Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by Coldpizza, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    EASIEST & BRIEFEST EXAMPLE OF THE BIAS, DISORTIONS & INACCURACIES IN KAREN CLARK’S (KC) (THE “ETHICS” ATTORNEY) BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST JM.


    KC alleges that JM had affairs with Jennifer Wood and Katie Wick, had sexualized conversations with dismissed PP2 juror #3 (Melissa Garcia), and that he “sexually harassed” Sheree Ruiz (with Jennifer Wood, the “Trial Divas”). Perhaps because KC knew she lacks direct evidence of any of these allegations, she tried to support her narrative that JM is a serial and long-term sexual user & abuser of women by selectively quoting from JM’s personnel files she compelled MCAO (Maricopa County Attorneys Office) to turn over.

    -------------------------------------

    Here is what KC wrote in her (February 2018) appeal of the Bar’s dismissal of her Bar Complaint:

    “MCAO has disciplined (JM) before for improper sexual conduct. He was first given a warning and counseled by his superiors for improper actions towards female staff. The warning(...) ‘his judgment on matters relating to his conduct and personal relationships with other employees, particularly some females, has been called into question on a couple of occasions.’

    He was counseled and told that his conduct with female employees was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was told that his conduct appeared unprofessional and was inappropriate in the office.”


    The following year, (JM) repeated his misconduct by making an inappropriate sexual remark towards a female attorney in his office. The conduct was reported (and it was determined) that the warning given to him the previous year had not been sufficient.

    They took the next step by issuing him a formal written reprimand that was placed in his personal file. His supervisor stated that “it is now time that this behavior cease once and for all. “The supervisor concluded “there will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”

    ---------------------------
    REALITY CHECK.

    Unforgivably, really, IMO, the related portion of JM’s personnel file has been made public by KC’s attaching it as an appendix to her 2018 appeal.

    The selective excerpts KC used are from 2 separate documents in JM’s personnel file. The first doc is indeed a letter of reprimand, written by the supervisor of JM’s supervisor. The basis for the reprimand is the 2nd incident below, that had occurred in 1991.

    The second doc is attached to the letter of reprimand and is a portion of JM’s (otherwise absolutely glowing) annual performance review.


    Here, quoted from those docs, is what ethics attorney Karen Clark didn’t include in her excerpts about JM’s “improper sexual conduct” at MCAO:



    JM’s supervisor, in JM’s performance review:


    “In November 1990, Juan was counselled regarding the amount of time he spent with female employees in his office. He was told that the appearance created by the extent of the contact he was having was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was also told that since the female employees were secretaries, it was interfering with their productivity, and thus it was adversely affecting other attorneys as well.

    After being told such contact appeared unprofessional and inappropriate in the office, Juan immediately acted to stop it.”

    (…)
    “Another cause for counselling arose in March 1991, when a female employee was offended by a remark Juan made to her. It is unlikely that any comment he made was intended to offend anyone, however, Juan’s judgment in using words that could, even remotely, offend someone was not good.”

    “Juan needs to exercise good judgement and be sensitive to the fact that there are always unintended possible consequences of remarks that are not thought out, or that are inappropriate in a professional environment.

    I believe that Juan will be successful in modifying his conduct in regards to specific problem areas. I am also hopeful that Juan will learn from these experiences and go beyond mere modification of conduct. There will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”

    ---------
    So….and, really??


    The only “dirt” KC could mine from JM’s decades of work at MCAO is that 28 years ago JM spent too much time talking with secretaries, and that 27 years ago he said something to a female attorney that she found offensive, even though JM’s supervisor doubted that JM intended to be offensive.

    And… this is what she offers as “evidence” that JM has a long history of “improper sexual conduct.”
     
  2. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Almost finished with the next piece on the Bar Complaint, about allegations relating to PP2 juror #3, Melissa Garcia.

    Am posting this separately & briefly to simplify that narrative, which turns out to be pretty fascinating, but like everything related to ***- nasty & twisted.

    -----
    The separate thing: ever wonder how, exactly, this particular bar complaint against JM originated? Almost 2 years after the PP2 mistrial?

    Guess what? Michael Kieffer's fingerprints are on it, but he "only" pointed the way to get the Complaint rolling. The person most responsible for initiating the Bar Complaint is Tammy Rose, helicopter traffic news reporter and alleged "friend" of Jennifer Wood.

    It was Rose who claimed to have proof that Wood had outted juror 17 and that JM was equally or more responsible, Rose who waited for months after the mistrial to "interview" folks rather than to report her "evidence" to anyone with authority; Rose who went to Sharee Ruiz behind Wood's back, while still "friends" with Wood, to gather "proof" of Wood's involvement with JM, and of JM giving Wood sealed information to make public; Rose who spoke to Wood's husband- on the same day she & Wood hung out together- to make what he himself described as a quid pro quo exchange of info: she would provide him "proof" of his wife's affair with JM to help him in his imminent move to divorce Wood, and in exchange, he would tell her what he knew (trust me, despite KC's claims, he had nothing remotely credible to offer) about Wood "digging up dirt" on Juror 17.

    Rose took her "info" to Kieffer. Kieffer put her in touch with Juror 17's attorney. But.....the investigations into 17's leak had concluded a few months prior, and 17 had no interest in pursuing any legal claim against anyone. Rose gave her phone with texts to 17's attorney, but there it ended, temporarily, until.......until either Rose, or Kieffer, or 17's attorney or some combination of the three took the next step and approached Karen Clark.
     
  3. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TAMMY ROSE & THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges). PART ONE



    It would be ironic if the new charge included in the AZ Bar Probable Charge Order (that JM misrepresented or lied about something during the Bar investigation) relates in any way to JM’s communication with Melissa Garcia.

    It would be ironic not least because the Bar charge relating to Garcia wasn’t even in KC’s original Bar Complaint as a stand -alone allegation. Until well into the Bar’s investigation of KC’s original charges (levelled in January 2107), KC’s interest in Garcia focused solely on what Garcia’s interactions with Wood and JM allegedly revealed about their alleged affair.

    KC’s limited interest in Garcia seems to have resulted from KC’s (IMO) transparently skewed determination to present JM as a corrupt and serial user and sexual harasser of women. For whatever reason, KC did not interview Garcia before submitting the Bar Complaint against JM in 2017. Until the Bar Counsel interviewed Garcia in late 2017 about her contact with JM, the only other person to have done so was Tammy Rose, as part of her own “investigation” into the outing of Juror 17.

    What follows below is how the Bar Complaint process related to Garcia unfolded, and for anyone who is interested, the means of weighing KC and/or Garcia's credibility for yourself, as well as deciding for yourself if this charge against JM is serious/the source of the new charge within the Probable Cause Order.

    I’ve included everything Garcia-related in ALL the available documents: the Bar Complaint; communications between the Chief Disciplinary Atty for the AZ Bar, Craig Henley, and JM’s attorney, and between KC and Henley; KC’s appeal of the dismissal of charges; transcripts of KC’s interviews with Tammy Rose and Melissa Garcia, and the related texts exchanged between Jennifer Wood and Rose.

    ----------------------------

    FOR REMINDER , AND FOR CONTEXT


    --Date of ***’s (PP2) Retrial: October 2014 – March 5, 2015.

    --The defense did not rest and JM did not begin putting on his case until January 2015.

    --Feb 24, 2015. PP2 jury begins deliberations.

    --The original Bar Complaint was filed in January 2017, dismissed in January 2018, appealed in February 2018, dismissal reversed in March 2018, and the Probable cause Order issued in late October/early November 2018.

    --February 13, 2017. Second formal interview of Tammy Rose by KC; the 1st was not recorded.

    ----------------------------------------
     
  4. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TAMMY ROSE & THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges). PART TWO

    ----------------------------

    1. JUROR 3 IS DISMISSED FROM PP2.

    Dec. 8, 2014. Melissa Garcia is excused from the PP2 jury. After being arrested and jailed for a night for a DUI (in Estrella, the same jail as ***), LE uncovered an outstanding warrant for her arrest, related to bad checks she later argued to JSS were written not by her, but by her husband.

    During a sealed hearing (transcript is included as an appendix to the complaint), JM asked that Garcia be excused for cause. JSS did so. Because JSS also ordered that Garcia, immediately following her formal dismissal in chambers, be escorted out of the courthouse, to prevent Garcia from having any further contact with the remaining jurors, Garcia never had a chance to say goodbye to them.


