It seems like the vitriol is just beginning for the jury foreman. As I said earlier in comments, all of those who loved him during trial have not remained steadfast. That is the thing about these public trials. The public goes batshit crazy when they don’t like the outcome. Hopefully, this will not rise to the level of the Casey Anthony trial where angry mobs literally drive people out of their towns and out of their jobs. This all seems so insane to me. There are thousands of trials going on every day in every state in this country. As soon as one comes on TV, we become like spectators at the Hunger Games. It’s a social phenomenon I find deeply disturbing.
So here is a teaser and a link to a blog by the son of the foreman. If we got to choose fathers and grandfathers I think we would probably prefer them to be loving and kind-hearted and full of wisdom and mercy. The kind of man who could sentence a young murderer to the highest charge, ensure she would be removed from society, but show mercy on her. The kind of man who would opt not to give the cruelest punishment to someone just because he could. I think those would be qualities I would select in a father or a grandfather. Someone who believes in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and leaving vengeance for a higher authority.
The Executioner With The Public Face
My dad was the jury foreman in the Jodi Arias murder trial.
I am betting that a good portion of you don’t know or care but there is sure a sizable piece of America and beyond that knows now who my dad is—which is to say they know his name and they know he had a chance to help execute a criminal. And they know that on his watch, that criminal was not sentenced to die.
That’s where it ends, of course. The knowledge of my dad. That’s all that all but a statistically negligible percentage of the universe knows about my dad. They don’t know that my dad loved his kids or loved baseball or loves cars or loves golf or loves his grandkids or any of a million things. They don’t know that above all his weaknesses, my dad is an honorable man.
And that’s okay. No one needs to know my dad. I think before this all happened, my dad would have liked to be famous. I’m not speaking for him but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case anymore.
Today I read hate mail my dad had gotten. Some person had sent him a threatening message complete with his email address, full name, and phone number (which at the very least means that this guy should retake Hate Mail 101). I also read some comments on an article online about my dad. Surreal. They say my dad was fooled by the defendant, that he was taken with her, that he hated the prosecutor. But what was most interesting to me is how many people say my dad is a media whore.
Let me explain to you how the media works. I am a media whore. I want nothing more than an open mic, a bully pulpit, a captive audience. But no one cares what I have to say, and therefore the media doesn’t care.
But the world (maybe even you, if you are honest) wants to hear about Jodi Arias. Everything, every lurid detail about her. So when my dad showed up at his own home after the mistrial was declared, the major media were there waiting for him. They spent the night in his home. He chose to speak, but if you all didn’t care, no one would have even had a clue who my dad is. It’s poor form to consume media and at the same time complain about its availability.
One last thing, and then I’ll be done, because thinking about how my dad is suffering makes my heart hurt. A jury gets impaneled once or twice in a generation to oversee a trial like this… [For the rest of the story… Click here]
Many thanks to TT reader, Ashley, for the link.
I haven’t been following this daily, but I do like the updates. This blog is interesting to me, but the link isn’t working.
Thanks for the heads up. It was my error, it’s late. Should be working now.
I read this blog in its entirety and glanced around a bit. It is sad that these jurors have to go though this ridicule and media attention for doing their civic duties. Hopefully they can get back to normal soon.
Hi TT Thanks for sharing this. Choked me up. I just imagined how I would feel if that was my dad and strangers were threatening or saying terrible untrue things about him. Sad.
Yeah, kind of like what Jodi Arias was saying about Travis Alexander. Sucks, doesn’t it?
Let me begin by saying that I oppose capital punishment and I’ve been dismissed from jury duty due to this belief. How did several people who now appear to oppose the death penalty manage to get seated on this death-qualified jury? And how did this particular idiot manage to become the jury foreman? Are we to believe that this man was the best of the bunch, the best qualified to lead this group of jurors in their monumental effort to follow the rule of law, to balance the evidence and testimony in deciding the fate of the defendant? If so, this is a sad testament.
Am I just a complete fool to think that one must be honest about something as serious as life and death? It would never have occurred to me to lie about the fact that I do not believe in capital punishment so that I could sit on a jury in a death penalty case in order to then throw the trial. Have the courage to speak your truth and face the consequences with honor for goodness sakes. Don’t get yourself seated on a jury in a death penalty case if you are not capable of following through on what you have sworn, under other, to do.
This jury foreman disgusts me. At some point after he was chosen to be on this death-penalty qualified jury he decided that he was a mere mortal and therefore not capable of making the decision he swore he would deliver on. This jury foreman circumvented the justice system that he swore to uphold by deciding a day late and a dollar short that he doesn’t, after all is said and done, believe in the death penalty.
This trial has apparently cost the Arizona taxpayers 1.7 million dollars, thus far, and because the jury wasn’t able to reach a unanimous decision regarding sentencing a new jury must be seated. And then both the prosecution and defense must present their cases once again, which in addition to adding to the Arizona taxpayer’s tab, adds an incredibly heavy burden to the already beleaguered Alexander family.
For over five years I volunteered for a nonprofit organization working to end the death penalty and stood vigil for hours outside San Quentin Prison on the eve of executions. I have stood up for my convictions and that has come with a price but I will never waver on this belief and I certainly would not commit perjury so that I could get seated on the jury of a death-penalty case to throw the trial. That is not the way to go about voicing one’s opposition to the issue.
I’m disgusted with each and every one of the jurors in this case who decided, after the fact, far too late in the game, that they couldn’t deliver on what they’d signed up for. And my greatest disgust is reserved for the jury foreman who deceived everyone and now apparently wants to be seen as an every man, and possibly even a hero who spared the life of Jodi Arias.
Couldn’t have said it better ellafitzbunbun, thanks for sharing.
Me either. Great job Ella. The old guy doesn’t deserve threats by no means. But, if he wants them to stop, he needs to stop with the bull. He can sympathize with Jodi but he needs to understand in doing so, he will piss off many people. Not everyone is as forgiving or as taking in by her as he appeared to have been.
@Ella – I too, oppose the DP in any and all cases. I also am of the very firm belief that the jury foreperson was ill equipped to handle the charge albeit for very different reasons than yours. I feel he copped out at the very moment critical thinking was of the essence and assumed a judge would do their duty. That signifies to me, complete lack of leadership and common sense. Beyond that realm, I’m not casting stones at him or any other juror who voted for OR against DP. To state that you are disgusted with all of them based on the fact they did not all vote DP is beyond mind numbing.
They did NOT sign on to “deliver” the DP. Just in case you missed it, there was another option.
Thank you! This has been driving me nuts! I absolutely don’t understand why people act as if the jury lied. They had the CHOICE (if I could highlight this, I would) to either give her life or give her death. The choice was not to give her death or to kill her.
How fickle people can be. When the jury returned an unanimous premeditated murder 1 verdict, the same people today who are harassing them and are disgusted were singing their praises in the streets. Now that they did not agree with your view, they are dishonest, cowardly, and vile.
Exactly right Ex Juror & Seriously! They convicted JA. You can believe in the DP and not vote that it was warranted in this particular case.
Thank you, Ella. As the information comes in, it gets more upsetting, to put it lightly. What this foreman is all about. It is my feeling, he just might, I say “just might” have known all about Jodi Arias when he was in the jury selection process. He just might have lied to throw the trial & let his “young lady” even have the possibility of a misdemeanor charge…or…not guilty & go free because Travis Alexander abused her. The way this trial has evolved, never know. If it were a fiction crime book, it would not sell. It is too implausible . Example, the foreman, Mr. Zervakos, wants to visit Arias in jail! To help her. That says it all. Where he began, stayed with, moves on with (Jodi)… Unthinkable. Incredible.
Bashing the jury foreman really is ridiculous. Perhaps he still does believe in the DP as he originally stated at the very beginning BUT he didn’t feel the DP was the right verdict for this particular case. He is entitled to that decision!!!!
Rose, the foreman had every right to vote the way he did. That is not the issue. Front and center is his conduct or lack thereof in the role of a foreman. People are entitled to their respective opinions in that regard.
How can anyone know, but for the fellow jurors what his behavior was during the trial and/or deliberations? If anyone wants to criticize his behavior after the fact..after the lack of verdict on penalty phase they are just typical blood thirsty mob-thinkers.
I agree Rose Chimera. It seems that we have a whole lot of people who believe that because her didn’t reach the same sentence he did, that he didn’t perfume his duties well. It’s sad but it happens after every major trial. Fortunately, the blood thirsty pack has at least two more big cases on the horizon and these jurors will be left alone much sooner than the Casey Anthony jurors were. Makes you think twice about being on a high-profile case. It’s not just all the time you give to the case, it’s the angry mob that follows regardless of the verdict, there are packs of crazies on both sides that will hunt you down.
The jury didn’t have all the information we had during the trial. We don’t have all the information they had during deliberations.
The foreman himself , that’s how. Blood thirsty mob-thinkers? You may well have subjected yourself to the exact same criticism with that statement. Have you not just done precisely the same thing categorizing millions of people? Astounding. Done.
