Jodi Arias Trial Part 8 EXTREME CRUELTY: PROVEN

[Dee77]

It has to do with an impression I get from the way the foreman spoke in his post trial media interviews that have already been posted here but also this one:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=186405651

PHOENIX (AP)  They were 12 ordinary citizens who didn't oppose the death penalty. But unlike spectators outside the courthouse who followed the case like a daytime soap opera and jumped to demand Jodi Arias' execution, the jurors faced a decision that was wrenching and real, with implications that could haunt them forever.

In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?

"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.

"It was a brutal no-win situation. ... I think that's kind of unfair," the 69-year-old added. "We're not lawyers. We can't interpret the law. We're mere mortals. And I will tell you I've never felt more mere as a mortal than I felt for the last five months."

Zervakos said the most difficult time of the entire trial was hearing directly from victim Travis Alexander's family as his brother and sister tearfully explained how his killing has shattered their lives.

"There was no sound in that jury room for a long time after that because you hurt so bad for these people," he said. "But that wasn't evidence. That's what made it so hard. ... This wasn't about them. This was a decision whether we're going to tell somebody they were going to be put to death or spend the rest of their life in prison."

Zervakos described a deliberations room full of tears and spinning moral compasses as each juror struggled to come to grips with their own beliefs about what factors  including Arias' young age at the time of the killing and her lack of criminal history  should cause them to show mercy and spare her life.

"You've got Travis Alexander's family devastated, that he was killed, that he was brutally killed. You've got Jodi Arias' family sitting in there, both families sitting and seeing these humiliating images and listening to unbelievably lurid private details of their lives, and you've got a woman whose life is over, too," Zervakos said. "I mean, who's winning in this situation? And we were stuck in the middle."

Zervakos declined to discuss his thoughts or those of other jurors on whether Arias should have been sentenced to death or life. But he said he was torn between her two personas: a killer and an average young woman struggling through life.

"You heard (prosecutor Juan) Martinez say she was only 27. ... She's old enough that she should have known better," Zervakos said. "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."
The same jury on May 8 convicted Arias of first-degree murder in Alexander's killing, but couldn't reach a decision Thursday after about 13 hours of deliberations on whether she should live or die.

Judge Sherry Stephens was forced to declare a mistrial of the penalty phase and dismissed the panel.

A conference with the judge and attorneys is set for June 20 to determine how both sides want to proceed. In the interim, Stephens set a July 18 retrial date.

The mistrial set the stage for a whole new proceeding to determine whether the 32-year-old former waitress should get a life sentence or the death penalty for murdering Alexander five years ago.

Arias stabbed and slashed him nearly 30 times, slit his throat slit and shot him in the forehead. Prosecutors said she attacked Alexander in a jealous rage after he wanted to end their relationship and planned a trip to Mexico with another woman. Arias contends it was self-defense.

Prosecutors now have the option to take the death penalty off the table and avoid a new penalty phase. The judge would then determine whether to sentence Arias to spend her entire life behind bars, or give her life with the possibility of release after 25 years. Given Arias could not afford her own defense, taxpayers footed the bill for court-appointed attorneys at a cost so far of nearly $1.7 million, a price tag that will only balloon if the case moves forward.

Should the state decide to seek death again, jury selection alone could take months, given the difficulty of seating an impartial panel in a case that has attracted global attention and become daily cable TV and tabloid fodder with tales of sex, lies and violence, said jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius.

"Will it be impossible? No. Will it be tough? Absolutely," she said.

Dimitrius noted that jury selection in the widely publicized trial of infamous serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as the "Night Stalker," who is on death row in California, took six months as attorneys weeded through more than 2,000 prospective jurors.

If Arias faces a new penalty phase, her murder conviction would stand, leaving the new panel tasked only with sentencing her. However, the proceedings could drag on for several more months as the new jury reviews evidence and witness testimony.

If the second jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, the judge would then sentence Arias to one of the life-in-prison options. The judge cannot sentence Arias to death.

I will re-state what I did pages ago... It is quotes like the ones above that make it abundantly clear where he stood in terms of his vote in the penalty phase. She was not a NORMAL EVERYDAY young woman that something happened to after she met Travis... He did not bring out her bad, muderous side... it was there all along, simmering right under the surface. IMHO the jury foreman sought out any excuse to cling to in order to be able to hold out on the DP.