    2. Garcia & Karen Clark’s (KC) Original Bar Complaint (February 2017)

    KC does not allege in her original complaint that JM’s communication with Garcia was unethical. Her inclusion of Garcia in the complaint was about trying to shore up her allegation of JM’s affair with Jennifer Wood.

    This is everything KC included about Garcia in the 2/17 Complaint:


    KC: “Shortly after Garcia was dismissed, she obtained JM’s personal cell phone number from Wood. It is reasonable to assume she thought to ask Wood for it because the jurors “knew something about Wood and JM’s relationship.”

    “Garcia called JM on the cellphone. She was interested in dating JM. Garcia later texted a naked photograph of herself to JM’s cell phone. Wood became very jealous, and texted Rose about it. JM promised Wood he would stop all communication with Garcia after the verdict.”

    “Rose interviewed Garcia after the retrial. Rose says that Garcia asked her if Wood was still involved with JM, but told Rose that even if they were, she considered JM “fair game.”


    3. 1st Bar Counsel communication to JM: the screening letter.


    As JM’s attorney stated in his reply to this letter, KC’s 34 page long complaint “reads like tabloid material.” It is also a disorganized jumble. Allegations are inserted here and there in the overwrought, rambling, sex-focused narrative, seemingly in no particular order. Nowhere are the charges against JM presented as a coherent, succinct list.

    The Complaint’s incoherency mattered. Rather than proceeding with a defined list of specific allegations, Henley plucked out of the complaint what HE understood to be the allegations, and laid them out in his letter to JM as a single, laundry list paragraph. The very last allegation on Henley’s list related to Garcia.


    Henley to Rhodes, JM’s attorney: “ (….) you (JM) received nude photographs from or otherwise engaged in a telephonic relationship also referred to as “sexting” with Melissa Garcia, an individual (known as) juror 3. “

    Note that Henley has interpreted the allegation solely as one related to sexual misconduct, not inappropriate contact by JM with an ex-juror, in an attempt to ferret out from her how members of a deliberating jury might be leaning, or responding to JM.


    4. 1st reply by Rhodes, JM’s attorney, to Henley, April 2017.

    Rhodes replied to Henley with his own interpretation of what charges KC was levelling against JM. He wrote: “setting aside the sensational and irrelevant allegations about sex, the charges boil down to 6 allegations of misconduct.”

    Rhodes doesn’t include anything at all about Garcia or JM’s communication with Garcia in his list of 6 allegations, nor anywhere else in his reply to Henley.

    ----------------------------
     
  5. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TAMMY ROSE & THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges). PART THREE

    ----------------------------

    5. Correspondence between Henley and Clark following Henley’s receipt of Rhodes’ reply.

    April 27, 2017. Henley informs KC that JM has denied any of the alleged misconduct, as have both Jennifer Wood and Katie Wick. He says that in order to complete his investigation, he requests that KC provide any written evidence she has, including electronic communications, for JM, Wood, Katie Wick, as well as contact info for Sharee Ruiz, and last, a list of any witnesses other than Rose, Ruiz, and a 3rd party (a friend of Wood, whose name I’m choosing to omit). There is no mention of Garcia in Henley’s letter to KC.
    -----

    May 17, 2017. KC replies to Henley with a list of 25 witnesses, and by sending him a thumb drive of the “evidence” she has on hand, including the text exchanges between Wood and Rose.

    Garcia is on that witness list. At this point KC has spoken to Garcia to confirm that she is willing to speak to Bar Counsel investigators, and perhaps, to have confirmed with Garcia the information Garcia had previously provided to ROSE about her ”knowledge” that JM was having an affair with Wood. KC has not yet interviewed Garcia herself.

    ------------------------------------------

    6. Henley -Rhodes correspondence July -August 2017.



    Henley has received the witness list, the Rose-Wood texts, AND KC’S FEBRUARY 2017 INTERVIEW OF TAMMY ROSE (keep this in mind!)

    He sends a 2nd letter to Rhodes in July 2017, saying that JM hasn’t responded to all the allegations laid out in the Bar screening letter. Yes, he understands JM’s legitimate objection -and refusal-to reply to any questions about his personal life, but that he, Henley and the Bar are obligated to investigate the complaints, and so he needs a reply to several questions. And, one of those questions he need answered is about whether or not Garcia sent him “sexting” nude photos.

    Rhodes replies to Henley on Aug 11, 2017. On the Garcia and “sexting” query he says this:

    Rhodes: “This question is irrelevant to whether JM complied with his ethical obligations in his prosecution of the Arias case. More ever, your question (invades Garcia’s privacy) and risks causing her more embarrassment, in addition to that caused by her removal from the jury.”


    “Nevertheless, in an effort to fully cooperate with (this investigation), JM responds that, after Ms. Garcia was dismissed as a juror in the case, she called (JM). He had not given her his number and does not know how she got it. She expressed an interest in meeting him for lunch. He politely declined. Their conversation was not sexual. She subsequently texted JM partially nude pictures of herself. JM stopped answering her calls and never joined her for lunch or dinner.

    THIS STATEMENT IS ALL THAT JM PUT ON THE RECORD ABOUT THE GARCIA CHARGE DURING THE ENTIRE BAR INVESTIGATION. IF THE PROBABLE CHARGE ORDER ACCUSING JM OF MISREPRENTING /LYING DURING THE INVESTIGATION ABOUT SOMETHING RELATES TO GARCIA, THE MISREPRESENTATION OR LIE IS IN THIS STATEMENT.



     
  6. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges). PART FOUR



    7. THE CHARGES AGAINST JM ARE DISMISSED. THE BAR DISMISAL LETTER FROM HENLEY TO JM (January 2018).

    Henley has condensed his original laundry list of KC’s allegations into 4 charges. Note that the Garcia charge is now NOT about sexting, but about far more serious ethical violations; that transition was a result of Bar Counsel’s interview with Melissa Garcia.


    HENLEY: “(The 4th ) allegation is that you communicated with the discharged juror (Garcia) while the case was ongoing, and the communications may have discussed information about other sitting jurors and their deliberations. If true, such conversations would violate your ethical obligations and jeopardize the sanctity of the jury system.


    While you admit communicating with the discharged juror in this case, the State Bar cannot prove an ethical violation by clear and convincing evidence as we were unable to independently verify the content of the text messages or phone CONVERSATION (emphasis mine) between you and the discharged juror. (If this ever happens again, notify the court and opposing counsel to avoid the) “inevitable allegations of wrongdoing.”
     
  7. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113

    THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges). PART 5

    ----------------------


    8. KC’S BAR APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL (February, 2018).


    KC, TAKEN FROM HER APPEAL LETTER:

    Garcia, interviewed by Bar counsel, expressed her willingness to cooperate as a witness. “During her interview, she fully collaborated the bar charges. More than that-she provided explosive new information.”

    “Garcia told Bar Counsel she had spoken with JM numerous times after she was removed from the panel. (JM again used a woman for his own ends), but this time the woman happened to be a dismissed juror. Garcia told Bar Counsel that during these conversations JM asked her for insight on what the (seating) jurors were thinking about the case”.

    ---------------------------
    ((KC reached out to Garcia after BC informed her of this information, Garcia agreed to be interviewed by KC. The interview took place on Feb 1, 2018).


    9. Summary of KC’s summary of her interview with Garcia, as included in her appeal letter to the Bar:


    * Garcia read Wood’s blog and saw an invitation by Wood for “juror 3” to reach out to her.

    *They “got in touch.”

    *Garcia said it became quickly evident to her that JM and Wood were having an affair. Wood gave Garcia JM’s personal cell number. Asked how Wood knew it, Wood told Garcia: “I have connections.”

    * Garcia called JM on his cell phone. Left message. JM called her back.

    * They had several phone conversations and exchanged “many” text messages.

    * Bar Counsel told Garcia that JM had told the Bar he and Garcia had only spoken once by phone.

    * Garcia will testify this is unequivocally untrue, and that they had at least 5 or 6 phone conversations.

    * Garcia will testify the texts quickly turned flirtatious. JM told Garcia he was a breast man.

    *Garcia admits she texted a couple of nude photos of herself. She is not proud of this.

