Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

[Hope4More]

Allister Adel. And why did she put JM on paid administrative leave, and does the fact she put him on leave mean much? A lot? Maybe not?

Here's a pretty good link about Adel's appointment, with some good general inferences about what her appointment could mean for JM.

What We Know About Allister Adel, New Maricopa County Attorney

To cut to the chase: she's a temporary appointment, in a HIGHLY political office, and almost certainly has further ambitions, legal and/or political, but certainly wants to be elected County Attorney in her own right, and for a full term.

To survive, much less advance, she MUST have Governor Ducy's support. She's been flagrantly obsequious to Ducy, so yep, she's gonna keep that box checked, no matter what.

And she's taken over for Montgomery, Ducy's hand selected AZ Supreme Court justice.

Common sense question: just how much is Adel going to be willing to criticize ANYTHING of any significance Montgomery did as Maricopa County Attorney?

My best guess: she's not going to be the slightest bit willing to do or say anything that would look like she's questioning Montgomery's judgement or significant decisions. Very much to include any of his decisions relating to JM.

Next best guess: putting JM on paid administrative leave is most likely a political gesture, intended to mollify those who want JM's head that she wants to rally to her side within MCAO. Without actually changing much about his current status within MCAO, since he hasn't been prosecuting cases since last fall anyway.

Putting JM on paid leave, though, also leaves all the exit doors for JM half open. Easier to kick him all the way to the curb that way, no doubt, if what it all comes down to is sacrificing JM becomes most politically expedient for Ducy. Or for Montgomery.

 

[geevee]

You've really done your homework, Hope.

So she was only in charge for 3 weeks and slapped JM to the auto theft division that her successor used to run? That's curious.

"The Arizona Republic broke the news on Thursday that Jodi Arias, who was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 for murdering Travis Alexander, may get another chance to plead her case because of Martinez's alleged misconduct during that trial."

(my underlining)

Why would she get another chance to plead her case? She's guilty as the day is long, JM could have thrown a dozen cameras right at her and it wouldn't change the fact that she slaughtered Travis.

Thanks for the great rundown, Hope.

 

[Hope4More]

You've really done your homework, Hope.

So she was only in charge for 3 weeks and slapped JM to the auto theft division that her successor used to run? That's curious.

"The Arizona Republic broke the news on Thursday that Jodi Arias, who was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 for murdering Travis Alexander, may get another chance to plead her case because of Martinez's alleged misconduct during that trial."

(my underlining)

Why would she get another chance to plead her case? She's guilty as the day is long, JM could have thrown a dozen cameras right at her and it wouldn't change the fact that she slaughtered Travis.

Thanks for the great rundown, Hope.

In Arizona Republic-Michael Kieffer land, every tidbit of news about the killer's case or JM is a harbinger that at last, finally, justice is at hand, and that JM's pervasive, decades long, infected every case he ever prosecuted, terrible awful reign of prosecutorial misconduct is, this time, really and truly just about over.

It's parallel, of course, may be found in the lands of JAII & in that one teeny tiny but still bonkers & nasty slice of Twitter, lands in which every year killer's 7 fans hang their stockings with care, because the killer will soon be there, home for Christmas, this year for sure, indubitably.

 

[GarAndTeed]

In Arizona Republic-Michael Kieffer land, every tidbit of news about the killer's case or JM is a harbinger that at last, finally, justice is at hand, and that JM's pervasive, decades long, infected every case he ever prosecuted, terrible awful reign of prosecutorial misconduct is, this time, really and truly just about over.

It's parallel, of course, may be found in the lands of JAII & in that one teeny tiny but still bonkers & nasty slice of Twitter, lands in which every year killer's 7 fans hang their stockings with care, because the killer will soon be there, home for Christmas, this year for sure, indubitably.

Thanks for your great run down on all this, Hope4More! I'm sure this has been asked before, but what is Kieffer's connection to all these *individuals* who are out to smear Juan? Just seems like he must have some clout (for some reason)- he sure gets away with a lot.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

 

[geevee]

In Arizona Republic-Michael Kieffer land, every tidbit of news about the killer's case or JM is a harbinger that at last, finally, justice is at hand, and that JM's pervasive, decades long, infected every case he ever prosecuted, terrible awful reign of prosecutorial misconduct is, this time, really and truly just about over.