Whatever! Nope I haven’t subjected myself to the same crap….I weight the facts..I didn’t and don’t and won’t jump on the bandwagon to kill this woman just because the rest of the ill informed crowd, listening to the likes of Nancy fail Grace. You can be astounded all you want, but I won’t go along with the crowd just because the idiots are in the majority, for some crazy reason and therefore insanely popular!!!
Rose Chimera – WOW! Talk about I’ll-informed! Just because the (idiot) majority wanted her to have the ultimate punishment, you’re now saying you will not go along with it for what the others say or want. Do you understand the hypocrisy you just accused others of having, that you seem to have as well? So, because the majority of idiots wanted the DP, you wouldn’t? Amazing how some people can contradict themselves within one statement. NO ONE thought she deserved the DP because of what Nancy Grace said. NO ONE! Not even what Juan, Flores, the Alexander family, ME, or anyone else for that matter said. People who wanted her to get the DP are the same people, just as you have claimed, that watched the trial, and weighed aggravation vs. mitigation. What she did to Travis, absolutely, 100%, deserved the DP. She didn’t flee after shooting him, she didn’t flee when he was bleeding at the sink, and she didn’t flee when he was at the end of the hallway bleeding out. She did not flee because he wasn’t dying fast enough. And if these facts don’t warrant the DP, then her boldface lies of abuse and pedophilia certainly do. No one should be allowed to make such unsubstantiated claims. The judge did NOT allow the forged letters in to evidence for that very purpose – they were forged! The mere fact the judge still allowed her to get on the stand and say what she did without a shred of evidence, deserves the DP.
Welcome to the site! I’m glad someone is enjoying my old Jodi Arias posts!
Thanks Tamara! I am so far behind. I was in a very ugly place personally during the trial/s. It’s sites like yours that have kept me searching and learning as much as I can. Im still waiting for JSS to unseal all those in-chamber meetings/sidebars; specifically all of ALV’s!
I love your posts and only one other (Calls for Justice). You both have incredible amounts of information, but my guilty pleasure is the comment sections. Great job on all you did! And thank you!
Thanks for reading. I literally recapped the entire trial live. It was a very interesting time!
I thought this was a wonderful letter from a loving son and though it may not change the minds of those who are sending the foreman hate mail, I’m very sure this man’s father felt honored and loved when he read this letter. What our loved ones think of us is 100 times more important than what a bunch of strangers think. I think the foreman should shut down his email and FB and quit reading the hate mail.
And to Ella, did you read or hear somewhere that the foreman did not vote for the DP or are you just presuming so from his statements?
At some point I hope this mans life (and the other jurors too) can get back to his / their normallacy. Seems like some of us have turned into a “off with his head” society which I find sad. No matter which side you are on nobody really wins, because if there were winners we’d know how to treat one another as people. If none of the jurors decided to come forward (because they didn’t have to) some of us would be complaining about that. So they are damned if they do damned if they don’t. JA is going away regardless of what happens. And then the media will find something else to talk about to death. These families (the Alexanders also) will get thru their pain.
I think we should be able to throw this back at hln. When they televise the trials are one thing. but then us the public get all the juicy tidbits and backstories that the jury never see or hear bombshelled tonight to inflame our feelings of guilt of defendents. Then we cant understand HOW anybody in their right mind dont vote how we see the case.
No that’s too easy. I agree that they play a role but it pales compared to our own. It’s like my tuning in to say Dora the explorer and complaining about all the Spanish. Sensational trials is what HLN is all about so they will blow up every detail to justify the madness. (EXCLUSIVE AT 10! JODI’S 1ST GRADE LUNCH LADY SPEAKS!).
If one wants fair and balanced coverage of any trial, HLN is not the place especially since all the accused are obviously guilty according to the network. It is our own responsibility to educate ourselves, not Nancy Grace’s. If you don’t control your mind, someone else will, as the quote goes
I found this for you and then you delete my post.
Dear, Tamara ENOUGH already with the Jodi arias post… It’s like your blog has turned into a Jodi arias blog.. Please go back to reporting on Atlanta gossip.
I’m sorry a media-drunken public is blaming this juror for Arias not receiving the death penalty or for the jury not arriving at a verdict. I felt she earned the death penalty, but I was not on the jury. Curiously, the more I saw of Arias (interviews, tweets, etc. that jurors never saw), the more I began to believe that not only is this woman manipulative and violent, but she is mentally ill. I’m not so sure the death penalty is appropriate for the mentall ill. Although she is certainly not criminally insane, she is very, very ill. The jurors were not charged with handing down a death sentence for Arias; they were charged with arriving at a verdict. It’s so unfortunate that they were not able to work their differences out, but I can understand how that might be impossible when the stakes are so high. It just is what it is. Like all media frenzy, all of this will pass when Arias is stashed in Perryville for a very long time.
May I ask how you distinguish between mentally ill and evil? Or, do you consider evil a form of mental illness. All of the doctors involved agreed unamiously that she was not too mentally ill to stand trial.
I am reading from my email, Peach so I can’t tell who you are asking. But I’m mentally ill. I have Generalized Anxiety Disorder and major depression. I’m pretty sure I am not evil, but if I were, I probably would not know. Evil is a religious term from my perspective. Evil is the opposite of good. I believe that one can have mental illness and still not be evil (or good, it’s a continuum).
The doctors don’t diagnose evil (or goodness) and for the point of criminal proceedings determine if the person fits the legal definition of insane. Legally one is considered insane if they are unable to determine right from wrong, mentally incapable of assisting in their own defense, and various other factors determined in a competency hearing. If it is determined that the defendant is competent to stand trial, their (lessor) mental illness can be considered as a mitigating factor.
I felt that part of what the foreman was saying that her life prior to the murder was relatively normal. Within the scope of normal. Confronting the other women, snooping on boyfriends are fairly common events. I felt as those both 18 and 6 tended to feel that Jodi’s mental illness intensified and became worse during the time she was dating Travis. That is different from BLAMING TRAVIS. Many mental illnesses do not flourish until the 20s.
I’m sorry if you were not talking to me. I am responding blind while watching a movie. I’ll go over here and shut up now. 🙂
Oh, competent was the word I could not bring to mind when I was typing. I do so agree with you on mental illness, onset, and incredible challenges (including public misunderstanding). That I feel more than accepting of, I, indeed, feel a great concern and a deep caring. As you may remember, I am a CASA -court appointed special advocate- fot children who are in homes where mentall illness will no doubt play a roll. What JA did ro TA is so inhumane, it appears that some other THING happened and I can only wonder if it was indeed evil. I have not been posting lately b/c my dr. changed my meds last Wed. and I have been a little spacey since. Stopped new stuff yesterday and I am recovering today so back to my JA job. 🙂
My major problem with the jury foreman has more to do with his post-trial comments rather than how he may or may not have voted. One particularly disturbing statement in an article by the AP, Mr. Zervakos said, “You heard Martinez say she was only 27……..She’s old enough that she should have known better. I didn’t look at it that way. I’m looking at 27 years of an absolutely normal everyday young woman that was living a life that was perfectly normal. Then something changed the trajectory of her life after meeting Travis Alexander, and it spiraled downhill from there.” …….WTF……It sure appears to me that Mr. Zervakos is putting the blame on TA for JA’s life spiraling out of control! He’s, therefore, implying that JA should not have to shoulder all of the blame for her brutal slaughtering. Just like Jodi has done for the past 5 years, he is placing the BLAME(at least partially) on someone else!
Bobbi, I agree. His post-trial comments were very disturbing. The line of reasoning he used, if his comments were representative of his jury service, in these comments is fatally flawed. He apparently believed Arias’ fairy tales from the Dark Side.
I so agree, Bobbi. Other than a couple of arguements they had in the course of a lovers’ affair, and I must say I have certainly been guilty of true emotional abuse of my husband if ALV is to be taken seriously, there is absolutely NO RECORD of TA being abusive. At the age of 27, I had my second and last child. Yet she accomplished not a solitary thing in her 27 years. Who does that? So his view seems terribly skeewed toward JA.
Ditto to everything you said, Peach!………I’ve been guilty of calling my husband a few names from time to time. (most of the time he didn’t deserve it!) I had my second and last child at the age of 27, too. Two beautiful, successful and smart daughters. (if I do say so myself)…….I cannot imagine being the mother of such a lying, manipulative and evil daughter! What JA’s mother is going through must be horrible, to say the least!
I find it far more perplexing the jury could NOT receed into a unified vote for Life instead ! – We’re questions to the Judge about With /WO parole ever really clairfied ? – Suppose you pass rigorous questioning (?) which allows you to serve on a DP jury – then (regardless of spent time, money, or your emotional fortitude) you find the – “FACTS in evidence” just can NOT warrent the death penalty ? It is not supposed to be a decision of popularity although may be a team effort, it’s not required. ~ IMO, alot of jury deliberations bear down on the way the Law is written and the way the Judge explains it. I remember the CA jury never seemed to “GET” sufficent explanations that “circumstancial” evidence IS JUST as legitimate as “hard” evidence. Also, note CA’s juror’s did NOT entertain requests to view evidence or testimony or read backs. Since JA’s
Judge sealed (why?) the jury questions, did they not need more assistance with the law. If I remember correctly – jurors are not supposed to speculate about alternative punishments (outcomes) unless specific to their instructions. Hence, they had the Life sentence. ~ When I push away from this hullabaloo – I’m OK with Life BUT when I see Arias – I want the DP back. Isn’t that personal on my part…?
perhaps some of the jury were concerned that a life verdict would include parole and could not be persuaded to move over to life… It’s possible that more started thinking life and the nonclarification, swung them over to death.