    *She will testify that at some point JM began referring to her as “Deep Throat.” Garcia thought he was talking about the pornographic film, but he told her no, he was talking about Watergate.”

    * JM clearly, unequivocally wanted her to provide him with secret information about the jury and what they were thinking.

    * JM asked her questions about what she thought as a juror, and where the jury was leaning, and he asked her about 2 jurors in particular. He told her he didn’t know how to read juror #1.

    * Garcia will testify that Wood also tried to get info out of her, so Wood could relay it to JM. Wood asked questions about the jury, which she then provided to JM.

    * Garcia told JM that she would love to get together with him when the trial was over to “pick his brains.”

    * This invitation by Garcia got back to Wood, who was upset & jealous, and who then stopped communicating with Garcia.

    * Texts between Wood and Rose support what Garcia has said.

    * Garcia will testify that JM kept communicating with her after she sent him the nudes, and didn’t stop until March 5, 2015, the day of the PP2 mistrial.

    * Garcia will testify that JM was clearly using her, that he was clever about it, and went to great lengths to cover his tracks.

    * She will testify that JM didn’t use a smart phone; all communications was by phone call or text.

    * Garcia uses a service that doesn’t retain text or phone call records. Bar Counsel asked her to produce them, but she could not.

    * Garcia is disappointed charges against JM were dismissed, says it’s a boys club, and that Bar Counsel (BC) didn’t do enough to investigate.

    * Garcia says JM lied about his interactions with her, and that once the Bar knew JM had lied to them that he’d only spoken to her once, that should have been enough for the Bar to force JM to produce his phone records. Given the BC didn’t do so, she wonders what else JM “has been able to get away with” during his career as an attorney.

    * Garcia is willing to be a witness for no other reason than because “ right is right and wrong is wrong.”
    ------------
    10. KC insists the Bar has enough evidence to uphold the Garcia charge


    KC: “JM was there when JSS instructed Garcia “not to talk about the evidence she had heard,” but that is exactly what JM tried to do when he got in touch with her, just a few days after she was dismissed."

    (On the Bar’s contention that clear and convincing evidence wasn’t presented: No).

    Bar Counsel was provided enough info to corroborate Garcia’s testimony (and thus the charge): JM’s “ pattern of conduct throughout;” the testimony of Ruiz, Rose, and Clark Wood (Jennifer Wood’s ex-husband); and “ 100% by the Wood-Rose text messages.”***

    “ No more evidence is required, but if Bar Counsel needed it, the least it could have done was to obtain JM’s phone records.”


    (***Note: Neither Ruiz or Jennifer Wood’s ex-husband Clark had ANY knowledge about Melissa Garcia, not even second or third hand via Jennifer Wood).
     
  8. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 6. THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges).

    -------------------------------------------------


    11. From the transcript of Garcia’s interview with KC & her husband/law partner Ralph (after Bar Counsel has interviewed Garcia)


    GARCIA: In the midst of being dismissed I was contacted by Jen Wood. At that time I was pretty upset about being dismissed, and I told Jen the only thing I would really like is to tell the family how sorry I was that I couldn’t finish out the trial. At that moment you know, like I said it just depends on where my mind was at that particular moment. But, you know, I had asked about , you know, speaking with JM to be able to get in touch with the family. She (Wood) said I could call his office, which I did. I didn’t get a response.

    Probably about that time I did an interview with her (for her Trial Diaries blog).

    KC: Why an interview? And why with Jen Wood?

    GARCIA: Because it stuck to to me what she wrote-“god we lost juror 3, the book writer. “ And that she would love to speak to juror 3, to please reach out to her.

    I waited a couple of days, going through all the SM about the trial. Then I told her I would be OK to talk with her.

    She made it very clear she had a thing for him. If you know women, I mean, we’re not exactly shy all the time..

    She was always like, what do you think of JM, what do you think about his style, and it was always about JM, never about Nurmi. And I told her I would like to speak to JM. She told me to call his office. That’s the first thing she ever said to me.

    GARCIA: So after 3-4 days, a week at the most, she reached out to me and gave me JM’s cell phone number. I asked her-how did you get this? She said-I have connections.

    GARCIA: I would love to speak with Juan. I didn’t know that I couldn’t. I wasn’t told that I couldn’t. I was told I was no longer under admonition, that I could speak with anyone I wanted to. That just to be mindful of my peers, you know, who were still serving.

    But I called him, and it sure, sure as s-hit was his cell phone number. I left him a message, and he did call back.

    At first it was a professional conversation. He just said thank you and didn’t ask too much. I told him I’d love to get a message to the family if I could. And that’s when it started.

    GARCIA: “There was text messages,” (which I can’t get from my phone company). “But the text messages kind of turned into flirty conversations. How? I don’t know.”

    “Stuff just transitioned. I don’t know how, honestly. But he’s very clever. “ I think the first thing was, he said (***) had problems with good looking jurors, insinuating I was attractive. “I’m pretty sarcastic, so I may have said something.”

    “And then he said, I’m more of a breast man myself, or something of that nature.”

    GARCIA: “Conversations start to joking..” so eventually ..I am terribly embarrassed and ashamed, but mostly embarrassed to admit, at some point I sent him a couple of nude photographs, “I don’t know if he acknowledged that to the Bar. I think the Bar asked me about it, and that’s when they were like, we were under the impression you had one conversation. “

    I said well like if we had one conversation and I’m sending nude photographs, you know, then there’s an issue, you know, with me. So, no, it wasn’t just one conversation.”

    (…)

    GARCIA: “He referred to me as his Deep Throat (..) the only Deep Throat I know is, you know, the old porn flick. And he said you don’t know what it is? And I said no, and he said, its what they refer to as the informant in Watergate.”

    It seemed like a joke at the time, but hindsight 20/20, when I go back over my conversations with Wood and JM, it definitely makes sense to me that they were in a relationship of sorts, whatever that relationship may be.”

    GARCIA: “So when I would go back and talk to her, she would say so what did he say? What are you guys talking about? Did he flirt with you? You know, all these girlie questions. It wasn’t really about, you know, the trial.”

    Then I said, look if you have something going, just tell me, I don’t care, I just need to know. “I said, but kind of-because I, I think I said something to the nature of, hey-when this is all over, you know, I’d love to, you know, sit down and pick your brains, you know, maybe have, you know, a drink or dinner. That was me saying that, but it wasn’t in a romantic fashion at that time, you know? It was just when this is over, I’d like to pick your brain.

    KC: you’re talking about having dinner with Juan, not Wood? I’m just trying to….

    GARCIA: Right. “When that apparently got back to her, that’s when this whole thing started, you know, it started to make sense, because I didn’t know this until afterwards, obviously, that she was really pissed off about that.

    She quit communicating with me literally like after-when-when the jury hung, she stopped talking to me after she asked for any information I had, if I could get her in touch with any of the other jurors.”

    GARCIA: My name was released to the public by a *** supporter, but I’ll always be convinced that was an inside job, because how would anyone else know me by name, not by juror number? “When I think of the relationship Wood and JM had, it wouldn’t surprise me (if Wood leaked her name to a *** supporter).”

    KC: The photos you texted Juan-did that come at the beginning, middle or end of the conversations you had with JM?

    GARCIA: Somewhere in the middle.

    KC: So he continued to contact you after that?

    GARCIA: “Oh yeah. We continued to have conversation. It wasn’t a whole bunch of them because it was during the trial. Maybe 5.”

    KC: When did the conversations with him end? They started from December 2, 2014 until when?

    GARCIA: Well here’s the bomb. From around that time-it wasn’t immediately afterwards, it was after my interview with Jen….

    KC: Right, right

    GARCIA: But right. “I think the last thing that I even text him was congratulations on your book. But we had stopped communicating -and when I say I talked to him I –via text—the day the jury hung, and that was the last day I talked with him.”

    KC: How many text messages? Hundreds? A dozen? 20? 30?

    GARCIA: “No. and I was probably communicating more, because obviously he’s pretty busy. Like I said, he’s clever. The man-he covers his tracks, what he says. He doesn’t have a smartphone and he told me that.”

    (Transcript of interview skips from page 16 to page 25).

    GARCIA: I didn’t know any better at the time, until you start looking at it and go, d-amn, they were really using me. That’s really messed up. I was in a really vulnerable position when I got dismissed and I think they capitalized on that.