It's parallel, of course, may be found in the lands of JAII & in that one teeny tiny but still bonkers & nasty slice of Twitter, lands in which every year killer's 7 fans hang their stockings with care, because the killer will soon be there, home for Christmas, this year for sure, indubitably.

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks for your great run down on all this, Hope4More! I'm sure this has been asked before, but what is Kieffer's connection to all these *individuals* who are out to smear Juan? Just seems like he must have some clout (for some reason)- he sure gets away with a lot.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

The very most generous and charitable interpretation of what drives MK's unquenchable thirst to see/have JM disbarred is that MK is vehemently anti-DP and JM is (has been) an extremely successful DP prosecutor.

Along with his strong anti-DP agenda, MK has also rung alarm bells for years about MCAO and a succession of Maricopa County Attys, Montgomery the most recent. He believes, basically, that MCAO is corrupt top to bottom, that successive County Attorneys have abused their authority and power with impunity, and that most prosecutors on staff wouldn't recognize ethical boundaries even if they were fenced off with high voltage electrical wire.

BTW, to a real and certain extent MK's overall take about MCAO isn't wrong, imo.

Once upon a time, though, back in 2013 and during the guilt phase trial, a WS'er posting in these threads (Katie) happened to actually know MK and had known him for years.

FWIW, it was her firmly held opinion, based on her personal interactions with MK, that MK has a deep and personal loathing/contempt for JM that seemingly has little or nothing to do with MK's alleged principles or his journalistic interests.

 

[casesensitive]

I understand (from reading Hope4More) that these allegations shouldn't affect the outcome of Aria's trial. As much as I appreciated (and loved) Juan for his incredible ability and dedication in getting a life sentence, with no parole, for Arias, I am so disappointed in him. He knew, like his other cases, how important it was to the Alexander family, to put this killer away for life, if not to death. He had been warned before of his trial behavior and was reckless in ignoring the warnings imo. He also risked his career because he couldn't keep his pants zipped up. Sorry. lol

I don't think her appeal will be granted based on his behavior in court, but I am not happy that he took it that far, when he didn't have to, when he knew of prior complaints, ignored it all, and caused grounds for appeal. I know think he is a loose canon. I feel sorry for Travis's family who have to go through this, after all they have suffered. It has taken me some time to express my disappointment in Juan. Pretty sad to admit.

 

[nyvictoria]

Thank you @Hope4More for your always astute breakdown of this ongoing nonsense. I, too, have always believed that MK’s hatred of JM (as well as the rest who have jumped on JA’s cause) was primarily death penalty related. If she were facing the DP, we would have to endure years more of this garbage. For that reason alone, I’m satisfied to see her rot in prison for the rest of her miserable existence.

 

[Colie]

wow Tammy Rose is the star witness in the in the bar case against Martinez.

 

[Gardenista]

 

[geevee]

wow Tammy Rose is the star witness in the in the bar case against Martinez.

She speaks as if everything she says will be taken at face value and won't have to endure cross examination by JM's attorney. Wish we could be there to watch that.

 

[Hope4More]

She speaks as if everything she says will be taken at face value and won't have to endure cross examination by JM's attorney. Wish we could be there to watch that.

wow Tammy Rose is the star witness in the in the bar case against Martinez.

The caption for this story should read: "Tammy Rose to finally get the 15 minutes of fame she's been trying to squeeze out of the Arias case for years."

(Favorite (paraphrased) lines from 15's clueless piece:

"Rose never thought she'd find herself in the spotlight...." Lol.

Rose: " JM was the only source Wood had (for the killer's trial)."

This from a helicopter pilot "reporter" who hadn't covered the guilt phase trial at all, whose coverage of PP2 consisted of sending out uninformed, banal tweets, and who had no sources of her own whatsoever.

Which is why at PP2's get go she made a beeline to ingratiate herself with.....Jennifer Wood.

Putting aside Rose's bad faith, manipulations, half truths & real motivations, though all of that can and probably will be used by JM's attorney to undermine her credibility at the Bar "trial," IMO the significance of Rose's testimony comes down to 2-3 texts sent to her by Jennifer Wood.

For anyone interested, in the "I'll try to keep it short"post below, I'm going to lay out the case against JM relating to juror #17, using the most key & relevant info available to the public.

The question: if the Bar proceeding against JM was an actual trial, would you find him guilty on this charge?

Necessary to know: the standard/burden of proof in the actual Bar proceeding counsel against JM will have to meet will be "clear and convincing" evidence, NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Hope4More]

The case against JM on the Bar allegation that during PP2, as the jury deliberated, JM leaked the identity of juror 17 to Jennifer Wood.

