It should not be surprising that the assault on Jodi Arias continues both in the media and social media.  However, I find it surprising that a new assault has begotten the jurors who did not think Jodi Arias should be given the death penalty.  It is deplorable, the disrespect given to jurors these days merely because the public who is poisoned by outside information disagrees with them.  Many don’t believe that many of the hate-filled “court sporters” would be able to actually give Jodi Arias the death penalty.  Their bloodlust is merely a by-product of their misunderstanding of the seriousness of the justice system.  I, however, am much more cynical when it comes to this topic.  I do believe that you have to be a certain kind of person to participate in the types of language and death-filled rants that I have seen.  What I find most troubling is that the public acts as though it is a bad thing to value life.

Four jurors (Jurors #6, #13, #16, and #18) have given interviews as well as two alternates (Jurors #10 and #17).  I find it quite understandable that the jurors who voted for life don’t want to be interviewed.  Why would you want to talk to people who don’t care what actually happened?  Why would you want to talk to people who don’t care about your opinion or reasoning?  Why would you want to talk to people who consider their opinion more important than yours?

Just like in the Casey Anthony case, the jurors aren’t talking because people aren’t looking for reality, they are looking for entertainment.  They are looking for confirmation bias because they couldn’t possibly be wrong.  It is not entertaining for them to attain knowledge, it is entertaining for them to make it all a game.  To these “court sporters” or “trial groupies” it is about fun and games.  It’s about their “team” winning.  If that means a woman’s life gets snuffed out, well, they don’t really care about the gravity of that decision.

I honestly still do not believe as I understand the evidence that Jodi Arias planned the murder.  Could she have?  Yes, but I did not see concrete evidence of it.  I saw assumptions.  Obviously, it was enough for the jurors to make that decision and I respect that.  Reading and watching their interviews, I can see that the jurors took their job seriously.  I’m glad to see that.  All jurors should be unbiased and take their job seriously.  In fact, I think all people should take that kind of attitude to court when watching on TV or online.

Juror #16 Marilou Allen-Coogan has done a ton of interviews since the sentencing phase mistrial.  She spoke to CNN’s Anderson Cooper about not believing Arias, Arias not expressing remorse, and that she feels like she let down Travis Alexander’s family.

On ABC, Allen-Coogan, Juror #13 Kevin Spellman, and Juror #6 Diane Schwartz all spoke about how “gut-wrenching” the decision was.  Too bad not all the people who watch the trial understand that.  They all agreed that they felt like the prosecution forcefully and successfully proved first-degree murder.  They also all thought the murder was premeditated.  Schwartz was quoted as saying,

“What she was telling me just didn’t weigh true to me.”

Spellman said that he “noticed pretty early on, when Jodi tells a story, she babbles.  She has no poker face.”

Allen-Coogan didn’t believe Arias’ allocution or her testimony.

“Based on what we saw and the evidence presented, it was very apparent that we weren’t being told the truth in a lot of the matters, and there was a lot of cover-up.”

All agreed that the sentencing was the most difficult part.

Spellman said, “How do you weigh a person’s life?”

The jurors went into a little bit of how they did the weighing.

“For me, it was the brutality and then the way that he was treated after death and shoved in a shower and left,” Allen-Coogan added. “That’s pretty brutal.”

Spellman had an interesting take on the situation, “She is sentenced to death no matter what.”

This seems to me to mean that they knew that recommending life would mean the judge would not give her parole eligibility.  I am beyond sure that the judge would never have given Jodi Arias life with parole after the jury had found her guilty of 1st degree murder and said that the aggravating circumstance was proven.  So, why would 8 of the jurors be so hell-bent on killing her?  I’ve also seen people on social media express this same sentiment when talking about the cost to taxpayers and the emotional cost to Travis Alexander’s family.  I would also add Jodi Arias‘ family because as much as people ignore them, they matter.  Giving Jodi Arias death would hurt her family, you can ignore it, but it is a fact.  They did nothing wrong.  If you can’t extend mercy to Jodi Arias, then extend it to her family.  They should not have to visit her in the ground, just like Travis Alexander’s family shouldn’t.

After the mistrial was declared, Schwartz admitted to being the one who mouthed she was sorry, not to the family, but to the prosecution.

“I felt like we had failed the system.  As I walked out, I remember looking towards the prosecution table. I thought, ‘They won’t even look at us.”

