Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[ShadyLady]

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.

She can pretend to be as cryptic as she wants. I am sure JSS and Juan get it. Hoping Juan's boss has some thoughts he'd like to share.

 

[LambChop]

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. .

The answer is:

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.

We don't control the PM's. You can PM someone. Just do not post "PM me", or "I have specific info, PM me". It is considered inviting and is not permitted.

 

[Jmoose]

Just not getting it.

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

I haven't had the time to read all of these post, like some of you have, so I don't know what these people were asked. She should have indicated that her ex was prosecuted by Martinez, whether she was asked or not, even if she wasn't still married to the guy. When I was on a jury, we were asked if we or anyone in our families knew (including legal dealings with) any of the attorneys or the judge. And really, most people try as hard as they can to avoid jury duty-why wouldn't she say that he prosecuted her ex? There's no way she didn't know, unless she is brain dead.

 

[Amster]

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.

They didn't lose their freedom of speech! #17 can take up for herself if she disagrees. Media is salivating to hear from her. Or, she can clam up. The 11 other jurors have every right to explain their decision and what they observed! :facepalm:

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

So let me understand...J#17 actually was an active Twitter user during her time on the jury?
(I don't think that's illegal, but she could watch MDLR and her wonderful tweets, and who would be the wiser?) Again, not saying she did...but boy that takes a lot of personal restraint to not twitter search/read for 5 months if anything Arias related popped up.

Combine that with the "reports" (not factually verified, that I'm aware of) that she may have "liked" some local (?) news stations on FB during this same time.

Just wondering how restrained she was, so that she could honestly report each day that they haven't seen anything in the news on this case. I dunno.

 

[Boytwnmom]

has/had a record? Does anyone know? All I've heard is she disclosed her ex had been convicted/incarcerated. Now maybe he doesn't really have a record-not saying that he does-the docs going around on line could be wrong, not him etc-just asking WHETHER she indicated he had a record.

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]

OMG that really is a great catch MsJoni--surely all of these things cannot be a coincidence:notgood:

Beat me to it - weirder and weirder

 

[sammie]

Bumping up. Has some of the docs.

I'd like to see more feet to the fire. Like to see MDLR under oath as well as #17.

Was Juan at the questioning of #17 behind closed doors, it's not clear?? And the hallway get together? He might have wanted this person off, but since so much of this trial was behind closed doors, how would we know.

I've read that the Juror #17 issue was the DT screaming because the Dr Drew show was doing promos that Juror #17 was going to be on to speak about the trial. The DT got wind of it, flipped out, went screaming to JSS, and wanted #17 talked to and kept off the show or removed. It was all a misunderstanding, Dr Drew was having Juror #17 from the GUILT Phase on his show, not the sitting juror #17. So it was much ado about nothing.

 

[kimi_SFC]

So let me understand...J#17 actually was an active Twitter user during her time on the jury?
(I don't think that's illegal, but she could watch MDLR and her wonderful tweets, and who would be the wiser? Again, not saying she did...but boy that takes a lot of personal restraint to not twitter search/read for 5 months if anything Arias related popped up.

Combine that with the "reports" (not factually verified, that I'm aware of) that she may have "liked" some local (?) news stations on FB during this same time.

Just wondering how restrained she was, so that she could honestly report each day that they haven't seen anything in the news on this case. I dunno.

We weren't allowed to hear JSS' admonishment, so how are we to even know if this was/wasn't allowed?

I'm certain it wasn't though

:gaah:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Jodi's sister, Angela, said the verdict would be on Monday...

:seeya: Good catch !

OMG ... YES she did tweet that it would be on Monday ...

And NOW we have Juror #17 with a Tweet about "Monday" ...

Oh, and coincidence ? I think NOT !

:gaah:

 

[fifteen89]

I'm like someone else...help me put the tweets from her into context please?

Monday and ???

I'm not getting it either. How would juror 17 know what day the foreman would say 'we give up'?

