Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[MeeBee]

I'm going to take issue with your assumption that this was "all" JM had to do. Far from it. This was not his only case, nor was it the only case for any of JM's assistants, or any of the detectives working on this case. And I don't believe it was "all" he had to do anymore than it was "all" KN and JW and MdlR and their PI had to do. I think it was one of the things that a highly paid (thanks to the taxpayers of Arizona) PI did in concert with MdlR. I think that one of the reasons the DT's huge tab cost so much is that they did have people whose job it was to focus on the backgrounds of all the jurors in order to discover the slightest thing that could lead to a mistrial. I don't think synchronicity had anything to do with it. I think that the PI's (and to some extent MdlR's) mandate was to seek out all the available information about every juror and alternate chosen to be on the panel. IMO, the DT was holding onto that information in order to have a mistrial declared if everyone had voted for the DP. And, I would bet, they had information that could have been interpreted as damaging, no matter how innocent, on other jurors as well. I would love to see a breakdown of the money spent on the DT by AZ taxpayers, though I'm pretty sure that won't happen for quite a while, if ever.

As well, I don't think J17 felt intimidated by anything when she told the other jurors that they only wanted revenge by voting for death. IIRC, J17 refused to look at autopsy pictures, would not refer to anything but JA's fake journals and a made for TV movie and expected everyone to just go along with her. So, I think she may have been a stealth anti death penalty advocate more than a JA advocate. But that doesn't explain why MdlR tweeted the verdict on SM before it was read in court.

Jodi's defense cost 3 million dollars wheread the state paid around $125,000 iirc. .

 

[Amster]

Why is it wrong to "assume" anything about J17 but ok to "assume" what JM did or didn't do in regard to J17? Maybe he wanted her tossed but JSS refused? Remember Perry in the Anthony trial and his handpicked jury?

 

[Moonchime]

Being the one with an agenda, I think she was/is planning to write a book and that's why she took the notes regarding the journals. However, I don't know if the jury is allowed to keep their notes. In most cases no but she could have done it to try to help her remember more.

In Arizona, the jurors are not allowed to keep their notes. They are destroyed by the court.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

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 have seen a lot of what's out there...most is on Twitter, and it could be called "mean" perhaps... it's a lot of people venting their "emotional opinions", there are 'some' derogatory comments... Her name and address have been posted a few times - but this has been pulled from public records....

I haven't however seen any thing worthy of being call a "death threat", and I haven't heard about anyone stalking her outside her house or following her.

And, I know we shouldn't make assumptions... But I'm going to go out on a limb here... J17 and her husband look like people who typically don't FEAR anyone, they come across as the types that possibly could even have some gang affiliation. To me they look like the type of people who usually like others to fear THEM!

I might even go as far as to say that, real and credible "death threats" might be something common for their crowd... Again, this is just me going out on a limb and making assumptions (based on their friends, court records, photos, gestures used in photos, etc).

All this makes it even MORE confusing and frustrating as to WHY j17 would fear what is being said online... I can tell you right now, you couldn't pay me enough money to even go near j17's husband he looks so scary.. He looks as if he could defend himself and j17 just fine should the need arise.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'm going to take issue with your assumption that this was "all" JM had to do. Far from it. This was not his only case, nor was it the only case for any of JM's assistants, or any of the detectives working on this case. And I don't believe it was "all" he had to do anymore than it was "all" KN and JW and MdlR and their PI had to do. I think it was one of the things that a highly paid (thanks to the taxpayers of Arizona) PI did in concert with MdlR. I think that one of the reasons the DT's huge tab cost so much is that they did have people whose job it was to focus on the backgrounds of all the jurors in order to discover the slightest thing that could lead to a mistrial. I don't think synchronicity had anything to do with it. I think that the PI's (and to some extent MdlR's) mandate was to seek out all the available information about every juror and alternate chosen to be on the panel. IMO, the DT was holding onto that information in order to have a mistrial declared if everyone had voted for the DP. And, I would bet, they had information that could have been interpreted as damaging, no matter how innocent, on other jurors as well. I would love to see a breakdown of the money spent on the DT by AZ taxpayers, though I'm pretty sure that won't happen for quite a while, if ever.

As well, I don't think J17 felt intimidated by anything when she told the other jurors that they only wanted revenge by voting for death. IIRC, J17 refused to look at autopsy pictures, would not refer to anything but JA's fake journals and a made for TV movie and expected everyone to just go along with her. So, I think she may have been a stealth anti death penalty advocate more than a JA advocate. But that doesn't explain why MdlR tweeted the verdict on SM before it was read in court.

My use of the word 'all' was not in regards to it being his sole job, but I think that is obvious.

I think Juan did a great job, and is a good prosecutor, I do not put him on a pedestal above the rest of the fallible human race though, and neither does anyone else that I know of .. I think when something goes wrong and you can see there is a way that could have been avoided, you accept where things fell down, learn from it, and next time you do things differently. There is no point bending oneself into a pretzel of denial just so you don't pinpoint where the failing was because you 'like' that person, or because you support their stance.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Personally I don't think the Law of Attraction was not the source; I think Jodi convinced others to do her deeds for her.. Just my opinion

Hey, what's up Buttercup! *heh heh always wanted to say that*

BBM because I remember that was my first thought. Also, that someone with half a brain** would have taken the cash at least to TRY and deflect the real target of the burglary.