Seriously, One would think 8 would be harder to move over to Life than the other 4 in reverse. But there WAS a flap about the 1st (?) question that blurred into the 2nd. 1) The jury is split. 2) How eligible would she be for parole if given Life ? – HLN either got this mixed up or the courts did. To me – one was a jury statis statement and the other a question as to her abiltity to walk the street so they could discuss moving onto the Life (w/o parole). I took them as one in the same action. It seemed the Judge then sealed any more call backs. (It’s blurry to me still )
Part of the issue with life is that while the jury could find for life, they would not decide as to any possibility of parole. That would be up to the judge. The initial split could have very well been 8 for life and 4 for death. Think of how many of the commenters here have stated that they would be ok with Jodi not getting the death penalty as long as she got life without parole. Without that certainty, perhaps some made the switch over to team death. Or some of team death would not settle for life, either way
JustUs, that is how I have evolved during the trial of Jodi Ann Arias. For 64 years and 1 month, I have been a strong advocate for the death penalty. Now, I find that I will be very satisfied with LWOP. It almost always takes a stick of dynamite to make me change a value that I hold dear. Now, I just want her to go away, and she has. This is a consequence that will be serious to JA. For that, I am grateful.
Peachteachr – I agree with this Life sentence as I have never been a pro-DP advocate. This case has been a exception for me. I guess my frustration is with the AZ law phases – as it pertains to bringing either choice to completion. We don’t know if they would have unified on Life – if their decison also included “without parole.” ~ To me, it would be a logical next (phase) penalty choice a worthy DP jury could hang their own hats on as well. To default to another jury or worrying if a judge will deem parole vs. no builds in further litigation and cost not to mention the misery to the family of both the victim and defendant.
That’s an interesting point to ponder. What if Life WITH parole were an option on the form. The jury was told the only sentences under consideration were those three. With the obvious possibility of a hung jury. I wonder if they would have all agreed on LWOP. I wonder also if the foreman felt Jodi deserved to be considered for parole in 25 years.
Hmmm. Thanks for the new perspective.
My gut tells me it may have been a consideralbly a different split. No surety as to how dug in the DP juror’s were… but certainly plausible. I do believe OH has M1 w/ DP or Life w/o Parole. I don’t believe they should be seperate issues, myself.
Because I can not see videos, or catch the TV interviews (looking for links to their written form) Question to anyone out here ? Has any of the jurors who have spoken thus far spoke specifcally about Arias’s tweeting and post verdict interviews ?
I wonder that too. Have any of the jurors commented on her interview statement “…the jury betrayed me,”? I wonder, if after seeing and hearing all that we did, they feel as if they were played for fools by Arias and her defense team? I think I’d be furious if I were a juror.
Look for the GMA interview with three of the eight that voted death. They made some comment in reference to her saying she felt betrayed. The interview took place over the weekend and is on their website.
Also, Phoenix12(?) tv station or some other station has another interview worthy of seeing.
As for the foreman, he did lots of interviews and I forgot what he said in reference to her interviews but basically, if I remember correctly, he didn’t have a problem with her interviews. He thinks she’s been holding it all in and needed to get a release! Talk about being duped.
Happy Memorial Day all
Patricia
Jfwilliams – you can read what alternate juror 17 thought of the trial at http://mixedbagblog.com/.
Thank You Peanuthead (love that name!) For actually posting the link to my blog!! A bunch of people are copying and pasteing it and it’s driving me nuts. I knowTara did the hard part but I had to weed through tweets and condense the info and type it up (I type with 2 fingers!). Again…Thanks!
If so, I have not seen or read them. I have read some great posts from Dr. Kristina Randle, criminal psychologist, and she discusses the allocution by JA, Daryl Brewer’s post verdict feelings, and the foreman’s interviews. She is very interesting and quite bright. I think several of us who have been throughout this trial, will find them all of interest. I did. She doesn’t mince words.
Seriously – I meant about hln is that they give all the stuff the jury never sees. When we have way more info than the jury its hard to understand their choices sometimes. OJ CA RB JA we knew more than the people making the hardest choice they may ever face. If all the info we got was the same as the juries would we still be confused at how they came to that choice?
If I were on the C.A. jury, I wouldn’t have voted for death. But, I sure as in hell wouldn’t have let her go FREE. If I were on the O.J. jury, no way would he have gone free either. In both cases, both juries had sufficient evidence to sentence them both to substantial prison sentences. They were just to lazy to analyze the evidence. They wanted video of the crime or something. My point is: they didn’t know what we knew, but they were given enough evidence to hand down appropriate sentences but they chose not to.
I agree. And I hate to throw down that old saying “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Oh, what the hell? I did anyway.
wah wah wah…sorry that’s all I hear. Yes I want a compassionate grandfather, but I want an impartial juror. This guy wanted to talk to the media, and now that he has, we find that he was confused about what was going to happen as a result of his jury’s inability to be unanimous. I could accept what he says about his deliberations if it squared with what I think his JOB was. He seems to think the jury shouldn’t show emotion during the trial..why? He says that emotion shouldn’t color the deliberations, but it seems that they did when he says that Jodi didn’t look like a murderer, and that she was crucified in the press. He believed a proven LIAR when she testified that she was abused-with zero evidence to back it up.
I’m not saying that death was the only way to go, but the foreman’s explanation of how he came to his decision disappointed me. He certainly doesn’t deserve to receive death threats, but since he’s giving interviews, he should be ready for criticism-and so should his son. Have the courage of your convictions, and if you voted a certain way, you should be ready to explain WHY.
Applause, applause! 🙂
Exactly. He should be ready to explain why, not make excuses for why he did what he did. All of his explaining and justifying implies HE – himself – believes he did something that he thought was wrong! Also, many of his answers makes him as inconsistent as JODI.
And, so he says she didn’t look like a murderer, she was young, blah, blah, blah. I read or saw that the foreman once had a radio showed that failed. So, contrary to what his son said, he did seek the lights of publicity, and before this trial began if that is true.
Well said, cammierari! That’s pretty much it.
Had any one of us viewed this trial by trial coverage only – without the HLN (usual) feeding frenzy – would any one of us still reached the same conclusion. Good question was posed to me, after I thought about it I decided it was a resounding YES ! When CA trial took place – I didn’t have access to a computer till the end of the trial. I was amazed @ the sharing capabilities – but then too, Florida has great sunshine laws. So the blinds were still drawn in the jury room. Doesn’t the crime fit the public outrage ? They say Baez had hired “twitter” and “blog” smart assistants to determine which way he could CHANGE his strategy and HER story. Competancy hearings and all.
I ABSOLUTELY would have reached the same conclusion……GUILTY AS CHARGED!! The prosecution had so much evidence against JA, and the defense could do little, if anything, to refute it. I believe most of the jurors knew she was a liar and a master manipulator, even without all the extra information we had. (HLN, Jodi’s tweeting, interrogations of both JA and her parents, interviews by Travis’ friends, etc………….)
Me too, Bobbi. Me too !
JustUs….I happened upon an interesting article (Arizona Daily Sun/Feb. 2004) titled, “County jury to face new role in death penalty trial.” The article discusses the new role the jury will play in a Coconino County, Arizona courtroom. For the first time in this county, the jurors , not the judge, will determine the sentence (life or death) for the accused…….A Flagstaff-based criminal defense attorney said in some cases, he thinks he, as a defense attorney, would prefer a jury to deliver the sentence so that he may appeal to the jury’s emotional sides. Judges, because of their regular exposure to emotionally charged issues, would be more prone to decide an issue based on law…….. A former county prosecutor called such a tatic jury nullification, whereby attorneys persuade jurors to not follow the law, but rather their hearts & emotions. She went on to say that jury nullification would become especially important to a defense attorney during the sentencing phase in a death penalty case where the jury hands down the sentence. I found the article to be an interesting read, and thought I would pass it along to you.
I’ve read some interesting articles on passive aggressive behavior on blogs lately I think would interest you.
Three minutes…..it was only posted for three minutes…..I knew I’d probably hear from you…….but so quickly!
Thanks for the info Bobbi – I look it up, love to check it out. There is so much out there, now ! 🙂
Bobbi, super interesting and i gotta say, it makes so much sense that the judge would likely be a much better “judge” of the law…………makes me think about the whole notion of putting penalty in hands of jurors. We all come from different walks of life and collective, unanimous agreement does seem daunting when it comes to life or DP. I respect the DP holdouts…………….i will bet that they would rather hang than take a chance on L w/Chance.
