Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #5

[Gin]

"Give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves." Who said that? That may not have been Sheriff Joe's intent, but it works out in the end, lol.

JMO, I could be wrong, but my take on Sheriff Joe is that it was his job to make sure ja make it to court, through the process without some huge problem. I don't think he wanted to handle her with kid gloves, but it probably was wise.
Now she's just another convict, waiting for sentencing. It's a different world.

 

[Hez]

From Steelman's post (198): "During the hearing, Defense Counsel Willmott stated she had learned that
other jurors had Facebook pages and had accessed their pages during the trial."

How would she have known that at that time? If she knew, wasn't she obligated to report it? Sounds fishy to me.

Yeah, but was one of their 'likes' The Daily Share, an HLN program that just debuted on January 13, 2015, right in the middle of the trial? That was one of the recent likes on J17's Facebook page, as per the court minute entry.

http://www.thewrap.com/hln-unveils-new-set-for-robin-meade-to-premiere-the-daily-share/

 

[RadarLuv]

I absolutely agree here. She had a desperate, poorly thought out plan (although, a plan nonetheless). That is also why I think the camera ended up in the washer as she could not find it in her frantic state. It's also why I don't think she is one bit insane. I am actually surprised this hadn't happened sooner.

I think she slit his throat because he kept moving to get away from her in the attack and it was the only thing she could think of to stop him once and for all. It wasn't the first thing she did, it was the last thing she did with the knife and it was done at the threshold of his getting from the hallway to his bedroom. I don't think there was much symbolism in her actions; the crime scene shows great disorder and chaos. She wanted him dead and I believe it was because he rejected her and she couldn't handle it. Once the attack started he fought back and didn't die immediately.

 

[RadarLuv]

I am sure this is posted, but I am on a horribly slow internet connection and am having a hard time catching up, so just in case;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_xPHBLUIAADwLK.jpg

 

[Hatfield]

Not to mention this was a death penalty deliberation, If she would've removed or 17 I think most people would fully expect that that sentence would've been overturned eventually anyhow

I dont know. I think JSS may have once again feared future Appeals so much that it adversely affected her decision making.

We had another poster a few days ago that said they were in a case that had a similar juror and the judge called each 1 into a private meeting and the judge then decided it was valid to remove the juror and use an alternate and start deliberations over again.

I realize it is a touchy situation but I would have expected JSS at the very least to call each 1 into a meeting to get the story right from each juror. She may have still decided to keep the juror but maybe not. We'll never know now.

We've seen it before and I am afraid we just saw it again that JSS let the fear of appeals dictate her decision making, which in this case, directly affected the juries decision.
She chose the safe way out without pursuing it further. She had a legal right to look into it further by juror interview.

JMO of course.

 

[Madeleine74]

Was the jury instructed they were absolutely not to use Facebook or any other social media during their jury service? Or... were they admonished to stay away from any info, articles, media or conversations about this case? There's a big difference. It is possible to make a Facebook post (like sending someone Birthday wishes) without exposing oneself to this case. I'm not saying it's a good idea, only that it can be done, and if the judge didn't specify what they could or could not use on their computer or phone then.... open to interpretation.

 

[RadarLuv]

http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/arias-minute.pdf

 

[turaj]

Yes, me too, let's see what they have and see if she actually lied on her questionnaire, if she didn't I can't see how anyone can prove misconduct. I mean, this is kind of awkward for the state IMO.

she told them right on the questionaire that she saw the movie...she had explanations for everything and even said she purposely did not go to lunch with the others...one could question as well what did the others talk about at lunch??? None of this speaks well for the jury voir dire system...the time to get the dirt on the jurors is prior to trial not like this. An investigation will go no where.

 

[MeeBee]

Was the jury instructed they were absolutely not to use Facebook or any other social media during their jury service? Or... were they admonished to stay away from any info, articles, media or conversations about this case? There's a big difference. It is possible to make a Facebook post (like sending someone Birthday wishes) without exposing oneself to this case. I'm not saying it's a good idea, only that it can be done, and if the judge didn't specify what they could or could not use on their computer or phone then.... open to interpretation.

I think they were told to stay off Facebook. I remember the judge asking them during selections if they could stay off Facebook for the duration of the trial and some couldn't and pardoned themselves. But we will need to know for sure what she told the final jurors.

 

[LambChop]

When you all get into a circular argument and YOU know it's time to quit, do so. No need to announce it. No need to put posters on a guilt trip. Everyone knows the rules so let's just follow them so our post don't disappear.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I've been searching possible connections between J17, CMJA's family, MDLR, etc..

CMJA's uncle has a lot of racing pictures in his Facebook account.... I wonder if there could be a connection between J17's husband and CMJA's uncle...