(The original allegations against JM made by the anything but ethical "ethics" atty Karen Clark included that JM had leaked 17's identity in order to have her kicked off the jury, and that he likely conspired with Wood to leak 17's name to the public, as a post-hung trial act of vengeance).

A. The evidence against JM.

1. The specifics of anything Wood told Rose verbally, on the phone, that JM had allegedly said to her, Wood, is obviously hearsay and inadmissable.

2. Call and text records evidence.

When the Bar first dismissed all charges, some later reinstated against JM, their chief counsel noted that the entire Wood- Rose text record provided to Karen Clark by Rose was hearsay and inadmissable.

That ruling must have been reversed, in part because it appears that both Rose and Wood will testify against JM.

The biggest and most significant unknown about evidence on this charge is whether or not the Bar was able to obtain any phone and text records of JM's that corroborate Wood's testimony.

B. Timeline & context for this charge.

1. By March 3, 2015, the PP2 jury had been deliberating for several days. Clearly all was not well; the potential of another hung jury wasn't mysterious or a secret,
and was being chattered about everywhere on SM, including here on WS.

That AM, during an even more secretive and chaotic morning session in JSS's courtroom than usual, the public eventually learned that the jury had sent one or more questions to JSS.

Even by court day's end, the extent of what either the media or public knew was only that JSS had responded to the jury's questions by convening secret and off the record meetings in chambers, and that hours on, she had given impasse instructions to the jury. The jury's "questions" were never read in open court.

2. There were at least 3 secret, sealed, off the record meetings in JSS chambers on March 3. Present for all 3 meetings were: JSS & her court stenographer; all counsel: JM, Nurmi, Willmott, and mitigation specialist MDLR; the killer, and at least one representative of TA's family, but IIRC, two attended.

This list is relevant, because other than PP2 jurors and perhaps a small handful of additional court personnel, these were the ONLY peeps that could possibly have known anything specific about problems on the jury, until, at the VERY earliest, after court closed on the 3rd and sealed court minutes for the day were accidentally included in the clerk's routine electronical filings, and so temporarily were made public.

3. During the first sealed chambers meeting, JSS informed all present of the 2 notes sent to her by the jury. The 1st was written by the foreman and signed by every other juror other than 17. The note was an SOS to JSS that 17 "refused to deliberate" and that she had brought up the content of a movie about the killer she had watched on TV (The Secret, iirc).

The 2nd note was from 17, sent via a bailiff to JSS. Hers was an SOS that she felt ganged up on, and that the rest of the jury was not only pressuring her unduly, but bringing in considerations that 17 believed inappropriate and off-limits.

JSS gave counsel one hour to consider the jury notes and how each side wished to proceed.

4. The second secret meeting was convened at the end of that hour. One principal outcome of the legal wrangling during it was JSS's decision to respond to the notes by giving the jury impasse instructions.

5. The first relevant text sent by Jennifer Wood to Tammy Rose on March 3 was sent to Rose in the very early afternoon, AFTER the 2nd sealed hearing, and iirc, just as Rose and actual members of the media were being allowed back in the courtroom to hear JSS announce the impasse instructions.

(Cont. this is getting too long)

 

[Hope4More]

March 3, 2015 timeline & context & the evidence, continued.

1. The first texts relating to 17 sent by WOOD to ROSE on the afternoon of March 3, verbatim. Rose's replies paraphrased & condensed):
-------------
1:26. It will be hung in end.
1:33 . I got the scoop.
1:33. I will tell you later.

(Rose texts what she knows, about impasse instructions about to be given).

1:35. Yes, that's true.
1:35. He texted me what happened.

(Rose: I won't tweet. What?)

1:37. It's one person who refuses to deliberate or look at pics or evidence.

2. (An aside, sorry).

As early as early in 2017, when the Bar complaint against JM had first been filed and all contents therein considered CONFIDENTIAL, Tammy Rose took to social media to begin bragging that she had been asked (lie by omission) to provide evidence in a bar complaint against JM relating to the outting of 17; that she had text evidence JM had leaked 17's identity to Wood, and that this new evidence against JM was definitely explosive enough, her words, "to change the outcome of the killer's trial!!"