    KC: yeah, I hear you.

    KC: The Bar is saying they don’t have the evidence, so I’m just asking you, is there any other evidence you can tell me about?

    GARCIA: “There isn’t. I wish there was. Like I said, he’s very clever in knowing, you know, that he was never going to have to answer that question truthfully because he knew they couldn’t prove it.”

    KC: yeah.

    (…)

    GARCIA: I told the Bar that what Jen and JM did with me was jury tampering

    KC: yeah.

    (…)

    GARCIA: “I think Jen wants to write a book. I don’t. I didn’t even want to be on that damn jury. I wanted it to be over, even more so when it was over, which is why I didn’t want to talk to Tammy the first time she called me. It was that she started asking basic questions.

    And I was like, Tammy, what’s going on? Blah blah blah. But then she started gearing into questions about juan and I knew d-amn well where it was going.

    RALPH: yeah.

    GARCIA: And initially I didn’t want to talk with her about it. “And then like I said, right is right and wrong is wrong. When I looked at it I said, you know, it’s the right thing to do. I knew when it came out that my name would be splattered in the media again, you know, but what are you going to do?”

    KC: “ When I talked with Bar Counsel in October (2017), he told me he found you very credible. I had no idea you had told him these things until he told me. And he told me he thought they were very compelling and that he intended on going forward with them. I was just as surprised as you , that he would dismiss it after he told me that.”

    “I don’t know why he did not find it sufficient to go forward on because he had certainly told me he would.”

    GARCIA: I was really hoping that it was sufficient enough to make them subpoena (JM’s phone records). “Because his records, I can 110% promise you, will show not only that he is lying, number one, but two, that there’s probably a lot more there that we don’t know about. They need to subpoena his records. I was really hoping for that.”

    KC: Me too.

    GARCIA: I appreciate being told Bar Counsel found me credible, because, " like I said, I’m a lot of things. A liar is not one of them."
     
  9. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part 7. THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges).
    -------------------------------------

    12. KC interview of Tammy Rose, FEBRUARY 13, 2017

    (2nd interview, KC’s first interview of Rose wasn’t recorded. And, according to KC, she had spoken to Rose multiple times during the preparation of the original Bar Complaint).

    --------------------------
    Note the discrepancies in what Garcia said to Rose in 2017, especially about the number of phone calls between JM and Garcia, and most importantly, about whether or not JM solicited information from her about other jurors. Also note Rose’s own observation that Garcia wasn’t being truthful with her about Garcia’s interest in JM, nor the fact that Garcia denied sending JM a nude photo of herself (she sent JM two, actually).

    KC was aware of these discrepancies. Henley, if he read the transcript of Rose’s interview and paid attention, also had to be aware of them (and, he had this transcript in hand BEFORE Garcia was interviewed by Bar Counsel).

    ----------------------------

    KC: Do you know of any women JM was dating during PP2 other than Wood and perhaps Katie Wick?


    ROSE: Well the only thing is when we were talking about juror 3, I had interviewed her after she was dismissed from the case, and she had indicated to me –or said-- that she had heard the rumors about Jen and JM, and that she didn’t care if they were true, that JM was fair game. I didn’t ask her any more questions at that time about JM.

    (Note: the interview took place on January 14, 2015, and it was Wood, not Rose who interviewed her, with Rose filming. Wood shared the interview opportunity with Rose as a favor to ROSE, who had constantly been asking Wood for opportunities to piggyback off Wood’s SM following).

    ROSE: I know Jen and Garcia were talking back and forth, and so Jen was very upset about it, because Garcia was apparently blowing up JM’s phone and she was upset about it. She was worried that they were going to start seeing each other. Jen had told me Garcia had sent JM a naked photo of herself to JM on his cellphone.

    ROSE: I did interview Garcia about this, just to confirm some of the text messages Jen was talking about, and Garcia did admit to talking to JM on his personal cellphone 2 or 3 times before the jury hung.

    She said it was Jen who gave her JM’s number and that she had called him and left a message but that he didn’t answer. She left a message, told him who she was, and then JM called her back a few days later.

    ROSE: I asked her if she had any interest in JM and she said no, I have no interest in Juan, which was a little bit of deception on her part because I had talked with her, and the second time that I met with her, she had expressed an interest in him.

    ROSE: But she denied sending a nude photo to JM. She said that the conversation (singular) was strictly about her telling him she wanted to get a message to the Alexander family, that she felt bad she couldn’t finish the trial.

    ROSE: I asked her if there were any flirtations going on. She said, well JM is a bit of a jokester if you know him, which I don’t know him. She said we were just teasing each other back and forth, about you know, about how she got dismissed.

    ROSE: "And then I asked her, did he ask you about what, you know, she thought of how the jurors were taking information of what side they were going on?"

    "She said no, but he could probably tell by the way I was talking since I really wanted to send a message to the Alexander family."

    ROSE: So again, she just said (Garcia and JM spoke) 2 or 3 times before the jury hung.
     
  10. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part 8. THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges).


    The only mention of Garcia in what’s available of the Wood-Rose texts:



    February 13, 2015. Wood to Rose: “Juror 3 has the hots for Juan.”


    ebruary 28, 2015.

    WOOD: “F-ing Melissa was blowing up my friend’s phone at 8:30 this morning.

    He said he’s stopping it after the verdict. He didn’t answer her calls either. I said I’m worried about her telling anyone about anything he has said, and he said he’s not worried. That he hasn’t said anything to worry about.”

    ROSE: “Well, as soon as verdict comes out he should change his number or do something drastic to shut it down.”
     
  11. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (LAST) THE BAR CHARGES RELATING TO MELISSA GARCIA , PP2 JUROR #3 (related to the larger question of what JM is now accused of misrepresenting/lying about during the Bar investigation of Karen Clark’s (KC) charges).
    --------------

    IMO, Rose’s motivation for “investigating” the leak of 17’s name had nothing to do with her conscience or what KC claims was Rose’s “remorse.” Remorse about what, after all? What Rose was seeking, IMO, was to advance her own interests by breaking a “big story” related to the *** trial.

    That her intentions weren’t what she or KC say they were/are, and that she clearly betrayed a friend and used others in her pursuit of a story, though, isn’t what is most relevant.

    What matters is the credibility and accuracy of the allegations against JM that ROSE brought to the attention of 17’s attorney and to Karen Clark, how Clark used Rose’s information, and ultimately, whether or not JM is guilty of the ethical violations alleged against him.

    That said, it IS difficult to get beyond what IMO is the obvious poison Rose spread in the wake of her “investigation." (Note that it is Rose, for example, who without any evidence whatsoever suggests to Garcia that Wood was responsible for leaking Garcia's name to the media).

    Ditto the cynical willingness of KC to lap up what Rose was telling her, and to later, in her Bar correspondence, to both disregard obvious lies and contradictory statements, and to so wantonly present speculation as fact.

    This final piece, again from KC’s 2017 interview with Rose, IMO provides a pretty good glimpse into the mindsets of both Rose and of KC.

    ------------------------------------------

    TAMMY ROSE TO KC, IN 2017 INTERVIEW.


    ROSE: I didn’t have any personal relationship with juror 3. Jen seemed to be talking with her because they had a shared interest in Juan, and the only thing I got from Jen is that Garcia had sent JM a nude photo to him.

    So in the texts you can see her saying that Garcia has the hots for him. She’s blowing up his phone. She’s really worried that he’ll go for her, that they’ll start seeing each other. I mean, she was panicking. She always panicked and got obsessed and obsessive when she thought another woman was interested in Juan,

    KC: Why would she give Garcia his cell phone number then? And why would 3 have asked Wood for JM’s number?

    ROSE: That’s a very good question, and when Garcia told me that, it just blew me away. I don’t understand why Jen would do that, because, just speculation, wouldn’t she have had to gone to JM to ask his permission?

    ROSE: And the other question I wanted to make sure about when I talked with her (Garcia) was, did you say who you were when you left a message for JM on his cellphone? So I was just surprised that JM had even called her back.

    ROSE: So they had talked 2-3 times. That didn’t make any sense to me either, but then I think Jen was stressing because , you know, she had given the juror, you know, his cellphone number and then she was worried that the juror would say something. That was in her text messages, and you know, she was worried about Garcia having contact with Juan.