One of the things I would want to know about their decision. Did those who voted against death also refuse to endorse LWOP? B/c I wonder if the death votes might have stepped down to LWOP. I guess we’ll learn little by little.
Please. In case anyone missed it: this WAS a death penalty case. ALL 18 of those jurors knew it. In the event there was any doubt, they were ASKED if they could impose a sentence of death if the evidence proved premeditation so that should have removed any doubt. Additionally, what about the questionnaire form and the other matters discussed during jury selection – that had they answered truthfully – would have red-flagged them right out the door.
Sure, there was another option. But, the first option was death based on the evidence and the state proving premeditation.
As for the sentence of death, I’m personally satisfied b/c of the M1 CONVICTION….
However, I can certainly understand why some are upset. His father:
1- complains about the system being flawed and that avg Joe’s shouldn’t be sentencing people to death or sitting in judgment of other people… As if Jodi’s was the first death penalty case ever! And carrying on as if he would be called up to inject her himself…Basically, the horror of it all w/ the the poor Jodi poor me undercurrent of his interviews.
2- To compound people’s frustration, she didn’t look like a murderer to him EARLY on. Which leaves one to wonder: if she were a180 lbs woman or men or worst yet of a different ethnicity, would she then look like a murderer?
3- He excused her lies as not wanting to get caught. So, he understands her lying HE STATED. Excuse me? Well, what’s her excuse for lying AFTER being caught and worst, still lying in court?
4- He didn’t like Juan’s demeanor. Neglecting to realize Juan has been doing this for a while and he knows how to cross examine PATHOLOGICAL LIARS. keeping in mind he NEVER mentioned anything about her demeanor!
5- He goes on to tell us that to him she suffered abused from Travis. Except NO abuse was ever proven, and he completely threw out what she did to Travis to make him call her those names or for him to lash out at her. I wonder if he considered her slashing his tires and the tires of someone he was interested in, breaking into his home, his bank & online accounts, stalking him, etc. as abuse from her to him and worthy of him lashing out at her over frustration? Probably not.
6- Now, it’s his life and his business but when someone says they want to reach out to the perpetrator over the victim (in this case he’s dead b/c she killed him but his family is available) it raises red flags.
7- He had the nerve to compare her to Manson and Dahmer. She’s not as bad as them so why give her the death penalty? Maybe b/c of the sheer f’ing brutality of her crime.
8- He thought she was a normal avg. 27 yr. old before she met Travis. WHAT?! Her driving nearly a 100 miles to confront the new g/f of Matt M., her paranoia, morphing, snooping tendencies, jealousy & anger issues and her going after Travis a wk after she met him(in more ways than one), are all signs of a normal 27 yr old? Ok Mr. Foreman, whatever you say.
9- And, did he really say: He feels for Travis’ family but he couldn’t give to much weight to the impact statements b/c he wanted to be objective and thus keep the emotion out of it? While just two minutes ago talking about the emotion of it all?!?! WTF?
10- on and on and on.
The guy has given more than several interviews. In every one of them he digs in deeper. Although he gave multiple interviews, he never stated how he voted. But, one can reasonably assume by his statements that he was one of the four.
I reason many – are as satisfied as I am – with the M1 conviction. The problem in hearing him speak is it seems – he and the others in his pact – gave the perpetrator more: compassion, sympathy, mercy and consideration than she gave her victim. Thus, that is upsetting to a great many people.
I also find his breaking the pact with the other jurors not to speak until tomorrow EXTREMELY suspicious and I know why he did it….regardless, he needs to STOP talking about it. He clearly didn’t follow the judges INSTRUCTIONS and he wasn’t as unbiased as some of the other jurors (see the GMA interview). Therefore, his overall participation in the trial becomes suspect the more he talks about it or tries to explain himself…..while in the process trying to garner sympathy and understanding for himself and for Jodi.
So, to the son: tell your dad to stop talking about it. Also, see #2 above. I doubt your dad would have been as compassionate and understanding…..I also doubt he’d be so if it were you instead of Travis that met such an horrific death.
Patricia………….The more Mr. “Foreman” flaps his gums, the more astonished I am that HE voted for murder1! I wonder if he was a hold-out at the beginning of deliberations, and had to be persuaded to vote for a murder 1 conviction. Remember, the jury took longer than most of us had anticipated. ( I think many of us thought an hour would have been enough time to come to a verdict!)
I agree with you 100 percent Patricia – If she had been by american standards overweight or not attractive or of a darker skin race or a man – would we still have the same outcome -I think not. It was the same thing with the Casey Anthony trial. The statement she doesn’t look like a murderer. Well what does a murderer look like? Well let me answer that for the foreman. A murderer looks like Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias.
Well said. The son said “I think before this all happened, my dad would have liked to be famous.I’d bet anything.”
He also said, “Let me explain to you how the media works. I am a media whore. I want nothing more than an open mic, a bully pulpit, a captive audience. ”
Looks like father and son both got exactly what they wanted. His father didn’t have to speak to the media, who according to the son stayed over night. (WEIRD) I would bet anything this foreman volunteered for the role so he could be in the limelight.
I’m so not trying to clarify all the things I feel are misunderstood. But the father has a radio show about cars. Or had one. That was the reference to fame and the son… oh nevermind. Carry on.
I’m so not trying to clarify all the things I feel are misunderstood. But the father has a radio show about cars. Or had one. That was the reference to fame and the son… oh nevermind. Carry on.
Geez, TT……………Heard ya the first time……………Oh, nevermind! 🙂
I honestly think the event that occurred on or about May 26th was Jodi told Travis she had taped the sex talk and would copy it to everyone … Sky Hughes said they could never figure out what the big event was that made Travis really lay into Jodi in the text messages. It was clear to me Travis did not know he was being recorded during the sex talk. Additionally, did everyone notice Jodi would ask him to repeat the most damning portions — the tree, the “hot” pigtails. What a messed up woman she is. She scares me.
well said and spot-on Patricia!!!
the foreman did not have to go on tv and express anything. He chose to tell the world his opinion of the case. Doing so opened him up for criticism. I dont believe attacking him or anybody else is right. But we all have opinions that not everybody might embrace. This is America and thats our right to free speech. Say your peace then move along. dont attack the ones you dont agree with. TT said it good yesterday when she said that by attacking they make themselves worse than the one being attacked!!
Like I said – One shoud have the courage of their convictions.
Ohhhhhh ! – Perhaps, I smell a book deal and the distinct odor of money ?
His son did say that he thought before all this happened that his father would have liked to be famous!
He had a right to his opinion, as did all the jurors, as to which option to select as punishment. One of the most important points of the jury is to listen to the evidence without prejudice. The jury system naturally lends itself to the opinion of the *juror* impaneled and that juror’s opinion is influenced by their life experiences. Despite all the questions asked by attorney’s during the selection process, it is impossible for each side to get the jury they truly want for their side of the argument. It may infuriate people to read his opinions about JA, but it is totally unrealistic to expect jurors to reflect anyone’s opinion but their own. I think any criminal lawyer will say despite how hard they work to get the jury they want, it is still a crap shoot in the end and they can expect anything.
I also have read that everyone seems to be blaming the jury for the misunderstanding of the consequences of not being able to agree about the punishment. I am not saying the jury is entirely blameless, but by the same token, neither is the judge. The judge is a pro, the jury members are not. I have no idea if the written instructions to the jury *clearly* stated what would happen if they could not agree on punishment, but even if it did, the judge should have questioned if they understood the consequences of being deadlocked. It would have made sense for the judge to wonder if the jury needed clarity on this point after all the time and testimony the jury had to absorb.
I chickened out as a potential juror on a murder case, one involving a child, because I could not bear to see the photographic evidence. This particular case was well publicized in my area and the judge made it easy for those who had been influenced by the media coverage to recuse themselves. He wanted jurors who were as impartial as possible considering the circumstances. I knew the photos would not only haunt me, but probably blind me to the defense evidence. I opted out and am not proud of it, but I was being realistic about my mind set. It is a good thing all potential jurors aren’t like me.
Actuallly, giving the jury an “allen charge/dynamite instruction” during sentencing is not allowed. That kind of charge includes things like “if you don’t come to a decision we have to do this whole thing over with another group of twelve who will be no better prepared than you to come to an agreement.” It is not allowed specifically because of instances like this. The court can’t attempt two sway the jury to compromise. They are not supposed to compromise. They are suppose to come to their own individual considerations and if and only if they all agree, the judgement is rendered. This is why we have juries of 12 to allow broad mix of backgrounds, educations and life experiences to come together and ensure that the decision is an obvious one. Coming to a point where the all 12 do not agree means the sentence is not an obvious one which is exactly the point of having 12 unique people making the evaluation rather than one judge. Getting 12 people to agree on anything is difficult and that is precisely why AZ shifted the choice to a jury. That said, since they have shifted the sentencing to the jury and off the judge in AZ the number of death penalty sentences has RISEN dramatically.
Tamara, thanks for the clarification on my take that the judge should have reminded the jury of the consequences of a deadlock. It did occur to me as I was writing my post it could be seen as undue influence to compromise by the judge, but I had no idea whether the law allowed it not, it was just my opinion. Where I am from it is the judge who usually decides sentencing.
