Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
And we ask ourselves how come it seemed Nurmi and the DT always got their way in this trial and the State side got ripped off?

Compare what happened a couple days ago with this juror getting to stay even after the other jurors complained about her .....and compare that to what happend to Juror #5 in 1st trial below.

"A juror who sat through three months of testimony in the Jodi Arias murder trial was dismissed today for "misconduct" after Arias' attorneys claimed she made statements showing she was biased. "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-juror-dismissed-talking-trial/story?id=18864045
 
Hatfield said:
And we ask ourselves how come it seemed Nurmi and the DT always got their way in this trial and the State side got ripped off?

Compare what happened a couple days ago with this juror getting to stay even after the other jurors complained about her .....and compare that to what happend to Juror #5 in 1st trial below.

"A juror who sat through three months of testimony in the Jodi Arias murder trial was dismissed today for "misconduct" after Arias' attorneys claimed she made statements showing she was biased. "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-juror-dismissed-talking-trial/story?id=18864045
Click to expand...

Ugh... it never seems to end. Here's the latest news bite on juror 17... http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11208848/juror-speaks-out-about-juror-17s-link-to-juan-martinez
 
I guess since our Constitution gives defendants the right to a jury trial, we can never do away with juries in this country. However, that does not mean the system cannot be overhauled. Perhaps professional jurors are the way to go. There is no way that I can think of to totally eliminate the possibility of fraud but at least with a jury made up of professional jurors who are well versed in the laws and the requirements concerning deliberations and what is expected of them even when court is not in session (no movies about any of the case players, for example) there could be recourse when one did not do the job they swore to do. I think laws could be enacted dealing specifically with professional jurors who do not comply with the dictates of the profession and I think it would be easier to find out before it's too late if one or more professional jurors have an agenda as opposed to private citizens who can usually quite effectively claim ignorance.
 
According to the main source of the sleuthing of juror number 17, he has uncovered records to show she has an entire family tree full of criminals and incarcerated relatives. This is on twitter and her info was used by Troy Hayden and the stations legal department to verify the story.

more lying by omission in voir dire?
 
Curious Me said:
Thanks. Glad I listened to this! One of the other jurors definitely believes Juror #17 had an agenda.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11208848/juror-speaks-out-about-juror-17s-link-to-juan-martinez
Click to expand...

Not to say that what she said isn't true, but I got the feeling that she's been watching the news and following what's been going on post-verdict. She's probably looking for answers the same way we are. I'm glad she mentioned the Alexander Family. I haven't been able to watch/listen to many of yesterday's videos. Just couldn't bring myself to listen to it all. Did the Alexanders make any statement after the verdict? I saw the one court pic of Tanisha (I believe), and that ruined me.
 
What the bloody hell??? I haven't been able to fully catch up much since the non-verdict but it looks like all hell has broken loose regarding Juror 17. More and more bizarre things are coming out it appears. Too bad it won't change anything except perhaps some peoples LinkedIn page .....
 
sammie said:
According to the main source of the sleuthing of juror number 17, he has uncovered records to show she has an entire family tree full of criminals and incarcerated relatives. This is on twitter and her info was used by Troy Hayden and the stations legal department to verify the story.

more lying by omission in voir dire?
Click to expand...

Ugh Sammie it's starting to look like such a huge hot mess. This woman seriously I mean seriously had zero business on this panel.
 
RR0004 said:
Not to say that what she said isn't true, but I got the feeling that she's been watching the news and following what's been going on post-verdict. She's probably looking for answers the same way we are. I'm glad she mentioned the Alexander Family. I haven't been able to watch/listen to many of yesterday's videos. Just couldn't bring myself to listen to it all. Did the Alexanders make any statement after the verdict? I saw the one court pic of Tanisha (I believe), and that ruined me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this juror speaking up had to be stuck in the deliberation room with Juror 17 and try to work with her on deliberating. She saw with her own eyes and heard with her own ears something that now can be explained as maybe a bias or agenda. What she is now finding out about #17 is making sense to her. She isn't saying she's shocked or doubting #17 may have had an ulterior motive. Seems like those 11 jurors experienced Juror 17 as having a stubborn agenda all along. The juror speaking out sounded very upset, if this is true about #17, especially over the Alexanders being cheated out of true Justice for Travis.

Prayers for the Alexander family and loved ones. :eek:fftobed:
 
04009margaret said:
I've been trying to catch up with this forum for days.....:panic:.....Just a few thoughts on juror #17......If you claim to have a history of DV in your background, knowing this DT's tactics you know they are going to target you as a potential juror. They will fight to get you on the jury panel. I just can't believe that somebody with that type of background would have 2 marriages with violent felons, it just doesn't ring true to me.

JMHO
Click to expand...
Oh no, it happens. When a victim is abused that abuse, over time, becomes normal (this is especially true if the victim and perpetrator also witness domestic violence as children too). If there's no healing, insight, time, education and counseling after the first abusive relationship, it's pretty easy for the victim to find her or himself in another abusive relationship. Also, bear in mind that there's varying levels of abuse - if a victim experiences largely psychological abuse after primarily physical abuse, it may make it difficult for that victim to equate both as abusive.

