Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Jodi Arias Trial

842 posts in this topic

Well they said one women jurer was crying and said to the Alexander family she was sorry, another women jurer was wringing her hands and crying, so I guessing they were some of the few that thought Jodi was a victum of some kind of abuse, and just could`nt give her the DP.

Well this just in, there were eight for the DP and four were against,since there were eight men and four women, I guessing it was the women that were against giving Jodi the DP.

Probably not a very good idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I saw this somewhere some years ago that stats show when cases are retried, the advantage goes overwhelmingly to the Prosecution, not the Defense. I really don't like the message that this retrial sends the new jurors: it's like a not-so-subtle pressure to choose the DP. Why is killing someone--even a waste of human life like JA--so high a priority in society? So high we devote so many resources to achieving it?

I agree, I've heard multiple times on the various coverage of the trial that with the trial being so drawn out, and Arias' 18 days of her own testimony, that the jury have got to know her as a human being too well for them to decide to give her the death penalty. A new jury won't have that at all. They'll be coming into this knowing she has been convicted of 1st degree murder (and that it was cruel?) AND they will probably have seen all the interviews she's done with news outlets when she thought the jury wouldn't hear. They'll have seen how cold she is in those interviews.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole new retrial and jury July 18.I see a problem here how will the defence find 12 jurers who are not bias by all the media coverage, they will claim it would`nt be a fair trial.Some how I think Martinez the proscuter who does like to lose wants to go forward to win the DP. But I think he`ll leave it up to Alexander family that has to suffer all through it again to decide to settle for a plea bargain or go foward.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was not a victim of abuse. Travis made it clear to her that their relationship was purely sexual, therefore she knew what she was getting into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit being a little surprised as to the hung jury on the DP, but to me this is an example of what's wrong having the DP. If the public, and DA offices, could get over being so blood-lusting about the DP, this kind of waste wouldn't happen. The jury decides the verdict and the judge sentences according to state statutes and her discretion as a seasoned professional of the CJ system. DP is off the table, so no further need for the jury--either natural life or possibility of parole after 25 yrs (or whatever it is). This DP deliberation is such an extravagant and needless use of the taxpayers' money. But the other part of this I see as ridiculous is why does the court need a unanimous decision by the jury for life in prison? I see it with the DP--we don't want to put people to death if the whole jury isn't in agreement. But why can't the procedure be, if the jury can't be unanimous about the DP, then instead of retrial (of the penalty phase), it hands off to the judge for sentencing? The idea of getting a whole new jury to hear the arguments for life or death again is ludicrous IMO. So extreme!

Anyway, I saw this somewhere some years ago that stats show when cases are retried, the advantage goes overwhelmingly to the Prosecution, not the Defense. I really don't like the message that this retrial sends the new jurors: it's like a not-so-subtle pressure to choose the DP. Why is killing someone--even a waste of human life like JA--so high a priority in society? So high we devote so many resources to achieving it?

I agree 100% with your post. She's going to suffer by spending the rest of her life in prison anyway. And due to the strict confinement she might even commit suicide. Just give her LWOP and call it a day

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it sounds like you are sucked in more than most. I know what is happening in the trial, but not the details and not to the point where I watch news shows about it. That's the great thing about the TV remote.

Sorry Myles, maybe I missed something but I just thought Yamato was being sarcastic there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

She was not a victim of abuse. Travis made it clear to her that their relationship was purely sexual, therefore she knew what she was getting into.

Right like even the foremen of jury had said they did believe Jodi was a victum of mental and verbal abuse. Kind of reminds of how these priests abuse children, Jodi seens is so child like, he baptizes her into his religion and then right after turns around and stick into her !***% like most victums of this abuse thinks it their way of their love. Jodi is not like a seril killer that should get the DP that kill for fun.Travis did used and abused her.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify a point, the entire trial won't be retried, just the penalty phase. Someone on HLN said they will bring the new jury up to speed on the trial--the entire transcript of the trial will probably be read aloud to jurors. That will take a long time--probably a few weeks, but not all the months the first jury sat through. Yikes! What a job!

The same expert said they will no doubt move to change venue, so will probably go to a region of Ariz that's about as far from Phoenix as they can go and stay within the state. He talked about the population of another county being in the hundreds of thousands and not every last one followed the trial or its coverage. He said they may have to go through hundreds or thousands of jury pool, but they ought to be able to find 18 people (12 jurors, 6 alts) who don't watch HLN or any news programs, and don't read papers.

