Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[TorisMom003]

I think "knowing" someone involved in the case and saying well I don't "know" them is an example of splitting hairs. And if one has to split hairs to justify something then one knows that they are doing something wrong/illegal/improper.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

Sorry, but no one has been able to define what "knowing" means.

I know who my DA is and several ADAs. I know what they look like and I know what their voices sound like. I've seen some during live streams of trials. I would recognize them in person. But I don't "know" them nor they me.

I've spoken with 2 or 3 ADAs before. They likely would not recognize me were we to meet up again, but I certainly would recognize them. Because I've had personal interaction with them I would answer yes to 'know'ing the person. Then I would clarify that we spoke once and where it was and what it was about.

But outside of any personal contact? No. I don't "know" anyone else and I would be answering truthfully if asked that question.

So, did Juror 17 ever talk to, meet, have any dealings directly with anyone from the prosecutor's office, including Juan? Or was it that her fiance did and she 'knew' Juan's name and knew it was Juan who was the ADA who got husband #1 convicted? They are not the same thing.

And while it sure seems I'm spitting hairs, the law really is about splitting hairs.

lol.

Yeah, I don't buy it. We are all grown ups with logically working minds. We know what the question means. We know it doesn't mean have you seen this person's face on a park bench or on the evening news? There was one juror, who made it to deliberations, IIRC, who had seen Juan quite a bit on TV during Jodi's trial. Yet she did not speak up when questioned at the beginning. Because it's not a difficult question to understand. The jurors in the Michael Dunn case I followed would probably all have said yes to this question during voir dire when they saw it was Angela Corey, the DA on the case. I think that it is a silly rationalization to why #17 didn't say anything.

 

[katiecoolady]

BBM

Well there is that whole Snow White angle. :giggle:

I almost choked AND spit out my smoothie on that one. POST OF THE DAY!!!! lmao....dingdingding!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

How about "are you acquainted with?". I think AZL's comment about having any past dealings pretty much covers this whole thing though, IF that was asked.

All depends on what exactly was asked and then what she answered. At this point I've seen nothing that is verbatim on that or similar questions. It can be imagined a myriad of ways. To determine if she lied, I'd want to see the actual question.

 

[katiecoolady]

I think "knowing" someone involved in the case and saying well I don't "know" them is an example of splitting hairs. And if one has to split hairs to justify something then one knows that they are doing something wrong/illegal/improper.

MOO

I will also admit that I was eager to let the Judge know that I'd done that Trading Spaces weekend because I really wanted to go to the movies on that rainy day vs. sit in jury duty. Also, does anyone in their right mind ever think I'd be an objective juror when it involves victims? I don't mind owning my bias so I'd been tossed anyway. It just happened right outta the gait.

 

[Hope4More]

JMO--Please tell me that there is a decent chance that someone in AZ (with the power to do something) will care about this. It is beyond the pale.

RUMOR ALERT, RUMOR ALERT: rumor has it that MDLR is being investigated (no specifics), as is Aunt Sue (linked to release of jurors' names).

 

[katiecoolady]

All depends on what exactly was asked and then what she answered. At this point I've seen nothing that is verbatim on that or similar questions. It can be imagined a myriad of ways. To determine if she lied, I'd want to see the actual question.

Me either, just going on my own personal experience from sitting in that very jurisdiction and the experience of, an experienced atty who works in that courthouse. I'd say NOT asking that question would be a deviation. So I feel comfortable discussing based on those kind of "givens".

(and ya know I luvs ya Madeleine)

 

[katiecoolady]

RUMOR ALERT, RUMOR ALERT: rumor has it that MDLR is being investigated (no specifics), as is Aunt Sue (linked to release of jurors' names).

To me the top of my suspect list are MDLR and her little dog Kiefer.

 

[MeeBee]

I think "knowing" someone involved in the case and saying well I don't "know" them is an example of splitting hairs. And if one has to split hairs to justify something then one knows that they are doing something wrong/illegal/improper.

MOO

Exactly. If you have to sit there debating within yourself whether you should or shouldn't say anything you know what the answer is. If she even did that.

 

[Soulsad]

Just an aside. The date on that was March 5th. Today is March 13th so it's nothing new or ongoing.

Sigh. She doesn't deserve to be threatened- if she actually IS being threatened, other than venting on SM. I hope the attorney she's hired is actually there to represent her in an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct.

 

[Hez]

Based on the statement released by the county attorney, the "threats" against juror 17 can not presently be verified. If juror 17 were in fact receiving threats, why would the county attorney not have copies of those threats? Perhaps because they don't exist?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only verified threats in this case that resulted in actual charges was from a Jodi Arias supporter who threatened Nancy Grace and JVM. These are the types of people who support the killer. It appears that the Laws of Attraction are finally working for her. :facepalm: Dr. Demarte was burglarized just before she was scheduled to testify during the guilt(y) phase, but the only thing stolen was her laptop (even though some cash and diamond earrings were left out in the open). All the other 'threats' that the defense team have cried about are nothing but bluster, and that includes the latest from J17. I'm just not buying it. :moo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ace-tie-tree-naked-slit-throat_n_3647889.html


http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/2...t-witness-in-arias-trial-has-home-burglarized

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/22162948/2013/05/04/laptop-stolen

 

[Madeleine74]

lol.

