I am moving the video to behind the cut because it starts automatically and that is going to drive us all nutty. So click through for the video.
A bit more informaion about juror deliberations in the Jodi Arias tria. Juror # 6 says votes were not along gender lines.
Link to GMA interview with 3 jurors. Who do you think the other two are?
This juror along with two others, imcluding the one who looked like Jodi’s mom and one of the males were on GMA this morning. They all stated they voted for death. I think the foreman voted life after seeing his interview.
I wonder if Jodi gets the DP, if right before they kill her if she will maybe tell the real story to get it out there before she meets her maker. Or maybe if she gets life, in her very old age? Or perhaps she ends up committing suicide if she will leave a note with the real details of what happened? I know it seems improbable right now, but gbe fear of meeting your maker often gets people to fess up to their sins. Wouldn’t it be something if she actually ends up getting a conscience when all she has is time on her hands? Maybe even to just get the voices in her head to stop. I could see her wanting to go out with a bang and also having the last word.
A) She is not going to get the DP. (2) She doesn’t have a conscience. But I am sure she will leave a lengthy manifesto written with her wee little pencil about how she is a victim and a martyr for domestic violence.
O god, I completely forgot… Absolutely: Manifesto scratched out in golf pencil. How perfectly Lives of the Saints.
TT 100 percent agreed with post with the exception of “A” How certain are we that she will not get the DP second time around? The bitter irony here is the foreman may well have set that in motion via his stance in believing the judge would decide penalty. Ya, I’m still rolling my eyes over that one.
I wonder if that’s how severe, entrenched personality disorder works, Lori. I figure she’ll either go off some pseudo-religious deep end (having nothing to do w/ authentic moral/ethical concepts & feelings) or she’ll go out whispering, w/ eerie martyr-istic composure, (face powdered, lips glossed, legs crossed, leaning seductively in) “document, document, document… I am the cautionary tale sent unto you… document, document, d-aw-q…” Poof!
Lori, better get used to the idea that NO WAY IN HELL will she actually admit to how/why/what/when/where…………….i guarantee she has already convinced herself that she never did it, and even if she did, it was justified and she cannot remember and, well, she has moved on and there are other things to do…..(remember the overpopulation and future potential of cockroaches at perryville palace)
Jane: ROFLMAO***
ok I feel a little better after watching the three jurors…that foreman was really bumming me out! I wonder why he was selected to be the foreman?
Completely agree. These three jurors appear to be far more thoughtful and articulate than the foreman. Have to wonder why he was selected. I’m very confused by his comment, “she is a human being.” Well, yeah, we know that — and a DP murder case would not otherwise be needed if she had not been a human.
MAYBE he was chosen as foreman because of Tamara’s fondness of him? 😉 Just kidding. We all hope that is the last bad choice you make Tamara! 😉
I THINK it is a commercial for some sort of tomato sauce where the woman says “I’ve always just chosen Ragu! I wonder what other terrible choices I’ve made in my life” or something. I feel like that a lot. 🙂
He probably volunteered to be foreman. And, a foreman with an agenda was what he was, I’m sure. Generally If no one volunteers to act as foreperson, then a selection process takes place.
but in all fairness, let’s remember they got first degree with aggravating…….so it is all good in the end (was it bad to say good?)
They absolutely did, docwall. It was a challenge & an achievement. Justice by jury. Please presume that to be the permanent, repeating line at the end of any ponderous, seemingly critical comment I make from here on. They absolutely did reach the full-package verdict.
These three jurors obviously decided to go against the unanimous decision for all jurors to keep who voted for death and who didnt quite….hmm…..probably after realizing the hatred and disappointment from the public….figuring if they revealed themselves and the way they voted …that it would get the public on their sides…..really gives some insight into who they really are…
You obviously did not watch the interviews. They promised not to tell how others voted, but and this is the thing…. They can tell how they voted if they so choose. so your so called insight is a little screwed up. I really wish people would read TT’s post’s and the info she gives them before they give INSIGHTS!!!!
Favorite post of the day.
Marsha, you’re correct. They agreed not to “out” each other, but are free to “out” themselves. However, by theory of process of elimination, it could, of course, boil down to a thorough “outing,” no?
