Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

[Myvice]

I saw this on Twitter last night and I did everything I could to try to verify or link it to juror 17. Right now it just appears the person who did this shares the first name and maiden name of the Juror. There are numerous people with that same name throughout the country, so I think we need to be careful About jumping to conclusions.

It would be great if it was her because I really think that's the smoking gun that she lied to get on the jury if there's no doubt about that if she was anti-death penalty. I just think we need to be careful ...just sayin.

I was just visiting Cathy's site and she has temporarily taken it down as it was unverified. A poster there says that she has checked the name of the name of the writer (J17's maiden name) and it connects to her ex's name.

I really hope this is followed up on. But I really, really want to know who leaked the jurors names.

If this came from the defense (like, where else would it come from) I really hope someone gets sanctioned for it. With all the motions from the defense regarding social media, to me, this feels like a Nurmiester-all that *advertiser censored* type of thing.

MOO

 

[Hez]

What truly boggles the rational mind is-during all this, MLDR keeps tweeting & also the Killer's tweets. Not just tweets, but still vile, insulting messages to the world, Travis' family, name calling against the 11, etc. One would think, it's time to shut up. KWIM? They can't stop their evil self's, ever? Why do they keep fighting? It's over.

Could you imagine if the court appointed Victim Advocate for the Alexander family behaved in the way that MDLR has? Tweeting like a juvenile, leaking information to the press and elsewhere, taunting people online like a bully, managing the client's business enterprises. Nurmi would have demanded a mistrial! :gaah:

 

[MeeBee]

I was slightly troubled by watching this interview. It must have been very intense in the deliberation room. The lady juror said she had to apologize, so there is one of the reasons #17 probably wrote to JSS, she felt aggression. This was most likely a big reason why JSS couldn't release #17. By this time JSS could most likely figured out there was 1 lone juror for life. So now I have to believe that JSS had to give the instruction to try to come to a verdict and at the same time she stated in her words that if you believed your verdict/opinion you didn't have to change your mind. Better to have a mistrial than have a DP verdict overturned by an appeal. JMOO

She only read the instruction and rejected Nurmi's stipulations that she tell them it's a personal choice. The part about sticking to your guns if you believe it is part of the instruction.

 

[Sweet Fox]

I saw this on Twitter last night and I did everything I could to try to verify or link it to juror 17. Right now it just appears the person who did this shares the first name and maiden name of the Juror. There are numerous people with that same name throughout the country, so I think we need to be careful About jumping to conclusions.

Should be easy to verify. Some claimed to have checked Arizona's Public Records under Marriages under the writer's name and Juror #17 1st husbands name was listed.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You do, how? Could you if you are willing, PM me how you know Mrs G. TIA

There was discussion here yesterday on who had that list of jurors names in that format, it was the judge, the clerks, the prosecution, the defence team (with MDLR).

Then this was released to media, so that's the clerks out:

Aaron Nash, a spokesman for the clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court, said no member of the clerk's staff reported being approached by anyone seeking the names of jurors.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/06/jodi-arias-juror/24543269/

So, I eliminate from suspicion the judge, the prosecution, and the clerks, leaving the defence team .. Nurmi and Willmott do not have the connection to the JAII site, that leaves MDLR who has a rather intimate connection with them square in the the frame.

MDLR's connection to the JAII site: http://aboutjodiariasandhersupporters.blogspot.ca/2014/08/maria-simon-sj-and-ben-teamed-up.html

Conclusion: It was HER!

 

[elementary]

My next postcard to CMJA: CMJA, The 11 members of the jury really liked Dr. DeMarte.
Followed by another postcard: CMJA, You sure have aged. What no make-up in prison?
Another: CMJA, The money from your tracings will go the the Alexanders'.
Another: CMJA, Dr. DeMarte has a brain, beauty, and really liked. What do you have?
Another: CMJA, All your commissary money will go to the Alexanders'.

I know this is really "teenage" but I have a smile on my face.

Bwahahaha!!! You made my day! Thanks!

 

[arkansas mom]

It's weird that she left this up, but it's obviously class work. Hasn't anyone else ever had to write a persuasive speech or essay on a topic that is assigned and not chosen? I've had to do several where the object of the exercise was to write from a viewpoint that is opposite my own.

It may be speculation, even though the trail of names seems to track back to her and with a listing of a Phoenix high school through classmates. I don't post much and I'm quite open to being wrong. I don't have the skills y'all do, but wow, what a coincidence.

 

[smeck]

Has anyone (like AZLawyer) confirmed that #17 can actually get in any legal trouble if it is TRUE and VERIFIED that she was not truthful to the court?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Court Chatter has removed the article about the Prezi presentation due to lack of proof for authorship.

(Well I tried to delete this when I saw turaj's post above ... but it's still here. Sorry for the repeat info!)

This is going to be a problem and I think if people are smart, they will not believe everything they read and just give it time to filter through real and just sources and find the truth.
Whatever this juror is, It may be that she was stealth, It may be that she just bought some of the mitigators which is up to her to decide. Either way though she should not be harassed or stalked.

 

[TorisMom003]

Anyone remember how many times the defense accused Juan of prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial?

Here's my theory as to what happened with this trial.

Thanks first to Willmott for admitting that the defense clearly knew that Juror 17's ex husband had a criminal history. Now if only she would admit that they also knew that Juan had prosecuted him as well.