 

[MissHaley]

Y'all, I've said on here, throughout this penalty phase, that I wanted Jodi to get life just so she would go away. I admitted that I couldn't actually vote that way if I was on the jury and was charged to weigh my mitigator against cruelty. So this turned out the way I personally wanted and CMJA will not have a cheering squad the whole time.

But I am po'd that it went down like this. A dirty trick. ugh. Not how I wanted her to go silently away.


I am happy for the other jurors, that they can find some peace of mind knowing they had her number and there was nothing more they could have done. I'm so sad that they were put through this whole trail and will suffer the stress of it from now on for nothing.

Sorry, but if 17 didn't disclose her ties and did what I suspect, plant her closed mind on that jury, I hope she is prosecuted....for something. Poetic justice would have Juan at PT, although I'm sure he can't due to conflict of interest or some such. But I can daydream.

Very good post. Goes with what I was thinking earlier about Nurm standing on the courthouse steps stating "this victory" & MLDR posting on the State vs ja FB page, "We Won". A 'win' for them would be for the jury to come back with a verdict of Life!. That the jury believed them that saved her life. That did not happen. It was Life by a mistrial! Victories by a DT are that a jury goes their way. Think, C. Anthony, Zimmerman. Those are real wins for DT. This was not a win.
IMO, they have been skum, dirty tricking thru the whole thing, 2008-2015, we saw it before our eyes. Now, it's still happening. We shouldn't be surprised. The whole lot has a different make up than the rest of the world.

 

[jojo87]

Joe Arpaio ‏@RealSheriffJoe 22m22 minutes ago
Trying to put a stop to #jodiarias social media antics which she conducts from jail. May hit legal road block.

https://twitter.com/RealSheriffJoe/status/573946170877194240

hmmmmm wonder what that means?

Think it's a freedom of speech thing. Jodi isn't physically posting and sheriff Joe can't prevent her talking to friends and can't restrict what they post.
It's the same idea as that anti death penalty site posting ads it went to court and the inmates couldn't be punished for something someone else posted.
I think that's the gist of it.

 

[WichitaFalls]

Just when I thought "my head is spinning" Arias court days were over, here I sit with my head spinning anew. Good grief, the things that are coming out today don't even seem possible yet it seems they are.

 

[TartLemon]

IMO, the jurors should be speaking only for themselves. It is a jurors RIGHT to not make public statements. For other jurors to speak for her is WRONG!

If there was only 1 way to decide, there would have been no need for the jury. Each one of those jurors heard/saw the same evidence and processed it to the best of their ability.

 

[LambChop]

Joe Arpaio ‏@RealSheriffJoe 22m22 minutes ago
Trying to put a stop to #jodiarias social media antics which she conducts from jail. May hit legal road block.

https://twitter.com/RealSheriffJoe/status/573946170877194240

hmmmmm wonder what that means?

She has not been sentenced yet.

 

[RadarLuv]

Ya, I subscribed to her. She's a real twit.

:seeya: Good catch !

OMG ... YES she did tweet that it would be on Monday ...

And NOW we have Juror #17 with a Tweet about "Monday" ...

Oh, and coincidence ? I think NOT !

:gaah:

 

[TexMex]

And make sure Jodi and Maria make eye contact and for JW to smile each and every time the jurors enter and leave the courtroom. Maybe have Jodi throw in a wink to #17 occasionally....

And no need to allocute. They knew if 17 got picked she had their backs

 

[daisydomino]

Is it accepted without doubt that this now-deleted or hidden Twitter account really did belong to #17?

And if I say it's passage of time, bad lighting, and higher resolution still images that make Wilmott look older in 2015 than she did on YouTube in 2013, people will argue with me.

 

[Mindmatters]

We weren't allowed to hear JSS' admonishment, so how are we to even know if this was/wasn't allowed?

I'm certain it wasn't though

:gaah:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Kimi, good point on the twitter issue but we know that JSS did ask the jurors repeatedly IF they had seen anything in the News, etc., and yesterday the 11 jurors stated clearly that J17 had referred to information she had obtained via the news--and while they did not elucidate if J17 got this information from news during the trial it is certainly something that needs to be clarified IMO