I agree, where I come from the judge passes the sentence too. I confess to cheating and asking my atty on twitter all kinds of questions about why they didn’t know. Not trying to sound like a know-it- all… 🙂 I tweeted her several times asking why they didn’t give the traditional allen charge which tells them another jury would be empaneled. While waiting for her response I looked up the allen charge by state law thing and AZ doesn’t have it. Ashley says it is never given in a sentencing phase, because of exactly what you said, it would seem prejudicial.
AZ has some weird laws.
my question is this: since the jury DID ask the question IF we can’t all agree, what’s the next step-why didn’t they tell the judge she misunderstood them…? I was surprised when the judge took their question to mean the WERE deadlocked (after 2 hours) and expected them to clarify once she gave them a standard charge to keep going w/their deliberations. I believe she asked them if any of them had any questions after she read the charge-I would have raised my hand and said yes-we wanted to know what would happen in the event we couldn’t agree. I’m pretty sure the judge would have told them that info wasn’t supposed to have any bearing on their decision, but I wondered why none of them clarified what they meant when they asked the question….
Actually, the question the jury asked was if we are not unanimous, do we fill out the form or give you (the judge) a note?
The Judge also cannot guarantee to the jury that she will or will NOT give LWOP aka “Natural Life” in AZ, which makes the decision even more difficult. If she gets just plain ole life, she can get out in20 years because of life served.
It is sooooo much easier to say what you would have done when you were not the one who has to sentance someone to death. I think they all thought they could do it if the case merited it but then the reality set in – If I do this she will die – and then they look for a way to not make another person die – any glimmer of something so that they dont have to do it.
I think that is human nature. You think you can do it – but until you are there in the moment you never ever know what you can and cannot do.
If you don’t understand that as a bystander not a participant then you have issues – big issues.
I don’t think anyone set out to deceive the court, that they said they believed in the DP but secretly did not.
How many times has a person been attacked in real life armed with a gun and unable to pull the trigger and end up seriously wounded or killed? They think they can do it, they purchase the gun to protect themselves, they pull the gun thinking they will aim to kill if necessary and yet they cant do it. And that is for someone who is right there ready to kill them and still they can’t do it.
Is it that hard to then believe that someone on a jury thinks they could vote for the DP but then can’t ‘pull the trigger’?
It helps to know that JA is in a type of solitary right this minute and has been since her trip to the psych ward. For her brand of narcissism, it must feel like a private hell. She will be brought out for a breif hearing on motions in June and return to her cell. I have read articles that say it is almost a certainty that the July phase will not proceed as planned because of many postponements. It is also probable that her family has returned to Ca. to rest and regroup and that Donovan can no longer visit her at the jail. She must be awash in anger and hatred towards all her enemies who she belives have ‘let her down’. Suits me.
I am not one who watched this trial everyday or hung on every word the witnesses said. I did go back and watch JA testimony as well as watched the detective, the Medical Examiner, and all the psychologists testimony. I came to my own verdict, and I was happy the jury and I agreed. I was happy they decided to take the case to the penalty phase. At first, I was upset the jury was hung and the DP was not given; however, I’ve thought about this since Thursday night. I can be satisfied with JA getting life in prison without parole because she really is going to be miserable. The first three years, she will be in maximum security and only allowed to be out one hour a day, and she can not do any interviews. By the time she may be down graded and allowed to be in the regular population, she will not be remembered from people. Her 15 minutes will be gone, and she will not have the so desired attention she craves. She will never write a book because she nor her family will make money since the Alexander family will more than likely win the civil suit against her. The drama and the attention she wants is not the kind she will get from prison….especially a woman’s prison. As for the foreman and the other jurors, I would like to get all of them in a room, play them all of JA’s interviews since the trial started, and ask them what they think now. It truly does not matter about the DP or life in prison just as long as she doesn’t get parole. It’s cheaper on the tax payers, and less appeals. It is just time for her fame flame to flicker out!!!!
Someone I am talking to elsewhere has question.
“I’d love to hear from someone why they want her to die so much. Not the “justice!” bullshit. Why they, personally, want SO BADLY for her to die that their blood is lusting for it.”
This is the question several of my friends have for you. So let them understand. Thanks to those who answer. It is not meant to be an antagonizing question, we are just having a hard time understanding the bloodlust.
In this mere mortal’s opinion, I may have been swayed by the Alexanders’ absolute desire for JA to recieve the DP. Not a good reason, I realize, but sometimes emotions get the best of me. Secondly, I think the possibility of parole after 25 years contributed to my leaning toward the DP. If the jury could have had LWOP as an option, I think most of us would have been satisfied with that sentence. (IMO)…….Hope this helps!
Bobbi, I agree. The idea of parole surely pushes some people toward the DP. But I think her 18 days on the stand of lying, smirking, simpering, crying, manufacturing migraines, whining about the fog, destroying Alexander’s reputation, blaming, complaining about the food, “interviews”…do I need to go on…engendered genuine disgust with her. We just got SO SICK of her that we literally want to kill her. Maybe we watched too much trial coverage. I know I did. Maybe she came to represent that person in our lives that drives us crazy with lies, manipulation, general malevolence that we’d secretly love to kill? Most of us aren’t going to kill our ex-lover, mother-in-law, or horrible co-worker, but we can “kill” her without personal consequence. Am I way off?
Note: “Kill” in my reference to the people in our lives who drive us nuts can also mean “never have to see, talk to, listen to, or think about EVER.” I’m not saying we live among closet killer maniacs every day. Sorry.
LOL. I do think we live new killer maniacs everyday. But that’s why I have anxiety disorder. 🙂 I think anxiety disorder happens to those of us who lack the ability to compartmentalize all the tragedies in the world as “happening to other people” which is the normal response. One of my favorite children’s books is about these animals (I forget what kind) who are going on a fun adventure and one of them says But WHAT IF…..? all the time. I wish I could think of the name, I have over 1000 kids books in my library and doubt I could easily find it.
Why am I rambling about this? Pardon me.
tamaratattles, Might the children’s book, be “THE INCREDIBLE JOURNEY?” If I remember, the kitty is a friady cat. “WHAT IF’S”
No, It’s Called The Worry Wombats or the Worry W….somethings.
Hi, jf…..JA certainly did herself no favors being on the stand for 18 looooong days! Along with all her despicable qualities that you cited, not once did she show an iota of any remorse! Oh sure, she cried…….for herself. She said it was the worst thing she had ever done…. (could any of us imagine doing something like that?)….but still showed absolutely no regret, except for the fact she got caught. I do believe most people were sick to death (maybe not the best word to use, or, maybe it is!) of her, the defense team’s strategy, the suffering of the Alexander family, etc…… Steven Alexander said in his Victim Impact Statement, “I just don’t want to see my brother’s murderer anymore.” Perhaps, this is how the majority of trial watchers felt, too. If anyone had a bloodthirst/bloodlust it was JA herself. Looking at the crime scene photos and her own “morbid curiosity” is all the proof I need to know that she is a “bloodthirsty” psychopath who would probably kill again if given the chance. Let’s just hope she doesn’t get the chance!
Well TT.. I’m not harrassing the jury and I woulda been happy to see life w/out parole, just and end to this. But this was a dp case, in a state that has dp, so those vehemently opposed to dp wouldn’t/shouldn’t be on this jury. If someone sees dp as bloodlust and not justice, no amount of explaining is going to change that. It’d be more useful for an anti-death penalty person to petition their state to change the laws or organize protests, etc., rather than call people who do agree with it bloodlusters. I guess that’s what I would tell friends who disagree that dp is warranted or ever justice. You can argue about it ad-nauseum, but in the end, it’s like religion or politics, we often must respectfully agree to disagree.
Well said and ITA!
excellent response Tango!
@ Tango, Cammierari & docwall – Many thnx ! All 3 of you expressed what I could not, nor had the patience for. Great job!
I agree Tango. I did start out as a strong death penalty advocate. As of today, I am somewhat ambivalent. My main concerns have to do with her absolutely astute ability to read people and conform to their needs in order to further her selfish life. At 27 years of age, she had accomplished nothing other than to slaughter Travis Alexander several times over. I think that she can severely harm other women who are incarcerated. One thing about the death penalty is that the convict will never harm anyone in society again.
Hi TT, i guess my first response to the questions of your friends would be to understand that everyone who wanted DP for JA, who strongly wanted conviction may have different reasons. It is unwise for someone to think they can categorize all blog contributers here as having the same ideas, ethics, morals, IQ’s, problems, mentality, etc as one another. Having said this, then, it becomes clear that it may be an overstatement for them to think, or ASSUME that everyone is so blood thirsty.
But, in response to the question, without getting too boring, here would be my story: 1) i enjoy crime stories; fact or fiction. i love watching the pieces of evidence come together and reaching a conclusion……and the questions still out there unanswered (btw, solving mysteries is often what i do for a living as a vet, so the gathering and analysis of evidence is somewhat a lifestyle for me).
