The FINAL (?!) Jodi Arias thread (Penalty Phase retrial verdict)

[MaryAnnDVC]

For some reason my iPad or the DIS is acting up and won't quote.

If they had sequestered the jury, exactly who would have applied the pressure to the judge to hurry things along? And in what way? I doubt that a sequestered jury would have made a difference in the amount of time this trial took. The defense took every opportunity to delay the process, and the judge went along with it. I can't imagine that any of that would have changed with pressure from ________? And if the judge did feel pressured to hurry things along, I wouldn't trust that judge to make the correct decisions that wouldn't open more doors to appeal.

For all we know, the Alexander family wants to wait for a sentencing date. Were they ALL there today? Do they want other people there? Do they ALL want to speak? Were ANY of them prepared to speak? This isn't necessarily about Jodi and the judge deciding when sentencing will be. Sentencing has to occur within a certain amount of time, is my understanding, and it will.

Our system doesn't run on "majority votes." It IS maddening particularly when there is one hold out, but a majority vote is a whole other can of worms.

Personally, I'd like to see profesional jurors, with qualifications beyond being old enough to vote or being able to get a driver's license. But surely there'd be issues with that too.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Why did I hear nothing about a crockpot twitter account?

 

[pigletgirl]

I know it's the law, but I still think justice is not being served in doing it this way.

You can look at like this.

1. Jodi IS a convicted murderer. That stands and she isn't getting off. I bet if she were a model inmate it would of come up during mitigation so who knows HOW long she'll be in there. Again, she's going to prison regardless.

2. Now that the DP is off the table, her supporters, anti-DP folks and stuff will go away. She'll blend into the prison population and we probably won't hear about her for awhile. (again, that is more painful for someone like Jodi who is a complete sociopath.... she thrives on attention)

3. She'll have no money for an appeal. Her $$$$$ for the commissary will be null. Life is about to get pretty ugly for Ms Jodi Ann Arias.

 

[usnuzuloose]

OH mare, I think it was the 2nd or 3day this woman brought a crockpot of food to court. And she had a twitter account. She watched the life time moved and the news, that is why they wanted to switch jurors she admitted all this during deliberations. I mean bringing a crockpot is bizarre, just when we thought things weren't bad enough eh?

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

OH mare, I think it was the 2nd or 3day this woman brought a crockpot of food to court. And she had a twitter account. She watched the life time moved and the news, that is why they wanted to switch jurors she admitted all this during deliberations. I mean bringing a crockpot is bizarre, just when we thought things weren't bad enough eh?

I knew someone brought a crockpot and she watched parts of the lifetime movie and them wanting to replace her with an alternate...I just thought someone was tweeting in the role of the crockpot. LOL ? Was she actually tweeting during the trial or deliberations? I heard on HLN that she had "likes" on Nancy Grace's FB page, but I didn't hear anyone specifiy at what point it was and what she "liked".

Per Darren Kavinoky (sp?) on HLN (and then I'm turning this off!): "First of all, from the announcement that there was a verdict I think it really set people up for broken expectations, because when a VERDICT is announced, a VERDICT has a particular meaning...it's that you've got unanimity, whether it was all 12 agreeing that it should be life, or all 12 agreeing that it should be death. THAT'S what a verdict is. What we had instead was decidedly a NON-verdict. And so I think that really sets people up for disappointment." (then he went on about the 11 - 1 vote)

 

[usnuzuloose]

Mare I was shocked to hear they said it was an actual verdict meaning a hung jury is a verdict, I was like what? But okay.
They did not say when she tweeted. But IMHO she should face perjury for lying to the judge.

I guess we will be back in here in april. But any tweets in between I will still keep going.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I am glad we can have a good laugh at this stuff, it would not be the same in the thread if there was no excitement.

 

[Uncle Remus]

No, the juror did not tweet anything, it was the crockpot that tweeted, much like Obama's empty chair, you remember the one Clint Eastwood talked to during the convention. And it was the hold out juror who supposedly brought up the Lifetime movie. These were two separate jurors.