Rose was promptly criticized and vilified on SM. Virtually every blog post and tweet by Rose about Wood's texts and Wood's stalking of her, Rose, and her accusations against JM, all lobbed by Rose to win her 15 minutes of fame has been deleted, long ago. Perhaps Karen Clark told Rose she was compromising her credibility and usefulness as a future witness? ))

3. Anyway, it is this 1:37 text sent to Rose by Wood on March 3 that is most problematic for JM.

We already know the entire universe of peeps who could have had any knowledge about specific jury problems at the time this text was sent.

So, next to consider -the content of the text.

1. Wood's 1:26 text, that the jury would be hung in the end, says and reveals nothing that wasn't obvious and commonly assumed.

That the jury was having problems/stuck and was more likely than not to hang had just been verified by JSS's intent to give them impasse instructions.


2. Wood's text to Rose at 1:33, telling Rose that she "had the scoop" is also meaningless. Her 1:35 text to Rose is not, as Wood claimed JM had TEXTED her about what happened in chambers.

This claim by Wood either can or cannot be verified by JM's phone and/or text records.

Obviously, if the Bar has JM's text records, and included in those records is a text he sent WOOD on March 3, 2015, anytime between 11AM and 1:35PM, telling her ANYTHING specific that was said in a sealed chambers hearing, the truth of the charge against JM that he leaked confidential info about 17 to Wood is open and shut. JM is s'crewed, and rightfully so.

3. He's only slightly less s'crewed, imo, if there's a record of JM contacting Wood AT ALL in this timeframe, even absent the content of any text (s) sent.

If there is such a record, it will count as circumstantial evidence that JM leaked chambers info to Wood.

4. The text content, again:

a. " It's one person." Gender not specified. Neither does Wood mention either the juror's name or number.

Also, FWIW, Wood doesn't state that there is a single HOLDOUT JUROR, only that there is a problem with "one person" on the jury.

Is that distinction relevant?

Possibly, because in subsequent hearings and motions later on March 3 and on March 4, JSS stated very explicitly, on record, that she had no knowledge about where the jury's vote stood, or as to whether or not the "problem" juror was a holdout, much less a lone hold out juror.

---
b. "(It's one person) who refuses to deliberate."

An accurate portrayal of what jury note #1 said, and what would have been discussed during sealed hearing 2, and first stated in hearing one.

c. "(It's one person who refuses to deliberate) or to look at pics or evidence."

We don't have a transcript of what exactly was said in any of the sealed hearings on March 4 (or on any other trial day), so there isn't a factual basis for analyzing this portion of Wood's text.

What's known is that in his post-trial interview, the PP2 foreperson specifically mentioned that jurors had, in absolute frustration, resorted to putting some of TA's autopsy photos in front of 17, and asking her- if that doesn't make you believe the DP is warranted here, what would??!

As to 17 refusing to "look at evidence," that's not what jury note #1 said, nor is it what the foreperson later described or claimed.

But... that the 1st part of the text is accurate, that one juror was allegedly refusing to deliberate, is problematic enough to stand alone.

Cont....

 

[Hope4More]

The 1:35pm text from Wood to Rose, sent on March 3, the day before the PP2 jury hung, stating JM had texted her that "one person" on the jury was retiring to deliberate, and in Wood's 1:26 text, that the "jury would hang in the end."

Based on the evidence as laid out above, here are the only factually based possibilities, however plausible & IMO, as to what Wood knew by early afternoon on March 3 and how she could have obtained the info. But I'm just one juror here.

1. No one else in the media, including the very well connected & sourced Beth Karas who attended and blogged about PP2 every single trial day, had any specific knowledge about what was happening on the jury, much less that there a single juror was causing major problems.

So: It is extremely unlikely if not flat out impossible to believe Wood's info was speculative, and based on media peeps scuttlebutt. Info too accurate, and...no media scuttlebutt.

2. There WAS visual evidence to be had of 17's discontent, and her self-imposed ostracism. After she sent her note to JSS, 17 left the jury room and refused to return until JSS had taken care of things.

The bailiff (s) watching the jury room would have had some knowledge, then, of the standoff between 17 and the rest of the jury. That at least one bailiff did is on the record, as JSS asked about how long the jury had stopped deliberating because of the conflict, and the precise circumstances of that shut down.

What are the odds that Wood's info came from the jury's bailiff, either directly or indirectly, or that Wood was in the position to see 17 stewing by herself outside the jury room, and to have reached an accurate conclusion about what was going on?

