Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[LinTX]

Oh OK .. could be an interesting day then?

I find it hard to believe they weren't asked if they were familiar or had past dealings with any of the attorneys, but maybe we'll find out? Not going to assume we will be told a thing though...

 

[ElleElle]

What would you do if it were your name and you were suddenly very unpopular with hundreds (maybe thousands) of strangers on social media who are posting threatening things?

I would stand up for myself and explain why I voted the way I did.

 

[ShadyLady]

conviction. Juan as prosecutor was never mentioned. I have to believe BK would have noted it if it was disclosed, as, to a lawyer especially, the fact that a prospective juror had a family member incarcerated by the prosecutor in the present case, would be pretty darn noteworthy.

One thing is for sure, if you are going to lie or be underhanded it behooves you to stay OFF social media...imo. LOL

Dumb as rocks.

Now this family will be under the watchful eye of prosecutors and LE forevermore.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm also waiting for Troy Hayden to confirm or otherwise, that Juror #17 posted on the 'Jodi is Innocent forum' on 11th March 2013, on a thread titled 'Has the Government proved Murder One........

Jodi is innocent site posted all names of jurors except juror 17. I would like to see juror 17 in jail with Jodi. What friends they could be. I think juror 17 was a plant. I wonder.

 

[MeeBee]

conviction. Juan as prosecutor was never mentioned. I have to believe BK would have noted it if it was disclosed, as, to a lawyer especially, the fact that a prospective juror had a family member incarcerated by the prosecutor in the present case, would be pretty darn noteworthy.

Monica Lindstrom also did not have anything in her notes about it. Only that she had a family member who'd been incarcerated.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Oh OK .. could be an interesting day then?

To think I was going to withdraw until April 13th. Now? Not on your nelly!

 

[Amster]

Are we sure the names posted on the killer site were actually names of the jurors? Maybe a prank to get more hits to the site? I don't even know how that works....

 

[Cortne]

Ok, well then how about instant you get what you give?
Seems like a good plan to me.

jmo

I also think the death penalty should be abolished. There must be another sentence that would serve the purpose of making sure the criminal can never hurt anyone else.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

For those that want to "move on", I totally understand. So, please understand that for many, "moving on" isn't a choice we choose. JA hasn't been sentenced yet. Personally, speaking only for myself, I'm fully capable of enjoying my life, spending time with my family, going outdoors or not, keeping up with local and national news, etc., etc. I choose to pay attention to what is happening in this case. When and if I "move on" is entirely up to me.

ITA!

It sort of reminds me of some FB commenters. Many will come in and say 'why are you still talking about this' or 'who cares, its over.' yet there they are posting their negatives and keeping up with what is being said by others. Sometimes I wonder if they realize how foolish they appear.

Anyone that wants to move on should do so and I don't see anyone trying to stop them.

But for others who do not want to move on...they certainly are entitled to their own decision making and are very capable of making those decisions.

I really find those words (move on) quite distasteful.

Everyone should be allowed to move on at THEIR own pace whether it is the grieving Alexander family or the many thousands of online posters that has kept up with this case going on 7 years.

It isn't unusual for particular cases to be discussed way after they are over. Some go on for years or even over a decade right here.

Travis has touched my heart deeply. I will be right here until JAs sentence is handed down and may even remain after then although I usually do move on after that.

 

[Love Never Fails]

One thing is for sure, if you are going to lie or be underhanded it behooves you to stay OFF social media...imo. LOL

Dumb as rocks.

Now this family will be under the watchful eye of prosecutors and LE forevermore.

Fox 10 news has confirmed JM prosecuted her ex. They were married day before sentencing. She had an agenda. The jurors said she had an agenda! They must be sick. Prosecutors should seek new trial based on this juror. State didn't pay for trial people. County did under a special budget.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I wonder if facebook chat was used to communicate with anyone close to the case [MDLR]?? Or relation?

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

BBM: I sure hope that Juan has screenshots, etc., of ALL of Maria's Social Media accounts when she started all her "hoopla" on social media !

Her activities on social media seriously warrants an immediate investigation and subpoenas should be issued.

