I think the justice denied was in what the Alexander family wanted, the death penalty for Arias. I understand their feelings, I empathize with that desire, a life for a life, yet I see it as a small measure compared to the horrific act of brutality that Arias perpetrated against Travis.
And while I can see that difference, I also know that Arias met the standard for the DP in the state of Arizona, I do accept that. I could live with that had the DP been given. But even more so, that the potential for life without parole looms...I tend to like that even more. Not that it is 'just' even though it is an option, but "just desserts." She'll be in general population either way. But the way Arias operates, she'll never be safe once she turns her back. I find that rather fitting if not ominous.
Was justice delayed? The greatest revulsion I feel is because of Nurmi, Willmott, MDLR and Arias. I think her lawyers abused the justice system through an unethical vilification of Travis. They carved him into pieces, not unlike their client literally did...the means to an end, avoid the DP at all costs.
They've soiled the system with unsubstantiated filth paraded in front of jurists in each phase, again to avoid the DP. And while some may consider this being an obligation to their client, they would be heII bent trying to convince me that Arias' lawyers believed a single word stated or written by her. They propagated Arias' lies, it delayed the process, was disingenuous, unprofessional and unethical.
As to the hold out jurist. She submitted a statement in writing to JSS after the other jurists lodged a written complaint to JSS, which they shared with the jurist. The "hold out" did not share her statement. What JSS understood from the "hold out" letter, I don't know. But tend to think there may have been a legitimate reason, legally, to not replace her with an alternate. It would be interesting to know what was in that letter to JSS and I wonder if it will become public knowledge at some point.
I watched Nancy Grace. Not because I like her, but to hear her guest, Juror #4. This was a man. A man in tears who said they (the other 11) tried everything they could. They even laid out all the crime scene photo on the table, spread out all over the table, and asked her to at least tell them what evidence she had, and she would only answer, "All of it." The ONLY reason she would give was that the 'death penalty was only a form of 'revenge'. Strangely, on Juan Martinez Prosecution Support Page, they dug up an old U-Tube video of one of JA's many interviews and that was her exact, same phrase that she had told the reporter that day!
The juror on NG said that actually, at first they were pretty evenly divided, and that he was one who was not sure what he believed, one way or the other. But the evidence convinced him that she deserved death.
But what first convinced him of the way JA lies was one thing I had not even, not once, considered. (She told so many lies, I think I stopped hearing anything she said.) But he said, "She and Darryl were looking for a house to purchase and she said, "We wanted one in a good school district, because of Darryl's son." But then later, the Juror found in the evidence that Darryl ONLY HAD HIS SON DURING THE SUMMER! Not when the boy would be in school anyway. He said, that showed me that she would lie to the jury's faces.
This was actually a smart group of people, except for that one who seemed to have an agenda from the beginning! But I cannot understand why the Judge did not replace that juror when she was using that stupid Lifetime movie as 'evidence', when it should not have even been considered in those deliberations! They told the Judge, but she still let that juror stay. That seems very unethical, if not illegal, to me. But, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know about all of you, but I really look forward to Dr. Randle's articles after this is all over!
(03-06-2015, 03:57 AM)Justice Wrote: [ -> ]This was actually a smart group of people, except for that one who seemed to have an agenda from the beginning! But I cannot understand why the Judge did not replace that juror when she was using that stupid Lifetime movie as 'evidence', when it should not have even been considered in those deliberations! They told the Judge, but she still let that juror stay. That seems very unethical, if not illegal, to me. But, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know about all of you, but I really look forward to Dr. Randle's articles after this is all over!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The jurists seemed quite intelligent. I listened to the reporters questioning them. I feel as though they based their decision not only on the evidence, but lack of credibility to the defense/Arias and understood the qualifiers for the death penalty. They pegged Arias right!
As to the "hold out" juror, Claudia, I just read where her husband was interviewed and Claudia believed she was being "bullied." What she wrote to JSS is still a mystery - the answer must be in her message as to why JSS made the determination that she did to keep Claudia.
Like you, I'm really looking forward to Dr. Randle's articles after the video taping of the penalty phase are released. And Dr. Randle's book, when done, will be the only one I will be reading!!
(03-06-2015, 05:18 AM)ViveeCR Wrote: [ -> ]This is was tweeted a few minutes ago regarding Juror#17
https://twitter.com/DoxingRx/status/573711055186104320
__________________________________________________________________________________
I haven't searched out the jurists name, I did read that her name is Claudia, but the last name wasn't noted. I also read where her "husband," according to the press, was interviewed and his message was that she "felt bullied." Now the only question I have is, legitimately, is this Claudia's former husband on this document? I've seen this happen before when the same last name matches on a search - though that isn't the only reason. If she has since remarried, her last name would not be the same as her former name. Or, she may actually not be married to the male that gave the interview.
I also would have considered that Juan Martinez would have recognized the name, if she still had the same name, his office would have and likely did verify jurors and she would not have been chosen or kept because of the potential for vindication. The mystery of juror 17 continues! Mercy.
Thank you for posting the link!!
ElaineJ,
The tweeter @DoxingRx has not and will not tweet Juror#17 name. Here is another tweet that I hope gives some clarification.
https://twitter.com/DoxingRx/status/573718301404106753
I'm sorry to be so brief, but I'm trying to keep up with twitter at the same time.