3. An alarmed or pizzed off juror gave Wood the info. (Imo, this is literally the least likely possibility of all).

4. A defense team member either gave Wood the info directly, or got it to her by other means. (Fat chance in Hades this would have happened. Even though such a leak might have benefited the DT, the DT had their own channel for leaking trial info, and it wasn't Wood.

5. A TA family member leaked the info to Wood directly. (IMO, not entirely impossible, but not very likely).

6. A TA family member or two stormed out of the second chamber meeting, aware that the jury was about to hang, and because of a single juror, and seemingly a juror who walked into the jury room with her/his mind already made up.

In their anger, a family member said out loud, within hearing range of Wood, some of what had been said about 17 in chambers; the family member didn't use 17's number, perhaps because the juror was known to then and her number was irrelevant in any case.

7. JM did in fact text Wood to tell her that the extended kerfluffle that AM and/or the jury questions drama that AM had to do with a single person on the jury who wouldn't deliberate, and perhaps, his belief the jury would end up hung.

If JM did text Wood even just this, imo it would have been in response to her texting him to ask him what was going on, and, the only reason that is remotely plausible as to why he would reply to her, if he did, was that they actually were having a relationship, sexual or not, that was meaningful enough to JM to give Wood ANY time at all on a genuinely critical day when he was going non-stop and full out, including working with Flores, investigating and preparing motions.

Final note for the afternoon March 3 texts and 17 and JM:

There is no known evidence whatsoever that JM had provided ANY identifying information about 17 to Wood as of 1:35pm on March 3.

(Cont).

 

[Hope4More]

PART 2 ...on the charge JM leaked confidential and sealed chambers info by telling Wood the identity of juror 17.

Summary of everything above: by 1:35 pm on March 3, 2015, Wood knew that a single juror was apparently refusing to deliberate. Either JM gave her that info, in a text, as Wood told Rose, or he did not, and someone else provided the info to Wood.

And, the Bar either has JM's or Wood's text records (or both) that prove JM provided her the info, or they do not.

Case over on this charge if the Bar does have the text records to prove JM texted Wood the info. Case still wide open if not.
----------

1. An important fact to point out. I've read through every iteration of this charge against JM- and there have been multiple versions, both by the Bar and by the steadfastly unethical "ethics" atty Clark.

Other than the one text that Wood told Rose JM had sent her, about a single person not deliberating, --a text which may or may not actually exist or be presented as evidence against JM-- the Bar does not have ANY direct evidence of anything Wood alleges JM said/told asked her on March 3, about 17 or about anything else.

2. A succinct & concise summary, believe it or not, of what JM was doing about juror 17 after sealed meeting in chambers #1 until at least 6PM on March 3.

JM, acting on the jurors' note that said 17 introduced info from a movie about the killer she had watched, looked up then into juror 17's original jury questionnaire. JSS dismissed JM's subsequent Motion to remove 17 for cause, presented later in the day on the 3rd, because 17 had in fact during voir dire/on the questionnaire, divulged the fact she'd watched the movie.

After providing the jury impasse instructions, sending the jury back to deliberations, and considering JM's Motion to nix 17, JSS conducted individual -sealed, of course- questioning of ALL the jurors in chambers in the late afternoon of the 3rd.

Both BEFORE juror 17 was questioned by JSS, and AFTER she had been, JM directed Flores to investigate 17's FaceBook page. To repeat. It was JM who immediately knew to look into 17's FB page, and it was Flores who did the investigation, at JM's direction, and who was actively working on that investigation at least up until 6PM on the 3rd.

This much was known by JM & Flores, for certain, it's on the record, by the time they finished researching 17's FB page, sometime around 6: there wasn't anything remotely conclusive on her page- set to private- to suggest she was acting in bad faith.

And, of equal or greater significance, that the only way of even attempting to find actual incriminating evidence about 17 from her FB page was for the State/LE to issue a subpoena to FB, to gain full access to 17's page and usage history.

Not on the record, but IMO 100% obvious, is the realization JM must have had that the odds JSS would suspend jury deliberations for weeks, while waiting for FB to respond to a subpoena, were zero. Or less.

Under ANY circumstances at all at that point, given the near certainty a subsequent sentencing DP verdict by the PP2 jury would be overturned on appeal. And rightfully so. Coercion of a hold out juror, impermissible investigation into a sitting juror during deliberations, singling out a juror during deliberations on the basis of what other jurors had revealed about deliberations, and more. Not happening.