 

[showmeman]

I will re-state what I did pages ago... It is quotes like the ones above that make it abundantly clear where he stood in terms of his vote in the penalty phase. She was not a NORMAL EVERYDAY young woman that something happened to after she met Travis... He did not bring out her bad, muderous side... it was there all along, simmering right under the surface. IMHO the jury foreman sought out any excuse to cling to in order to be able to hold out on the DP.

I suspect he did vote for Life, but he did not definitively come out and say he did. In fact he was asked and would not say one way or the other. It is possible he was defending the jurists who did vote for Life.

Also, according to her ex-beau Randy Brewer in his interview she was relatively normal and he thought she changed after being exposed to Mormonism or the secret law of attraction. Now, his memory may have been colored a little. Her parents certainly expressed to detectives that her behavior has been odd over the years.

But so what if this jury foreman voted for Life. He did his duty as he saw fit. I don't understand this attitude that this jury failed. She got Murder 1. She will never walk the streets again, even if the next jury fails to give her a Death sentence.

 

[Luv'sTink]

I suspect he did vote for Life, but he did not definitively come out and say he did. In fact he was asked and would not say one way or the other. It is possible he was defending the jurists who did vote for Life.

Also, according to her ex-beau Randy Brewer in his interview she was relatively normal and he thought she changed after being exposed to Mormonism or the secret law of attraction. Now, his memory may have been colored a little. Her parents certainly expressed to detectives that her behavior has been odd over the years.

But so what if this jury foreman voted for Life. He did his duty as he saw fit. I don't understand this attitude that this jury failed. She got Murder 1. She will never walk the streets again, even if the next jury fails to give her a Death sentence.

Who is Randy Brewer??

 

[reelmom]

Who is Randy Brewer??

Darryl Brewer's real name.

 

[usnuzuloose]

It was the foreman's job to make sure everyone understood what would happen after they checked the box and signed. When he asked that question he did not fulfill his duty to make sure he along with everyone else understood what it really meant.

Next before anyone signed it he should have asked them if they understood or do they need more clarification. Now I am not saying that they didn't do their job, but I think they needed more understanding what the judge would do once they marked and handed it over.

I understand that people vote in different directions and don't always agree. But I don't appreciate how he came about his decision and did not follow the judges rules. He went by his feelings for Jodi. Once he did that he let down the rest of the jurors.

I am sure the rest of the juror's are sorry they appointed him to be the foreman. I hope this foreman is never in a position to need a jury and have someone go by their feelings. I could see he may be a very angry person.

 

[showmeman]

It was the foreman's job to make sure everyone understood what would happen after they checked the box and signed. When he asked that question he did not fulfill his duty to make sure he along with everyone else understood what it really meant.

Next before anyone signed it he should have asked them if they understood or do they need more clarification. Now I am not saying that they didn't do their job, but I think they needed more understanding what the judge would do once they marked and handed it over.

I understand that people vote in different directions and don't always agree. But I don't appreciate how he came about his decision and did not follow the judges rules. He went by his feelings for Jodi. Once he did that he let down the rest of the jurors.

I am sure the rest of the juror's are sorry they appointed him to be the foreman. I hope this foreman is never in a position to need a jury and have someone go by their feelings. I could see he may be a very angry person.

Come on. How do you know any of the things you stated are true?

How did he not follow the rules? And you don't even know if he voted for Life.

4 jurors voted for Life. You don't know who they are. Only jurors who have had interviews so far are 3 jurors who said they voted for death and the jury foreman who did not say how he voted.

So many of you are so biased in your feelings for death that I don't think any of you could make a objective decision. In fact, I think it would be difficult for anyone to make an objective decision in a Death penalty case giving the dynamics of the decision and the case.

So give this guy a break.

 

[showmeman]

Darryl Brewer's real name.

I knew the last name. JA's ex-boyfriend who was 20 years older than her.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Come on. How do you know any of the things you stated are true?

How did he not follow the rules? And you don't even know if he voted for Life.

4 jurors voted for Life. You don't know who they are. Only jurors who have had interviews so far are 3 jurors who said they voted for death and the jury foreman who did not say how he voted.

So many of you are so biased in your feelings for death that I don't think any of you could make a objective decision. In fact, I think it would be difficult for anyone to make an objective decision in a Death penalty case giving the dynamics of the decision and the case.