    KC: I am still trying to understand why Garcia would go to Jen. Was it common knowledge among the jury that JM and Wood were involved? Why would Garcia even talk to Jen about it, about getting his cellphone number?

    ROSE: You know what? I was flabbergasted by that as well. I don’t understand why Jen would. You know.

    KC: I’m not asking why Jen would give it. I’m asking why 3 would ask Jen for it.

    ROSE: I mean, Jen’s right that 3 had an interest in JM. But I don’t understand why somebody who is having an affair with JM gave him—you know, unless--this is all speculation. Like to me, that just doesn’t make sense other than, I don’t know, maybe Juan asked for the number or he wanted to talk with her?

    That’s the piece of the puzzle that I don’t have. I just know what 3 said to me and that shocked me as well. You know, I didn’t know that a prosecutor was not supposed to have any contact with a juror, even if they were dismissed.

    ROSE: So you know, I don’t---so that’s—and I also asked 3 if she thought her information was leaked online. She was very, very upset.

    Jen was also at the jury selection. None of the mainstream media was there. We don’t have the manpower to send people there all day for jury selection. So Jen was there all day for that, so she got to know who the jurors were a little bit better than I did.

    ROSE: So I don’t know. It crossed my mind she’s the one who got the list and leaked 3’s name. I don’t know. That’s why I wanted this investigation done properly because I was just very concerned on how all these jurors’ names were released online.

    ---------------------------------

    Footnote: How concerned was Tammy Rose about juror leaks?

    March 5, 2015 texts, hours after mistrial/juror 17’s name was leaked:

    ROSE: Did you see (channel) 5 hunt down the holdout’s husband?

    WOOD: yes, lol

    ROSE: So sad, us media hounds

    March 6, 2015

    ROSE: I hate Twitter. Defending myself. Why cuz no sleep and people are pissing me off

    WOOD: What’s their problem?

    ROSE: Saying where is my morals, trying to profit and peddle my DVD, lol.

    ROSE: I just hope the few who ordered them love them and the rest of the Twitter trolls can burn in h-ell.

    (later on March 6TH)

    ROSE: Did he (JM) know that he prosecuted 17’s husband?

    WOOD: They are investigating, but this is bigger.

    WOOD: OMG this juror thing is getting worse.

    WOOD: He only had case for short time and she lied on her questionnaire.

    ROSE: F-uck. She lies then.

    ROSE: Mother f-ucker. So charges will be brought up on her and Arias gets the good life.

    ROSE: I hope they come down hard on her and the defense if they knew

    WOOD: G-od, this may involve Maria.

    ROSE: Yeah, b-itch.

    ROSE: This chick (17) hates the establishment, sheriff Joe, Juan. Well, I hope prison time helps them (17 and her husband, presumably).

    (etc., etc., etc.)
     
  12. salberg7

    salberg7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thank you so very much for researching this H4M. I really didn’t understand all these goings on. I so appreciate it. Keep them coming!
    I still follow this case closely, why, I don’t know. I think because it’s a study in human behavior and hers was diabolical.
    After your explanation I will bet this last complaint will be dismissed as well.
    Curious, what do you think the $12k plus was withdrawn from the appellate fund? I thought that Fund was set up so it couldn’t be used for anything other than the killer’s Appeal but then maybe it was made for legal fees of any sort re: the killer?
    Nice to see you here again!
    I still would love to know how the juror names were leaked and appeared on JAII. Disgusting how that site got away with that.
     
  13. MsJosie

    MsJosie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,478
    Likes Received:
    6,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks Hope for the research and explaining so al of us can understand these words.

    Sure wish the felon would fade into the cement wall and be quiet. The acid bitterness she has will eventually consume her.
     
  14. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here’s a relatively quick (lol) and straightforward evisceration of one of the many outrageous “misstatements” in Karen Clark’s (KC) bar complaint against JM.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Karen Clark (in her appeal of dismissal letter to Bar Counsel; the footnote is KC’s).



    KC: “The Committee needs to know this: two days after (I) submitted the bar charge to Bar Counsel (BC), Tammy Rose began receiving death threats. How could that be?

    The only people who knew the bar complaint had been filed were (myself), Tammy Rose, Bar Counsel, and JM. (I) did not provide a copy of the bar charge to anyone other than Bar Counsel. Tammy Rose did not have a copy of it. It was not in any way made public, and State Bar files are confidential during the investigation stage. So how could this be?

    There is one answer: Jennifer Wood. JM received the bar charge, and Rose will testify that two days later Wood began using her online aliases to harass and threaten Rose. ** This, in itself, provides compelling evidence of the lengths Wood and JM will go, to cover up their affair and what they did in the Arias case.”

    **”Tammy Rose filed a police report concerning these threats. She also emailed Bar Counsel about the threats and provided BC with the police report number.

    -------------

    REALITY CHECK--TIMELINE


    July-August 2015. Rose says “right after our fight” (referring to Wood) she called Kiefer, who “put her in touch” with Tom Ryan, juror 17’s attorney (the leak investigations are over). She turned over her phone (with Rose-Wood texts, IM’s and emails on it) to Ryan’s investigator.

    (Condensed from Rose’s 2017 interview with KC) “I suspected the affair might have something to do with the leak, I confronted her on it, told her I knew she was researching 17 before the jury hung. At that time she was denying it. Now she was lying about it.

    So I did wish her well, but told her I just couldn’t continue with the friendship.”

    (Verbatim): “ I told her I was going to CONTINUE to investigate the leak. I said that I would not lie for her. I said if I was called to testify on it or if I was asked any information , I wasn’t going to lie to her -lie about it- to anyone about it. So I told her my intentions and then I ended the friendship. And that was the last time I talked to her.”


    ---------------------

    March 2016. Rose told Wisconsin LE that harassing texts from Keri Lee (one of Wood’s alleged aliases) began on this date.

    February 11, 2017. Rose told Wisconsin LE she received texts and “at least 2 phone calls” from Keri Lee since this date.

    February 16, 2017. Counsel for the Judicial Branch of Maricopa County replies to 17’s attorney (Tom Ryan/s) public records request for a copy of the Court’s investigation into the leak of 17’s name. (In other words, KC’s bar complaint wasn’t the only possible source of “news” that Rose had acted to try to insert herself into a legal process relating to 17’s leak. And, there is nothing confidential about a public records request).

    February 24. 2017. Date that KC submitted her bar complaint, possibly by email.

    February 26, 2017. The date KC says Rose began receiving death threats from Wood, via her “online aliases. (“Two days after I filed the bar charge….”)


    March 13, 2017. JM first notified of KC’s bar complaint.

    March 15, 2017. The other date KC provides for when Rose began receiving “death threats.”) (“Two days after JM received the bar charge…”)

    ----------------------
    April 10, 2017. Tammy Rose calls Wisconsin LE to report harassment via phone calls and texts from a Keri Lee.


    From the Sheyboygan County Sheriff Report on Rose’s allegations of harassment by Lee:

    “Tammy states she is getting text messages from California and feels (they are being sent by ) the lawyer involved in the complaint. “

    “Tammy states she is a witness in an American Bar Association complaint in AZ. Tammy stated she is a reporter. Tammy gave her phone to the attorney making a complaint against Juan Martinez. She has also ended her friendship with Jen Wood.”

    Since that time, she has received several texts and at least 2 phone calls from a “Keri” listed in her contacts.

    The texts began in March 2016, but since then she has gotten a new phone.

    She has received the texts and at least 2 phone calls on that new phone, since FEBRUARY 11, 2017. She receives a text message approximately once a week. During the 2 phone conversations, nothing is said.

    “(Tammy says) Keri Lee is the pseudonym for someone close to Wood or JM, or is in fact Wood or JM, based upon having information that should only be known in the legal complaint against JM.”

    “It is Tammy’s belief that whoever is calling and texting her is doing so on behalf of either Jen or Juan, since the texts and calls began shortly after Juan would have received his notification of the bar complaint against him. “



    “None of the texts threaten Tammy’s life or anything else, however there is a text that states it would be poor for Tammy’s career if she were to turn over her phone to Jodi Arias’ attorney. “


    Tammy said she wasn’t going to notify LE about the harassment, but that “some of her friends advised her it would be best if she had it reported to local LE in case something happened to her.”