But, curiously later, on Dr. Drew she said that she was mouthing sorry to the family because she felt as though the family wanted Arias to get the death penalty.  A few of the jurors felt like they failed the prosecution or the family, but that isn’t their job.  They don’t work for anyone, they are supposed to work for the facts and they should never be intimidated or sorry for doing what is right just because people don’t agree.

Juror #6 Diane Schwartz also has done quite a few interviews.  She told the Arizona Republic that she wanted to bring closure to both the Alexander and Arias families (apparently by killing their daughter!).  Schwartz said she arrived at her penalty decision after carefully weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.  She looked at the planning, the cover-up, the continual lying and the mechanism of death in reaching her vote.

I thought she said she considered mitigating factors too?

Schwartz said she saw no evidence of abuse.  She does not consider Arias a monster.  Schwartz said she voted for the death penalty “with a lot of pain and angst.  I personally spent a lot of time soul searching.  Was it the right decision?”  She said she felt that Arias’ testimony was “repetitive and scripted…I didn’t see any remorse,” she said of Arias. “I saw a very disconnected person.”

“I want the public to realize what a hard job the jury had as a whole,” she said. “Most of all, I want people to realize the amount of work we had to do.”

Schwartz also went on HLN’s Dr. Drew.

“You need to be held accountable for your actions. The day it was turned over to us for the penalty phase, I went home and spent the whole night assessing how I could do it — if I could say she should be put to death — and I got to that answer.  It was definitely looking at all of the aggravating factors that were part of that crime — the brutality of it, the lack remorse and the untruthfulness of it all the way through.”

Alternate juror Tara Kelley was on the same episode of Dr. Drew with Schwartz and added that she observed Arias’ demeanor in court and it made her believe something wasn’t right.

“You should be engaged in what’s going on,” she said. “She wasn’t even interested in what was happening in her own trial.”

While Jodi Arias wasn’t interested or engaged most of the trial, that isn’t evidence and it certainly isn’t a reason to give her death, in fact it might be a reason not to.

Kelley, who also stated that she would have given Arias death, noted that she took time after being officially dismissed from the case to watch some of the interrogation tapes from 2008, mentioning how she found one part particularly troubling.

“When she was saying, ‘Gosh, Jodi, you should have put on your makeup at least,’ or however she said that — To me, it was very disturbing,” she said. “That showed a lot that that she didn’t have any kind of remorse for anything that happened.”

Kelley also revealed that she was the juror who asked Arias some of the more provocative questions during her 18 days on the stand, including the one that read, “After all the lies you told, why should we believe you now?

“I, personally, did not believe her,” she expressed. “So I wanted to see what kind of answer she would really give us.”

A lot of the jurors who have spoken have said that they see something wrong with Jodi Arias, but they are still okay with killing her?

I find it horribly sad that people with different views can’t go on TV or go on the Internet and declare them without others threatening their lives for disagreeing.  This is America, right?  I think Allen-Coogan phrased it right when she told HLN affiliate KPHO,

“I don’t think anybody has the right to be angry with them or spew hatred on them because they voted their conscience.  Mitigating circumstances are very personal. It’s not something that has to be proven by the defendant. It’s something you feel based on your past, your conscience, your thought process and your heart that could warrant leniency and mercy.”

Remember Allen-Coogan voted for death, so if she can respect another’s point of view, why can’t everyone?  I guess that’s why she was on the jury and they weren’t.  Many people on social media egotistically degrade those jurors who wanted to give Jodi Arias life.  They attack, for example, the foreman saying that he must have liked Jodi Arias.  They can’t even think of an insult on their own, they have to steal one from Juan Martinez, the prosecutor in the case.  The insult was still just as untrue.  The “court sporters” follow the same pattern almost every case.  After a verdict they disagree with, it was about gender and sex.  It’s always their chant.  It’s scary, yet an interesting study of the psyche, that people can convince themselves of facts that they created as if they are true and from an outside source (for example,  Jodi Arias beat her brother up with a baseball bat and that is how he got the scar on the back of his head or the jurors who voted for life have fallen in love with Jodi Arias).

The jury did not vote along gender lines according to Schwartz, one of the jurors.  As surprising as it may be, there are other reasons for people to want someone to live other than sex and not everyone is attracted to Jodi Arias.

“I don’t fully understand how they’re going to present all of the information [to the new jury], but I’m hopeful that people can be very objective and look at aggravating and mitigating factors and give us a verdict,” Schwartz said.