So give this guy a break.

And that's due in part to reading a bunch of sites that claim to have the facts (inadmissible evidence at best) the jury never got to see.

Hey, I wonder if Websleuths ever reported that juror who went on the internet?

 

[Disney_Dreaming]

I gather a lot of people are mad at the jury foreman. I haven't kept up with what happened after the announcement was read because I needed to give my mind a break. I was so upset that they came back hung. The Alexander family deserved closure, but yet they have to endure more. It's such a shame!

Hopefully the new jury will get it right.

ETA: I did watch the GMA interview with the three jurors. When the woman said that Jodi fooled them I thought "Duh". With her history of lying, you would've thought that that would've told them "Don't take her word for it. She's a known habitual liar".

 

[horseshowmom]

Thank you guys for posting this, I am so happy these jurors are coming out and making sure that people know they are not all like that Jodi sympathising/Kool-Aid drinking Foreman.

All these people seemed very reasonable, they seemed to see JA how we saw her and unlike the foreman they did not let sympathy clude their judgement. It's too bad the jury did not have a few more people on it like these ones.

I'm also glad that the others are speaking out. When the foreman first spoke out, I think his statements could possibly be seen as encouragement by the DT - meaning they would be more likely to try to hold out for LWP/25 years. However, after hearing what the latest group has said, JA may be more likely to bargain for LWOP because they didn't seem to be even slightly swayed by JA and her lies.

I'm sorry to hear (from reading another post) that the media is questioning people who know the foreman. While I don't agree with his verdict, that is totally unacceptable. He gave up a tremendous amount of time to serve on the jury and did convict her of 1st degree murder. He shouldn't have to go through this now.

If this kind of behavior continues, it's going to become nearly impossible to find anybody willing to serve on a jury due to being concerned about the ramifications of their vote. A civilized society should be able to agree to disagree. I know that Uncle Remus and I have disagreed about aspects of this case, but I think we've been respectful towards each other over it.

I will admit that I had serious issues with the CA jury because I think what they did was a sham, but even so, people shouldn't be able to harass a jury member for any reason.

 

[Luv'sTink]

It was the foreman's job to make sure everyone understood what would happen after they checked the box and signed. When he asked that question he did not fulfill his duty to make sure he along with everyone else understood what it really meant.

Next before anyone signed it he should have asked them if they understood or do they need more clarification. Now I am not saying that they didn't do their job, but I think they needed more understanding what the judge would do once they marked and handed it over.

I understand that people vote in different directions and don't always agree. But I don't appreciate how he came about his decision and did not follow the judges rules. He went by his feelings for Jodi. Once he did that he let down the rest of the jurors.

I am sure the rest of the juror's are sorry they appointed him to be the foreman. I hope this foreman is never in a position to need a jury and have someone go by their feelings. I could see he may be a very angry person.

Unfortunately, he was kinda like JA, the more he talked the more I found my self going; Huh? You just contradicted yourself.

 

[horseshowmom]

Unfortunately, he was kinda like JA, the more he talked the more I found my self going; Huh? You just contradicted yourself.

Yes, I noticed that too.

 

[Luv'sTink]

I'm also glad that the others are speaking out. When the foreman first spoke out, I think his statements could possibly be seen as encouragement by the DT - meaning they would be more likely to try to hold out for LWP/25 years. However, after hearing what the latest group has said, JA may be more likely to bargain for LWOP because they didn't seem to be even slightly swayed by JA and her lies.

I'm sorry to hear (from reading another post) that the media is questioning people who know the foreman. While I don't agree with his verdict, that is totally unacceptable. He gave up a tremendous amount of time to serve on the jury and did convict her of 1st degree murder. He shouldn't have to go through this now.

If this kind of behavior continues, it's going to become nearly impossible to find anybody willing to serve on a jury due to being concerned about the ramifications of their vote. A civilized society should be able to agree to disagree. I know that Uncle Remus and I have disagreed about aspects of this case, but I think we've been respectful towards each other over it.

I will admit that I had serious issues with the CA jury because I think what they did was a sham, but even so, people shouldn't be able to harass a jury member for any reason.

Me too, I am so glad others came forward to speak.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I'm also glad that the others are speaking out. When the foreman first spoke out, I think his statements could possibly be seen as encouragement by the DT - meaning they would be more likely to try to hold out for LWP/25 years. However, after hearing what the latest group has said, JA may be more likely to bargain for LWOP because they didn't seem to be even slightly swayed by JA and her lies.