    -----------------------

    So, to summarize:

    1. ROSE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DEATH THREATS, fgs, from Keri Lee, or Wood, or JM, or from anyone else, for that matter.

    2. Rose was constantly fighting with people on SM, getting p-issed off, and blaming everyone but herself for the often juvenile nastiness. She alienated lots of peeps for lots of reasons, and not all related to *** drama.

    In any case, she says herself that the texts from Keri Lee began over a full year before the bar charge was filed, and resumed on February 11, 2017, again, 13 days BEFORE the bar charge was even filed.

    3. For me, the cherry on top of this mountain of unsupported, unsupportable, malicious BS is that super scary text from Lee threatening Rose’s “career” (sorry, but LOL on that) if she were to “turn over her phone to ***’s attorney.” The same text that KC says is “evidence” from KC’s bar complaint that only JM would know was there.

    Really? The text refers to the same phone Rose spoke to Kiefer about in July-August of 2015. The phone Kiefer advised Rose she should speak to Tom Ryan about. The phone from which Ryan extracted Rose’s texts and emails with Jennifer Wood in 2015, or 2016 at the latest, info he used to support his public request to obtain a copy of the Court’s investigation into the 17 leak.

    Pffft. Just how dumb and/or oblivious would Jennifer Wood and/or JM have to be to NOT have known for almost 2 YEARS that Rose had already turned that phone over?

    4. Good thing KC helpfully pointed Bar Counsel via a foot note to the very appendix he would need, the Sheriff’s report, to realize in about 2 minutes that KC’s accusation of JM’s involvement in “death threats” against Rose was not just BS, but BS that was wild, genuinely reckless, and UNETHICAL.
     
    Niner, kimpage, salberg7 and 4 others like this.
  15. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,862
    Likes Received:
    8,560
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So happy to see you, Hope! And thank you so much for this treasure trove of info, and for distilling it down to the crux of the matter(s)!

    I was going to e-mail you this morning to see how you were but thought first I'd check here to see if you'd been about, and look what I found, not only had you been here but shredded KC's whole batch of baloney with your razor-sharp intellect. I wish I could send your synopsis on to those looking into this, they'd toss out every charge in seconds.

    I think MG sounds like a woman scorned (actually, just one who didn't get anything she wanted, even though she debased herself in her attempts) and now wants to help discredit JM because she's been exposed.

    I have nothing nice to say about TR either, she left much to be desired as a "reporter" (I pasted her tweets here, I remember well), the name she's making for herself post trial is probably not one she's after, or will wear with pride, but she's working hard to earn it.

    I wish Jen and her daughter well with their current battle, she's got a lot of strength to get through all that's going on.

    JM, well...you da man, fight the good fight, truth does triumph.

    Hope - never leave us! :)
     
    Cinnalauda, Niner, kimpage and 2 others like this.
  16. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A quick hello, and a promise that replies to questions & comments will follow. :)
     
  17. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 1. THE SECOND AREA OF THE ORIGINAL BAR INVESTIGATION POSSIBLY RELATING TO THE BAR’S PROBABLE CAUSE ORDER (1st area related to juror 3): KC’S DIRECT ACCUSATION THAT JM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTTING OF JUROR 17.


    (KC uses this accusation as a 3fer: a stand- alone accusation against JM of outright criminality; as part of a larger charge that JM divulged confidential AND sealed material to both Katie Wick and to Jennifer Wood; and as a separate allegation that JM had an ethical obligation to divulge his alleged affair with Wood to JSS and to the DT during PP2, as well as to post-PP2 investigators of the 17’s name leak.

    I’ve focused primarily on the foundational element of this charge against JM: is there any evidence that JM leaked 17’s name or other sealed info about 17 to Jennifer Wood? What actual proof/evidence is there that JM asked Wood to help him try to get juror 17 removed from the PP2 jury?)

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    (reposting: ) STATE BAR STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROBABLE CAUSE ORDER

    “The state Bar intends to file a complaint alleging that Mr. Martinez violated (rules of professional conduct)..by knowingly making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (and) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

    ----------------------------------------------

    THE REPLY BELOW IS JM’S ONLY RESPONSE TO THIS CHARGE. IF JM GAVE A “FALSE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT” RELATING TO 17, IT IS IN THIS REPLY, AS IS, MOST LIKELY, ANY FALSE STATEMENT BY JM ABOUT HIM ALLEGEDLY DIVULGING CONFIDENTIAL/SEALED MATERIAL TO KATIE WICK OR TO JENNIFER WOOD

    ---------------------------

    April 24, 2017. First reply by JM/Atty Rhodes to Bar Counsel Henley.

    (refers to 6 charges, including these relevant 2):

    1. The allegation that JM disclosed confidential, sealed, information to Ms. Wick and Ms. Wood

    2. That JM, with Wood’s help, “conducted improper internet research concerning juror 17, and that JM filed the motions to strike 17 for an improper purpose.”

    -------

    JM’S REPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS (condensed):

    “Mr. Martinez denies (all) these allegations.”

    Further, he denies that he revealed confidential/sealed material to anyone not authorized by MCAO to receive that info; denies that he gave access to his Arias file to any 3rd (ie, non-MCAO ) parties; denies that he used or attempted to use any 3rd parties to reveal confidential or sealed info to the public, or to otherwise violate any court order. And, he denies that he used, or attempted to use, any 3rd parties to assist him in his prosecution of the Arias case.

    (Further,) JM filed 2 motions that sought to strike 17 in good faith, “based on evidence suggesting that 17 had violated the admonition by watching and reading media about the case. JM specifically denies that he, or to his knowledge, anyone under his direction had anything to do with leaking 17’s identity to the media.”

    Footnote by Rhodes: “(JM) had a team of highly trained investigators at his disposal throughout the Arias case. There was, therefore, no reason to solicit any outside help, much less from someone who Arias admits was not qualified for the job.” ***

    The investigation concerning juror 17 was conducted by detectives with the Mesa Police Department.”

    ***(Rhodes is alluding to KC and Tammy Rose’s denigrating Wood for being a “pseudo-journalist,” rather than a “real” journalist like Rose).

    -------------------------------------------------
    ((Rhodes also writes that “nearly all the (bar) charge consists of some level of hearsay, and that the bulk of the hearsay is premised on statements to Rose by Wood: the same woman Ms. Rose says is a liar.”))
     
    GarAndTeed, Niner, kimpage and 2 others like this.
  18. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part 2: (On the outing 17 /releasing confidential and/or sealed charge: )
    Relevant info from the Bar dismissal letter, Clark’s appeal, and Clark's 2017 interview of Tammy Rose


    ----------

    From Henley’s Bar dismissal of charges letter to JM (January 2018)

    The second allegation is that you disseminated confidential or sealed information to members of the media. Although there is an allegation that you revealed confidential information from a sealed hearing before that hearing was made public, the evidence does not support that allegation. Likewise, there is not clear and compelling evidence that you were the one who revealed the sealed identity of a juror, since many others had access to that information.”

    -------------------------------------------------

    From Karen Clark’s appeal of the dismissal (February 2018)


    KC: “Bar Counsel (BC) takes the position that it can’t be proven that JM was responsible for the outing of 17, that her identity could have been learned by court personnel, family members, and others authorized to attend the sealed hearings of March 3-5. BC therefore takes the position that any of these people could have leaked this information to Jennifer Wood.

    In order to prosecute JM for leaking 17’s name to Wood, BC doesn’t need to prove that JM was responsible for the outing of juror 17, only that JM was responsible for leaking the identity of 17 to Jennifer Wood.”

    BC takes the position that Wood lied to Rose on March 3 about JM needing her help, that she was lying when she told Rose it was JM who asked her to dig up dirt on 17, that Wood received the sealed info on 17 from someone other than JM, that Wood may well have asked Rose to help her dig up dirt, but that Wood could well have been lying to Rose when she said it was JM who asked.

    Rose will testify that it was JM who leaked 17’s name to Wood on the night of March 3, and that JM asked for Wood’s help. Her testimony about what happened that night will be corroborated by Clark Wood.

    Clark Wood will testify that his (note: EX) wife was involved in investigating juror 17 for JM, that Wood was up late at night working on their son’s laptop to help JM investigate 17, that his wife bragged to him that she had helped JM with holdout juror 17, and that he knew she was involved and had confronted her about it, asking her: what would you have done if they had voted to kill that girl?

