:

That's like the one thing I want to see. I'm not too keen on the lawyers fighting- I figured that happened anyway. I want to see the ALV closed hearing stuff. The Flores investigative report was interesting, though. I never heard of Ashley Thompson, and I've followed this case for a while. I wonder if Arias knew Dustin Thompson and if dude was DNA swabbed. Or at least put against the crime scene. Or what if Arias said she'd call Dustin Thompson and get him after Travis. It just makes me wonder. I'm sure Arias manipulated a few people in her days outside of cagedom. I'd also like to see documents with MM. There has to be something on that guy.
 

Wagara

Wishin' and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’...
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
22
Nope. There were no ad hominems coming from the defense that I know of. If you know of one, please share it.
I was speaking of the lack of respect shown to the state's attorney by the defense team. I don't care if it was ad hominems or not.

If Sam cuts me with a knife I'm not going to look for a knife...I'm going to come back at Sam with whatever I can get my hands on at the time. If Sam can't handle that he needs to mind his manners. Words work the same way. JMO

WagaraTapaTalk
 

JSR

Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
11
if he hung his hat on abuse she would not be convicted unanimously of premed murder and most of them also voted for felony murder.

I think the crux and argument was over death.

:twocents::twocents:

I am anxiously await the status conference on the 20th to see if the state wants to go another round for death. After seeing all the evidence (despite the outcome of the SC) what judge in their right mind would let Arias have parole.? The big win was the conviction. I feel very badly for the jurors that have to find out all the evidence that was left out of the trial after the fact. I thank them all for their selfless service.

Agreed.

Two plus 2 doesn't add up here. If the foreman truly believed she was abused by Travis then he would also have hung up the M1 conviction. His reasoning makes no sense.
 

JSR

Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
11
I'm curious about this nurse! There is no way a practicing catholic should have been on the jury. Do you happen to have a linky? :blushing:

That's a bit unfair. I'm a practicing Catholic. And although I have issues with the DP I do think that in some cases the DP is warranted and in fact needed. If I was sitting on the jury I would have absolutely voted for the DP. That's not to say that I would vote the same way on all DP cases. But in this case I think Jodi is a complete danger to society, including the jail society.
 

PPKik

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
906
Reaction score
4
I'd estimate that 90+% of the DT's unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and patently false claims regarding the victim were ad hominem attacks more commonly known as out and out character assassination:

  • They stated categorically that Travis Alexander was a pedophile.
  • They stated categorically that he was physically violent with the convicted torture murderess.
  • They stated that he attacked her and that he formally announced his intention to kill her, thereby establishing a foundation of prevarication with which to support the bogus self-defense testiphony.
  • And on, and on...

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
 

AngelWings444

New Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
6
That's a bit unfair. I'm a practicing Catholic. And although I have issues with the DP I do think that in some cases the DP is warranted and in fact needed. If I was sitting on the jury I would have absolutely voted for the DP. That's not to say that I would vote the same way on all DP cases. But in this case I think Jodi is a complete danger to society, including the jail society.

Maybe I shouldn't have made a broad statement, but as a person growing up in the Catholic faith, attending private schools, this is the view. I am sure some members of the church could and would vote for the DP. It's just rare and really against their faith. That is why I later clarified they would have had to be DP qualified, so both sides trusted religion wouldn't matter.

I agree the killer deserves the death penalty.
 

nells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
354
Reaction score
1,249
That's like the one thing I want to see. I'm not too keen on the lawyers fighting- I figured that happened anyway. I want to see the ALV closed hearing stuff. ... I'd also like to see documents with MM. There has to be something on that guy.

BBM: These are the things I'm waiting for! What happened to ALV and why "should she be upset about what was uncovered," in the words of JM? What would MM have said on the stand, and was he or was he not an "ally"???
 
Top