And don’t think these 3 don’t know it. Yes, as expressed, they may feel “like family” amongst themselves after their shared experience. But, as in most families, there appear to be significant factions. It may be over the top to mention “passive aggression” at this juncture. But these 3 jurors revealed their votes for a reason. They came across to me as intelligent, thoughtful people… hardly push-overs. They know it’s merely a matter of time before the math is done. They clearly feel the distinguishing of their votes is important on some level, for some reason. (Perhaps, the term “proactive” is preferred to “passive aggressive.” Or, maybe, “tactful, but firm self-assesrtion?”
Thanks Jane….exactly what I was trying to get across…
If so, then i go along w/ you as far as this: by stating their votes, they knowingly ignite process of elimination that could, over time, result in full “outing.” I don’t, however, agree w/ the motive you ascribed to these jurors. Having seen their demeanor & heard their voices, I admire that they’ve stated their votes & feel that they see purpose in distinguishing themselves at this time.
Delete term “passive aggression” in my comment above. It’s not enough that I know what I meant by it & tried to qualify what I meant. As it stands, it gives impression I’m against these 3 jurors. No! I am for, for, for them… they were tactfully, but firmly self-assertive by stating their votes. Good on them. All respect. (I thought I’d been clearer than I apparently was, hailey.)
LIKE!!!!
I feel like I am in the twilight zone. Did you watch the video? All three of those jurors voted for DP!
These jurors came across as discerning, deep thinking, highly reasonable, fair-minded individuals. I think their decision to openly state their votes is due to heart-felt commitment to those votes, not an attempt to sway public opinion. (Please believe me, ER nurses don’t give a hot damn about such nonsense. They lead w/ extraordinary pragmatism & clarity of duty.)
even if she tells the REAL story of what happened who would believe it? Lets just be happy that in a couple perryville years she will look JUST like her dad..bet the jury guys didnt think of that. JANE you and DOCWALL got me thinking..google Debra Jean Milke and read the wiki page and follow the appeal links and tell me if you think she needed 22 years of perryville death row. An interesting read of the other side of the death penalty coin to learn how the appeals work.
Curious, Steve. Will do.
(“… couple of perryville yrs… will look just like her dad…” Unfair to say, perhaps, but I, too, feel an element of femme fatal may have affected penalty phase. And the thought of any Arias story being accepted as “real” – preposterous, no?!)
hard to get Milke case, likely i will look into it more…………..but it does sound like from the get-go, things were not handled carefully; yet, life insurance policy 5K? Agreed JA is a goner………….i think it unlikely she can appeal, although i don’t know the law; and yep, she played the “V” card…………i was pleased to see the jurors who absolutely would not buy her BS!!!
and, no, it does not appear from first glance that Milke deserved the treatment ……….not so much from a guilt/innocence perspective, but because it appears that the immediate interviewer(s) did not follow the rules appropriately, thus jeopardizing the initial ruling……………………too bad………………and, of course, it always makes me wonder about people on death row with so much less evidence than that which JA, in essence, handed to Juan and the jury . “Stupid girl”
Steve & docwall, read wiki &, then, another longer piece that went into more details of crime & various appeal stages re: Milke as well as male perpetrators. Didn’t know of the crime or case in real time, but was aware-in-passing (due to following Arias trial & learning of the women on AZ Death Row) that her conviction & DP had been overturned this March (coincidentally, perhaps ironically – but who will ever say “contemporaneously” again w/out throwing up.)
Arias: “Yes, Debra Jean Milke’s conviction & death sentence were overturned contemporaneous with the run of my Broadwa… my own legal proceedings, which ultimately inspired my life of service at Perryville. If that makes sense?”
Interesting case, Milke. Still not firm on the facts, seems as if the appeals process proved a blessing, & rightfully so. Either she was really, truly framed by an investigator w/, himself, an apparent personality disorder or this guy is unprofessional to such an unconscionable degree that his work canNOT stand (and more’s the shame if justice suffers due to his corruption.)