Yeah, I don't buy it. We are all grown ups with logically working minds. We know what the question means. We know it doesn't mean have you seen this person's face on a park bench or on the evening news? There was one juror, who made it to deliberations, IIRC, who had seen Juan quite a bit on TV during Jodi's trial. Yet she did not speak up when questioned at the beginning. Because it's not a difficult question to understand. The jurors in the Michael Dunn case I followed would probably all have said yes to this question during voir dire when they saw it was Angela Corey, the DA on the case. I think that it is a silly rationalization to why #17 didn't say anything.

So what was the *exact* question? How is it known exactly what happened during voir dire by anyone on WS, when none of us were in that room? There's a reason a verbatim court record is created and verified.

It may be silly to you and many others, but I'm telling you that law students, interns, and noobie lawyers get pounded on things like exact wording. We do not all have "logical working minds." I guarantee some % of the public are fairly dense and this includes potential jurors. Does J17 seem intelligent to you? Logical? And then there was the jury interview with the 11 +2 who said J17 refused to deliberate at all but then in the actual court notes, the foreperson and another juror told the judge that J17 was deliberating but not "effectively" and then later she was "doing better and was deliberating." Not quite the exact same thing, right?

How many times have assumptions been made just here on WS and posters got their panties twisted in a wad only to be informed they misunderstood what was actually being said? Happens every day, many times a day.

 

[Mindmatters]

IMO there was an interesting difference though- from what I read Juror 17 sent her note secretly to the Judge, said nothing to the others.
When the Foreman sent his note to the Judge he did so openly, explained to Juror 17 what he had written and why.......

Glad you posted this ZsaZsa, this is the only proof I need that this juror engaged in something far less than an honest duty to serve as a juror--and don't even get me started on J17 attempting to shame, whether from intent or ignorance, her fellow jurors by telling them they were seeking revenge by choosing the DP(and let me very clear that those with DV histories have a very deep understanding of how shame works, which makes her actions in this vein especially revolting and aggregious IMO) . So for me, I do not trust anything that has or will come from this juror.

Every jury is charged with working TOGETHER with integrity, honesty and mutual respect, J17 demonstrated by this one action alone that she fell far short of her responsibility.

 

[Moonchime]

Enjoy the Arpaio mystery loaf Arias

View attachment 71036
#b&jspizza&wings

Yikes! That stuff looks scary. :biggrin:

 

[FelicityLemon]

I could understand her mindset going in regarding under what circumstances would a woman kill a man and abuse is certainly a strong reason. Usually that doesn't involve premeditation but sometimes it could if the fear was so great they needed to plan their actions well. However, I am not able to understand how that mindset could not be changed once in the company of other jurors deliberating on the evidence. It has been said the vote was something like 6-6 in the beginning. What made those others change their minds and not this one juror?

Even with all that considered, this jury was to weigh aggravtors vs mitigators. No one has reported, that I am aware of, that J17 gave reasons for her belief that the mitigator of abuse was so strong that it trumped all else. I personally do not think she believed that herself, but rather she had an agenda and stood her ground in order to carry that out.

Finally, Elle...have you ever seen Jodi in person? I am just wondering because I have seen you post other times about how tiny she is. What about her makes her appear tiny to you? Don't forget they had her chair way down almost to the floor to make her look small--are you thinking that someone seeing her sitting that way in person might think she is tiny? Because I don't think the killer is tiny at all--every description I have seen of her says she is average to slightly above average height and normal weight for her height. IOW, not tiny.

J17 reportedly did say she saw a normal girl where she expected to see a monster.

Yep, in every picture and video when standing, ja looks to be a few inches taller than her lawyer. In every picture and video.

Also, I'm guessing that JW wears heels to court since most women do that I've seen. I'm projecting, of course because I haven't seen hundreds of trials but I've seen dozens, and most petite women will wear heels in order to feel and appear taller, which equals perceived intelligence and power and respect.

That irks me about ja's chair being several inches lower than JW's to try and manipulate. I guess what irks me is not that they manipulate, but that there are people who bought into it.

Look at every single picture of them standing together.

 

[RadarLuv]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq 33m33 minutes ago

#JodiArias waived presentence interview. We know almost everything about her..except finances.

 

[katiecoolady]

All I can say (well not "all" obviously) is that if my husband was prosecuted and sentenced and I sat in a courtroom and saw the man who did the prosecuting walk in to court, especially a man as flamboyant and over the top as Juan Martinez, and I had a history of abuse, I'd go in to immediate reactivity of some sort--anger, fear, indignance, something. To not have that kind of reaction, in my way of thinking, would be highly unusual. You'd really have to be steely and rationalize your way right past it somehow. It'd all be part of the trauma package for most people. I mean, really, it's Juan Martinez! No shrinking violet devoid of opinions!