Kelley and Schwartz agreed that if Arias doesn’t get the death penalty, they won’t be dissatisfied with her getting life in prison.

“We have to make sure that she’s treated within our criminal justice system fairly,” Schwartz stated.

Foreman Bill Zervakos has gotten the brunt of the social media bullies who don’t like it when people disagree.  He stated in an interview that weighing the death penalty was difficult in this case even for him, a supporter of the death penalty.  How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?  I can see why Mr. Zervakos was the foreman.  He’s a thinker, not a follower.  He’s the type of person who isn’t afraid to stand up for what he believes in and give his reasons why.

“The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson.  It was a brutal no-win situation…I think that’s kind of unfair…”

I know why people on social media attack him, throwing out red herrings.  They can’t understand how someone can disagree.  They must be right.  Well, I agree with Mr. Zervakos.  I am torn between as he put it, her two personas.  The one before June 4th and the one after June 4th.  The killer and the everyday young woman struggling in life.

He went on to state 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.”

“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.”

“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.”

Hearing from Jodi Arias’ boyfriend before she met Travis Alexander, Darryl Brewer, shows you that it was the relationship with Alexander that brought something unstable out of her.  She had a little bit of a troubled past, but who doesn’t?

Zervakos saw what I saw and anyone who is looking at this without an agenda may be able to see.  The relationship was high-emotion, high-tension, and all over the place.  Travis Alexander was vicious verbally with her one minute and then extremely nice the next.  They had a turbulent toxic relationship and they just couldn’t get away from each other.  I believe, like the jury foreman, that Arias was verbally and mentally abused.  I also believe she has something wrong with her mentally that she needs to get help for.  I read the text messages, his words were more than over-reactive to the situation.  I heard the phone sex recording.  As much as people want to make Travis Alexander a saint or an everyman, he was neither.  He was who he was.  He made mistakes in his life, he did bad things, just like Jodi Arias.  I also happen to happily agree with Zervakos on his opinion of Juan Martinez.

“I don’t like being talked to like I’m stupid and I feel like that happened a few times.”

I would go further and say that he recklessly misstated the law to the jurors including lying to them and saying that they couldn’t give Jodi Arias life in prison and that she would have a chance at parole.  Not true, the judge can sentence her to life without parole.  In one of his more egregious days in court, he stated that just because Jodi Arias was never convicted of any crimes doesn’t mean she didn’t have a criminal record.  What now?  Can you imagine what kind of precedent this would set if we just let this be okay?  Some innocent defendant some day who doesn’t have a criminal record, I can see it now.  They probably did drugs as a teenager, they probably stole things, what if they did these other unsolved murders, just because they never got convicted doesn’t mean they didn’t do it.  That kind of guilty until proven innocent attitude belongs in the trash bin not in the courtroom.

I am also glad to hear that some of the jurors had some nice words for Arias like Zervakos who said this:  “The only thing that I can hope for her is that she comes to peace with herself, that she comes to grips with herself.”  He also, like the other jurors, hoped that the families could heal.  But, his honesty and civil service have not gone unnoticed.  As the saying goes no good deed goes unpunished.  Even an alternate juror attacked him for his personal beliefs on her twitter account.

@tarakelley320 him and I were together from day 1 of jury selections! I’m definitely disgusted and upset in the awful things he is saying!

@tarakelley320  As an alt on this trial, I am very disgusted with what our “foreman” has said! Please know that we didn’t all feel this way!!! #jodiarias

She even attempted to silence him to control the jury’s public image.  Others might be sad that she wasn’t a juror because she claims she would have sentenced Arias to die, but I’m glad that she wasn’t a juror because cases are more than just the death penalty.  This juror, as evidenced by her tweets, would not have played nice in the jury room to say the least.

@tarakelley320  @MarkEiglarsh I was an alternate in this trial and I am disgusted and outraged with the interviews our “foreman” has done! He needs to stop!

I found Diane Schwartz’s comment to NBC affiliate KPNX the most interesting logic.  “She gives me a lot of concern.  She was someone who was untruthful and manipulative.  Personally, I feel sorry for her.”  Wow, I wouldn’t want to get on her bad side. She wants to sentence someone to death she feels sorry for?!