    Clark Wood said that JM and ex-wife Wood had covered for each other during the investigation into the juror 17 leak, and that they both “falsified evidence, lied, and committed perjury.”

    ------
    From February 2017 KC interview of Tammy Rose by Karen Clark


    ROSE: (I know for sure of 2 times that JM gave Wood sealed information. One related to ***’s private investigator leaving, and the other was about juror 17).

    “Two days before trial ended, she told me there was a holdout juror. Let me look again at my texts. Yeah. So, she says I have to text my friend. (Note: this is a lie). That’s JM. And then I say we can’t roll, this is a juror question, so right now that’s what it sounds like.”

    “I’m in the media room and then what she texts me, from her source, is that they leaning towards the DP. She was either going to get life or the DP, and then she’s texting me what happened, and that’s Juan. Then the PIO says, again, we can’t (video) jury questions.”

    “These jury questions were not read in public. They were read in a sealed hearing. So none of the media members had this info, and she texted me, it is one person who refuses to deliberate or to look at pics or evidence.”


    "Later that evening, we had been playing phone tag, (this is also a flat-out lie: Rose’s own phone logs reveal there were NO such calls) and I called her back, and she was just giving me the information that she had-and she said that Juan-I don’t know if she called Juan or Juan called her, but Juan told her there was a holdout juror and asked her if she could find some dirt on this juror so he could get her removed. And she asked me if I could help her, and at that point, that was a line I just couldn’t cross…something I could never do…so she never gave me the name. I never asked.”

    KC: What kind of investigation, exactly could she do, did she do?

    ROSE: “Well, I think that since-this is, well, part opinion. I mean, she said she was researching the Facebook page. Well, I know there was a sealed hearing. I believe, if I can remember the document, that there were 3 juror questions, one relating to a juror saying 17 had watched a bit of a movie about ***..”

    ROSE: (No, Wood never told me exactly what she was researching, maybe something about the Law of Attraction. I know Wood was already investigating 17 when we spoke on the phone around 7:30 that night [March 3}.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  19. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part 3. THE REALITY CHECK/DECIDE FOR YOURSELF TIMELINE OF MARCH 3, 2015, PART ONE, FROM AM THROUGH AROUND 5PM.

    (Sources: Maricopa Superior Court Minute Entries; Bar Complaint material--including Rose/Wood texts and phone call logs; and David Lohr’s PP2 video of the March 4, 2015 sealed hearing; common sense and applied logic).

    ----------------------------------

    March 3, 2015. The 5th day of PP2 jury deliberations.


    9:26AM. The jury begins deliberations for the day.

    At some point in the AM, before noon, JSS receives 2 “questions” from the jury.

    The first (question 6) was from the foreman, stating he and other jurors believed juror 17 was refusing to deliberate, and that she had improperly brought up and that she had watched parts of the Lifetime movie about ***, “Dirty Little Secrets,” suggesting bias and perhaps lack of disclosure during voir dire. The 2nd (question 5) note was from juror 17, complaining she was being bullied by other jurors.

    12:00PM (approx.). JSS gives JM and the DT one hour to research and propose a response to each of the juror “questions.”

    12:06PM. Rose calls Wood to ask her to identify someone in the courtroom. Wood texts her it’s a *** supporter.

    12:37PM. Rose texts Wood to ask if Jodi “would say something to somebody to come” (a family member, if a verdict was imminent).

    12:41. Wood replies yes, that “Maria would text them” for ***.

    1:11PM. Court reconvenes, for a sealed hearing relating to how to respond to juror questions (“The Court later conferred with counsel and determined impasse instructions would be the appropriate response).

    From 3/5/15 Court minutes (no time is provided, but by inference, it is likely in this hearing), JSS notes she’s obtained a copy of 17’s jury questionnaire, that 17 HAD disclosed on it that she had watched parts of the *** movie, and that she was therefore not going to dismiss 17).

    1:18. Court at recess.

    1:24. ROSE: hey you think this will be hung or leaning towards death and they will need to be relieved of moral judgement?

    1:26. WOOD: Yes, leaning towards DP. Too hard to get a lifer to go to DP.

    1:26PM. WOOD: Ugghhh.

    1:26. WOOD: It will be hung in the end

    1:33PM. WOOD: I got the scoop. I will tell you later.

    1:34. ROSE: what I’m getting is that they are at an impasse and judge told them to go back and try harder, but Nurmi said to not change because of your moral belief

    1:35. WOOD: that’s true

    1:35. WOOD: He texted me what happened.

    1:35. ROSE: I won’t tweet. What?

    1:37PM. WOOD: It’s one person who refuses to deliberate or look at pics or evidence. ***

    (Note: ***THIS IS THE WHOLE ENCHILADA OF KC'S "PROOF" THAT JM LEAKED SEALED INFO ABOUT JUROR 17 DURING THE DAY OF MARCH 3.

    Also note: nothing in the court minutes relating to the content of the foreman’s note says anything about 17 refusing to “look at photos or the evidence. “ What he said, speaking for the jury as a whole, was that 17 refused to explain her reasoning about anything, including her vote for life rather than for the DP.

    What Wood WAS accurate about is the not yet public fact that the jury had a single holdout juror. Only JSS, counsel, Alexander family members, and court staff who had been in chambers during one of the mornings huddles/sealed meeting should have been privy to that info.

    Choices: Wood guessed and was right; JM or someone else on that short list gave her garbled info, but got the crucial detail of a sole holdout right; JM or someone else gave her good info, and Wood garbled all but the crucial detail; OR…Wood or someone she was in touch with saw court minutes from this first hearing that should have been sealed but weren’t, just like everything in the second hearing later in the day, including a copy of 17’s Facebook page, should have been sealed, but wasn’t).
    -----------------
    1:40 PM. Court reconvenes. The jury is present. JSS reads the impasse instruction to jury.

    The 2 jury “questions “ and JSS’s impasse instructions to the jury are electronically filed by the Court.

    (Note: no mention in the Court Minutes of JSS ordering that the questions or the instructions were/were to be sealed).

    1:42PM. Court stands at recess. (The jury is back to deliberating).

    2:15PM. Court reconvenes with counsel, etc. no jury. (Note: For 3 whole minutes. It’s possible JSS may have been checking with JM about the status of his Motion to Strike).

    2:18PM. Court stands at recess.

    2:42PM. Detective Flores is looking at/printing out juror #17’s Facebook page for the first time. This will be the FB page JM uses to argue to JSS, at some point before 4:00PM or so, that 17 should be struck from the jury for violating the admonition.

    (The sealed hearing about 17’s FB page (thus violation of the admonition not to read/discuss/research about the trial, etc. took place before JSS began meeting with jurors at 4:15.

    JSS ordered that JM’s Motion to Strike, court minutes of the hearing itself, and 17’s FB page all be sealed, but for whatever reason, that didn’t happen. All the information from all these sources was accidentally left open to the public for several days).

    4:15PM. Jury concludes deliberations for the day. JSS, with counsel and Alexander family present, interview jurors one by one afterwards.
     
  20. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TIMELINE OF MARCH 3, CONTINUED,
    AND KC & HUSBAND RALPH’S INTERVIEW OF CLARK WOOD, JENNIFER WOOD’S EX-HUSBAND, CONDUCTED AFTER THE BAR CHARGE AGAINST JM WAS DISMISSED.


    ----------------

    5:06PM. Text, Rose to Wood: Any news?

    5:08. WOOD. No.

    6:00PM. JM and Detective Flores are scouring juror 17’s Facebook page together (this info is from 3/4/15 Motion to Reconsider video), and notice at 6:00PM that 17 has been on her page that day, March 3, at some point between Flores printing out her page earlier, before 3PM, and 6PM).

    6:17PM. ROSE. You sounded so good on radio. U rock.

    6:17 ROSE: Tell Cathy I only interview reporters or credible sources.

    6:31. WOOD: I wanna hear

    6:31. WOOD: lol

    6:31. WOOD: will it come on again?

    (No reply from Rose. About an hour passes)

    7:29PM. Rose calls Wood. Wood does not call Rose. There is no game of “phone tag” before this call. They speak for 8 minutes. This is the only phone call between them on the night of March 3.

