Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still aghast at a member's statement that members of this room are crucifying J-17. Wow. Just wow. This is not a game. People's lives are affected in a very meaningful way. The Alexander family will never be the same. The fact that 1 juror intentionally prevented justice of the people when over $3 million had been spent on the trial is something that should not be swept under the rug if, in fact, it did happen. The unmitigated gall of someone to cast doubt on truth-seekers speaks volumes as it relates to his/her character. I wish I could quote Juan, but, in essence, "The truth is the truth, irrespective of circumstances."

I would like to know the truth. There is no crime/shame in that.
 
out of curiosity I went to Jen wood's twitter page and she has the questions and answers for juror 17...she was pretty upfront with them about her past including some serious abuse of relatives and she herself in previous marriage...I mean as she describes it sounds just like JA describing Travis...she also told them about the criminal pasts of both husbands...so that is the self reporting on the questionaire....now they had to have delved further into some of this during the interview...if i had been Juan with her description of the abuse and relationship she would have been gone...I'm not understanding this. She did say she could consider DP but admitted really never thinking about it. I do believe some people say I "could" do it but until faced with it then find out they can't.

Read my post above about the glaring discrepancy. Someone is lying about how soon her ex-husband went to jail after she married him. That is pretty significant in my book. Who would not remember her husband being sentenced and whisked off to prison the day after you married him?
 
That's unethical, IMO Folks have access to BK's site via a fee. The site comes about from her hard work and because she has paid for documents.

To be fair, it's not just her notes floating around. Someone has gathered them from all of the reporters, and given credit to each of them, thanking them and it's out there free on twitter.
 
so I'm just going to say one thing. She definitely misled as, at least according to BK's notes, she NEVER mentions the ex being involved in a criminal matter while they were together. She only says he got in trouble for stealing cell phones AFTER they were separated. That leaves out the 2000 criminal matter with Juan. So she gave the impression that any crimes committed by her various husbands all occurred outside her time with them. Not true. The one that involved Juan was while they were together according to her time frame. So she failed to mention two pretty important things and I won't even get into the underlying crimes.


If it's legit, I hope we can discuss, as I see some red flags.
 
Read my post above about the glaring discrepancy. Someone is lying about how soon her ex-husband went to jail after she married him. That is pretty significant in my book. Who would not remember her husband being sentenced and whisked off to prison the day after you married him?

in the notes on questionaire she said during "separation" so if that is the case it could account for not recognizing JM. Frankly there are so many rumors I would love a statement from the court but not going to happen anytime soon...but i do think they owe the taxpayers of AZ an explanation.
 
No, and that was why I said this morning that the sentence we're already almost certain to get is probably best. Especially b/c I think it will be harder for her than the DP would have been. But *if* this juror lied to get onto the jury, and caused the other jurors to feel as if they wasted their time, something is owed to them. If a member of the DT was complicit or even had a hint of it, then I'd want their feet held to the fire. I would hate it to come to a retrial of the penalty phase, but I wouldn't want to see it ignored either and don't think it has to be both.

BBM I agree. I think Jodi got the worst possible scenario. All those jurors wanted her dead, and she's going to be deprived of public attention for the rest of her life (this would not have been the case with the DP). She'll have to earn every iota of privileges, chiefly in a job she won't be able to stand working with people who will pick on her, when she's never managed to hold a job in her life. To top it off, she's a disaster of a client: no attorney will want to take her on, and even if they're willing, they'll be able to charge a premium over what Nurmi charged (aka 2 million?). She has no chance in hell of hiring someone that expensive. Plus the costs of expert witnesses? And who ever else is going to want to wreck their professional careers heading down slime highway?
 
This has probably been posted before, but it is interesting. Lone holdout juror "could" be in some serious legal trouble if what we have heard pans out.

Snipped from article:

"They are fairly standard jury selection questions: Do you know any of the defendants? Do you know the defendant’s wife? Have you, a close relative or friend been the victim of, witness to or charged with a crime in the last 10 years?

Jovanda Blackson, a prospective juror in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, answered no to each of those questions during voir dire last year, ensuring her place on the panel that would decide the fate of two men charged with murder.

Trouble is, Blackson did know one of the defendants. She did know his wife. And, while this mother of three had no criminal record, a couple of her relatives—including her brother—did.

Unfortunately, the judge and prosecutors didn’t know that until after Blackson succeeded in hanging the jury, prompting a mistrial for both defendants. Only later, thanks to a tip from a jailhouse informant, were suspicions from her fellow jurors confirmed and the truth emerged.





http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/rogue_jurors

IMO, that is exactly what #17 was. She was a rogue juror and knew she held the power to make or break the verdict. She knew that JA deserved death and she knew the other jurors knew it too. She may have tried to pretend she didn't see the evidence for death but she did and all she did was ignore it.

Does that even make logical sense? 1 held all the power and the majority of 11 people were helpless and had no power at all even though there were 11 of them. Reprehensible.

Its alarming to read that it happens more often than we think it does.
 
so I'm just going to say one thing. She definitely misled as, at least according to BK's notes, she NEVER mentions the ex being involved in a criminal matter while they were together. She only says he got in trouble for stealing cell phones AFTER they were separated. That leaves out the 2000 criminal matter with Juan. So she gave the impression that any crimes committed by her various husbands all occurred outside her time with them. Not true. The one that involved Juan was while they were together according to her time frame. So she failed to mention two pretty important things and I won't even get into the underlying crimes.

We need a timeline for #17 :thinking: She is supposedly in her twenties so at the oldest- 29. She suffered abuse for 11 years with her ex, then after her divorce she remarried but was separated whenever the present or ex committed their crimes?
 