I knew that when Jodi Arias gave her allocution that it was the best that she could do, I felt like she said all the right things for her situation.  I know that people wanted her to get up there and say that she lied about the whole thing and that she was a cold-blooded killer.  She planned it and everything the prosecutor (and the public) said was right.  She wanted death and she was sorry.  But people didn’t get that because that isn’t the way she feels.  People were happy when she expressed her desire for death.  I was sadden.  No one should desire death.  People liked it because it gave them an excuse to want her dead and it made them right.  That’s what it’s about, right?  Being right, being on the winning team?

In reality, you are responsible for not extending mercy.  You are responsible for becoming the very thing you denounce.  You can do differently, you choose not to.

She couldn’t say she lied and all of that because she would lose all right to appeal.  And, what if she didn’t lie?  The mistake people make right out of the gate is believing that because a large number of people believe something it is right.  No, it only takes one to be right, but everyone can be wrong.

Just think about this.  The same people who attack those 4 jurors who felt mercy in their pro-death penalty hearts were the same people celebrating those same jurors 1st degree murder conviction.  What kind of sense does that make?  People weren’t really looking for a 1st degree murder conviction because they believed she premeditated the murder.  They were looking for the grand crescendo, the death penalty.  Of course, they wouldn’t have to see it through or be there or see Jodi Arias as a person, in-person.  No, they would have moved on with their lives to another person, just like Nancy Grace, declaring their own kind of justice.  Well, I have a shocking revelation for you.  This isn’t the Wild West, we are actually supposed to care whether the person we lock up is guilty and we aren’t supposed to be barbaric.

The scene reminds me of Frankenstein.  The misunderstood person who killed is seen as a monster by the villagers and they hunt them down, not caring about them or their situation or their side of the story and they want to kill them with fire and pitchforks.  All they see is red and all they hear is hate.

People don’t understand that the trial is not about the victim for a reason.  If the trial were about the victim then it wouldn’t matter who the defendant was because the family is in pain therefore we should sacrifice the defendant for that pain.  That isn’t justice, that isn’t fair, that isn’t America.  We don’t just lock people up, thank goodness, because someone’s feelings are hurt.  We should care about the defendant, we should make sure the defendant is guilty, and we should not turn into the evil that we denounce doing it.

That brings me to the editorial I read on HLN by Kim Goldman, the sister of Ron Goldman, a victim in an unsolved murder.  Her words are a terrible recitation of what happens to a person when they let their hatred for the death of their loved one consume them.  She calls the extension of mercy and questions of legitimacy of killing another human being as punishment, excuses.

“Everyone deserves a second chance. Everyone can be rehabilitated. How does killing someone for killing another make it better?”

These are excuses I used when thinking about the death penalty back in the day — until my brother Ron Goldman was slaughtered on June 12, 1994, at the age of 25. I immediately changed my mind and am now a firm believer in an eye for an eye. There are no second chances for killers.

I know that’s a hard pill to swallow for some, but when your life is shattered because of the actions of another person who violently, intentionally, viciously killed your loved one, it’s not hard to wish upon them the same brutal death.

She goes on to state how many rights those on death row get, how much money is shelled out to keep them, and she even assumes that the inmate received due process in their original trial.  She gripes about how long it takes to kill a person on death row.

At least 15 years passes from the time they receive their due process in our trusted justice system — during which they are found guilty by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death — to the time they are actually killed. In many cases, it’s more like 20-30 years.

She complains about the “endless appeals” and the “emotional hardship” it causes families.

But our courts are obligated to provide those criminals with attorneys, experts, technology and endless legal resources — all on our dime — while we wait for justice to prevail.

I am not sure where actual punishment enters the realm of consequences in this scenario.

If I understand it correctly, the system that we are compelled to use to obtain justice is the same system that affords every opportunity for the convicted criminal to be exonerated — all at our expense.  They commit crimes — we pay for their defense (unless they have buckets of money on their own), house, feed, insure, educate/train and protect them while they spend their days behind bars. While they watch TV and visit with their families, we the people volunteer (or get paid peanuts) to be jurors, giving up our lives to focus solely on the criminal. We convict them based on facts in evidence and then… we let them start the whole process all over again until they die in jail or become one of the 0.13% of convicts who actually get the lethal dose to end all of our misery.

…I don’t want discussions pertaining to justice to be about cost per inmate or worrying about whether too much isolation is damaging to the mental health of the death row inmate…It seems the concept of “punishment for your actions” is lost in the one place where we expect our rights and safety to be protected; where the utmost importance is placed on honor, integrity and equity; where good triumphs over evil; where we can trust that if you “do the crime, you do the time.”