Maybe she will say she went in to a fog for the entire 5 months. Sorry, for that.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I place no blame on the state or the judge for not crossing her in the beginning. There was nothing to cross her for. You don't cross someone off for cause for having DV in their past if they say they can remain impartial about it. It's their word and you have to accept it. I don't think Juan was super concerned about DV victims, especially if there were more strike worthy candidates. He may have thought, like many of the posters here, that a true victim of DV might see through the lies. There was a male juror who had experience with DV in his past let on too. It's a crap shoot. And, again, doing in depth research into their backgrounds doesn't seem typical to me.

As far as Juan not doing more research on her ex husband, I don't think that is typical of research that the state does when vetting jurors and seriously, how would it ever cross his mind to look for that, especially when the juror does not appear to have disclosed his earlier first degree prosecution? The prosecution she did disclose to him would not have been prosecuted by him either, as he has been a homicide prosecutor for quite some time now. Was he even allowed to ask her for his name so he could research him? Sure a bunch of "grandma types" found the info, but, again, this isn't something the state will ususlly look for. There's an expectation of honesty when questioning jurors. I remember AZL saying during jury selection that the lawyers will look for things that will show them a juror was honest. This juror was forthcoming about her husbands' legal issues and that probably tipped to him that she was being transparent and didn't appear to be TRYING to get on the jury. He otherwise seems to have done a stellar job selecting the jury so it makes you wonder.

He did try and get her removed a couple times which is interesting. I'd like to know more about that. If the defense had asked for it she'd be gone in a New York minute.

Like I said before, I won't blame the state for someone else's deceit. Yes, deceit. She lied by ommission by not mentioning Juan was her ex husband's prosecutor. There's no way she didn't know this and no way she didn't know this was important information and no way she told them this and Juan let her stay on. If she comes out and offers some logical explanation for why she didn't reveal this info I will eat my words. But I'm not gonna pretend to be blind to what is in front of me.

I actually do think it's typical of the kind of research they do on jurors these days. The minute he heard the word felon he should have pulled the records, especially considering it was in the same county ie where he had been at the time. It's his job, they're at the courthouse FGS. It's a PT fail and there is no getting around that .. also all jurors social media accounts should have been checked, hers was wide open and people on the internet could have a look as well as pull her ex husband's court documents. This is a lesson for them. Once deliberations had started it was out of JSS's hands so his attempts to remove her were way too late. An expectation of honestly is so naive, they should have taken a closer look at her, I mean, how long did it take Twitter, a couple of hours if that? Beyond that, we don't even know that she was stealth .. she had a past but perhaps she was in there with good intentions of doing the right thing and has a reserved nature, felt intimidated, couldn't make good arguments for life, we only have the other jurors opinions to gauge her on .. in this case especially whoever didn't vote for death was going to be pilloried because that's the nature of the case, it's the way it's been this whole trial.

 

[FelicityLemon]

This is a heavily moderated forum and look at the comments that have been expressed about J17, and that's with a tight rein and what has been allowed to get through. Now think about unmoderated places out there like Facebook and Twitter and others. You think J17's address or phone or email hasn't been published somewhere? It would not surprise me that threats could have been lobbed to J17 (or would to any juror who voted against the way that most people wanted them to).

I'm not defending J17 or her will-speak-for-$$ husband at all, but there are many seriously cray-cray people out in the world whose set of skills do not include logical thinking and rational actions. Anger, rage, all kinds of emotions spur crazy into action. Remember the hoards of people who stood outside the Anthony house in FL screaming at all hours of the day or night? Remember how some of them even brought their kids to witness their lunacy? I remember that. It went on for months.

I agree with you about what crazy people do in regards to death threats on the internet. However, I'm be much more afraid of those ja supporters - that handful of people are rabid.

 

[steelman]

JMO--Please tell me that there is a decent chance that someone in AZ (with the power to do something) will care about this. It is beyond the pale.

Well...........the more of this that comes to light through investigative reporting, the morel likelihood the D.A. and the powers-that-be will be forced to take action.

I highly doubt that Bill Montgomery is going to tip-toe lightly and skirt issues regarding MDLR, the same way he did with juror 17.
I suspect that what she's doing for Arias is legal........but just barely.

Once again, this is the defense team that bends every rule possible just shy of breaking it. MDLR probably found some obscure loophole in the law somewhere which would enable her to launder money for Jodi. I'd imagine she ran the idea through a couple of her attorney friends as well prior to setting it all up.

The D.A. in Phoenix right now is feeling a huge amount of heat and backlash after the mistrial last week. If allegations and accusations regarding misdeeds by MDLR come to light, and they are found to be illegal, then I have no doubt the DA would charge her in the blink of an eye.

What she is doing may not be illegal, but it would sure fall into the category of unethical, without a doubt. As we all know, nobody on the entire defense team cares about unethical behavior..........unless it is them blaming someone else of it.