The bottom line is this juror had a right to vote as she felt, plain and simple.. If she was as horrendous as some make her out to be I would have bet the Judge would have removed her as this case is clearly not her first rodeo in the courtroom.. Jurors, no matter what should not have their names released and be subjected to threats.
 
so I'm just going to say one thing. She definitely misled as, at least according to BK's notes, she NEVER mentions the ex being involved in a criminal matter while they were together. She only says he got in trouble for stealing cell phones AFTER they were separated. That leaves out the 2000 criminal matter with Juan. So she gave the impression that any crimes committed by her various husbands all occurred outside her time with them. Not true. The one that involved Juan was while they were together according to her time frame. So she failed to mention two pretty important things and I won't even get into the underlying crimes.

Thank you.

Which pretty much signals to me that she hid it because she didn't want to reveal that Juan was the prosecutor.
 
in the notes on questionaire she said during "separation" so if that is the case it could account for not recognizing JM. Frankly there are so many rumors I would love a statement from the court but not going to happen anytime soon...but i do think they owe the taxpayers of AZ an explanation.

It's not a matter of confusion....the dates are there in black and white. Marriage date, sentencing date (Troy Hayden or another fox 10 reporter posted copies on twitter). Then when she is questioned she says, oh he was imprisoned once we separated? Did they separate the day after their wedding??? LOL

Well I have faith the County Attorneys, their investigators will know exactly how to pin her down if she is truly guilty of perjuring herself to get on this jury. I have no qualms that with the way it played out, and the associated cost to taxpayers, that they will come down hard on her if it is warranted.

Im sick to my stomach that one person intentionally derail the entire proceeding like this. I really am. But I am reassured that at least the proper authorities are looking into it , and I have faith they will once again get the job done if this woman has committed any crimes.

I told an attorney friend of mine who was loosely following the case, and had heard the verdict result on the radio yesterday. I told him about the potential issue with the holdout, and being the lawyer, his first response was I hope she has hired herself an attorney and is keeping her mouth shut.
 
The bottom line is this juror had a right to vote as she felt, plain and simple.. If she was as horrendous as some make her out to be I would have bet the Judge would have removed her as this case is clearly not her first rodeo in the courtroom.. Jurors, no matter what should not have their names released and be subjected to threats.

Yes. It was wrong for someone to leak all 11 names of the death voters to the Jodi supporter website. The holdout was only found out because her husband was posting on SM and outed his wife as the holdout.

It's one thing to hold an opinion. I think most of us could respect her decision if she seemed legit.

But it's another to lie so you can hijack the process.
 
Sorry-she married her first felon the day before or the day after he was sentenced. Don't you think their reception was an "I hate Juan Martinez" party? She knew who prosecuted him-I'd bet money on it. Unless she never talked to her husband about anything, and never went to his trial

What? you think they would really want to invoke some revenge on Juan? I am being sarcastic here...
 
There might be a whole lot of document shredding, cell phone deleting, and computer wiping going on over at the Nurmi Law Office this weekend..................My guess would be that MDLR will be doing plenty of it of her own wherever her office is.

The county already has an expert team with plenty of experience in unraveling this stuff: Dworkin, Melendez, Flores..... And, as for the defense, they're going to be relying on who? Let's see.......Neumeister, the hush hush undercover agent who pretended he knew what he was doing, Geffner with some BS to cover their asses (maybe they got PTSD as the result of this trial), Fonseca to serve up a nameless someone or other's alter ego (t-juror, perhaps?), and........ha! it might cost all of Nurmi's $2 million to get a defense team for his defense team.
 
The bottom line is this juror had a right to vote as she felt, plain and simple.. If she was as horrendous as some make her out to be I would have bet the Judge would have removed her as this case is clearly not her first rodeo in the courtroom.. Jurors, no matter what should not have their names released and be subjected to threats.

Agree, and that issue is being investigated (disclosing names).

Any juror also has a right to vote the way that want, agree with your there also.

On the flip side, they take an oath to tell the truth, and if she lied to get on the jury, she deserves to be prosecuted. That's why the County Attorney's office is looking into it.
 
I am still aghast at a member's statement that members of this room are crucifying J-17. Wow. Just wow. This is not a game. People's lives are affected in a very meaningful way. The Alexander family will never be the same. The fact that 1 juror intentionally prevented justice of the people when over $3 million had been spent on the trial is something that should not be swept under the rug if, in fact, it did happen. The unmitigated gall of someone to cast doubt on truth-seekers speaks volumes as it relates to his/her character. I wish I could quote Juan, but, in essence, "The truth is the truth, irrespective of circumstances."

I would like to know the truth. There is no crime/shame in that.

I agree, problem is, if what I read about this whole kerfuffle while trying to keep track of it all, is that this case was about far more than JA(she was merely trying to take advantage of the situation, no surprise there other than that she was aware of it), deep pockets appear to be involved .... http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/sb1015p.htm
 
The county already has an expert team with plenty of experience in unraveling this stuff: Dworkin, Melendez, Flores..... And, as for the defense, they're going to be relying on who? Let's see.......Neumeister, the hush hush undercover agent who pretended he knew what he was doing, Geffner with some BS to cover their asses (maybe they got PTSD as the result of this trial), Fonseca to serve up a nameless someone or other's alter ego (t-juror, perhaps?), and........ha! it might cost all of Nurmi's $2 million to get a defense team for his defense team.

You forgot the PI that JA personally hired to assist her... was that before or after this jury's selection?
 
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, FWIW. If I were in the Alexander family, I wouldn't sue. If I were a citizen of AZ, I would definitely want the state to prosecute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
2,526
Total visitors
2,663

Forum statistics

Threads
590,019
Messages
17,929,085
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top