The most horribly hateful portion of her editorial is aimed at those innocent people, which she lumps in as “criminals” merely because they are convicted, who are in her way of “justice”.

I know, I know: What about the innocent people who get wrongly convicted? I get it — statistics show that for every nine executions, there is one innocent person who remains incarcerated. But does that mean that we should let it go on and on in case one person could be saved? How is that equitable?

I am not saying mistakes don’t happen. I am not saying we do away with the appeals process. I am just suggesting that we limit the witch-hunt looking for mistakes, which only delays the inevitable…

Apparently, the poverty-stricken innocent person is out of luck because it costs too much of Kim Goldman’s money to help them, so kill them, they are only delaying the inevitable.  They should be punished for something they didn’t do.  That will show citizens that their rights are protected and they are safe.  That will show people that the system works.  At times, she sounds as though there are no innocent people, talking about how we volunteer as jurors and give up our whole lives to focus on “criminals”.  I guess the concept of innocent until proven guilty is completely lost on Ms. Goldman.

This is what people should be shedding tears about, not that Jodi Arias didn’t get the death penalty, but that there are people out there who care less for those inconvenient “mistakes” on death row than care about putting people to death and they use their fame to purport it.  Her moronic reasoning to end innocent people’s lives is:  equity.  Equity?!  No, Ms. Goldman’s reasoning is that her loved one is more important than others‘ loved ones.  Apparently her new logic is, you didn’t do the crime, but you should do the time because it’s easier that way.  How is that good triumphing over evil?

Those “statistics” on death row.  Those innocent people who are just numbers to Kim Goldman are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins, friends, they are everything to others.  As much as Kim Goldman cared for her brother, her heart has iced over.  She has allowed the brutal murder of her brother to destroy her belief system.  She has allowed it to fuel her hate that we should kill everyone on death row regardless of their innocence.  Just to give people like her peace of mind.  I will never believe it is just or any form of justice to wrongfully accuse, arrest, convict, or put to death an innocent person.  I just don’t understand the logic behind destroying others’ lives to create a fictional world for yourself where the justice system is perfect.  How can we trust a system that convicts and executes innocent people?  How does that make the system honorable?  How is that integrity?  Ignoring a problem isn’t fixing it.

Her brother was an innocent person who was stabbed to death and torn from his family.  Now, she is advocating the same for many other families.  Doing this apparently would restore her faith in Lady Justice, but it would not fix anything.  This type of “logic” is the same as those who penned the “Timely Justice Act” in Florida.  An act which speeds up executions, they stated that it isn’t about guilt or innocence, it is about justice.  I guess I was the naive one.  I didn’t think the system was broken because we went on a “witch-hunt” to free innocent people, as Kim Goldman put it.  I didn’t care about my money being used to help the victims of the system.  I always thought that justice was the right person being convicted of the right crime and given the right punishment.  I believe justice is more than punishment, it is about restoration.  Restoration of lives, the community, and society.

Yes, Kim Goldman, we should let it go on so that one person could be saved, but we aren’t just saving one person we are saving hundreds.  What if that is just the tip of the iceberg?  All the false confessions, the prosecutorial misconduct, bad eyewitnesses, the wrong scientists and experts, falsifying evidence, horrible defense attorneys, bad jurors, the list goes on and on. Just because a death penalty case creates a mob of blood lusters doesn’t make the person guilty.

One person mattered to you, Kim Goldman, how is it too much to ask that the innocent person in prison matters?

Would you not give everything, all the time and money in the world, to save your one brother who was murdered?  Then, how can you expect others not to do the same?  It is these kinds of irresponsible hypocrits that have destroyed our justice system.  It is the lies by experts, the fumbling by prosecutors, the terrible investigations, the horrible defense attorneys, and the pro-prosecution media who have destroyed the faith in our justice system.  It is not that we don’t kill more people with our tax dollars.  To blame the innocent people who have been put on death row for the “degraded death penalty” is beyond outrageous.  It is heartless.

I guess that Kim Goldman, an advocate for victims, only advocates for some victims, not all.  Just like our justice system, it isn’t justice for all, it’s justice for some.  That’s what needs fixing.  Kim Goldman calls it “hopeless” to chase our tails about the mistakes in our system.  Innocent people would disagree.  If you have lost hope that we can and should free the innocent from their imprisonment then you don’t believe in justice.  If we do what Kim Goldman wants, what Florida wants, we will have the blood of innocent people, knowingly, on our hands.  How is that any different than murder?