(03-06-2015, 06:15 AM)ViveeCR Wrote: [ -> ]ElaineJ,
The tweeter @DoxingRx has not and will not tweet Juror#17 name. Here is another tweet that I hope gives some clarification.
https://twitter.com/DoxingRx/status/573718301404106753
I'm sorry to be so brief, but I'm trying to keep up with twitter at the same time.
ViveeCR, thank you so much for clarifying that! I have seen DoxingRx typically tweet out legitimate information. I can appreciate that the jurors name will not be noted - how the other individual obtained her first name I don't know - but some are able to get tangible records relatively quickly and from there, the information hits the highway rather quickly.
If this is all legitimate, I have more questions than there likely are answers for at this time. Especially how this woman became a juror to begin with. If it was an oversight - well, not much could be done I would think.
I understand you're trying to keep up with Twitter at the same time! I appreciate the time you did take. Thank you.
As the night has rolled on, new information has been gathered on jurist #17. Documents of court record on her divorce (which I've seen) to an individual who was sentenced to the DOC in 2000 by Juan Martinez. Her current husband is a felon as well. I have read the former husbands charging and DOC document. He has a rather busy record, including inside the DOC for disciplinary reasons.
Additionally, the former husband was listed on an Arias family page through Face Book as friends with the family. It was noted that he has taken this down. I inquired with the person as to whether someone had captured a picture. I've not heard back as yet.
I'm certain all of this information will be in the courts hands by tomorrow. How this will affect or if it will affect the outcome, I don't know. What will be done about jurist #17, I think time will tell. Given her deliberate actions to not participate in deliberations and the message she sent to JSS, she may be looked at with a clearer eye given her history, connections.
Rolling my eyes and shaking my head. Jodi Arias and her "Children of The Corn." It just doesn't get any better with her.
I watched the press conference with the jurors on my local ABC TV station and I was very impressed with their intelligence, their diligence in trying to get a death sentence and their ability to see through the lies, manipulation and character assassination of Travis Alexander and that they saw Arias for what she was: a psychopath, liar and a cold blooded killer who would be a danger to society if she ever got out of prison.
I'm glad they saw that the porn and Mormon Church was irrelevant and didn't like the sleazy tactics of Nurmi but looked at "the records" themselves and made up their own mind that Travis Alexander was nothing like the monster the defense painted him to be.
I'm glad they also said while they wished they had more evidence that the first jury saw, it wouldn't have made any difference to the hold out juror because she was not interested in changing her mind once she read the journals which make Jodi Arias sound like a nice passive girl who just wanted love.
It looks to me like if one of the alternates or the woman who was excused because her mother died were on the jury instead of Juror No. 17, Arias would have gone to death row.
I think that's what makes it so frustrating.
Juror No. 17 apparently had sympathy for Arias because she too remained in a relationship that was not healthy for her and didn't have the psychological makeup to get out.
It is also unfortunate that Juror No. 17 also felt like the death penalty was revenge, instead of punishment for the brutal murder.
I, for one, am grateful for the jurors who tried to get a death sentence for the right reasons, that Arias deserved it.
I pity the juror who was taken in by the manipulative psychopath.
Observer, good posting. I personally don't pity Juror 17 because she doesn't deserve my pity. She reminds me of Arias actually and I certainly don't pity Arias. I think there is something fishy about Juror 17. But it is too late now. This is how our system works. The 11 jurors who talked on camera definitely smelled Arias. They saw her for the lying murderer she is. I am so glad about that. The juror 17 and the 4 in the original trial simply don't have the intelligence to see through her lies. For some reason, they must have believed the abuse lies and lies they are. Arias and her team are good at telling lies and some people just can't help but buy into the lies. I hope some of these jurors do some research and see how they were blinded by her lies.
In the end, the life sentence will be a good thing. I am reading things about the death sentence that say that there is a 70% chance of an overturn; what that means, I don't know. Does it mean that if the death sentence is overturned, Arias would walk free or does it mean that she would then go into regular prison? And that the life sentence has a 1% chance of being overturned. I don't know if these things are the actual facts, of course, but if so, the sentence that Arias got yesterday is a good thing.
My main concern is that she will be the center of attention in the prison so hopefully and no doubt the authorities will keep a very close eye on her because of her manipulation. I hope when she breaks the rules that she is kept confined in her cell for weeks at a time. And she will break the rules. She is one who believes the rules don't apply to herself.
After April 13, hopefully none of us ever have to hear about her life ever again. And by the way, and this is of no importance, but I saw the camera on Willmott, Arias, and de la Rosa yesterday. De la Rosa really looks hard and harsh and bad. Big time. I wonder if being around Arias does that to people. Actually Willmott looks aged and unpleasant too. Could it be that just having to be in close physical contact with the murderer tells on their faces?
I am hoping the Alexander family can now try to get some rest and go forward with their lives. These trials have been such a slap in their faces and I cannot imagine the shock they have gone through seeking justice all these years. Sitting there listening to all the lies and not being able to say anything must be so extremely difficult. I was thinking that if they don't come back for the sentencing would slap justice back in the face (like saying to the court what a load of crap this has been), but of course they will continue being there for their brother's sake. What an incredible family they are.