I'm sorry to hear (from reading another post) that the media is questioning people who know the foreman. While I don't agree with his verdict, that is totally unacceptable. He gave up a tremendous amount of time to serve on the jury and did convict her of 1st degree murder. He shouldn't have to go through this now.

If this kind of behavior continues, it's going to become nearly impossible to find anybody willing to serve on a jury due to being concerned about the ramifications of their vote. A civilized society should be able to agree to disagree. I know that Uncle Remus and I have disagreed about aspects of this case, but I think we've been respectful towards each other over it.

I will admit that I had serious issues with the CA jury because I think what they did was a sham, but even so, people shouldn't be able to harass a jury member for any reason.

Look at this poor juror: http://www.azcentral.com/video/#/Ne...spotted/40280768001/35150280001/2405627568001

I know that Uncle Remus and I have disagreed about aspects of this case, but I think we've been respectful towards each other over it.

And we definitely agree on the jury harassment issue!

 

[horseshowmom]

Look at this poor juror: http://www.azcentral.com/video/#/Ne...spotted/40280768001/35150280001/2405627568001

Had not seen that. I'm glad, at least, that the guy on the train gave him some support even though he didn't agree with him.

 

[sbtrfly74]

Not sure what I was thinking when I posted that the foreman's son posted that blog was his daughter. thanks whoever clarified that lol.

Not sure if this link was posted either about juror 16 speaking out. Im caught up with the threads just havent looked at all the links yet.

http://www.kpho.com/story/22428063/arias-juror-no-16-says-she-feels-relieved-satisfied

 

[Uncle Remus]

Had not seen that. I'm glad, at least, that the guy on the train gave him some support even though he didn't agree with him.

It gives one hope there are more rational people out there than not.

Not sure what I was thinking when I posted that the foreman's son posted that blog was his daughter. thanks whoever clarified that lol.

Not sure if this link was posted either about juror 16 speaking out. Im caught up with the threads just havent looked at all the links yet.

http://www.kpho.com/story/22428063/arias-juror-no-16-says-she-feels-relieved-satisfied

Thanks for the link.

Glad she said this:

"Mitigating circumstances are very personal. It's not something that has to be proven by the defendant. It's something you feel based on you past, your conscience, your thought process and your heart that could warrant leniency and mercy," said Allen-Coogan.

Although Allen-Coogan voted for the death penalty, she said she respects the decisions of the four jurors who did not.

"I don't think anybody has the right to be angry with them or spew hatred on them because they voted their conscience," said Allen-Coogan.

Starting tomorrow I'm going to be more dependent on links here than other sources because it's been raining like heck and that damn grass is really growing out there on my ten acres.
Aaaaand, it's time to start planning whose shorts and T-shirts are going in what suitcases for Disney!!

 

[maccagerl]

Showmeman posted: She got Murder 1. She will never walk the streets again, even if the next jury fails to give her a Death sentence.

Actually , if the next jury is also hung, or if they vote for a life sentence, it is up to the judge to determine if she gets LWOP or 25 to life. So conceivably, she could walk the streets again.

 

[showmeman]

Unfortunately, he was kinda like JA, the more he talked the more I found my self going; Huh? You just contradicted yourself.

Very unfair comparison. Jodi Arias is a convicted murderess who lied to police and on the stand as a witness. Jury foreman is someone who was picked to do jury duty and did his duty as he saw fit. You are being very unfair to him.

 

[WPack911]

Stop vilifying this jury foreman. No one still knows how he voted, because he did not say how he voted in the interview. He may have voted for death and was just speaking for the entire jury.

Besides, if the jury came back with second degree murder, then you would have something to complain about. But they didn't.

Don't give me that, it is easy to see the reason WHY he did not come out and say what he voted. Not to mention it very easy to infer given his kind and sympathetic words about Jodi.

Anybody could see how completely guilty of first degree murder JA was given the overwelming evidence and almost no defense past "The FOG" and her bogus self defense claim, it was not hard to give first degree murder in this case.

This foreman was a Jodi Kool-Aid drinking fool that thinks that unless you are a serial killer or mass murderer you should not get the DP and that is a completely BS way of thinking and is NOT the way the law is written or is to be interpreted.