I agree with the poster who said new jurors won't form the same emotional connection with Arias that the original, even if only on a subliminal level. Having a transcript read aloud to them will be much more clinical and detached than sitting through the whole trial. They won't see or hear the sobbing. They will go into deliberation with the message in the back of their minds saying, "the State wants to put this killer to death. The first jury failed in their duties. We are counting on all of you to correct the error and do the right thing for your state. Come back with a unanimous vote for the DP!" And I think they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Right like even the foremen of jury had said they did believe Jodi was a victum of mental and verbal abuse. Kind of reminds of how these priests abuse children, Jodi seens is so child like, he baptizes her into his religion and then right after turns around and stick into her !***% like most victums of this abuse thinks it their way of their love. Jodi is not like a seril killer that should get the DP that kill for fun.Travis did used and abused her.

Jodi was a fully adult woman (late 20s) when she engaged in sexual acts with Travis. She was old enough to consent. After they broke up, Travis made it clear that he just wanted a sexual relationship and she agreed to it. I don't see her a as a victim but a willing participant. If she didn't wanted to be used then she should have moved on to someone else who wanted a committed relationship with her. Edited by blueberrycakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Arizona's position is that cold-blooded murderers (in other words, those who commit 'premeditated, especially cruel' murders) should be put to death, but regardless, what they need from a jury is a unanimous decision re: life or death, and they didn't get it.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys don`nt know why I`m sticking up for her, I guess maybe some of the jurers are thinking what if it were their daughter, and like the foremen said Jodi seems so child like to them. What Jodi did to Travis was a horriable crime and murder, and I guessing the next jury will most likely give her the DP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few hundred more Jodi Ariases in the news and creeps like Travis Alexander might learn how to treat their women with some respect. Chinese women are notorious for cutting off the penis, another good attention grabber for a traitorous man-whore.

It's like Ygritte said: "Don't ever betray me, Jon Snow. Because if you do, I'll cut your pretty c*** off and wear it around my neck." Nobody puts her in prison; she's a free woman, and should be. And Jon? He behaves quite well for it, even with his man-faucet still dangling there in need of constant service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodi was a fully adult woman (late 20s) when she engaged in sexual acts with Travis. She was old enough to consent. After they broke up, Travis made it clear that he just wanted a sexual relationship and she agreed to it. I don't see her a as a victim but a willing participant. If she didn't wanted to be used then she should have moved on to someone else who wanted a committed relationship with her.

I also have trouble viewing JA as a victim of abuse. There are thousands, maybe millions, of women in the US alone who can be documented as true sufferers of physical, sexual, mental and verbal abuse, and the overwhelming majority don't end up butchering their abusers. Many of them stay in the abusive relationship, many of them get it together to get out of the relationship without harming their abuser, some of them end up dead at the hands of the abuser, and some (very small number) do kill the abuser in self defense. In this last group, I never hear of any that use more deadly force than the minimum needed to stop an assault by the abuser. If a gun is used, for example, one or more bullets are fired at the aggressor. If a knife is used, a limited number of stab wounds are inflicted--only enough to subdue their attacker. How many of them find a need to stab the abuser 27 times, slit his throat ear to ear, then shoot him in the head for good measure. And if the abuser is not attacking, but taking a shower, why use force at all? Why not use the opportunity to get away and not come back? The abuse claim doesn't hold up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have trouble viewing JA as a victim of abuse. There are thousands, maybe millions, of women in the US alone who can be documented as true sufferers of physical, sexual, mental and verbal abuse, and the overwhelming majority don't end up butchering their abusers. Many of them stay in the abusive relationship, many of them get it together to get out of the relationship without harming their abuser, some of them end up dead at the hands of the abuser, and some (very small number) do kill the abuser in self defense. In this last group, I never hear of any that use more deadly force than the minimum needed to stop an assault by the abuser. If a gun is used, for example, one or more bullets are fired at the aggressor. If a knife is used, a limited number of stab wounds are inflicted--only enough to subdue their attacker. How many of them find a need to stab the abuser 27 times, slit his throat ear to ear, then shoot him in the head for good measure. And if the abuser is not attacking, but taking a shower, why use force at all? Why not use the opportunity to get away and not come back? The abuse claim doesn't hold up.