Steve, Milke appeals story also makes me wonder what a realistic picture of Arias’ appeal opportunities looks like?
my phone wnot do the video!! So sorry if kinda off topic doin best i can. When the arias family was all in court i saw that angela favors moms look and jodi gonna get dads hound dog jowls. My worry all thru trial was which guys would be trapped by her floppy lady bits (we are guys if godzilla had lady bits we want to see them) and who would believe the abuse story. It sounds like some did.
Correction: “She will NOT be a happy camper”.
isn’t this the female juror (the one the ‘looks like jodi’s mom’) that Dr Drew decided couldn’t give the death penalty? I thought I remember him saying that since she was crying when the 1st degree verdict was announced, he thought she would be unable to sentence jodi to death. If so, it just further erodes my respect for his opinion. I was already on the fence after hearing him call Travis’ sister ‘my Samantha’, AND actually expressing sympathy for jodi. Also, why does Dr Drew have a show where he discusses psychology, when he is an internist?
I think that the other lady. If you look at he other interview, that woman looks like Jodi’s mom. But, guess what? She voted for the death penalty.
What I can’t stand @ Dr. Drew is that after 5 months of constantly preying on the public’s fasicination with all things JA, he is now condemning the ‘mob rule’ of that same public. So strange. He now wants us to behave after trying to whip us into a frenzy for all those months. Shut up about mobs Dr. Drew.
I finally figured out what the mitigation ladys job was. She sat all thru trial watching every jurors reactions to testimony and victim impact statements. That was the 5 day delay between statements and jodis electrocution..i mean allocution. Mitigation lady tailored the BS speech to hit as many nerves as possible. The delay the day jodi read it was due to rewriting speech in her own words and practicing. And it worked.
Oh God. I haven’t been so tied in knots over a trial since OJ. And as with that mess, we, outside of the artificial reality that is jury duty, know so very much more. Not just evidence, but analyzing strategies of the DT and bogus motions.
Steve, you just drove it home. Much like “opposition research” done by weasly politicians, there are profilers to assist in gaining an easy to convince jury and mitigation cows to aid in flimflam right before deliberation. I am grateful for the cameras in the court that let us have a glance behind the curtain to see the Cootch Show….as in Carnivale.
This underscores the work, dedication and fearlessness that Juan exhibited.
Steve & MaRiley, valid observations! I don’t believe for a minute the “mitigation specialist” was an idle, innocuous presence in that courtroom & have always thought the delay between victim impact statements & allocution was, perhaps, the single most effective DT tactic or serendipity. Bet she did watch jurors like a hawk, learn them each by heart & hone BS presentation during delay – then, during delay day-of, get Arias in line (as best she could.) Ma Riley, your comparison between politics & legal proceedings (re: the various PR, marketing & message-shaping sub-specialties) is so apt.
And the Cooch/Carnivale metaphor! Breathtaking how it fits this particular case (as well as the expanded meaning you make.) As Stumpy would say, “This [was] a dance you don’t tell your mama about!” (Travis might have agreed?) And the “blow off,” when a dancer would discard the g-string & show her bits?! Arias sure got that in. Check this R. Allen quote from “Horrible Prettiness” (re: cooch shows): “…some ended with the rubes coming forward with flashlights to really get a good clinical look between the splayed legs…By that time, the sequin-studded satin-and-fringing routine had been reduced to fumbling with a torch in the halflight, a gynaecological exhibit got underway.”
Horrible Prettiness, indeed.
Back on the blog – Had to give equal time to Mad Man. (& hubby) There’s the Carnivale reference again. My Arias outbursts @ dinner begged my husband to placate my “silent reflection time.” Ironic, we were discussing Carnivale – episode after Stumpy gets Sophia up on stage and his youngest daughter gets attacked. the town rubes carve the word “Harlot” in her forehead. I pictured Jodi as that daughter, when she was left behind in the ghost town of Babylon, at service to the ghosts of dead miner’s for eternity !
Very frightening ! Odd too, I mentioned – if someone would write a book about all of this – it could be called (redundantly)
~ Pretty Ugly.
