Jodi Arias Trial Part 8 EXTREME CRUELTY: PROVEN

[showmeman]

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.

Really? Please tell me how the law is written or is to be interpreted.

He really had no obligation to tell how he voted to anyone. 4 jurists voted for Life, so he is not alone, if he voted for Life, and did not hold up a Death Sentence verdict by himself.

I can say your words describing the Jury Foreman certain tells me you would not be able to be objective. I just don't understand how anybody can be so emotionally attached to either verdict. Life in Prison or Death are equally bad for any defendant at this point.

 

[WPack911]

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.

It is clear from what he said he did what he did based on feelings and that is NOT what you are supposed to do in trial. Jurors are not suppose to make the law about what they think or feel, but rather about the evidence and in this phase mitigating factors and let me tell you right now she had NO REAL LEGAL mitigating factors!

 

[usnuzuloose]

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.

He himself was basing his feelings for her, not on the facts. Now if he had been using the mitigators listed and not how he feels about her that would be a different issue. So I am not finding fault for how he voted, just that he was going by his feelings for her. Feelings have nothing to with the crime she was charged with. I am not mad at your statement to me. I am trying to clarify what I was trying to say. I remember some people on tv I think it was that someone started listening to Jodi and almost got sucked in until they came back to reality..

I would have been fine if he would have voted LWOP,

 

[usnuzuloose]

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

Are you saying he contradicted himself , or I am contradicted myself?

 

[Luv'sTink]

Are you saying he contradicted himself , or I am contradicted myself?

He did.

 

[Luv'sTink]

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.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled, just like I am. She was not convicted of anything when she started lying to the police or on the witness stand.

The feeling I am getting from your post is that you feel you can have your opinion, but no one else can.

 

[showmeman]

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled, just like I am. She was not convicted of anything when she started lying to the police or on the witness stand.

The feeling I am getting from your post is that you feel you can have your opinion, but no one else can.

Not true, but when someone calls the jury foreman a JA kool aide drinking fool, I have to speak up. It's uncalled for. He was doing his duty and I still don't know how he voted, because he never said how he voted.

I have no idea how I would have voted in a penalty stage of this trial. I would have needed to hear the other jurists on the panel and hear their reasoning.

Only mitigation factor I can think of and I agreed with is her clean record before the murder. Now, if she was charged and convicted of harassment before she committed the murder, she wouldn't have even had that. I may even gone for her Borderline personality disorder, but I really don't know how that affects people and how much it lent to her committing murder.

 

[usnuzuloose]

He did.

No problem.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Not true, but when someone calls the jury foreman a JA kool aide drinking fool, I have to speak up. It's uncalled for. He was doing his duty and I still don't know how he voted, because he never said how he voted.

I have no idea how I would have voted in a penalty stage of this trial. I would have needed to hear the other jurists on the panel and hear their reasoning.

Only mitigation factor I can think of and I agreed with is her clean record before the murder. Now, if she was charged and convicted of harassment before she committed the murder, she wouldn't have even had that. I may even gone for her Borderline personality disorder, but I really don't know how that affects people and how much it lent to her committing murder.

I've been reading more than one comment at other sites that some think this juror (the foreman) was influenced by seeing the explicit photos of Jodi (if you know what I mean).

I'll just re-post this from one of the jurors who voted for the DP:

"They were very independent, intelligent, thoughtful people on that jury. It surprised me how quickly we could all, all 18 of us form this incredible respect and friendship," said Allen-Coogan.

When it came time to start making decisions, Allen-Coogan said the process the jury used was incredibly methodical. She said throughout the different stages of the case, jurors were always respectful of one another; however, during deliberations, things did get heated many times.

In the end, the jury convicted Arias of first-degree murder. But when it came time to decide her punishment, the group couldn't come to a unanimous decision.

"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.

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

 

[Luv'sTink]

Juror #6 - She mouthed "I'm sorry" to the Alexanders.


Interview with AZCenteral.....
http://www.azcentral.com/video/#/Ne...+toilet/40280768001/35150280001/2413479602001

Calls JA intelligent, but feels JA has no remorse.

Answering Twitter questions...
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2411704415001

 

[showmeman]

I've been reading more than one comment at other sites that some think this juror (the foreman) was influenced by seeing the explicit photos of Jodi (if you know what I mean).
http://www.kpho.com/story/22428063/arias-juror-no-16-says-she-feels-relieved-satisfied

And you believe that nonsense? It's unfounded.

Also, in your link, the juror interviewed, who voted for death, says no one has the right to be angry towards or feel hatred towards anyone who did not vote for death. She said it was a personal decision. See the video. She is right on.

 

[Uncle Remus]

And you believe that nonsense? It's unfounded.

LOL, believe what? That the juror was influenced by the pictures of Jodi? Um, no, I don't think he was influenced by those pics, but yes, I saw numerous accusations that he was influenced, that I believe because I saw the accusations.

 

[Luv'sTink]

Jury Instruction...

http://www.azbar.org/media/58847/4-capital_case_instructions_revised_2011.pdf

Page 568 ...Capital Case 1.6(d) Definition of Especially Cruel, Heinous or Depraved

I'm going to guess they used ....

2. Inflicted gratuitous violence on the victim beyond that necessary to kill;

Inflicted Gratuitous Violence
To find that the defendant inflicted gratuitous violence, you must find that the defendant
intentionally inflicted violence clearly beyond what was necessary to kill the victim, and that the
defendant continued to inflict this violence after the defendant knew or should have known that
the [defendant had inflicted a fatal injury] [victim was dead].


Penalty Phase starts on page 579

UR, age is a mitigating factor, sorta ... Capital Case 3.6 Age
Now we know why they said her age.

 

[Promomx2]

Will the defense change the mitigating circumstances?

 

[showmeman]

Will the defense change the mitigating circumstances?

According to the Jury instructions, they can make up their own mitigating circumstances. So who knows what they will come up the second go around.

Capital Case 3.1 − Mitigation Evidence

The evidence you shall consider in determining mitigation includes any aspect of the defendant’s character, propensities, or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that might justify a penalty less severe than death. Mitigating circumstances may include but are not limited to the following:
1. significant impairment
2. unusual and substantial duress
3. relatively minor participation
4. death not reasonably foreseeable
5. the defendant’s age.
You may consider any mitigating evidence in deciding whether leniency is appropriate.
This includes any variation of the mitigating circumstances that I have specifically defined in these instructions. You are not limited to considering these mitigating circumstances.

 

[Luv'sTink]

I have no idea what this really means but they are saying on the State Vs JA FB page..... It means that In Session have been approved to stream the second penalty phase.

I wonder if the DT has asked for a change of venue yet or if they are going to. I don't know that it would matter either way.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I guess I know what most of us will be doing on that date. I bet they move forward with a new jury. Who the heck knows what mitigating factors will be brought in.

I wonder if they will use anyone to testify now that it will be a new jury.

 

[usnuzuloose]

This is from the State page. Jury instructions for retrial, interesting.

http://www.azbar.org/media/58847/4-capital_case_instructions_revised_2011.pdf

 

[mrsksomeday]

From The State vs Jodi Arias Facebook page. I cut it into paragraphs for easier reading:


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.

 

[usnuzuloose]

From The State vs Jodi Arias Facebook page. I cut it into paragraphs for easier reading:


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.

I saw this, I figured they would still move forward.