And now the media is approaching the hold out juror's home: http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/juror-no-12s-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted

 

[usnuzuloose]

No, the juror did not tweet anything, it was the crockpot that tweeted, much like Obama's empty chair, you remember the one Clint Eastwood talked to during the convention. And it was the hold out juror who supposedly brought up the Lifetime movie. These were two separate jurors.

And now the media is approaching the hold out juror's home: http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/juror-no-12s-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted

So many rumors then about the tweeting. But the ladies husband is being threatened for her hold out. That is not right.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

No, the juror did not tweet anything, it was the crockpot that tweeted, much like Obama's empty chair, you remember the one Clint Eastwood talked to during the convention. And it was the hold out juror who supposedly brought up the Lifetime movie. These were two separate jurors.

And now the media is approaching the hold out juror's home: http://www.kpho.com/story/28274746/juror-no-12s-husband-she-felt-like-she-was-being-assaulted

OK, that's what I thought people were saying...that the crockpot was tweeting. (Doesn't Donald Trumps hair have a twitter account? LOL) Do we know anything else about this crockpot twitter account? What it said? Who owns it? WAS it one of the jurors? Did the subject come up in the interview with the jurors today? I didn't catch it.

The husband of the juror the media is going after...is this the abusive husband who did time in jail I wonder? I would imagine things get pretty heated during deliberations. And it sounds like a bad combination of circumstances. From what the 11 said, this one juror seemed unwilling to deliberate from the beginning. It must have been frustrating as hell for them.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

So many rumors then about the tweeting. But the ladies husband is being threatened for her hold out. That is not right.

Wow. How is he being threatened, and why would HE be threatened? I can see that she would be threatened because that's the unfortunate way of the world, not because I think it's right, because I don't...I think it's terrible.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Wow. How is he being threatened, and why would HE be threatened? I can see that she would be threatened because that's the unfortunate way of the world, not because I think it's right, because I don't...I think it's terrible.

Sorry , he says the whole family is being threatened , but people do it just because they can. I doubt anything will happen. Maybe he is taken it as the whole family and not just her. No one should be threatened.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

http://www.azcentral.com/media/cinematic/video/24449023/

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Why oh why did I put on Dr Drew???

Anyway...Mark Eiglarsh is on, making some very good points about this one juror...that from everything the jurors said in the interview, the one holdout DID offer reasons and explanations, and did deliberate...perhaps not to the point where the other 11 wanted her to, but she did.

Emotions are running high today. People, including myself, wanted a particular outcome, and are holding this one person responsible and quite honestly, it's just wrong. We have very little information about this juror, whether she "lied" to the judge or not, and, without video/recordings, everything that transpired during deliberations, and we will NEVER know. What frustrates me is that people seem to think that if you're death penalty qualified, you automatically should vote for the death penalty in a death penalty case, and that's just not true. Otherwise, it would only be a matter of finding these 12 people, and there'd be no need for any deliberations. *I* think those mitigating factors were ********...someone else, such as this juror, may find some valid, for whatever reasons. Look no further than the DIS to see a HUGE range of opinions and perceptions on every conceivable topic...there are a whole lotta DISers I wouldn't want on to serve with or on my jury.

Mark Eiglarsh also said there is NO WAY Jodi will get Life WITH parole. Let's hope he's right.

Ack, PERKY KATIE IS BACK!

 

[Uncle Remus]

OK, that's what I thought people were saying...that the crockpot was tweeting. (Doesn't Donald Trumps hair have a twitter account? LOL) Do we know anything else about this crockpot twitter account? What it said? Who owns it? WAS it one of the jurors? Did the subject come up in the interview with the jurors today? I didn't catch it.

