Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[okiedokietoo]

would anyone comment on my post #1141 --- Juror lied on questionnaire and they had retrial after Def sentenced to death - yes it's from DEF POV but if applied to trial, in anyway can it apply to retrial for sentencing - and I do realize DT might not want retrial retrial

 

[Wishbone]

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.

This has turned into an old west lynch mob….a MONDAY YOU B@ST@RD sweatshirt slogan turns into a message to Juan M….And people wonder why this woman doesn’t come forward to be crucified.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

So J#17 and Jodi's sister both reference Monday.

If they actually investigate...wouldn't it be interesting to see what dates she "liked" the Laws of Attraction and The Secret on FB. Hmmmm.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Time to go. See ya :seeya:

 

[LambChop]

We are getting up there in numbers in this thread. I will be shutting it down in 10 minutes. Please feel free to move to the new thread now.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Hearing-Jodi-Arias-3&p=11566499#post11566499

 

[Hope4More]

The complete May 26th text is now summarized. Make of it what you will.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Alexander-s-Journals-and-text-messages/page9

 

[sammie]

This has turned into an old west lynch mob….a MONDAY YOU B@ST@RD sweatshirt slogan turns into a message to Juan M….And people wonder why this woman doesn’t come forward to be crucified.

An allegation of juror misconduct, and perjury is serious enough to warrant an investigation, and evidently the media agrees. I don't see that as lynch mob mentality, I see it as wanting to ensure someone didn't illegally hijack the process and single-handedly alter the results of the trial. If it turns out there is nothing to to it, she goes on with her life, and we accept it was a fair process. How is that different than any other potential criminal who is investigated and/or charged and subsequently cleared?

And she was more than willing to come forward yesterday, according to her husband for the right price. But that was before this information was discovered.

In terms of the sweatshirt, this is a sleuthing website. My comment was that it would definitely be considered circumstantial evidence, but one piece of the puzzle. That one shred of information
wouldn't get her convicted of anything, but it is interesting, to say the least.

 

[Tillicum]

Lambchop, in BK's "description of the jurors" she cites that juror#17 said she was exposed to DV when younger between her drunken Uncle and his significant other, she also reported being a direct victim of abuse for 11 years at the hands of her ex-husband (with him beginning at age 16) in that she was pych/verbally abused (telling her she was worthless without him, trying to isolate her) and recounted one episode where her ex threw her into a room when she confronted him for not taking proper care of the children and being "high".

In BK's most recent post citing her belief that J17's DV history contributed to her vote is simply her supposition--she does not cite anything specific as to her reasoning.

And I am with you, it seems that the fact that 11 other jurors have stated, and had formally requested that the Judge assist/help them find a remedy, that the problem with J17 was possible misconduct and deception seems to have fallen on deaf ears

BBM This! So she was abused by this man for 11 years and had children with him but when he is going to be incarcerated and she has the opportunity to be rid of him, instead she marries him the day before?

 

[SweetT]

:seeya: Considering these recent developments, I hope an "exception" can be allowed so that we can find out more info about what was going on

lease:

She should have NEVER been tweeting while sitting on a jury !

:gaah:

I agree and I'd like to know what that was as I haven't been able to keep up well today

 

[LinTX]

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.

According to BK's juror notes, she did advise them about his record as well as her ex being in prison. She said he was embarrassed about it, that it was a long time ago, yada yada.


As I understand it, once deliberations have begun, it's not as simple as just replacing the juror with an alternate. The whole phase would have to be retried. YesOrNo did some research on it as well and posted what she found on Sidebar. Here is YesOrNo's post: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Arias-Alexander-forum&p=11566239#post11566239

 

[fruity]

would anyone comment on my post #1141 --- Juror lied on questionnaire and they had retrial after Def sentenced to death - yes it's from DEF POV but if applied to trial, in anyway can it apply to retrial for sentencing - and I do realize DT might not want retrial retrial

And if it can be shown that she lied, surely she should be charged with wasting an enormous amount of funds?

 

[sammie]

BBM This! So she was abused by this man for 11 years and had children with him but when he is going to be incarcerated and she has the opportunity to be rid of him, instead she marries him the day before?

I think the 11 years included the entire time she was with him...they were divorced in 2009.

 

[fillymj]

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

Maybe they agreed to wait through the weekend then make a final vote on Monday with no more deliberation.