I thought we lived for the innocent people.  We have laws to protect the innocent.  We have due process to protect the innocent accused.  We have appeals to free the innocent.  Apparently, some people live for the guilty.  Like Kim Goldman, if you let the guilty control your life, you will lose sight of the innocent.  Sacrificing the innocent to get to the guilty is no different than what happened to Ron Goldman or any other victim.  They were all killed because of someone’s selfishness.  What is Kim Goldman doing?  She’s advocating a selfish view of the justice system.  I’ll have to read the Constitution again, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say justice for Kim Goldman, it says justice for all.  That’s justice for the innocent, the guilty, the young, the old, the accused, the convicted, the living and the dead.

We are supposed to be above this blind idiotic vengeance.  We are supposed to be civilized. We are not supposed to destroy innocent people’s lives.  We, as a society, are supposed to put forth what we want people to act like.  Slaughtering innocent people with government money isn’t suppose to be in the American plan.  We are supposed to not kill and we are supposed to be better than murderers.  We are supposed to extend mercy and rehabilitate.  We are supposed to believe in the little guy, the underdog.  The innocent person standing up to the government.  Killing innocent people is making it worse.  We don’t need to add more problems to the ones we already have.  It is merely turning us all into the murderers we denounce.

It is about innocence or guilt.  We are innocent until proven guilty.  It does matter.

I agree with Kim Goldman, we have diminished the severity and meaning of the death penalty, but not because we aren’t killing the innocent faster, but because people throw the term about like death doesn’t matter.  Death is final.  Period.  The victim of the murder is already gone.  Should we add another innocent body to that count?  Killing the guilty doesn’t bring them back, so certainly killing the innocent to get to the guilty doesn’t bring them back.  You can’t take back executing an innocent person, I care about that.  I care about them.  They aren’t a number, they are a person.  Their heart is beating, their mind is thinking, until we end it.  What does that make us?

Justice will die when the day comes that no one cares about the innocent people who are accused or incarcerated or even put to death.  Justice will die because there will be no more rights.  There will be no more point in having trials, if we assume guilt.  We take our system for granted too often.

Ron Goldman is a tally in the victim’s column, but he means something to his family, to Kim Goldman.  Do you recognize any of these names?  Jay C. Smith, Damon Thibodeaux, and Michael Toney?  The innocent people on death row have names, stories, feelings.  How dare Kim Goldman and people like her expect other people to give up on their loved ones.  How dare we give up on the system like this.  It takes an average of 13 years to exonerate an innocent person in prison.  It may take 20 or 30 years.  Or it may never happen.  That is what we should be upset about.  We should be upset that there are innocent people in prison.

Kim Goldman and the family of other victims and their advocates complain about how they can’t visit their loved one except for at a gravesite.  They will never be home for Christmas.  They can’t talk on the phone.  They can’t hug them or go to family gatherings with them.  And now you wish this upon more innocent people?  No one could save Ron Goldman, but we can save these people, why would we not give everything to stop the unnecessary pain and suffering?

Kim Goldman has an excuse.  Her brother died and the case is unresolved.  She has unresolved resentment and bitter feelings toward a system she views has failed her.  She has chosen to take out this frustration and pain on the system and in doing that her psyche has been damaged by grief.  She ignores the innocent people to fulfill her need to have others not suffer the same as her.  The killer of her brother was not put on death row.  But, when other killers are, she wants those people to have closure.  While not everyone finds the death of another as closure, some do.   This is what she wants.  Her grief has given her tunnel vision and in turn, she wants to sacrifice innocent people.  This is completely wrong.  I recognize her pain and I feel for her, but to then will that same pain on others is egregious.  It is disturbing to me that people believe things like Kim Goldman, that it is just too hard to help the innocent so we should clear out everyone from death row to save some equity.  She should not have let her grief take over her life and views.  She admits in the article that at one point she did not believe in the death penalty, but that the murder of her brother changed that.  She chose to allow that pain to take her over.  Now, she wants to create more wrongs.

Just because the innocent people in prison are called guilty by the government doesn’t give us the license to just forget about them.  We need to wise up.  Stop being so blinded by hate and open our eyes.  If Ron Goldman could have been saved, how would Kim Goldman feel if some guy driving by thought it wasn’t equitable enough for him to take time out of his day to help?  Every time an innocent person is freed, or hopefully acquitted, or even more hopefully never charged, we restore justice.  We may watch trials on TV and complain about disagreeing with the verdict, but that isn’t what it is about.  It’s about doing what is right.  If what is right is not the view of the majority it doesn’t make it less right.  The justice system isn’t a popularity contest.  These are people’s lives we are talking about.  You only live once, who are we to take that from someone?

