Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[Mrs G Norris]

The abuse? According to BK? Really? So Beth had crept inside of the deliberation room unnoticed and saw what was happening?

If this stealth juror was abused she would have been wailing to her BFF JSS about it everyday.

If anyone abused their duty it was #17.

Trying to get a juror to engage in the discussion and deliberate isn't abuse.

I am glad I did not contribute to BKs site because that way I don't have to read her ridiculous speculations and personal opinions about this case.

I am sure she was floored that 11 wanted death since she seem to like putting Juan down every chance she got while building KN up.

Yeah I have to agree there, I actually think this was a calculated revenge on Juan .. that juror just got 'lucky' enough to be selected on a case that meant a lot to him, she must have thought it was karma or something when she realised she had been chosen for the final 12 and a hung jury meant he'd essentially lose this part of his case.

 

[Nana46]

I must be dense...what does Monday you *advertiser censored* mean?

 

[Jmoose]

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.

I would absolutely know the name of the prosecutor of a man I was marrying-but maybe that's just me

 

[SuzDuJour]

Ff

Inviting outside contact or alluding to "private" additional information:

“Inviting” is termed as a post where you invite other members to contact you to find out more information, rather than post it in the forum. This is not allowed and any posts with emails or invitations to contact for more information will either be edited or deleted entirely. This includes use of the Private Message system via comments such as “Check your PMs” or “PM me” posted in discussion threads. Think about it - it's like whispering into someone's ear while you are at a table full of other people. If you want to have a private conversation just have it, don't announce it. Additionally, please don't drop hints or post on the board that you know something or are privy to inside information but you won't or can't post it.
If you can't post it, don't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

Sorry, Lambie...

 

[WhoaIsMe]

It's true, BK confirmed it and said Juror 17 was asked about it in Voir Dire .. no idea why she wasn't scratched right then and there since everyone knew.

WTH? Why didn't they just take all the money spent on this retrail , put it in a big pile and light it on fire right then. Could have saved the Alexander's from the heartache and frustration of months of slime.

 

[RadarLuv]

But the problem is that I think some WOULD rather post the information on the forum, but you'd likely delete it, so I am not really sure what to do sometimes. .

Inviting outside contact or alluding to "private" additional information:

“Inviting” is termed as a post where you invite other members to contact you to find out more information, rather than post it in the forum. This is not allowed and any posts with emails or invitations to contact for more information will either be edited or deleted entirely. This includes use of the Private Message system via comments such as “Check your PMs” or “PM me” posted in discussion threads. Think about it - it's like whispering into someone's ear while you are at a table full of other people. If you want to have a private conversation just have it, don't announce it. Additionally, please don't drop hints or post on the board that you know something or are privy to inside information but you won't or can't post it.
If you can't post it, don't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

 

[ShadyLady]

Oh dear - I'm missing the point of that quote. Enlighten me?

#17's post was intended for Juan. Revenge.

Mine is intended that #17 will get back the carp she pulled x100.

 

[TartLemon]

speaking only for myself but my issue is not with her vote. I will defend her right to vote her conscience all day long. I am bothered, though, by the fact that her convictions are strong enough to hang a jury but not strong enough to publicly defend. Stand up. Shout it from the roof tops. Argue. Disagree. Whatever it takes but for Gods sake, explain what it is that caused you to vote the way you did. Without that, she looks bad.

The jurors owe us no explanation. There duty was done with the verdict. I found it a bit appalling the other jurors were publicly speaking about her like they were. It was not their place to do so.

 

[Madeleine74]

Does BK mention what abuse the juror is referring to? We heard the video of the jurors and I don't remember any one of them describing them being abusive. They tried to ask her to explain and she refused. It sounds as if most of them were frustrated with her because she refused to deliberate. But I don't recall any of the 11 claiming another juror was abusive to J17. The judge told them to go back and deliberate and come to a unanimous decision. That clearly was an instruction from the judge to J17.

BK is referring to the Domestic Violence abuse J#17 has in her background.

 

[Boytwnmom]

you can only put so much faith in what's on twitter. MSM is going to want to see the actual info.

I think because the information was only posted on personal websites, not on MSM until Troy Hayden made it "official'....

 

[SuzDuJour]

I must be dense...what does Monday you *advertiser censored* mean?

It's actually a t-shirt/sweatshirt that means Monday, you suck as a day...however, I get the connection if it was posted in reference to Monday being the day she expected the jury to hang because of her...and the B-word possibly meaning JM.

 

[LinTX]

The abuse? According to BK? Really? So Beth had crept inside of the deliberation room unnoticed and saw what was happening?

If this stealth juror was abused she would have been wailing to her BFF JSS about it everyday.

If anyone abused their duty it was #17.