2) When the crime is “REAL”, then i would tend to identify with the victim. When the victim is Caylee Anthony and her grandparents, or Travis Alexander and his family, I feel strongly on the prosecution side-these are innocent victims.
3) add to this a perp like JA or CA, and it is even easier to feel for, side for the victims; but, to be clear and honest, some of the interest is because it is accessible info; esp wiht CA, as the state of Florida allow so much info to be accessible on internet, i read dozens plus of info/interviews, etc from the case.
4) so there are two parts to this question for me to answer: why so interested? because it is interesting to me. I definately can get pretty OCD about subjects, from Mount Everest, to Amy Winehouse to Uses of Honey, to lives of wolves, etc….in some respect, these are no different
5) second part of this is my reaction to JA- the emotional reaction/outcome of the intellectual intrigue (details, data, etc) is that i feel strongly that this defendant is a horrible, narcissist psychopath. My opinion, based on alot of time spent on the subject. So i naturally want her convicted. I do not have a problem with DP in this case as i am certain she is guilty and incapable of remorse or restitution and i believe DP is fine in some cases.
6) I see death almost every day, this has not hardened my to it, but i know what it is to put someone down and it can be peaceful.
7) perhaps alot of us here are here because we found like minds and WANT to share; doesn’t make any of us bad or evil. So, for your pals, i would say, don’t be so judgy, cuz when that finger is pointing out at me, your thumb is pointing back at you. I have a friend who is vehemently opposed to the DP, but was ELATED when we killed bin Laden????? And maybe your friends with questions have a little “bloodthirst” themselves for someone else/something else. As the saying goes: ‘If you spot it, you got it” (projection makes perception)
8) Finally, i am FINE with LWOP!!
thanks TT!!!!!
Thanks for answering, doc! 🙂
I don’t think they were referring just to us, btw. I was just talking about being glad the trial frenzy was winding down. We were discussing the huge outcry over the lack of death penalty on the case. Some followed the trial others did not but most everyone knows there are a bunch of angry folks out there that Jodi is likely not going to be fried. It seems odd especially to those not following the trial that so much vitriol is focused on this particular killer. Also, in our conversations, we’ve talked about the extreme identification with the Alexander family as if we know them personally. I think that’s the issue, actually. People are taking this case very personally and are out for blood as if their own brother had been killed.
We talk about crazy stuff.
PS Banjo says he wants to eat your face off. 🙂 Sorry. He has a mysterious disease. That plus having to cohabitate with the likes of me has made him ornery.
tell Banjo “i ain’ta scared of him”-i got lots of LOVE and treats (and drugs if it comes to that) 🙂
Banjo is the sweetest dog in the world. I was just rolling my eyes at the vet saying he needs to be muzzled for visits AND tranquilized. The first specialist I took him too was very good with him. I told her he didn’t do well with my vet. She spent A LOT of time treating him, petting him, getting him used to her touch. He was good, she was great. And then he turned into CUJO and I was afraid of him. He is not much of a barker. He went straight to trying to eat her face off.
They last specialist at UGA Vet School could not figure out was was wrong and refused to keep him for observation because of the risk to Vets and Student Vets. She also said he was the most aggressive dog she has ever seen and should never be around people or other pets. Ever.
The thing is, he was the wimpiest dog in the dog park before his hind legs starting only working intermittently. Then one day he was daddy badass and I had to stop taking him entirely. Anyway, he’s on steroids kind of PRN these days. I gave him one yesterday. Whatever he has this fixes it. None of the vets really believe this but if a bottle of steroids kills him out of their offices, they are more than happy to give it to me.
Docile behavior with random outbursts of vitriol. Where EVER could he have learned THAT? /innocent look.
Hmmmm………Your “Banjo” is AGGRESSIVE………..My “Jake” (a beagle) is PASSIVE…….. Together, they would be passive aggressive!…….{ Wipe that innocent look off your face…..you know exactly where he learned THAT! }……Woof, Woof !
docwall articulated quite well what many of us are thinking, I’m sure. Thank you! Collectively we wanted justice, not necessarily the DP.
I’d really like to understand why your friends want to label this “bloodlust” and I’m being very serious. Is it opposition to the DP itself? Is it a desire to be different simply to be heard? What is it?
I believe they are referring to all the folks, including some here, who were ENRAGED that she wasn’t getting death to the point of claiming the jurors LIED about their opinion on the DP. Or that they were too stupid to follow directions, or that they are flawed in some major way in their thinking and deserve criticisim. That is the bloodlust part. So many people on twitter and elsewhere feel anything short of a quick and painful death in this case is unjust.
I think the rage towards the jury is due to the fact that the foreman’s explanation made no sense. Many frequent trial watchers were already wary having been through the CA case, and of course OJ, so when the foreman comes out and says things that are easily shot down (in our minds) it causes frustration for those of us who couldn’t participate except to watch.
Speaking for myself, I just have to wonder why no one could explain to this man that he appeared to have more sympathy for the defendant than the victim, and that the only person who testified that Travis was in some way responsible for his own death was the (lying) defendant.
Again, speaking for myself, I am sick to death of defense strategies that seek to put the blame on the victim, or society, or some dubious psychological disorder. Enough already. Why is there more attention paid to people’s mental disorders AFTER they are charged with a crime? IF that disorder was present, why has this person been successfully navigating the world while so psychologically broken without so much as a single prescription being written to deal with their disorder? Half the people I know are on SOMETHING to deal with everyday life! Since we know that you can pay some people enough to say anything, and since the defense “shrinks” were so thoroughly discredited, I have a hard time believing that Jodi was anything less than a cold blooded, self centered murderer.
The foreman sounded like so many people out there, trying too hard to find a reason to ‘understand’ the defendant, in an effort to be fair. Having said that, I have no problem with JA being sentence to life…the frustration comes from the fact that the case isn’t over. Enough already of Jodi Arias and her 15 minutes.
Ok, fair enough TT. Thanks for the response. I can even agree with portions of it. How bout that huh? 🙂
I think Jodi Arias deserves to suffer if there was a life without parole with 23 hours in her cell alone and no capability of torturing the siblings through interviews
would be a bigger punishment for her she likes the limelite negative or not
and since this is not a choice death penalty is the only other option it was a brutal crime
It’s simple: no remorse. 1-A crime such as hers and she has no remorse whatsoever. It enrages people. 2-To make matters worse, she lied then and she’s lying now. She believes her own lies and digs in deeper – telling even more extravagant lies. 3-Then, she tried to control everything by threatening to smear Travis if she didn’t get the sentence/punishment she wanted. As if she should be allowed to commit such a cruel, heinous and barbaric act and get a slap on the wrist by determing her own punishment.
4-Her level of disconnect. I mean she sat there as if she was charged with running a person over accidentally instead of premeditated murder! Her demeanor was that of someone with better things to do!
5-She’s f’ing crazy and crazy people can irritate those that are not…..
1-3 people tend to find offensive – hence some of the unfortunate threats to certain jurors including those in the CA trial….those things are offense and people can act irrationally.
4, it’s her life but it tends to piss people off
5, is my own personal feelings about her, lol….but I think some would agree w/ me.
Some of my friends followed the trial and most didn’t. All of them know I am drained from trial coverage and check in here from time to time. All of them want to know the source of the bloodlust. The abusing the jury for not killing the bitch! The personal investments as if it was your family member. Wondering why you are all led by a television channel into such channeling of utter hatred. I am trying to explain. Help me.
The best gift ever to Arias is the George Zimmerman scheduled for trial in June. HLN and the rest of the media will shift focus. Time is an ally for the defense. Arias has already bought herself five years; it may take another year or more to complete the hearings, motions, and other nonsense before another penalty phase jury is even selected. If, indeed, there is another phase. I personally think LWOP is an excellent option for everyone. But Alexander wasn’t my brother, so I would never presume that I understand how his siblings feel. I would have been the juror who would have voted with the majority (whether life or death penalty) in order to reach a verdict. I think she probably deserves death, but I don’t have the blood lust that swirls around Arias. She’s just so very unlikeable and so definitely guilty. Now I believe the D.A. of Maricopa County is thinking about how to convince the Alexander family to be satisfied with LWOP and how to get Arias to take the deal. She does, after all, have a chance at life with parole. Why should she take a deal? I believe she will want to roll the dice again, but I’m not sure the D.A. will play. I don’t think the penalty phase will be re-tried, but Arias loves the limelight. She’d much rather trot out every day for months and be the center of speculation, gossip, and media attention than sit in her cell. Any thoughts?
I had never followed a trial before Jodi’s and was thinking of following the Zimmerman one. However, the hysteria around the JA trial is making me rethink.
I won’t be touching the Zimmerman trial with a ten foot pole. Whatever the verdict I predict riots. Like SERIOUS riots.
TT, i agree re: Zimmerman……………………all i can hear is “racism” on all levels
I won’t be following the Zimmerman trial either. This one has the potential to offend and infuriate everyone: George Zimmerman may be Latino (or maybe not?); Trayvon Martin is African American; the judge and media are largely Caucasian. I hope to God I can even post this without appearing to be a racist. That’s where this case is surely going. The last thing I want to do is call anybody of out his name!