Whoops meant Mad Men – man could have been a “slip” for my husband who I tried to spare my spinning mind and rambling commentaries. So we watched History2 (like we used to…) Just like old times. He went on to bed – I “had” to clean up my DVR list. 🙂 I even sickened my self ! Lol
Thanks for posting this, TT. I like this lady. I love listening to her soothing, lovely voice. She sounds so level headed.
Whew. I needed that. Those jurors expressed the same feelings I had and when I heard the foreman talk I was concerned. One thing I thought I would ask all on this great site is why doesn’t HLN cough up some quan to the Alexanders. I mean their ratings have gone ballistic during this trial and to hear the various HLN folk gush about the Alexanders I would think it would be a fine gesture to sign them to some deal and since we are most likely to see a new Penalty phase HLN could do some kind of semi exclusive with them. I heard Eiglarsh tell Sky Hughes that he and Drew would help the family and then Drew started to cough and then change the subject.
http://s17948.p858.sites.pressdns.com/2013/05/26/what-was-maria-delarosas-job-on-the-jodi-arias-trial/
Here is interview of Juror number 6 answering twitter questions.
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2411704415001
The foreman’s adult son, on his blog, speaks out in defense of his father. He says he’s prompted by harsh criticism & alleged leaking of private information, following his father’s recent media comments. I’m sure the son speaks from a position of love & loyalty. He’s, no doubt, also coming from a place of disgust; there’s no excuse for the privacy lines some people feel compelled to cross & the deviousness, with which perfect strangers & idle nincompoops try to exact their ounce of serious flesh.
However, I find the son’s blog post so poorly written & disorganized as to be almost unintelligible. And whatever bits of (abandoned) argument I can discern seem strikingly juvenile. He, clearly, takes himself seriously as a writer. That’s wonderful. And his banner boasts a serious tag line & sharp font. That’s nice, too. Yet, I’m surprised, in that case &, moreover, because this particular article would clearly be of significant personal import, that the son did not, then, hone his points through a couple working drafts. This piece was important.
I’d be interested to know what others see in the blog post. Again, I don’t understand what, in particular, his argument is. He darts about, taking several tacks, & not bringing any one full circle. There are too many to mention, but to name a few: Surely, the son realizes that his father was a jury foreperson & is being scrutinized as such. The fact that he loves his grandchildren isn’t particularly relevant (unless the whole article had been about introducing us to the man behind the juror – which it’s not.) Surely, the son realizes that his father made himself publicly available, including. the son says, inviting media into his house, where, the son says, they “spent the night.” That seems a bit odd. The son alludes to the heroics of his father’s vote against DP, but never convincingly discusses why, specifically, this is heroic. He just puffs that we will be grateful for a juror like his father when we find ourselves in Arias’ position. Wellll, that’s not really a mature argu… Anyway, he tells us his father used to want to be famous, but doesn’t anymore. Eek! And he tells us that he, himself, is a “media whore,” so let him just tell us “how the media works”… ugh.
I understand he’s in a sensitive position. And coming from a position of love & loyalty. But, I don’t know. Is this blog post the best he could do on his father’s behalf?
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for this post to be vitriolic & had no idea, TT, that you had put up your newest blog post. Please just delete this off if you can. I had a whole different response to reading the son’s & don’t want to upset anyone. I do have compassion for the jurors & don’t think they should be tormented. Please do magic & get my comment off.
I am an example of one supersaturated, no longer thinking clearly & bringing wrong, useless perspective.
Jane, you are also mere mortal (hehe), and it is ok to sound off….you made good points, and so did the son. Alas, i am AGAIN reminded that this is not Caey Anthonoy and the jury got a felony charge……………
Jane, nothing to forgive or delete about your post. I read somewhere that his father, the foreman, once had a radio show that did not do well. So I guess the desire for public whoredom is genetic. Sorry I don’t have a source for the comment @ the foreman having a radio program. If any of you have read Kristina Randle’s blogs, she is a criminal psychologist, she has written several interesting post on her blog regarding Daryl’s interview and the foreman’s as well. Great reads all. Also one about JA’s mitigation speech.
http://s17948.p858.sites.pressdns.com/2013/05/29/sidebar-for-trial-watchers-only/
that doesn’t mean you can’t still post here, just letting you know