Her Tweets and FB Posts were the equivalent of what "high school girls" post on SM -- NOT that of a so-called professional.

JMO !

 

[JSR]

This is purely my take but I am convinced that the decision to conduct this retrial in a veritable blanket of secrecy (everything from the most innane to the very important) is ultimately responsible for the media and the public's determination to go to such great lengths to get information on everything case related. If everything had been handled out in the open (hell, even if rational discretion had been applied to what genuinely warranted the secrecy) there would not be the extreme distrust about what is being hidden.

I agree. Completely agree. The distrust of what has gone on with this case is squarely upon JSS shoulders with all of the ridiculous secrecy. Courts should be public for good reason.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Are we sure the names posted on the killer site were actually names of the jurors? Maybe a prank to get more hits to the site? I don't even know how that works....

Confirmed today by Fox 10 news in Phoenix.

 

[Amster]

Only if the state asked that question and she denied it. But, I'm not sure she was under oath during voir dire or not.

So....it was just a little lie?

 

[sammie]

Anyone want to believe the DEFENSE Team didn't know this, at least some point during the trial????

I'm not sure if they knew of the connection between her ex-husband and JM as prosecutor...but here's why I do think they MAY have known this juror may have been pro-Jodi...

if the rumors are true about her Facebook page and yes, a couple journalists tweeted it yesterday (so I hope its ok to post), her likes on her Facebook page were The Secret, and the Laws of Attraction, well I recall the DT raising a big stink about jurors/potential jurors and their social media accounts, even filed some motion or brought it up in court. I would bet they checked them all out in as the trial was progressing to get any removed for any signs of misconduct. After all the DT is the one who raised the stink after seeing Juror #17 was going to be on Dr Drew, and she was asked to stay behind (reported by BethK). It turned out that Dr Drew was interviewing Juror #17 from the GUILT PHASE, but the DT was all over that like white on rice.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I agree with what you are saying, but I am not going to hold my breath that it will occur with this particular individual. Just a gut feeling.

MSCO IS investigating. So are some news media folks.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Think of those 11 jurors yesterday, and the emotions they felt in their audio interview afterwards..............

They felt she had an "agenda"

Can you imagine how they are feeling today, now learning about this about Juror #17?

After all they went through for 5 months, as they said...family, job, etc sacrifices, etc.............it was doomed to fail the whole time, if she was one of the sitting 12 jurors.

Wow.

All of this negative information about #17 will validate their feelings about her being a stealth juror.

They will know they were right, imo.

They all knew something was wrong very early into deliberations. Its hard to fool 11 people.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I'm not sure if they knew of the connection between her ex-husband and JM as prosecutor...but here's why I do think they MAY have known this juror may have been pro-Jodi...

if the rumors are true about her Facebook page and yes, a couple journalists tweeted it yesterday (so I hope its ok to post), her likes on her Facebook page were The Secret, and the Laws of Attraction, well I recall the DT raising a big stink about jurors/potential jurors and their social media accounts, even filed some motion or brought it up in court. I would bet they checked them all out in as the trial was progressing to get any removed for any signs of misconduct. After all the DT is the one who raised the stink after seeing Juror #17 was going to be on Dr Drew, and she was asked to stay behind (reported by BethK). It turned out that Dr Drew was interviewing Juror #17 from the GUILT PHASE, but the DT was all over that like white on rice.

If the DT did discover, during trial, that she 'knew' Juan, would they be duty bound as Officers of the Court to advise JSS of potential bias? So many questions!

 

[Amster]

Confirmed today by Fox 10 news in Phoenix.

Guess I was grasping at straws....should have known those <unusual people> including Maria would be on the slime highway. Thanks

 

[Madeleine74]

They do ask that question during voir dire. They ask if you know anyone from the prosecutor's office.

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/de...riminal).pdf

She could have properly and truthfully answered "no" as she may not have known or ever met Martinez. Perhaps she didn't even know or remember his name from the ex-husband's case 15 years ago. That wouldn't be a lie (if she doesn't know anyone from the DA's office), but it also doesn't elicit all the info they need to determine prior impact from that office on a potential juror.