I totally agree. However. We will all be following. I’ve been thinking about starting a weekly SIDEBAR post for the trial watchers here. It’s not like we can just disband.. perhaps y’all can talk amongst yourselves. I TRY and fail miserably at keeping my opinion out of things… but maybe if everyone ignores the Sidebar post, y’all could talk about it here? I mean I know we will all pay attn…
Many of us shunned HLN like the plague. Overhyped, slow to report new info as they were saving it for primetime, and many, like me, livestreamed to avoid HLN. I guess it’s for the same reason that we stare at a wreck on the highway. Besides, it began in the winter when we all had less to do.
I don’t understand the abuse of the jurors either…they did what they thought was right and I respect that. I may not agree with the foreman but I would never post hate filled threats about him or any other juror. I am passionate about this trial because I want justice for Travis. That’s it.
TT………..”The Worrywarts”………(that about sums me up!)
Yes! I love that book more than the kids! I though Worrywarts was too easy. lol. Thanks
I found this online:
A statement by Harold Sorenson, Tanisha’s husband:
I will make a comment ! These are my words only. This is not from any of the Alexander family or even from my wife Tanisha.
They are all emotionally drained. At the same time they are overwhelmingly grateful – to the court, to Judge Stephens, to the jurors all of them, especially to Juan Martinez, to the Attorney General of Arizona, who they will be meeting with very shortly to prepare themselves emotionally, mentally, for the re-trial of the third phase, the penalty phase. This will be even harder on them then what they’ve experienced during the past phases of this trial.
If ever they needed the world’s love and support of the overwhelming majority that have been there for them, it would be this re trial of the penalty phase.
Please keep the family continually in your hearts, in your prayers as the fight for justice is not just for Travis alone, but for the past and future victims of the world that the DP can be respected and upheld when it truly is warranted.
Let goodness prevail over evil.
We love you, and deeply respect the overwhelming support. God bless true victims and justice for Travis Alexander.
Thank you,
Harold Sorenson.
Ashley, when you find something online. Please talk about it AT THE BLOG YOU FOUND IT AT. Thanks.
It came from his facebook page.
http://mixedbagblog.com/
Ashley – Thank you for taking the time to post this VERY interesting juror interview. Sure do appreciate this TT blog and the fine folks who post here!!
Your welcome!! Hope you gave you some insight!
Yes, thank-you, Ashley, that was a fascinating read. After hearing the Foreman’s self-contradicting jibber jabber, I too, started to think how it was amazing that HE led a jury to agree to M1. Just assumed they would all be thinking people like, obviously, this juror #17 is, and most of you fine people on this site are 🙂
/heavy sigh
Hi Ashley- I was just wondering where you got this list? It is from my blog from several days ago…I know the State page posted it but they did give my blog credit at the end (mixedbagblog). Just curious…thanks.
I’m sure it was from you. She posted a link the other day. I removed your work. So sorry about that.
She’s full of…. other people’s information. And then bitches when I don’t put links through. My apologies.
I love your blog! http://mixedbagblog.com/
Thanks so much…I love your blog and have linked to it in the past. I know Tara did the hard work but it took a while to weed through all the tweets, condense questions, (that’s how I know it’s mine…I paraphrased the questions but typed her full answers) and put in some kind of order. Oh…then type it up…I type with 2 fingers so that part sucks for me! So thank you. By the way I’m not just a trial junkie I also am addicted to Bravo!
Tamara I won’t post any comments. You seems to not like my comments or links that I put up. If that makes you feel better I won’t comment anymore on your blogs.
Sorry about that. When I put links up the other day my comments got deleted. So I decided to copy and page the juror questions only. Hope that helps you understand why I did that. Thank you and sorry again.
Thanks, Ashley. I get it – was just curious…
What do you guys think of this website that I found?
http://www.occupyhln.org/
Tamara I think you will like it.
I think I am going to be up all night reading it. It’s fascinating…
http://www.occupyhln.org/jodi-arias/was-travis-a-saint-or-was-he-abusive-and-violent/
Good morning Tamara, thanks for the link. I read it, too early to process it right now. I’ve hear of this complex before, but it seems to lean pro Jodi. Going to re-read later. I am interested to hear what you think about it.
Yeah, it’s a very odd site. It is pro-Jodi. But there are some interesting things to ponder. Like why the guy went to THAT MUCH WORK to twist and fabricate facts. He’s well educated and certainly has better things to do. It’s fascinating.
wow. Just skimmed through some of the articles on that site…while I do agree that Travis was no saint, nothing he did justified Jodi’s actions. HLN did whip up a frenzy for “justice”, but even if you watched the trial on a live feed without watching HLN, it was easy to judge Jodi guilty.
Do you believe that it said the travisfund is a fraud account? Do you believe that it said Chris Hughes is not his best friend and is scamming people’s money? That is hard to believe. It also said that Chris warned Jodi that Travis is violent and abusive. Also it said that Travis and Tanisha have a criminal backgrounds. I don’t know what to believe now. I’m so confused now.
The info on Travis’s arrest was from what I was told a case of identity theft. The person arrested proclaimed to be Travis but was not. That is why the paperwork is not on public record.
I have always thought the Hughes were ….um….spending a lot of time in front of the cameras.
I dunno what travis fund he is talking about. I know there is a legitimate one out there.
Clearly there is a lot of “misinformation” on that site.
I didn’t read too deeply into the site-like I said, I just skimmed it-so I didn’t read a lot of those accusations. I think Travis was conflicted between his religion and his carnal desires, and Jodi was more than willing to use those desires to control him. She knew that he was struggling with what was “right” and what felt good, and she exploited that. She promised to do every “dirty” little thing Travis desired, AND keep up a good Mormon front so no one would know. I think of that line ‘the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak’ when I think of Travis…
I read this “report” quickly and will re-read tonight, however it is extremely pro JA and may need some fact checking. Might it be the defense is digging deeply to create additional negative hype in cyberspace to influence the new juror pool for the upcoming penalty phase. This new jury will have more information than the former.
Kevin, I know Jodi would like this site….but alas, poor JA doesn’t have access to a computer in her current digs. This was posted on her twitter page on May, 25…..WOW…Occupy HLN.org…just wow.
The foreman and his son are incredibly brave. And the bloodlust of the angry mob has totally turned me off to capital punishment. How is killing yet another human a justified response to the killing of anyone?
Catherine, i understand and respect what you are saying…..but, this is the law. No ifs ands or buts, DP is legal in many states, and is the law. The subject, to me, is more about following the law versus trying to justify turning a blind eye to what the law says, and trying to justify not following the law by pointing a finger at people who support the law. I understand the viewpoint of the foreman re: “something happened to her”, although i do not agree with it—nor with judgement on the one-sided texts. If the law allows DP, how much must a victim go through for a jury to make that decision? Who is the ideal murderer to NOT get DP? Fuzzy, emotional, confusing, distressing, but STILL, it is the law and there were guidelines given.
Hi Doc! This is where our opinions diverge.. sort of…
“I understand the viewpoint of the foreman re: “something happened to her”, although i do not agree with it—nor with judgement on the one-sided texts. If the law allows DP, how much must a victim go through for a jury to make that decision? Who is the ideal murderer to NOT get DP? Fuzzy, emotional, confusing, distressing, but STILL, it is the law and there were guidelines given.”
I think when he says “something happened to her he means mental illness. A valid mitigator. I think as I said before, a 70 year old man will see abuse much more frequently than a 30 year old one.
I am not sure what decision I would have come to. I am just saying I get why he came to his and don’t find the need that some do to find him ignorant or sexually duped for finding the way he did.
As for who is the ideal murderer to be spared the death penalty? THERE ARE A BAJILLION murders in this country. We give the death penalty to only a tiny percentage. The better question is why is Jodi Arias deserving of one of the limited number of death penalty slots over the hundreds of others under consideration. Is it just because her trial was on TV and people hate her? Or should juries and judges use the law and guidelines to the best of their abilities?
good points, TT, and i do really think this jury did their best so bobbi’s post re: “who should make penalty decisions?” makes alot of sense to me. I do, however see a difference between mental illness and personality disorder-surely there are some gray areas, yet many with mental illness are very treatable with appropriate intervention, personality disorder ???? not so sure; then again, most people are not murderers; (with or without either of the disorders) i am sure there are alot of murders who would qualify for DP judgement, depending on the standards of their states……….this kind of brings me back to previous discussion regarding penalizing the “attractive white female” versus alot of other phenotypes….. hard to admit or get over individual bias, but surely it might exist? as well, i agree that there has been such a change in how we use “words” in our society……..what kind of sex people have……..shocking for many jurors, no doubt. I could only imagine my father sitting in that courtroom, listening, seeing…………….Holy Moses, he would freak at the phone sex tape!!!
PS-one thing i AM sure of, if you have not dealt with mental illness up close and personal, or personality disorders, it is a whole ‘nother planet!