So the defense knows that Juror 17 has an ex that was prosecuted by Juan. They also know that she will be more than likely to want her own "revenge" against the man that sent her beloved to prison so they want to keep her on the jury no matter what. They know that Juan will make sure to vet each of the jurors to ensure that there is no possible juror misconduct. In order to prevent this the defense cooks up the prosecutorial misconduct concerning not only the "*advertiser censored*" on Travis computer but also the "deleting information" from Travis computer. This misconduct also involves Flores. So now Juan is having to fight the defense on two fronts, the trial against JA and the accusations against himself and LE. The defense pushed extremely hard for any and all possible prosecutorial misconduct to keep Juan busy. Juan had to defend himself, Flores, DeMarte, etc in a fashion that was a waste of time because the defense knew that it was a load of BS from the start. BUT it accomplished what the defense wanted. Their favorite pet juror was allowed to remain on the jury and hung the jury for them.

I hope that this juror is investigated completely. I hope that if it comes out that the defense did in fact know all about her lies that they are dealt with accordingly, along with juror 17. This level of deceit from the defense (ALL of the defense players including MDLR) is something that needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

MOO

 

[Nosey Parker]

This is going to be a problem and I think if people are smart, they will not believe everything they read and just give it time to filter through real and just sources and find the truth.
Whatever this juror is, It may be that she was stealth, It may be that she just bought some of the mitigators which is up to her to decide. Either way though she should not be harassed or stalked.

Agreed. Fortunately the WS members are way too classy and intelligent to either harass or stalk.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Has anyone (like AZLawyer) confirmed that #17 can actually get in any legal trouble if it is TRUE and VERIFIED that she was not truthful to the court?

What I saw from Joey Jackson is that it does not matter at this point. It only works the other way. I don't know how anyone is going to prove what someone thinks. I think this is a moot issue and dead in the water.

 

[TorisMom003]

Ironic: Members of the JAII site posting comments that they are sick over the fact that juror 17s name is "out there" when the jurorS names should be confidential when the FULL LIST (minus number 17 of course) of juror names is at the top of the page they are posting on!

 

[Buttercup117]

I am in no doubt that many women go from abusive relationship to abusive relationship. I was purely speculating that this particular juror had an agenda & with that in mind I question everything in her background including DV. From everything I'm reading about this juror followed the guilt phase closely & knew JA's claim of self defence/abuse.

If Juror #17 refused to deliberate with others then I BELIEVE she can in with an agenda. She lost track of who the victim really was and who the abuser was. She can't use her own experiences against or for other people. Her job was to view evidence, listen to testimony and render an unbiased opinion. She failed to do that. If her agenda was to sway a case for profit, personal gain or the gain of others then she should be stiffly punished and send a strong message that our court system is to remain open and unbiased .

 

[Meemaw12]

https://gma.yahoo.com/video/jodi-arias-juror-spared-her-134437267.html

A lil more from 3 jurors

Comments are interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ruby]

I doubt that. They ask those questions to gauge the person's feelings on how they feel about the legal process overall. For instance if a potential juror had a family member who killed someone when they were younger tbeyd want to know about that as feelings are not likely to change just because it was longer than 10 years ago. They want to know about it all in voir dire. Jurors are also asked if they know anyone from the trial. Not just from the last 10 years. And she did not reveal that she knew Juan Martinez.

We are not privy to all that was asked, and answered. We have notes from reporters and tweets.
If she lied - that's not right and let the law and consequences take place.

I just think it's going to be hard to prove and the burden is going to fall on the state.
I think it's a shame, but it will probably be thrown back that the state has some fault.

The only consolation I keep reminding myself is the defense DID NOT WIN,
11 plus alternates DID NOT believe what they presented.
Only one person, maybe agreed, but it's to be determined.
That one person may have had their own agenda and just using JA to speak their voice.
Not a win for the defense, not at all.

eace:

 

[Amster]

So what if the DP was overturned if Sherry did the right thing? The special cornflake would be sentenced to LWP or without. This being terrified of appeal is getting really old and silly.

 

[Buttercup117]

[QUOTE=I can only imagine what's going on in the prosecutors office after this fiasco. It wasn't too smart of her to think in the technological world we live in that things like this would go unnoticed.

 

[ohreally]

I don't buy into the belief it is better to have a mistrial than a DP sentence overturned on appeal. It is not fair to the victims. With everything that has come out after the verdict, I do not believe that replacing this juror would win a successful appeal. Keeping the juror on knowing the concerns of the 11 jurors ended the right for the Alexander's to seek justice. It is just wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem that she got life instead of DP. I don't think she will survive in general population. I just believe that it was wrong to keep this juror on knowing she was not going to deliberate, tried to bring in outside information that was not allowed, admitted she watched news coverage during the trial. The judge knew all this, and prevented the justice the Alexander's rightfully deserve. Add t this everything that has come out since.
Let's be serious. Who believes that with the one fact that we know for sure (Juan was the prosecutor on her ex husbands felony case, and they wed a day before sentencing) that an appeal on this issue would be successful?

 

[Nosey Parker]

I can't tell if there are any legal repercussions if it turns out Juror 17 lied herself onto that jury. I do know, if she were to be charged with anything, her defence lawyer would say, 'my client suffers with PTSD and BPD, and the trauma of being called up for such a high profile trial scrambled her brain.'