 

[WhoaIsMe]

Yeah, but was one of their 'likes' The Daily Share, an HLN program that just debuted on January 13, 2015, right in the middle of the trial? That was one of the recent likes on J17's Facebook page, as per the court minute entry.

http://www.thewrap.com/hln-unveils-new-set-for-robin-meade-to-premiere-the-daily-share/

hmmm. Did not even catch that.

 

[MeeBee]

she told them right on the questionaire that she saw the movie...she had explanations for everything and even said she purposely did not go to lunch with the others...one could question as well what did the others talk about at lunch??? None of this speaks well for the jury voir dire system...the time to get the dirt on the jurors is prior to trial not like this. An investigation will go no where.

The fact she watched the movie wasn't new information though was it? It was to the jurors I guess but I thought we already knew this. I think the proglem was her using the movie in her decision making.

The real issue seems to be that Juan prosecuted her former husband. I don't think the movie was a concern for Juan. But if he'd known about the connection to her he never would have let her on, nor would the judge. The question becomes did she know this. She will probably deny this or have an explanation for it. But I honestly don't believe she didn't know. IMVPO.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Or, maybe if racing could also be a connection between MDLR's daughter/sister/niece (whoever was friends w/J17's husband)....

 

[Madeleine74]

My take-away from reading the PDF on the 3/3/15 in-camera hearings was that

1. the juror notes were not ignored, they were investigated by the judge
2. the judge did question each of the 3 people (though yes perhaps she should have questioned every last juror)
3. both the state and the defense had the opportunity to be present
4. both the state and defense had the opportunity to suggest a course of action
5. and ultimately, for some reason, the foreman and the other juror (18) told the judge separately that they did feel that J17 could deliberate and that things had improved. They said it and it's right in the notes, verbatim.

The judge had limited actions she could take and in a DP phase removing a juror when there isn't clear-cut evidence of violating the rules can get the sentence tossed by an appeal court. I realize some people think "so what?" but would it be any less devastating to the family if that happened a year or two down the road?

 

[RR0004]

I think she slit his throat because he kept moving to get away from her in the attack and it was the only thing she could think of to stop him once and for all. It wasn't the first thing she did, it was the last thing she did with the knife and it was done at the threshold of his getting from the hallway to his bedroom. I don't think there was much symbolism in her actions; the crime scene shows great disorder and chaos. She wanted him dead and I believe it was because he rejected her and she couldn't handle it. Once the attack started he fought back and didn't die immediately.

ITA. Very well said...but oh so sad.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think she slit his throat because he kept moving to get away from her in the attack and it was the only thing she could think of to stop him once and for all. It wasn't the first thing she did, it was the last thing she did with the knife and it was done at the threshold of his getting from the hallway to his bedroom. I don't think there was much symbolism in her actions; the crime scene shows great disorder and chaos. She wanted him dead and I believe it was because he rejected her and she couldn't handle it. Once the attack started he fought back and didn't die immediately.

I think she did it because she wanted to kill him in the worst way she could think of. She had the gun. She could have killed him quick, But she slit his throat with him looking up at her. She wanted to kill him and make him see her do it.. IMO

 

[RadarLuv]

I seriously don't get how people do not understand this. It is not for people to say what will "free" the Alexanders from having to "deal with this". I feel like when someone says that that they weren't watching the same case that I was because all I saw in the faces of the Alexanders was that of steadfastness and never ending will to get justice no matter what or how long. That's on them. I don't believe we have seen the last of the Alexanders. I don't believe they will ever have closure. They have strength in numbers and will make JA's life as much as a living hell as they can with whatever ammo they can.

Exactly. Thank you for getting it. It is NEVER about the money. It is about justice. IMHO

 

[turaj]

It sounded to me as though JSS thought that two was enough, that they didn't need to take to time to talk with the other nine.
I think KN or JW may have made her anxious by their statements, IIRC, that because JSS was talking with the jurors one at a time, that she was interfering with the judicial process and so they should have a mistrial.

at that stage of the deliberations she would easily been seen as interfering with the vote of one person who had their mind made up...not a JSS fan here at all but that document indicates that at every stage of this mess she had case law backing her up....I think this will go no further and 17 will resume her life and be on Phil.

 

[cinsbythesea]

Everyones hero Sherriff Joe, is an attention-seeker. JMO

He's usually pretty open about his opinions. Don't like his jail and the way he runs it - don't commit another crime to get yourself back in. It's my opinion he's had it up to his eyebrows with Arias and her antics. She's toying with him and his jail the same way she toys with everyone else in her universe. She's toying with the wrong mouse in this instance.