Consider then, as jury, what JM knew by early evening on March 3 about the possibility of having 17 removed, and therefore, how credible any of what Wood's testimony is likely to be, much less hearsay testimony by Rose.

Cont...

 

[GarAndTeed]

Sorry to interrupt H4M. I keep thinking Katie posted somewhere (either in her blog or here) that Kieffer released a news article about the jury containing information that was not publicly available, but later retracted that article. Anyone recall this?
Thanks!
Not sure when this occurred, for the record.

 

[Hope4More]

Evening of March 3rd.

1. Exact language in the 3/2019 Bar complaint against JM, written by the Bar's Probable Cause committee:

" That evening (March 3) (JM) told Ms. Wood that there was a hold out juror who was not deliberating.

He provided her with additional information, including that he had investigators or others looking at jurir 17's social media to attempt to locate information that might disqualify her from continuing the deliberation. (JM) provided juror 17's name to Ms. Wood, who then looked up juror 17's FB page. "

"(JM) told Ms. Wood that if anyone found out that he had provided her with this information that he would be disbarred."

"Also on that day, Ms. Wood called Tammy Rose at approximately 7:30 pm. (...) During the phone call, Ms. Wood described juror 17's physical appearance to Ms. Rose, which enabled Ms. Rose to identify juror 17."

(....)

" During his deposition (JM) was asked whether he had provided any confidential information to Ms. Wood about the Arias trial, in particular, the identity of juror 17."

" (JM) responded that he did not provide Ms. Wood any information about juror 17. The testimony was false, and (JM) knew it was false."

-------

2. Whatever Wood alleges JM told her about 17 that evening, Wood says JM told her by phone, not in a text (s).

So, the best evidence it's possible for the Bar to have are phone records that indicate JM called Wood that evening, necessarily sometime between approximately 5:10 and 7:20 pm, and that they were on the phone long enough to indicate the call connected and that they spoke.

Wood's testimony that JM called her will or will not be supported by a call record, if it exists.

Even if the fact of a phone call from JM to Wood is proven by call records, Bar counsel will have to rely upon Wood's word for what JM allegedly said to Wood during the call.

3. The Bar will apparently also call on Tammy Rose to testify as to what Wood said and texted to her that night about juror 17 and JM.

Rose has already provided this information to the Bar, under oath. NO texts sent that night by either Wood or Rose include any specific information about a holdout juror, much less identifying info about 17, much less JM's alleged instruction to Wood to "find dirt" on 17.

Whatever Rose thinks she knows about what JM said to Wood about/identifying 17, or what she believed Wood did that night to "find dirt" on 17, her only source of information is secondhand and hearsay- what Wood told her JM had said, and that whatever dirt-seeking she did that night was at JM's request.

4. Rose and Wood spoke by phone exactly once on the evening of March 3.

Rose called and reached Wood, not the other way around, at about 7:30pm. It was Rose's 4th attempt to reach Wood. Wood had not returned Rose's calls or attempted to call Rose that late afternoon or early evening.

Rose, from her Bar depo (condensed and paraphrased):

"Wood confirmed during that call that there was a holdout juror, and told me that JM asked her, during a phone call, to help him find dirt on this juror so maybe he could get her kicked off.

She asked me if I could help. I immediately declined. I told her that was a line I couldn't cross. I argued with her a little bit about what she was doing. I think she asked for my help because I was an actual journalist, and she wasn't.

After I said no, she told me she was already researching what she called the "holdout juror's" FB page. "We didn't know it was juror 17."

She never gave me the name and I didn't ask.

"The only thing she told me was that she was looking at the holdout juror's FB page. "

"So whatever she was searching for, I assume she had the juror's name. How could she get on her FB page if she didn't have the juror's name?

" I believed her that there was a holdout juror. I believed her that she was researching this juror's information, but I didn't ask her any more about it. All I knew was that she was researching the juror's FB page and not finding anything on it."

Karen Clark: what kind of info about 17 was at Wood's disposal? What could she do?

Rose: I mean, this is, well, partly opinion. I know there was a sealed hearing, and if I can remember the document, there were 3 juror questions. (..)

"So I think I saw a document, there was something filed with the bar charges, there was a document I read where JM may have outted juror 17 because he held up juror 17's FB page and said her name. Well that made sense to me when I saw that document because, like Jen was researching her FB page."

5. Clark's description in the Feb 2017 bar complaint itself, of what Wood supposedly told Rose in that one, 6 minute phone conversation.