Being betrayed or forsaken is probably harder to handle for an abuse victim than a mentally-strong partner (and not just women) in a relationship. They don't get away for a myriad of cited reasons. How many stab wounds are needed? One? Two? Ten? Where's the do-not-cross line on that? Doesn't it depend? Stopping an assault isn't relevant to the Jodi Arias murder, but that doesn't mean self defense wasn't. I think Jodi believes that she was defending herself even if it was 99% mental (e.g. defending her heart, her pride, her self-worth) and that's why she cannot understand why what she did was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many stab wounds it takes to subdue an assailant, and yes, absolutely it would depend. But I do know almost 30 plunges of a long, sharp knife deep into a person's chest and back, with one wound severe enough to tear open the vena cava, on top of slashing the person's throat from ear to ear, and as a grand finale, putting a bullet in the same person's head, far exceed necessary force in the name of self-defense.

JA may or may not believe she was defending herself. Frankly, I don't care how she views herself.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many stab wounds it takes to subdue an assailant, and yes, absolutely it would depend. But I do know almost 30 plunges of a long, sharp knife deep into a person's chest and back, with one wound severe enough to tear open the vena cava, on top of slashing the person's throat from ear to ear, and as a grand finale, putting a bullet in the same person's head, far exceed necessary force in the name of self-defense.

JA may or may not believe she was defending herself. Frankly, I don't care how she views herself.

All the evidence suggests that this crime wasn't committed to subdue an assailant so that's not even relevant. I don't know what you're trying to assert here. That the wounds were mostly made post-mortem? Has that been confirmed by expert testimonial in the trial?

I wasn't commenting on how JA views herself but how she views killing TA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never suggested the wounds were made post-mortem. I'm saying only that the murder was extremely brutal, well beyond the force that would be necessary for a victim of abuse to defend herself against an attack, or to get away. So the so-called self-defense argument falls flat, and then some. If JA didn't need to protect herself from imminent harm then she had ample opportunity to get away. If she felt rejected when TA ended what they had, then she needed to put on her big-girl pants and get over it. We've all been there. You cry a lot and feel miserable for a while. Gradually, you get over it and move on. You don't go after who broke your heart and butcher him.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abuse claim doesn't hold up.

There's no reason those allegations of abuse should have held up because there was either no evidence, or no credible evidence to support any of them. It was a 'blame the victim' defense strategy which began with an absurd, truly pathetic, insult-to-ones-intelligence defense plea.

Re: physical abuse, we all know that that finger injury occurred on June 4th during the murder, and not during a previous episode of domestic violence! No, there was never physical abuse, but a plea of self-defense needs a foundation.

You and I and those female jurors who've spoken out all got it, but apparently, there were at least a few things that went over that jury foreman's head. It must have been those texts that he considered to be verbal and mental abuse.

Of course, I don't see them that way because those texts reflect Arias' behavior, not Alexanders. :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abusive texts? Oh please!! That's no justification for murder. I can't believe those jurors were taken in like that. Personally, I'm opposed to the DP. But to give a convicted killer a pass because the guy she killed talked nasty to her? That's pathetic. And lame.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never suggested the wounds were made post-mortem. I'm saying only that the murder was extremely brutal, well beyond the force that would be necessary for a victim of abuse to defend herself against an attack, or to get away. So the so-called self-defense argument falls flat, and then some. If JA didn't need to protect herself from imminent harm then she had ample opportunity to get away. If she felt rejected when TA ended what they had, then she needed to put on her big-girl pants and get over it. We've all been there. You cry a lot and feel miserable for a while. Gradually, you get over it and move on. You don't go after who broke your heart and butcher him.

It would appear she didn't have the mental fortitude to move on.

So for the hypothetical and posterity, where do you draw the line? How much is too much? What is one knife stroke too many to be considered self defense in your book? Why is self defense and extremely brutal murder mutually exclusive? If someone was attacking my mom, I might stab them 58 times and shoot them 24 times. That's self defense and I'll wade through the court proceedings with an army of lawyers to prove it. Now you're going to say that my circumstances are different, so therefore the brutality is not what makes the difference. Therefore you need something else to follow your own logic to its conclusion. You might backtrack now into other details in order to justify why I'm wrong about the Jodi Arias trial, but I'm not talking about that anymore. I'm talking about the hypothetical person X.