The definition of equity is the quality of being fair and impartial.  How is it fair to execute an innocent person so that a victim’s family can be tricked into believing they are guilty, so they get fake peace of mind and fake closure?  How is it fair to lie to a victim’s family, to society, or to the innocent person’s family?  How is it impartial to ignore that the person is innocent because you believe in the death penalty?  How is any of that justice?

What happened to Kim Goldman should make her think and feel the opposite.  Her brother was innocent and he was taken from her.  She knows how it feels.  She should extend compassion to the imprisoned innocent, not revilement.

  1. Mary says:

    I appreciate that this site exists. I only happened to hear about this trial when the jury was deciding the verdict (1st phase). Having no bias I watched the trial and am quite disgusted with further proof of how the system does not work.

    I’ve seen far too often how any spin can be made by the media. How so many just buy it without question. This was not a death penalty case. I haven’t personally listened to any of jurors but from what I read there isn’t one that can actually say how the evidence proved premeditation or felony murder for that matter.

    She had no criminal record. There was no relevance to the gun theft from her grandfathers to be included at trial, it was prejudicial to include it as nothing supported she stole it. She was not charged or a suspect. And that also goes to her slashing the tires or being a stalker. If TA believed she slashed his tires and was stalking him then why didn’t he report it to the police? He continued contact with her, sounds like he wasn’t too concerned. It is odd to me that with some trials information is held back to not prejudice the defendant and this one, well they threw it all in their whether it made sense or not.

    She was abused, used and unfortunately attached TA. DV is not always the ‘Burning Bed’ scenario. It is often much more subtle and much more pervasive in our society.

    The description of Jodi pre-event vs. post-event is so contradictory. The prosecution played up the post actions as if those were evidence. Rather they appeared to me to be normal of a person suffering a traumatic event. She wasn’t on trial for lying and if everyone charged with a crime was we’d have to build a heck of a lot more prisons. This was either manslaughter, a crime of passion or defending herself. No pre-med here, no intelligent person would leave breadcrumbs to a pre-planned murder. The only secret, hidden agenda was that she was going to see TA and that was one secret he was a part of. Who stays for sex and picture taking before they kill someone? And then use a gun and knife in what appears to be a brutal fight when killing him in his sleep would have been easier?

    Her lawyers had little chose but to react to defending her post actions and the sequence of wounds. Why were the text messages not provided earlier? As well as the prosecutions abuse of most every witness (misconduct at its best). That was not about justice, it was a travesty of the judicial system. How does a jury make an informed opinion when its spoon fed misinformation, contradictions and verbal assault of witnesses to please the prosecution’s agenda of M1? How is it that TA’s family was front center in perfect view of the jury in which they were opening displaying reactions? I recall in Casey Anthony’s trial, Judge Perry didn’t not allow for this and it should not have been allowed at JA trial either.

    I’ve read some pretty nasty comments on various sites of Jodi and her lawyers and the expert witnesses. It is appalling. This woman lived quite a normal life until she become involved with TA, PPL and becoming a Mormon. Is it that far of a reach that TA did have a temper? Text messages show that he did. Photo’s show they were obviously getting along up to minutes before TA died. It just doesn’t seem the jury or many posters who want her murdered paid much attention to actual evidence. I see that they write how she is evil, appeared evil in the court room. I didn’t see that at all. She was always paying attention and I saw emotion, guilt and that she was still attempting to protect TA. It seems a tactic to have the defendant engaged in other activity in an attempt to semi detach them. She mainly did this when the prosecution was verbally assaulting a witness. And he definitely did act inappropriately. If prosecuting someone is using the tactic’s JM did rather than direct evidence we are sure to have more innocent people in prison and death row. I am amazed there is not more of an outcry of his actions. The foreman at least saw that.

    So after watching the entire trial all I can say is I can’t see how the Jury concluded it was M1. And sadly another innocent person may have been put in prison. When you prepare a death penalty jury you are definitely not getting a jury of her peers. It unfortunately appears to me that the jurors and masses who want her killed could not get past the post-even lies, crime and sex photo’s.