Note what is different from what Rose told Clark about the call in her 2017 deposition, itemized above.

"Wood called Rose around 7:30. She said there was a holdout juror and that JM had asked her to find dirt on this woman to get her kicked off the jury. Wood confirmed it was a female juror, describing her to Rose as the one with curly hair who came in late every day.

Wood told Rose that she knew the name of the holdout juror because JM had given it to her.

Wood told Rose she had already started her investigation for JM of the juror's FB page, and that she had found suspicious activity on it, which is what she was researching.

Wood told Rose that the juror had liked "the Law of Attraction." Wood asked Rose for help, Rose said no.

"After that call Wood and Rose continued to text each other until late in the evening about the sealed information JM gave to Wood and the work she was doing to help JM get the juror removed."

Note: Rose & Wood most certainly did NOT continue to text each other about anything related to juror 17 or FB or looking for dirt, or sealed info.

The first texts they exchanged, beginning fairly soon after that 6 minute call, during which Wood supposedly relayed so much info to Rose about 17 and the research into 17 she had already done, asked for Rose's help, was told no, had an argument with Rose because Rose was so appalled at what Wood was doing and at JM's request, were these texts:

(Call ended at 7:35).

8:16. Rose texts a reply to Wood's text question from 6:30, asking Rose if the radio program Wood had just finished doing back then was going to replay.

Rose texts: "yes, and I just retweeted your 3 story cuz u be hot."

Also at 8:16 to Wood: I'm the only one who has used Chris so far, lol.

Wood next sent 3 texts to Rose, all at 8:28:
*Haha!
*Yay!
*U are the best. They don't appreciate U.

Rose, a minute later: hope fat Cathy saw it, lol.

A small cluster of texts over the next several minutes follow, all are insults directed at Cathy, ending with Rose mocking Cathy's opinion while being interviewed earlier about whether or not the jury will be hung; Rose telling Wood she just doesn't want a hung jury; that "idiot" Jeff Gold thinks it will hang, and Wood replying "OMG we have to get a verdict."

Rose texted Wood next, at 9:58pm, and asks: "any chance of this ending tomorrow? "

Wood replied at 10:02: "I couldn't help. I was bummed. So maybe."

Rose said in her depo, and Clark in the bar complaint, that Rose's question about "this ending" was codetalk for whether or not Wood had turned up anything of significance in her investigation of 17, and that Wood's reply to Rose confirms what was actually being said. In code.

There is another small batch of texts exchanged between 10:02 and 10:05, when communication between them ended for the night. Rose initiated the exchange by saying maybe that maybe the rest of the jury could sway "her," and Wood saying that maybe the (scrutiny of 17 by JSS & the attorneys) had scared the juror, including being called into chambers by JSS. Rose doesn't seem to understand Wood's reference, Wood tells her she can't say any more, they both say again that they just don't want the jury to hang.

That's it.

(Cont)

 

[Augustgurl]

Does anyone else see that this whole thing was being set up by the defense with Rose befriending Wood when they got wind of an affair btwn JM and Wood? It’s so obvious to me that Rose is purposely asking text questions that are potentially incriminating here. Then playing dumb at the last one Hope4More references when Jen Wood says she can’t say anymore. Also I saw a video clip of Jen Wood and Tammy Rose in the car talking with a video camera facing them in the car so it was planted in there ahead of time. ... omg. JM was so dumb to start up that affair with a woman who doesn’t have discernment and is a blabbermouth. Look, I was as pissed off as everyone because in my opinion 17 was a stealth juror and she should not have been on that jury period. It was not fair process for sure. So with her refusing to deliberate I couldn’t figure out how that wouldn’t be an easy dismissal. But like Hope said, if they’d done that and gotten a DP verdict it more than likely would’ve been overturned for juror coercion or some other BS. I love our system, best in the world but there are times it is beyond maddening and this is one of them. Suffice it to say, Jodi Arias is more concerned with murdering Juan Martinez reputation , good name and annihilating his life and 30 yr successful career than she is with getting out of prison. This alone shows why she should never, ever, ever ever be allowed to roam free again. I’m certain she was on her way to kill someone else ( maybe the Hughes?) when they caught her with a 9mm glock in her rental car. She made Casey Anthony look like a Saint.

 

[grammieto5]

Is it for sure JB had an affair with Jen Wood? I agree with your post, except maybe the part about Casey Anthony