I remember as a child my friend and I were out with our BB guns and he shot a squirrel like a fool. The squirrel started flopping around in severe pain and we fired repeatedly to put it down and stop its suffering. Ultimately I ran up with the blood still flying through the air from the flipping flopping squirrel and stomped on its head as hard as I could to put it out of its misery. Someone's child witnessed the whole event and went home traumatized and told his dad about how extremely brutal I was, which got back to our parents who accepted our explanation. Shooting it once would have probably been enough and according to our little observer, the more humane approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is HLN's search I have been predicting for the next cute murderer finally come to an end? Just look at that face, ladies!. Clearly this isn't just any old murderer that nobody cares about. This might just qualify....as an HLN murderer! But this one is a male! Is that even acceptable to the HLN audience? They're busy test marketing the Seacat case daily. Let's see how the audience who thrives on attractive young killers handle it...time will tell.

_brett+seacat+first+court+appearance+3.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is HLN's search I have been predicting for the next cute murderer finally come to an end? Just look at that face, ladies!. Clearly this isn't just any old murderer that nobody cares about. This might just qualify....as an HLN murderer! But this one is a male! Is that even acceptable to the HLN audience? They're busy test marketing the Seacat case daily. Let's see how the audience who thrives on attractive young killers handle it...time will tell.

_brett+seacat+first+court+appearance+3.jpg

Sorry Yam, but he's not a patch on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Wait 'til he gets to court! He's already got a fan base on FB.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "formula" for how much is more than enough to subdue an aggressor is really very simple: in self-defense, one's only objective is to stop a direct assault so that one can get away with the least amount of injury. In some cases, only the death of the assailant can allow that. No one can ever convince me that it was necessary for JA to stab TA again and again with deep wounds to the chest and back AND to slit his throat so that he was nearly decapitated AND put a bullet into his head so she could get away from him in the course of an attack of her person. As to your comment that JA was unable to get over losing TA, tough. That is not a license to kill, to maim, or to butcher.

If your main issue is that JA should not be put to death, you have no argument with me. I feel life behind bars with no possibility of parole is sufficient. I do not lust for JA's death, and I am on record in this forum as having said I am sickened by the prosecution's absolute determination to settle for nothing other than JA's execution. But if you are in any way suggesting JA deserves less than a murder one conviction, I don't see it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following the Jodi Arias case for some time, but have only just thought to look for a thread on it !!

Anyway, I do intend to read all of it, because stuff Ive read lately I want to be sure has not already been posted.

But I dont think this bit has been posted yet:

"Bee Gee Barry Gibb: I'm writing music about the Jodi Arias trial"

Barry Gibb, of the Bee Gees, is working on new music inspired by the highly controversial trial of Jodi Arias in America. The singer says he is writing a song about the case.

Arias was convicted in May of murdering her former boyfriend, Travis Alexander, a Mormon, in 2008 and faces a death sentence in Arizona. At the trial, which became a media circus, Arias claimed that she had killed the salesman in self-defence.

“What I am writing at the moment is a track about the Jodi Arias trial in America,” Gibb says. “The girl has been found guilty and is facing the death penalty. There will be at least one track about that – it has really struck me.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10148893/Bee-Gee-Barry-Gibb-Im-writing-music-about-the-Jodi-Arias-trial.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys don`nt know why I`m sticking up for her, I guess maybe some of the jurers are thinking what if it were their daughter, and like the foremen said Jodi seems so child like to them. What Jodi did to Travis was a horriable crime and murder, and I guessing the next jury will most likely give her the

The jury foreman believed Travis was abusive to Jodi because of the MAY 26 TEXT and her lies about violence that never happened...what the jury was unaware of was the fact that between both of them there were 85,000 texts and emails. YES 85,000. The jury was given the worst of the worst.

I can't stand that anyone would feel Jodi was abused! She lied and lied and lied some more. 17 days of that sociopath ... I don't care if she gets the Death Penalty or Life Without Parole. However, she should never, ever be allowed to spew lies about Travis being a pedophile again. See, Jodi has slowly murdered Travis, little by little day by day, month by month year by year. Not only did Jodi stab Travis 29 times, slit his throat and shoot him in the head...no, she then took every damn chance she had to drag him through the God awful mud. Travis' family has lived with this for 5 years and they deserve justice, for God's sake it's time.

I have never hated someone I didn't know until now. I invested so much emotion into this case and I never will again. And now Travis sleeps with Angels and will never feel pain again. And I wish for Jodi no peace, no warmth, no love, no more lies...it's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.