Someone also called her out for marrying someone she knew was abusive. That's not uncommon either - really, you're hoping that a marriage label will somehow improve the relationship. It doesn't, but that's something you have to learn through experience. It's a mistake I'm guilty of making myself.

Please note, I'm not defending Juror 17 in any way, shape, or form. ;) When I learned of a juror with a DV history, I had my concerns because it's a wild card - many survivors move on from their abusive experiences and educate themselves on warning signs and patterns. But some also don't - some become 'professional' victims, see abuse everywhere they look, and believe every other person out there claiming victimization even when there's evidence to the contrary. Kinda like Alyce.

JMO and FWIW
 
So I've just seen the summary for #17s voir dire...

How on earth was her ex sent to prison when they were separated when in fact court records show he went to prison one day after their wedding?!

Someone told a big porky pie!

Surely you'd remember who prosecuted your husband 1 day after your wedding & spending your honeymoon with him in jail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A_News_Junkie said:
.
I hope someone is coping this and reporting it to the authorities .
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. There is a petition on twitter with one of the official petition sites being used. There are 4322 signatures, they need 5000 and it is going to the Gov of AZ. Then, there is a FB page where people are sending copies to the Att Gen of Az. To clarify, the FB page gave the place to send to the Att Gen.

And lastly, I read that it is being investigated by the proper authorities. Unfortunately, I don't have a link because I didn't save it OOps, I checked my history and found where I heard it. http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11206107/fox-10s-troy-hayden-weighs-in-on-aftermath-of-hung-jury

One thing I don't agree with is on twitter they are calling JSS and leaving messages on her voicemail.
 
Sedona722 said:
One thing I don't agree with is on twitter they are calling JSS and leaving messages on her voicemail.
Click to expand...

Snipped by me

No no no.

No matter how annoyed etc we are with this whole situation people should not be doing this!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
josie1986 said:
Snipped by me

No no no.

No matter how annoyed etc we are with this whole situation people should not be doing this!
Click to expand...

I know, I totally agree. It made me really sick to read they were doing that. What they are doing is calling the court house and asking for JSS's office and leaving messages. Improper in all ways!
 
BritsKate said:
Oh no, it happens. When a victim is abused that abuse, over time, becomes normal (this is especially true if the victim and perpetrator also witness domestic violence as children too). If there's no healing, insight, time, education and counseling after the first abusive relationship, it's pretty easy for the victim to find her or himself in another abusive relationship. Also, bear in mind that there's varying levels of abuse - if a victim experiences largely psychological abuse after primarily physical abuse, it may make it difficult for that victim to equate both as abusive.

Someone also called her out for marrying someone she knew was abusive. That's not uncommon either - really, you're hoping that a marriage label will somehow improve the relationship. It doesn't, but that's something you have to learn through experience. It's a mistake I'm guilty of making myself.

Please note, I'm not defending Juror 17 in any way, shape, or form. ;) When I learned of a juror with a DV history, I had my concerns because it's a wild card - many survivors move on from their abusive experiences and educate themselves on warning signs and patterns. But some also don't - some become 'professional' victims, see abuse everywhere they look, and believe every other person out there claiming victimization even when there's evidence to the contrary. Kinda like Alyce.

JMO and FWIW
Click to expand...

I am in no doubt that many women go from abusive relationship to abusive relationship. I was purely speculating that this particular juror had an agenda & with that in mind I question everything in her background including DV. From everything I'm reading about this juror followed the guilt phase closely & knew JA's claim of self defence/abuse.
 
Sedona722 said:
Yes, they are. There is a petition on twitter with one of the official petition sites being used. There are 4322 signatures, they need 5000 and it is going to the Gov of AZ. Then, there is a FB page where people are sending copies to the Att Gen of Az. To clarify, the FB page gave the place to send to the Att Gen.

And lastly, I read that it is being investigated by the proper authorities. Unfortunately, I don't have a link because I didn't save it OOps, I checked my history and found where I heard it. http://www.fox10phoenix.com/clip/11206107/fox-10s-troy-hayden-weighs-in-on-aftermath-of-hung-jury

One thing I don't agree with is on twitter they are calling JSS and leaving messages on her voicemail.
Click to expand...


BBM: JSS was told by the 11 DP JURORS that Juror #17 would NOT deliberate during deliberations, and would not even give a sufficient answer to justify her anti-DP stance ... and JSS did nothing about it.

JSS should have called in each juror individually into her chambers to find out what was going on to corroborate the info from the 11 DP Jurors but again, JSS did nothing about it.

IF JSS had acted on this extremely disturbing info that Juror #17 would NOT deliberate with the rest of the Jurors, then Juror #17 could have been replaced with an alternate juror, and the deliberations would start over.

JSS did NOT want to deal with the issue, IMO ...

JSS was more concerned about an "appellate issue" IF she would have replaced this juror than the "honesty" and/or "shenanigans" of Juror #17 DURING DELIBERATIONS.

JMO but JSS needs to take her share of responsibility for her role in this devastating fiasco !

JMO and MOO !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 2,085 (members: 150, guests: 1,935)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
1,935
Total visitors
2,085
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,204
Messages
18,136,641
Members
231,270
Latest member
appleatcha
Back
Top