 

[bettybaby00]

Not being snarky to you Jojo as you bring up a very good point but maybe the fact that the defense team had unlimited funds,which equals resources, while the state did not--Mr. Montgomery's full disclosure during his press conference yesterday that the State spent a mere pittance, approximately $132,000, of the nearly $3 million of taxpayer money that was spent during all of the trials. Essentially the DT billed the state for $2.7 million.

Not to mention, it is MHO, that JM was clearly limited and looked as if his hands were tied at times during this retrial, and we won't know to what extent until all the info pertaining to the trial is released to the public.

Boy this just keeps getting deeper and deeper. The money disparity is definitely part of the problem, and has been part of the conversation ever since OJ and his "dream team."

Another factor IMO seemed to be that Juan didn't waste time sinking to the level of the DT. There were many times I felt that he could have pursued issues, and he just let them go. He seemed to have the mentality of worrying more about winning the war, then fretting over the smaller battles. Although admirable and often a successful strategy, sometimes too many lost battles will inevitably mean you'll loose the war too.

After following quite a few trials, I've become very disheartened by the way defense team strategies have evolved. I get that everyone deserves a defense, yet this win by whatever means necessary has become a major dysfunction in the system.

If all of these allegations are true, I hope MDLR a and #17 face meaningful consequences. Maybe then these types of situations won't happen again. Especially concerning stealth jurors.

 

[FelicityLemon]

This quote alone bothers me a lot:

"That one remaining juror knew beyond a doubt that if she changed her mind, it was her vote that killed Jodi Arias," he said.

She knew the rules going in. She had her agenda and she worked it.

Odd thing happened. I could swear my reply was meant to go to the following quote and link to article:

Quote Originally Posted by Mrs G Norris
Have you guys seen this article .. http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/28...-death-threats

The quote I copied is from the article above.

 

[steelman]

IMO, it makes no sense that a juror should go along with other jurors just because. It negates the whole meaning of having a jury. #17 heard and saw the same evidence as everyone else and processed it differently. If there was only 1 way to vote, why need the jury at all?

This has nothing to do with her just going along and voting like the others. According to the other 11 jurors, from DAY ONE, this juror would not deliberate, participate, or cooperate in discussions about the appropriate sentence. They asked her specifically what kind of crime it would take in order for her to rule a death verdict, and she hedged and refused to answer the question.

Judge Stephens was notified by the Foreman on behalf of the entire jury that this juror #17 was not willing to contribute to the deliberations nor answer basic questions in order to avoid an impasse.

Stephens apparently didn't research this juror or feel the need to do anything about her lack of participation in the discussions. The information that everybody is snatching from the internet in regards to this juror's Facebook accounts, twitter and other social media was available to Judge Stephens and her staff the entire time. They either didn't look into it, or didn't care.

Her social media shows almost undeniable proof that this juror was biased and had an agenda from the very beginning. She has been tied to Juan Martinez now. Her husband had Maria DeLarosa's daughter on his friends list PRIOR to the verdict, and the juror herself listed HLN, Nancy Grace, and other heavily leaning "Jodi" related media on her favorites list.

This woman managed to get herself onto that jury in order to disrupt it, plain and simple. The only question I have remaining is whether or not she did it on her own, of if a court insider managed to arrange it in order to taint the jury and insure a life verdict. We all know who that insider most likely would be. The only one that can't be disbarred.

This has NOTHING to do with her voting one way or the other just because, as you stated up there.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:gaah: Here's the latest from JA:

Jodi Arias Updates @JodiAnnArias · 3h 3 hours ago

#JodiArias jury, save 1 juror, epitomizes how unevolved society still is--at least society in Arizona.


:gaah:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Tweet from today from Kiefer:

Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 3h 3 hours ago

I propose someone start a Jodi Arias Help Line,
so they won't call me to vent one way or the other about the mistrial.


:gaah: What a horse's :behind: !

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Elle Ellie, I owe you a huge apology. I misread your previous post and improperly replied.

I am trying to multi-task today and evidently not doing a very good job.

I thought you meant BK was saying that the 11 jurors abused her during deliberations.

And then I saw #17s husband and that is what he did say which I don't believe for one nano-second.

She sure must have thin skin.

Passions always rise high in a serious case during deliberations. She sounds rather childish and immature to me. Was she the youngest member on the jury?

IMO

 

[Amster]

Meaning he can't legaly stop her from tweeting from jail through her conduits.

And Sherry just gave her and Maria 38 more days to do it.....