Trying to get a juror to engage in the discussion and deliberate isn't abuse.

I am glad I did not contribute to BKs site because that way I don't have to read her ridiculous speculations and personal opinions about this case.

I am sure she was floored that 11 wanted death since she seem to like putting Juan down every chance she got while building KN up.

Unless I'm the one not understanding you, I think BK is talking about the history of DV juror17 experienced from her ex, not abuse by other jurors. Just her guess on what may have been the reasons for juror17's noDP stand, although I have to say I don't think BK is aware of everything that has been found on this juror. IIRC she was travelling yesterday...

 

[fillymj]

Great work posters digging up the new info on this juror.

IMO someone needs to review this whole trial & the way it has been handled from the lying defense witnesses, MDLR illegal behavior i.e. (smuggling work from CMJA), trashing of the victim, secret testimony, noise blocked sidebars, and now this #17 juror.

CMJA is done. Put her away forever & silence her noise.

What I want to know is the real reason why this trial ran as it did and what part MDLR, the defense, the judge, witnesses, etc. had in the way this trial was conducted. This was a total mockery of the system & flat out abuse to the victim , his family, & friends.

I hope someone is AZ is watching this mess & is willing to search for some answers. :gaah:

 

[Madeleine74]

I would absolutely know the name of the prosecutor of a man I was marrying-but maybe that's just me

Just not getting it.

"Knowing the name of the prosecutor" is fine. And the jurors were not asked that question anyway.

 

[Gin]

I would absolutely know the name of the prosecutor of a man I was marrying-but maybe that's just me

Of course. When the wedding day and honeymoon are a one day affair because the groom is going to the big house...the blushing bride will certainly remember who prosecuted her prince.

ETA...and wouldn't a juror be expected to let the judge know when juror remembered after seeing/hearing the prosecutor years later?

 

[GigiG]

I had heard (read) the other jurors wanted to replace 17...not that 17 was the one to ask to be replaced. She supposedly also sent a note to the judge. I'm getting confused with some of the posts.

I was under the impression that two notes went to the judge somewhat "contemporaneously," though we only heard the judge address the contents of one.

One was from the foreman making the judge aware that there was a juror who was not open to discussing the case with the other jurors, and could she be replaced by alternate. He gave that to #17 for her to read before he sent it. The other was written by #17, but she did not allow the others to read it.

During the post-non-verdict interview, all agreed that they had not specifically asked for alternate #2. Tweets from around that time however, repeatedly mentioned the two things: can we get an alternate, and can the alternate be #2.

Since only #7 knows what was in her note to the judge, I'm wondering if she asked to be excused and for #2 to replace her. Perhaps due to the timing, the judge conflated the two requests and denied both. I'm also wondering what would have happened if #17 hadn't sent her own note to the judge, and if JSS had just received the "official" one from the foreman, perhaps she would have seen the matter in a different light...?

JMO

 

[TartLemon]

It is also IMO the vehemence spewed against the decision of the jury is no less abhorrent as those at the JAII site. What's the difference?

The jury is a WHOLE body in it's final decision.

 

[Myvice]

Inviting outside contact or alluding to "private" additional information:

“Inviting” is termed as a post where you invite other members to contact you to find out more information, rather than post it in the forum. This is not allowed and any posts with emails or invitations to contact for more information will either be edited or deleted entirely. This includes use of the Private Message system via comments such as “Check your PMs” or “PM me” posted in discussion threads. Think about it - it's like whispering into someone's ear while you are at a table full of other people. If you want to have a private conversation just have it, don't announce it. Additionally, please don't drop hints or post on the board that you know something or are privy to inside information but you won't or can't post it.
If you can't post it, don't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

So sorry, Lamby. I went back to delete mine but you already had. Sorry to cause you more work.

 

[sammie]

I don't understand. If it took the internet 10 minutes to find this stuff out about juror 17 how did the prosecution team miss it for 5 months? Not knocking them I mean I fully support them but it didn't take much digging to find out, change of name or 15 years ago dont they look into this. And if not why not? Surely they knew this already. If they didn't they should have and again not bashing the prosecution just wondering how this was missed.

They don't get the UNLIMITED budget that the Defense team was granted, and they couldn't hire specialists who could sleuth and vet the social media accounts of all the jurors/prospects. It's so unfair.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Some Tweets: And Cathy has some interesting info at the link !

Cathy ‏@courtchatter · 6m6 minutes ago

#JodiArias: Just when you thought it was over http://www.courtchatter.com/2015/03/jodi-arias-just-when-you-thought-it-was.html?spref=tw …


Tammy Rose ‏@News20Chopper · 2m2 minutes ago  Phoenix, AZ

@News20Chopper she still would have had to say she knew Juan and how.