The husband of the juror the media is going after...is this the abusive husband who did time in jail I wonder? I would imagine things get pretty heated during deliberations. And it sounds like a bad combination of circumstances. From what the 11 said, this one juror seemed unwilling to deliberate from the beginning. It must have been frustrating as hell for them.

I Haven't looked at the crockpot's Twitter, but he/she (not sure of the crockpot's gender, LOL) surely didn't divulge any jury deliberations. The crockpot comment was just a laughing about the account, nothing really said except I understood it that the jury knew about it and hopefully it was after the verdict was read.

I don't know if this was the abusive husband or not, Jen turned HLN off at 4, she said she'd had enough and I'm a firm believer in happy wife, happy life. LOL


Just saw this:

 

[Uncle Remus]

Perky Katie, oh nooooooo!

 

[usnuzuloose]

I forgot about perky Katy. It did not matter to me how they voted. Just as long as she does not get out ever. I think she is a danger to anyone. It does not matter how the woman voted, the threats need to stop.
I thought it was a mistake for TA's family to try again as it would be a big gamble to get the death penalty and relive the pain all over again. Now they have to come back for sentencing.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Good Morning,

After reflecting for the evening, I have to take back my prior comment, and see that the jury did do their job. I'm not sure what the "true" story is with juror 17, but I do not support they lynch mob mentality that exploded on social media. If there are valid claims, they should be investigated.

I wonder if we should have a jury decide the sentencing phase of a trial. Maybe that should be exclusively left up to judges, or a panel that has some type of training. Or maybe this outcome will lead to a larger debate on the DP.

I do hope that JSS imposes LWOP.

I read a good piece this morning by Mark Eighlarsh, that I found helpful. Here it is;

http://www.floridacriminaldefensela...king-sense-jodi-arias-hung-jury-decision.html

 

[cabanafrau]

1. 
   
   
   Yes, Jodi was allowed to testify in secret. The defense said they had a witness who feared for his/her life if he/she was made to testify in open court like all the other witnesses, and would only testify in closed court.
   Come to find out, after the witness testified, the witness was Jodi Arias herself.
   The media went to the Supreme Court of Arizona to unseal her testimony and prevent any further testimony in closed court.
   Because of this, Jodi refused to take the stand again, thus depriving the prosecution of the ability to cross examine her.
   She tried to pull this stunt again, refusing to allocute in an open court.
   She is a master manipulator.

Huge breach of due process! Generally when that is thrown around in criminal cases it's assumed to mean due process for the defendant. Actually the People have rights of due process under the law and inability to cross examine is definitely a violation. If one of our judges allowed that situation to develop I'm sure the sanctions would be severe, pretty good likelihood for removal from the bench.

I understand why people are upset this woman appears to have manipulated her way out of the death sentence, but I cannot help thinking somehow that a lifetime behind bars in ever diminishing spotlight, stewing in her own juices will be a very fitting punishment here. She's no Charles Manson. He does manage to pop up in the news every few years, but how relevant is he really overall today? This woman doesn't have that cult status and will be relegated to virtual obscurity rather quickly is my guess. She's a young woman, likely with a loooong time behind bars ahead of her.

 

[2Kds2K9]

I had to step away from this yesterday as I was so frustrated with the whole process. Got my anger/frustration out by shoveling snow!

Anyway, from all the reports, I tend to think that Juror #17 had an agenda. The shear fact that she did not participate a lot in the discussion and explain her reasons for her steadfast decision, explains a lot. Also, hard to say what really went on in the jury room. Each juror has their own perception of what happened and we won't know unless we were witnessing it.

I can live with LWOP. If memory serves, Jodi will spend the first few years in solitary. That will be enough to break her into little pieces. She will never be the same and will really be mush when she gets into the general population. And as Cabanafrau said, she's young. She will be there a very, very long time. Unless she tries to OD on Tylenol and scratch her wrists again!

Now, if the Judge gives her parole, I will be absolutely beside myself.

Had Jodi been a man......he would be on death row with a needle halfway in the arm!