Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #2

[RR0004]

LOL, now that I'm really thinking about it.......

What are the odds of a sitting JA juror:

Had an ex prosecuted by JM and she didn't remember him

She's a fan of the Law of Attraction

Watched ONLY "bits and pieces" of the JA Lifetime movie, and thought they made her out to be a monster... (but didn't watch the entire movie?)...but liked it enough, obviously, that she wanted to bring it in for the other jurors to view

Actually used the word "revenge" in regards to the DP, just like the special snowflake used in a media interview

*** There's one more thing she "liked" or followed on her FB page that was related to Jodi as well...what was it?

***********

What are the odds?????

AND SHE WAS THE ONLY WON WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR THE DP!!!!!

What are the odds, indeed!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Yeah, he actually mentioned her twitter handle, Cougarlicious in court (which means it is forever noted as such in the official court transcript :laughing and he also mentioned how she leaked things to AZ Republic (aka Michael Kiefer).

:seeya: Thank You ... now I remember, and yes, he did mention the AZR !

 

[RR0004]

It was also said on twitter that she had recently liked the pages of a few of the local news channels, indicating she had been visiting them while the trial was ongoing.

Disclaimer...this part is an unverified rumor, but since the investigation into Juror #17 has been confirmed, I'm hoping this as being a relevant discussion point, is ok to post. :thinking:

Sammie- is there a formal investigation into Juror #17? Forgive me, I haven't had time to read the entire thread.

 

[ShadyLady]

It was all about 'revenge' ironically enough, considering her BS reason for not voting DP.

Ya, Freudian slip perhaps?

 

[Wishbone]

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?

Well said. vive la différence

Long live the difference (used to express appreciation of diversity)

 

[MaLou]

I'm quite sure this has been posted but I loved watching CMJA walking under ground in her jail clothes and then I realize that she will never wear "street" clothes again!

FOX 10 Phoenix ‏@FOX10Phoenix Mar 5
WATCH: @troyhaydenfox10 walks alongside #jodiarias http://youtu.be/CZHOfKs1m-Q?t=2h6m40s …

That's one of the things this trial has made me think about. I mean, I'm 40 and have two young kids now, so I don't dress up like I used to, but to wear the same thing everyday for the rest of your life? To never wear "street" clothes or real shoes? I had never thought of all of the little things such as wearing prison garb for the rest of your life before following this trial.

 

[Mindmatters]

Is that Pt and DT attorneys ? or Nurmi and Wilmott ?

Buttercup, it was presented as both the PT and DT but did not specifically list them off. HTH

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Right .. let's get this straight.

Juror #17 is revealed as lone hold out and name is revealed > leads to facebook snooping and background checks by online sleuthers > leads to former names / former husbands > leads to a little research into their histories and discoveries of past felonies of said husbands > leads to court records showing one was prosecuted by none other than Juan Martinez > leads to discovery that that particular husband and juror were married the day before conviction ..

Is all of the above pretty much how this information came to light?

AND WHAT WAS MANAGED BY A FEW HACKS ON TWITTER COULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE COURTHOUSE OR PROSECUTIONS OFFICE BECAUSE????

This is a HUGE fail.

I'm embarrassed for the courthouse, seriously .. how hard is it to do a little background research into jurors, and if this isn't standard practice then courts need to change their procedures because it's not that hard.

I think this is public enquiry material, not good enough.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Ya, Freudian slip perhaps?

%&^*#!!!!!!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I'm quite sure this has been posted but I loved watching CMJA walking under ground in her jail clothes and then I realize that she will never wear "street" clothes again!

FOX 10 Phoenix ‏@FOX10Phoenix Mar 5
WATCH: @troyhaydenfox10 walks alongside #jodiarias http://youtu.be/CZHOfKs1m-Q?t=2h6m40s …

:seeya:

Aww ... she didn't want her :crazy: "fans" to see her in stripes ...

:violin::violin::violin:

 

[RR0004]

Juror 17 asked if she could trade places with an alternate. She wanted to handpick the alternate to take her place. She must of known the judge would say no. It was a smoke screen. If not, then why did she send the judge a secret note when the jurors wanted her replaced? A red herring.

It was Juror 17 who asked to be replaced?? Do we know this as fact?

 

[MeeBee]

It was Juror 17 who asked to be replaced?? Do we know this as fact?

No in fact it looks like the other jurors wanted her to be replaced and #17 did not want to be.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Are we allowed to mention something that was on the jurors Twitter account last week before she took it down?

 

[RR0004]

Right .. let's get this straight.

Juror #17 is revealed as lone hold out and name is revealed > leads to facebook snooping and background checks by online sleuthers > leads to former names / former husbands > leads to a little research into their histories and discoveries of past felonies of said husbands > leads to court records showing one was prosecuted by none other than Juan Martinez > leads to discovery that that particular husband and juror were married the day before conviction ..

Is all of the above pretty much how this information came to light?

AND WHAT WAS MANAGED BY A FEW HACKS ON TWITTER COULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE COURTHOUSE OR PROSECUTIONS OFFICE BECAUSE????

This is a HUGE fail.

I'm embarrassed for the courthouse, seriously .. how hard is it to do a little background research into jurors, and if this isn't standard practice then courts need to change their procedures because it's not that hard.

I think this is public enquiry material, not good enough.

Ah, Mrs. G. Norris, you must remember what our wonderful AZLawyer was able to find...when the State of Florida did not. Still scratching my head about that one.

 

[daisydomino]

It was Juror 17 who asked to be replaced?? Do we know this as fact?

If you have time to listen to post-mistrial juror presser, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvp_y811hE
(they did not want to be on camera)

 

[RR0004]

If you have time to listen to post-mistrial juror presser, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anvp_y811hE
(they did not want to be on camera)

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.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Ah, Mrs. G. Norris, you muct remember what our wonderful AZLawyer was able to find...when the State of Florida did not. Still scratching my head about that one.

.. that's right, Baez had it, the state did not .. shall we just be filing all this frustration under Government Department Incompetence?

 

[RadarLuv]

I thought I remember the another juror asking for her to be replaced and if that was going to disqualify him then so be it. Of course no one got disqualified. This was yesterday when they got to interview the jurors.

It was Juror 17 who asked to be replaced?? Do we know this as fact?

 

[LambChop]

And you can bet the farm that they will be revising these questions to be more specific :

- Has anyone in your family, i.e.: spouse, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father, etc. EVER been prosecuted by any prosecutor in the Maricopa County ?

- If so, when were they prosecuted, what were they prosecuted for, who prosecuted them ... etc ...

Y'all get the drift ...

JMO !

In Connecticut they stand in front of the group and go over the questions so there is no mistake about whether or not you have had contact with their office and staff. And if you are not sure you are suppose to write it down so they can review it. That was my experience.

 

[Frigga]

Sometimes things need to be done/handled or gone after, not because doing it will change the outcome for this particular situation but to pave the way for situations that come after.