    This, then, is the only possible time for the conversation Rose told KC she had with Wood on the night of the 3rd, during which Wood told Rose that JM had contacted her to ask for her help in “digging up dirt on 17 to get her kicked off the jury," and had given Wood 17’s name, and during which Wood described 17 to Rose as the woman juror with curly hair who was always late getting to court.

    It is also the only possible time for the conversation KC said had begun with Wood calling Rose to ask for Rose’s help in digging up that dirt, Rose refusing to help because she felt horror about Wood being involved in something so unethical, and that she, Rose, wanted no part of it. (KC wrote in the original bar complaint that Rose said Wood called her to help because she was a real journalist and Wood was not).

    7:37PM. Phone call between Rose-Wood ends.

    8:16PM. ROSE: Yes, and I just retweeted yr 3 story because u be so hot :)

    8:16. ROSE: I’m the only one who used Chris so far lol

    8:28. WOOD: Haha

    8:28. WOOD: Yay!

    8:28. WOOD: U are the best. They just don’t appreciate u

    8:29. ROSE: Hope fat Cathy saw it, lol

    8:35. WOOD: Hahaha

    8:35PM. WOOD: Fat chatty Cathy

    8:36PM. ROSE Just because I hate her, I’m putting my opinion on record. I’m not a follower like her, lol

    8:37PM. ROSE: As long as it doesn’t hang, I’m good

    8:37PM. WOOD: Omg, we have to get a verdict

    8:37PM. WOOD: Yeah because he’s god

    8:37PM. ROSE: Gold idiot (Jeffrey Gold) is on record with a hung jury

    9:58PM. ROSE: Any chance of this ending tomorrow?

    (Note: Rose says this was her way of asking if Wood had found the dirt JM hoped she would. KC says Rose “knew” trial couldn’t end the next day if juror 17 was kicked off the jury. {oh?}

    (Note: Wood and Rose didn’t communicate at all between 8:37 and 9:58PM ).

    10:02PM. WOOD: I couldn’t help. I was bummed. So maybe.

    Note: KC's "proof" that Wood had been doing the research on 17 asked her to do).

    10:02PM. ROSE: Unless they sway her the other way. It could happen.

    (Note: A key part of the “proof” JM had indeed outed juror 17 to Wood after court on March 3rd, says KC, is that earlier in the day Wood hadn’t referred to the holdout juror as a woman when texting Rose, but in these evening texts Wood now used the pronoun “she.” Can’t help but notice, though, it is ROSE who first refers to the holdout juror as a she).

    10:02PM. WOOD: Yes, and maybe this has scared the s-hit out of her.

    10:02PM. WOOD: She was brought into chambers.

    (Note: JSS’s questioning of jurors after deliberations ended wasn’t public info, but neither would the basic fact that the questioning (versus specific questions asked) had happened have been a secret within the courthouse. )

    10:02PM. ROSE: Lol, cuz judge said go back

    10:03PM. WOOD: I can’t say anymore

    10:03PM. ROSE: No prob. Just don’t want hung

    10:04PM. WOOD: Me either

    10:04PM. ROSE: and I can’t keep this schedule up. I cut Juan down to 15 minutes

    10:05. WOOD: Oh OK. (last communication on the 3rd between Wood and Rose)
    -------------------------------------------

    Footnote relating to whether or not Wood even knew 17’s identity on March 3, much less “researched” her:

    Text exchange between Rose and Wood on March 5, after the mistrial, 11:57AM.

    ROSE: What number was the hold out juror?

    WOOD: I don’t know.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    KC’s interview with Clark Wood, Jennifer Woods’ ex-husband, and the witness KC tells the Bar in her appeal letter who will corroborate Rose’s testimony that JM outed 17 to Wood on the night of March 3 , and on the same night, asked for her help finding dirt on 17.

    (Note: then transcript of this interview is difficult to read, it is that pathetical & awful).


    KC: are you aware of her helping JM on either of those two nights that the holdout juror was holding out before the mistrial was declared? Are you aware of any work she was doing for him related to that?

    CW:” I don’t know this—I know what was going on and that’s what was going on. And whatever she-you know, I -I don’t know what she was doing. But yeah, she was involved. She was, you know, all with that. I just remember saying to her later, it’s like, you know, what if that girl would have voted yes? It was a lady, right?”

    We wouldn’t be talking about what we’re talking about now, we’d be talking about attempted murder. “You’re trying to get somebody killed that you know doesn’t -you know. I’m sorry. I use bad words because I don’t know the law. I don’t do legal speak. That’s why I have to be careful, because I tell the truth. And that gets me in trouble, and I can’t-I can’t get in trouble over these cockroaches. “

    Ralph: can you explain to me what you mean by attempted murder?

    CW: “Well, if you’re falsifying information and you’re doing the things the court has accused them, or him, of doing to try to get somebody put to death so you can get on TV and write a book and make profit, I know… Let me retract that word murder because it’s not used in court.

    In a non-court situation when somebody is trying to get someone killed and falsifying and lying and committing perjury and trying to get someone killed for their profit, that’s the-that’s the sum that I come with in the end.”

    Ralph. OK. That helps me understand what you are thinking.

    Ralph: can you tell me more about what you said, you know, about them committing perjury, lying, things like that? What were they doing?

    CW: “Well, they were definitely-when she was accused of leaking the juror’s name and the covering up of the-accusation covering up evidence. And just generally not-I mean, come on-I saw enough on TV to know that girl (***) had some problems. And everyone knows that boy exploited her problems. And then what they put on TV, why let it go? Because you got naked pictures of her. Nobody else would have got drug through all that without the naked pictures and all that smut that just-you know.”

    KC: I need to bring you back (Note: I bet, LOL).

    CW: (Keeps rambling on and on, finishing up with his opinion that the judge wouldn’t have allowed “it” (who knows)” if there wasn’t a media payoff in the end”).

    KC: (Moves on to Tammy Rose, and Rose’s account of JM outing 17 to Wood the night of the 3rd, that Wood asked for Rose’s help around 5 or 6 PM, and then, that Wood spent hours into the evening doing research, until after 10PM.)

    KC asks CW-is this your knowledge of what happened that night?

    CW: (stutters out multiple partial sentences of vague, general, nonresponsive words, but in between, says: )

    “The specifics of what she was doing, I don’t know. But it was an issue, and the, you know, it just kept -that was the issue, the holdout juror. And yeah, she was arguing about the holdout juror and this and that, and I don’t know the specifics of what she was doing, but yeah, the holdout juror kept going around and around in that conversation. And somehow was a big-that’s when they all-you know, her and Tammy Rose and everybody, there was a big blowup. “

    And that’s what Tammy told me. (..) But I don’t know specifics. But I know they were working on that-the holdout juror. And that’s when they came back and said no.”

    KC tries one last time: “So are you saying it’s your memory that-- I know you don’t know the specifics of what she was doing, and at the time you didn’t know it was improper. But do you know that at that time she was making efforts to research 17, and that she was doing that to help JM?"

    CW: “Yeah. I can’t say the extent of the research, I mean, she was up and working, and that was the issue. But I didn’t look into her research on that or know how far she went with it, but-I don’t know about the date.”

    “But when that was going on , with the holdout juror, she was staying up and doing a lot of stuff. I didn’t follow her to see exactly what she was doing, but she was somehow-yeah, there was a lot of conversation and a lot of work going on. And I-you know. By that time she had started going down to the Safeways and using other computers. I think she used my son’s laptop a lot. And there were a lot of texts going on that I didn’t look into.”

    (..) “I mean, when everyone standing there is telling you that, I mean, the forest for the trees, you don’t actually go out into the forest and inspect the tree. Yeah, no reason not to believe what people are telling you. And yeah, that’s what they were telling me, and it seemed to be what was going on at the time, and you know.”

    I was down at the hospital with my mother. I wasn’t really dealing with that. “ (Note: he wasn’t even in the house on March 3??)

    "And by that time she was bragging she was helping him with his book and stuff. But about this holdout juror-they were all arguing…I really didn’t get involved. I mean, everything she is saying is a lie.”

    -------------------------------------------
    (((Dear lord. Can you imagine (the entirely theoretical situation of) Clark Wood surviving one minute on the stand anywhere, much less being cross examined by an even dim-witted attorney, much less by anyone JM hired to represent him? ))
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
    GarAndTeed, Niner, kimpage and 2 others like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice