Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[TorisMom003]

MrsG- because I said I would:


FACTS – juror 17- Ex-husband- JM-current husband


17’s voir dire: “Met (Santino Alejandro) at 16. Together for 11 years.”

“(Alejandro) was sent to prison when we were separated, imprisoned for robbery, Verizon, shot at police.”
------------------

Offenses: 8/30/1998.

Delia Neal- original prosecutor: 11/1998-1/1999. Withdrew, conflict of interest.

10/13/1999 pretrial conference.

10/15/1999- (only “trial “date listed in case)

6 trial continued/reset dates in record.

Continuances- 4/16/99-5/2/2000, requested alternatively by both defendant and State.

On at least one of the dates a continuance was granted, JM and Alejandro were in court together. If both parties were in court for every continuance and trial reset dates in the record, they would have been in court together on 19 days (including pretrial conference and 1 trial day) between September 1999 and May 10, 2000 when he was sentenced.

Final Charge: Attempted Burglary, 2nd degree

Date for Plea bargain: 5/3/2000 (by prosecutor’s motion- JM)

Dismissed by JM: aggravated assault, drive by shooting, murder 1st degree

Sentence: Maricopa County Jail, for a period of four months , November 29, 2000 and not be released until March 28, 2001.

--------------
They may or may not have been separated at the time of sentencing, as 17 said in voir dire, but they were not married yet either. They were married afterwards, on May 29, 2000.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html


17 and S. Alejandro Divorce Proceedings began 11/2009

Were divorced on 2/18/2010
-------
17’s current husband:

Voir dire: “met online, dated 6 months, he had been out of prison for 3-4 years.”

Husband’s 1st offense: attempted armed robbery, 4/4/97, given probation on 12/4/97

Husband’s second offense 6/12/2003

Sentenced: 2 years-- Admission Date: 1/09/2003. Release Date: 4/11/2007

If 17’s dates are accurate, she began dating second husband mid-2010 or mid-2011.

Some of those facts aren't adding up. How is it that there was information provided (by someone other than juror 17) that she married her first husband the day before he was sentenced and yet the listed marriage date is May 29, 00. Isn't that date from the form that SHE filled out? If so, then I am not so sure that I believe it. Husband number 2 (current one) the dates are completely off for him. How can he be sentenced on 1/9/03 if the offense was not until 6/12/03? Those dates are not correct, or so it appears. Did that information come from her? Or from somewhere else?

 

[Wysteria]

Mindmatters, thank you! You explained it so well.

Mindmatters consistently explains things well.
Always look forward to reading posts.
Thanks from me as well!

 

[east2west]

Jennifer is the deputy that overheard Janet, JSS's assistant saying that Juan should be stabbed 27 times, and cried after verdict. She was also seen speaking with Foreman from first trial, and T Kelley juror that got kicked off said Janet targeted certain jurors and help get them kicked off. Rumor has it she is close to MDLR.

Is she the one gliding about the courtroom in that hideous caftan, looking like she's on a mission to locate a chaise-lounger for an afternoon sun session?

This is all so unbelievable.

 

[Mindmatters]

Thanks Mindmatters, I too have been attempting to catch up and as a result have missed some pertinent information such as the info Tara Kelly recently provided.

Can you assist further by providing additional info on what Tara had to say or provide a link? TIA

Hi Lewcch, Bznbear broke the news post #434, TexMex contributed with post #441, and Bonjoviblonde also posted #453 (page 19) on Tara's tweets yesterday about Janet http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?273941-Discussions-on-Formal-Sentencing-Hearing-Jodi-Arias-7/page19

 

[Shelby1]

Blech. I just listened to the "interview". What a bunch of hooey. So much drivel came out of her mouth. Reminded me of the killer herself.

 

[Charterhouse]

Is she the one gliding about the courtroom in that hideous caftan, looking like she's on a mission to locate a chaise-lounger for an afternoon sun session?

This is all so unbelievable.

This is why I love this place. You all crack me up. Such an apt description.

 

[ShadyLady]

Is she the one gliding about the courtroom in that hideous caftan, looking like she's on a mission to locate a chaise-lounger for an afternoon sun session?

This is all so unbelievable.

Like she owns the courtroom.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

MrsG- because I said I would:


FACTS – juror 17- Ex-husband- JM-current husband


17’s voir dire: “Met (Santino Alejandro) at 16. Together for 11 years.”

“(Alejandro) was sent to prison when we were separated, imprisoned for robbery, Verizon, shot at police.”
------------------

Offenses: 8/30/1998.

Delia Neal- original prosecutor: 11/1998-1/1999. Withdrew, conflict of interest.

10/13/1999 pretrial conference.

10/15/1999- (only “trial “date listed in case)

6 trial continued/reset dates in record.

Continuances- 4/16/99-5/2/2000, requested alternatively by both defendant and State.

On at least one of the dates a continuance was granted, JM and Alejandro were in court together. If both parties were in court for every continuance and trial reset dates in the record, they would have been in court together on 19 days (including pretrial conference and 1 trial day) between September 1999 and May 10, 2000 when he was sentenced.

Final Charge: Attempted Burglary, 2nd degree

Date for Plea bargain: 5/3/2000 (by prosecutor’s motion- JM)

Dismissed by JM: aggravated assault, drive by shooting, murder 1st degree

Sentence: Maricopa County Jail, for a period of four months , November 29, 2000 and not be released until March 28, 2001.

--------------
They may or may not have been separated at the time of sentencing, as 17 said in voir dire, but they were not married yet either. They were married afterwards, on May 29, 2000.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html


17 and S. Alejandro Divorce Proceedings began 11/2009

Were divorced on 2/18/2010
-------
17’s current husband:

Voir dire: “met online, dated 6 months, he had been out of prison for 3-4 years.”

Husband’s 1st offense: attempted armed robbery, 4/4/97, given probation on 12/4/97

Husband’s second offense 6/12/2003

Sentenced: 2 years-- Admission Date: 1/09/2003. Release Date: 4/11/2007

If 17’s dates are accurate, she began dating second husband mid-2010 or mid-2011.

So it looks like she married first husband after the plea deal but before sentencing. Also, she was with hb #1 the entire time he was going through the process of this case, just not married to him. IDK her birth year for a fact but was under the impression that she is 34, that would make b/y 1981. She says she started dating him at 16 (1981 +16=1997) Crime happened in '98.

Correct me if I'm wrong please. I'm sure somebody here knows her actual b/y but I couldn't find it with a cursory look.

Do we know exactly when JM was assigned to his case?

 

[bznbear]

to those who cant stay up to watch...

the 'transcript' can be found HERE
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...s-jodi-arias-juror-interview-part-1/24829299/

ETA. I dont believe her. at all.

She lied when she said she gave all the information, period.

 

[lewcch3]

Thanks much, Mindmatters!!

This case sure has plenty of twists and turns to it; too many to keep up with!

 

[Wysteria]

With all due respect Daisy, I think it is fair to consider the possibility it is a pro bono case, and I would even go so far as to consider the possibility that this juror's "cause" has been taken up by special interest groups or anti-DP advocates.

Here is a juror who essentially saved the life of someone from the DP, whose integrity and honesty have been called into question first and foremost by her fellow jurors. She refused to do the presser with the original 11 jurors and now has 2 attorneys, these attorneys chose a specific station (with a possible agenda driven bias in their reporting) to do an interview, the interviewer covers politics not trials and hasn't covered the Arias case, and finally the interview so far reveals that this woman is being given a platform to "state her case", there have been no hard hitting questions, and there has been zero mentioned about the victim in this case nor the trial itself. JMHO but so far the interview appears to be a blame fest in which the public, the system and her fellow 11 jurors have wronged her.

There is definite theme so far, and while I will wait for the entire interview to play out, it looks as if this is not a journalistic interview but instead is an agenda driven piece.

Well said as always and bears repeating.
Thanks.

 

[atthelake]

Snipped cause I can't take it anymore

Looks like Maria got to visit.
Is she still considered part of the defense team? Looks like her work is done...

Nope? As her sentencing has not yet been done and as you see Maria is still working on those mitigators :floorlaugh:

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[bznbear]

I have to suspect the whole thing after reading just the very beginning. This smells like it is going to be 1 sided based only on this first part.

""I feel like I'm being judged," Juror 17 said. "I didn't ask for this. I just showed up for jury duty."

Did she make any attempts to declare she wanted off the trial during Juan's questioning? NO. She had plenty of chances rigth there to demand she wanted off the case.

And then we have this.

"This interview came about when Juror 17's attorneys offered it to me without my having asked for it. I did not cover the Arias trials but I have worked with Juror 17's attorneys in the past on other sensitive stories." "

Sensitive stories? WTH? I have a bad feeling about this entire interview is going to be 1 sided opinion piece. Friends with the attornies. Nuff said.

IOW, no tough questions, no pushing for answers, no challenge questions to obvious lies/omissions.

 

[bznbear]

Juror 17 says when the new conspiracy theory involving Martinez and her ex-husband broke online, she immediately texted the court bailiff.

"I gave all my information up front," she said she told the bailiff. "I didn't know the connection until now. Please let me know what I can do."

^^ THIS is kind of fun, because that bailiff could be Janet, so that should get tongues wagging

Now I want to see her text messages to court officers.

 

[Ladylub]

I know this is probably answered and I more then likely skipped over it as I as speed reading to catch u. But this court employee that was overheard saying things last trial, was she involved in this part of the trial and if so was she one of the 6 that received copies of the jurors names that was mysteriously posted on that other site?

 

[Wysteria]

Exactly! This juror needs to keep silent. Nobody needs to hear her try to explain herself. I listened to a little bit of the 1st and 2nd "excerpts" of her interview. I threw in the towel during the second excerpt because it's all a bunch of hogwash.

She mentions how she answered the juror questions on the form with even more info than they asked for. Why?!? Why would a person feel a need to do that and then be certain to tell us all after the fact that she did that?

In my opinion, she is full of it. I don't trust a word she says. She hung this jury, and she went in with the intention of hanging it. She'll never convince me that she didn't have her own agenda. She just really needs to stop talking. It's over. She accomplished her goal. Now, she must live with it. MOO

Yes, but I want her to keep talking!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Yes Val, I find this whole statement strange. She is basically saying JSS warned them right after the verdict that the court had failed to protect their information and identities. Just don't know what to make of that!

:seeya: Just had a thought after reading your post:

I want to know WHY these jurors' names were NOT sealed by JSS -- at least seal the names for a period of time after the hung jury was announced -- as this was a high profile case.


So ... I went looking and this is what I found:


----------
Privacy/Confidentiality of Jurors

Both prospective and impaneled jurors have the right to privacy and confidentiality.
...

2.Your home or mailing address is known only to the court.
Only the judge can order the release of jurors' addresses, usually to the lawyers in the case, and only for a good, legal reason. This very rarely happens. At the conclusion of the trial, should you be contacted by the lawyers in a case in which you sat as a juror, remember that you are not obligated to divulge any information concerning the deliberations, the verdict, or your opinions about anything concerning the case unless ordered to do so by the court.

More at Link: http://www.azcourts.gov/juryduty/JuryServiceWhattoExpect.aspx#integrity

Link to Jury Service Information: http://www.azcourts.gov/juryduty/JuryServiceInformation.aspx
----------


RBBM: IF I am reading this correctly, only the judge can order the release of jurors' names and info ?

So WHY didn't JSS seal these jurors' names -- at least for a period of time ?

:gaah:

 

[WhoaIsMe]

I know this is probably answered and I more then likely skipped over it as I as speed reading to catch u. But this court employee that was overheard saying things last trial, was she involved in this part of the trial and if so was she one of the 6 that received copies of the jurors names that was mysteriously posted on that other site?

Yes, it appears she was back for this trial. Yes, it would seem she did receive a copy of juror names since she is JSS assistant and two of her assistants received copies.

 

[ShadyLady]

I know this is probably answered and I more then likely skipped over it as I as speed reading to catch u. But this court employee that was overheard saying things last trial, was she involved in this part of the trial and if so was she one of the 6 that received copies of the jurors names that was mysteriously posted on that other site?

For all we know, Janet was in charge of making and distributing the copies.

 

[Mindmatters]

I know this is probably answered and I more then likely skipped over it as I as speed reading to catch u. But this court employee that was overheard saying things last trial, was she involved in this part of the trial and if so was she one of the 6 that received copies of the jurors names that was mysteriously posted on that other site?

Yes, Janet continued to assist JSS in the retrial (she can be seen in the videos being released). And that is an EXCELLENT question because given what is coming out about this so called assistant, in my mind she appears to be a very good candidate for the one who released the reported "official" list of all the jurors. JMHO