I’m not sure how I feel about who should make penalty decisions. In most states judges do. The benefits of that are they are legal experts, immune to a large part of the drama and emotion. OTOH, in AZ juries decide the DP and it take not one but TWELVE minds to agree to kill someone. That seems more fair to the defendant. The down side is the age, race, gender, IQ, etc is very random. That may be a good side as well though. I’ve been spending a lot of time in Fulton County courts lately seeing a judge interpret the situations (not mine) very differently than I did. One example was two brothers fighting, one got the worst of it, and wanted a warrant against his brother. now every case in this courtroom is people who tried to get the police to issue a warrant and they said no, the judge arrested the brother who did the damage. Legally, she was probably correct, but logically, they are brothers. I wish she would have just told them to put this behind them and not clogged the legal system. Plus it was SAD. I felt for the brothers. But the judge has to follow the law.
I dunno if that story shows why a judge should handle sentencing by the book, or if a jury should sentence based on common sense… it’s a hard call.
I read a lot of the information from the link Kevin provided. It sounds like someone’s opinion to me and he definitely reported something totally different from the 911 tape than I heard. Does anyone here think JA was a saint? And how does this guy know the inner workings of TA’s mind and surmised so much from a book that was given to him by Chris Hughes? And since when does liking kick boxing and AFC wrestling make you abusive? I agree, whoever wrote this is pro-Jodi and is attempting to sully TA’s reputation even more.
That does seem to be his major point. That TA was no saint either. I agree with that point. However, you know the defense spent a ton of money trying to dig up dirt on Travis, and the jury never got anything but made up stories by Jodi, so… that leads me to believe we saw every bad thing they could find.
I did sort of agree with the guy about Travis using a proxy for internet surfing. I can’t believe with his appetite for sexual interactions that he was not viewing porn online.
TT, i first agree that the “kevin site” is interesting but lacks alot of veracity. i would also agree that TA seemed like a horn dog, but i know alot of horn dogs and have even had personal encounters with some……………never thought about either trying to manipulate, control or kill them. I do, however, want to remind you that so much of the trash on TA was from JA’s lips…………….not really validated. One of the most interesting witnesses i heard was Deanna Reid. I think she understood him, and genuinely think that he was not quite the perv that some have tried to make him out to be. (ex from Kevin is his mischaracterization of what TA said on phone sex: he said “you sound like a 12 year old”, NOT “i’m gonna make you sound like”) Big difference! hln does get on my nerves and sometimes there are issues they do not touch that would be interesting (like the Daryl and DVD player connection), but i suspect that they also worry about slander, lawsuits.
I repeat, there is really no evidence regarding anal sex, other sorts of heightened sexuality. And you are correct, i am sure defense looked high and low but never found it
agreed.
docwall…..I have often wondered, myself, if JA & TA actually had any oral/anal/vaginal sex at all! I NEVER believed that they had anal sex after JA’s baptism into Mormonism. Just more lies coming out of her twisted mouth. I wonder if the jury believed that Travis bent her over the bed and did his “thing”. I hope not, b/c that may have led one or more jurors to hold it against Travis……doc, do you have any idea whether or not ALL the photos from the camera were used in court? As far as I can remember, the only sexual pictures were the nude shots, and not of any actual sexual act .
Dear Lord. It’s worse than I thought with you. So taking nekkid pics of each other and laying all over each other in public leads you to believe they were not sexual? Can I ask how old you are?
bobbi, i dunno about photos……….it was my understanding that there were alot of shots that TA did that were beyond the scope and then the nudes and WAY TMI about Jodi’s muff, and then the murder scenes (pre=shower, then the during) i had understood, at some point, that JA said they had photos of them having sex, but seems like they would have been allowed??? or at least stipulated if they were there. I have understood that JA had the presence of mind to delete photos and they were recovered, but have thought that more than SD card had been erased. (ie, she did more than erase the SD, but rather had (thought she had) cleared the camera memory itself……………but not sure. What a dumbass to take weapons and leave the camera!!
There were a LOT more pictures on the camera. My understanding is that they did show sexual intercourse. I think as weird as it sounds that the prosecution showed the tamest ones as they did the job in proving they were having sex. As did the texts and phonecalls. No need to scare the old folks worse than necessary. 🙂
Where do I begin?….I’m a cynic, always have been….Yes, there were nekkid pictures of Travis & Jodi posing for the camera. If there were, indeed, pictures showing sexual intercourse, why not show them to the jury? I find it hard to believe they could have been any worse than JA’s muff & booty hole spread open for all to see. When JA was on the witness stand testifying about their sexual encounters, nothing she said rang true. She could just as easily been describing how to make a cake. Her testimony of anal sex after her baptism, in my opinion, was for shock value only. If a Mormon happened to be seated on the jury, all the better for Jodi. Everything she says & does is contrived, down to the smallest detail. Speaking of contrived, there’s the secretly recorded phone-sex tape. I’ve always thought something was off about that tape, although I haven’t heard it in its entirety. Travis, at times, seemed bored & tired, while Jodi appeared to be prodding him along. When Travis mentioned the 12 year old girl having her first orgasm, she made him repeat it. When he talked about wearing her hair in pigtails, Jodi made him repeat that too. Anything that could potentially hurt him or his career, she made certain that it was loud and clear. It’s possible that she stopped recording every now and then, asked a leading question, then began recording again. She may have asked Travis about a sexual fantasy of his, and he responded about tying her to a tree and sticking his……………….Like I said before, everything she does is contrived and for the benefit of Jodi. Did Jodi really have an orgasm while recording herself? – I highly doubt it. Once again, it’s something she contrived to keep Travis in her little game of blackmail & revenge. Every single sexual exploit she testified to, from the BJ in the car to the baptismal anal sex, comes from the mouth of an admitted liar. So, I remain a cynic, and probably always will…………………….(TT, out of curiosity, why did you ask how old I am? Were you leaning more toward younger & naive or older & stodgy?)
So EIGHTY of the 200 questions for Jodi came from Alt Juror #17??? A bit excessive, no? Also that whackadoodle Occupy site claims to have FB postings from her during trial. They are not about the trial… but still.
They were good questions, though.
Sounds like the ones that voted for life felt Jodi was abused based on those text messages from TA. Also it was older people. Let’s just say that older people are not exposed to things like 50 shades of Gray type relationships.
I wish that the jury would have not agreed not to persuade each other to change sides. That seems an odd thing to agree to. And perhaps even against the judges deliberation directions.
But it is what it is, and I really feel like all the jurors searched their hearts and did what they felt was the right thing to do and that is all we can ask of any jury.
I guess we have all been in an abusive relationship at one time or another, if the jurors are basing their definition of abuse on those text messages. How many of us have been called one name or another by a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/friend, etc…? Just recently, in fact, I was called passive aggressive, though anyone who knows me would beg to differ. However, that is neither here, nor there………It does seem very odd that the jury would agree to respect each other’s opinions, and not try to persuade others to their side. Isn’t that what deliberations are all about so they can reach a unanimous decision?
A) lol you are passive aggressive “someone said….” just another example. (b) yes we have all had those relationships. But the elder jurors likely did not. It was a kinder gentler world when they dated. Their life experiences are from a different time. Emotional abuse has become more accepted and there was no openness with sexual subjugation for pleasure in their era.
If the jury agreed to respect each others opinion and not try to persuade the others, they were doomed from the beginning. It is very rare on a jury that everyone looking at the same evidence, will all agree. There is usually at least 1. However, they probably agreed to that to get the original conviction. The ones for the death penalty were hoping something new would be entered in to sway the others. It didn’t work.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer
Today, the AZ Supreme Court will consider whether to take jurisdiction of an appeal of the death-penalty aggravator in the Jodi Arias case.
kh
woah.
This will not effect the guilty verdict. It’s the motion nurmi filed during the aggravation phase that Judge Stephens denied. I think it was because the State switched from Travis being shot last to Travis being shot first, or vice versa, can’t remember. I guess nurmi is saying that if Travis was shot first then the aggravator of extremely cruel is not viable? At any rate, it is expected the AZ Supreme Court will not accept the jurisdiction and let the sentencing phase play out.
kh
Oh wait. Nurmi filed this back in January. It does challenge the order in which Travis’ wounds were inflicted and says that Flores and the hot medical examiner conspired to commit fraud/purgery by changing the order of how they said things happened at first.
kh
Which is a fact that Edgarrrrrrrr has been pontificating on for weeks. 🙂 But it is VERY ODD that the prosecution could not just pick a theory and stick to it.
There is a lot of hinkiness to this murder. Jodi is guilty. But there is a lot of …hinkiness.
YEA, it totally screwed up Jodi’s lie of the squence in which things occurred.LOL
Which one ?
Washington Post
Arizona Supreme Court declines to hear appeal in Arias case over…
PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal on whether a judge improperly allowed prosecutors to seek a death sentence for Jodi Arias in the 2008 stabbing and shooting of her… ….
kh
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
This is a tragic story for all involved. Im amazed that he was killed however u cant use a person and expect it to b ok. She is crazy and he had no idea what he was getting into. I think they were both victims of each other.