    • Very well put Mary. It is really sad and scary how the media has enough power to distort reality to the point where they affect the minds of most viewers. Those of us that disagree with them are threatened, bullied, and said to be mentally deficient or something offensive. I really, really hope that more people who believe as we do will start standing up before this invades our justice system even more.


  2. Lon Spector says:

    Why do we even have a death penality? The United States is the only “civlazied” (?)
    western country that still has it.
    When something causes more problems then it solves, it’s time to drop it.
    Imagine if the death penality were off the table in this case. Travis’ family would be spared
    much grief and pathological expection of eye for an eye.
    They probably have visions of Jodi strapped down on a gurney, being put to sleep like a dog.
    How is that any different from Jodi saying, “If I can’t have Travis, no one can.”


  3. cecelia says:

    maybe folks wouldn’t be so upset if the jury foreman hadn’t spoken about “reaching out to her”.
    is he hoping she’ll have a “connection” with him? tells me his heart and mind were on jodi and not on deliberating facts and evidence. he’s also the same shmuck who was nodding in agreement with jodi re: the “abuse” that was NEVER proven, so he shouldn’t have even considered her lies, as evidence, to begin with. if she DOES get out and kills again those 4 should face accessory charges with her. jmho


    • People like you are what I’m talking about. Radical comments like the one you wrote are the problem. People can’t comprehend mercy, it’s a sad state of affairs. He said that he believed she was mentally and emotionally abused, which was proven by the text messages. The same ignorant things he said to her are the same ignorant things people say to other people all the time. That is why they don’t believe it is abusive because they say it and don’t want to face facts. They are being emotionally and mentally abusive to their target when they say those things.

      What you really mean to write is that the jury foreman should only speak if he agrees with you. As far as him having a connection and that juvenile nonsense, he has expressed that he wants her to get the help that she needs. Keep in mind that he did convict her of 1ST DEGREE MURDER, doesn’t sound like a romantic thing to do.

      What planet do you live on if you think that the judge who cried at the hung jury would ever give her life with parole? Get real! My readers and I know better. This judge is pro-prosecution and she is elected, that is what is important to her. She would never give her a chance to get out regardless if she deserved to or not.

      So, you believe that 4 people who voted to convict Jodi Arias, but wanted to show her mercy should be tried and convicted of some trumped up charges to make you feel better?

      Trials happen every day in this country, they just aren’t sensationalized by HLN and the media and the social media “court sporters”. There are 3,077 counties in the USA! About 97% of cases are decided by plea bargaining, so only about 3% of trials go to court. Those trials happen all the time, acquittals and guilty verdicts happen all the time. The verdicts can be right or wrong. But because you aren’t spoon-fed the information, you don’t seem to realize nor care about the reality of the nuances of the justice system.

      It might make for good TV to claim that the juries are attracted to the women who are acquitted, but that isn’t reality. Can a woman be acquitted because she is attractive? I don’t believe so. 6 – 12 people have to agree to that! It’s outrageous. There are problems in the system, racism, sexism, socioeconomic discrimination, but when watching TV you would think the problem is that hot ladies kill and get away with it. Way off base. Men should find it insulting that the media tells the public to believe that they can’t control themselves so much that they will acquit someone that they believe is guilty (since most verdicts aren’t according to gender lines, women should also be insulted). Women also should find it insulting that the media acts like the only women who get acquitted are attractive skinny women because they are beautiful yet secretly sociopathic. Come on. You know people can get acquitted because they didn’t do it. Beautiful women get found guilty too. Besides beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is irrelevant in court. You know why? Because the courtroom isn’t a fashion show. It isn’t supposed to be what you look like, it’s supposed to be whether you did it or not. And yet even with all the safety nets people of all colors, shapes, sizes, and ages get wrongfully convicted. Instead of putting your energy into writing something hateful, how about looking something up once in awhile. The people in the media aren’t teaching at a school, they are in it to make money. They don’t care what you know or what really happened. Why do you think they can so easily destroy a defendant’s life without a second thought?

      The schmuck isn’t the person who has a heart for a severely troubled woman. The schmuck is the fool who doesn’t question the crap they are fed by those with agendas.


  4. I would write a response but it would be paramount to writing a book. Suffice it to say that your article, your insight and perspective is very compelling. As usual, I will share links to your article(s) in the hopes that certain ’emotionally blind people’ will see the light. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights, you are truly appreciated!



  5. re: “They are looking for confirmation bias because they couldn’t possibly be wrong.”

    aka, co-signing each others bs


Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s