**meaning someone who wouldn't risk burglarizing the home of a State's witness. Only a halfwit would do something like that. Seriously, what kind of a thief passes up cash to take a bulky laptop?

 

[RR0004]

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'm sure this is a silly question...but do we know for sure that she failed to reveal she "knew" Juan prosecuted her husband? TIA

ETA: great post!

 

[Nancy_Drew]

RUMOR has it that she retained KN..... it's just a rumor for now, and I am just telling a little white lie is the real truth!!!

Hahaha!! Unbelievable!! The never ending circus!!!

(So, now we can assume that these "death threats" have come from "abusive, sexual predators", who are probably involved in "*advertiser censored* rings", and "human trafficking", and j17 is worried about being taken and sold into "sex slavery"!!)

 

[Hope4More]

I'm going to take issue with your assumption that this was "all" JM had to do. Far from it. This was not his only case, nor was it the only case for any of JM's assistants, or any of the detectives working on this case. And I don't believe it was "all" he had to do anymore than it was "all" KN and JW and MdlR and their PI had to do. I think it was one of the things that a highly paid (thanks to the taxpayers of Arizona) PI did in concert with MdlR. I think that one of the reasons the DT's huge tab cost so much is that they did have people whose job it was to focus on the backgrounds of all the jurors in order to discover the slightest thing that could lead to a mistrial. I don't think synchronicity had anything to do with it. I think that the PI's (and to some extent MdlR's) mandate was to seek out all the available information about every juror and alternate chosen to be on the panel. IMO, the DT was holding onto that information in order to have a mistrial declared if everyone had voted for the DP. And, I would bet, they had information that could have been interpreted as damaging, no matter how innocent, on other jurors as well. I would love to see a breakdown of the money spent on the DT by AZ taxpayers, though I'm pretty sure that won't happen for quite a while, if ever.

As well, I don't think J17 felt intimidated by anything when she told the other jurors that they only wanted revenge by voting for death. IIRC, J17 refused to look at autopsy pictures, would not refer to anything but JA's fake journals and a made for TV movie and expected everyone to just go along with her. So, I think she may have been a stealth anti death penalty advocate more than a JA advocate. But that doesn't explain why MdlR tweeted the verdict on SM before it was read in court.

17 looked at the autopsy photos. I think it is clear she felt intimidated. She faced 11 angry folks in an overcrowded room ,deliberating life or death, cussing at her for not agreeing with them or being able to explain herself.

There is no actual EVIDENCE that says she was a stealth juror of any kind. There has is no evidence that's been made public,if it exists, that she lied during voir dire.

It was the State's job to look into jurors' truthfulness during voir dire if any red flags were raised, and there were at least several raised by 17 that should have been looked into, ESPECIALLY given this was a retrial of a high publicity case, and ESPECIALLY given the role of social media in the trial. No excuses.

Either JM misread her and should have moved to strike, or if he was out of strikes, all the more reason to investigate the heck out of the raised red flags. Maybe 17 lied, or maybe she didn't...either way the State didn't do what it needed to do.

Even if 17 DID lie to get on the jury (speculation) it is speculation based on another speculation to assume she did it to hang the jury for whatever reason. Maybe she just really wanted to be on high profile jury and for her that was a good enough reason to not volunteer info that wasn't asked for, or to lie about knowing JM. If she did know him.

Beyond that is too much in the weeds of speculation to go.....

 

[Moonchime]

And acting far outside the scope of her mitigation specialist job responsibilities.

I have a feeling that MDLR has performed her last day of being employed as a mitigation specialist. She just doesn't know it yet, although I am sure she suspects it to be the case. MOO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Surely, even in Arizona, that would be a conflict of interest?

I was kidding when I said KN. At the end of my post, I called myself out saying, "a little white lie" :shame: LOL.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm sure this is a silly question...but do we know for sure that she failed to reveal she "knew" Juan prosecuted her husband? TIA

ETA: great post!

No. We don't. We only know that she answered- honestly- about watching that Lifetime movie, and honestly about her ex-husband's conviction.

 

[audreyparker]

Anomoly here. I've always wanted to serve on a jury and there was a time I had a couple very stressful corp jobs (back in Calif) where I was miserable and was praying to be called for jury duty because my companies would pay 100% and it would be better than being at work. I never ever got called. Not in the 19 yrs I lived there nor the 13 years I've lived in my current state (North Carolina). I'm registered, I vote, I drive. What gives? I'm ready to serve! Go ahead and background check me, social media check me, no problemo. I got nuttin' to be worried about there (unless posting pictures of one's insolent bratty cat is a sign of mental illness, to which I say, "yep, cray cray checking in!")

I've only been called once and i vote and drive too! I've been eligible for almost 30 years.

Also - I love your cat picture!!

 

[geevee]

I have a feeling that MDLR has performed her last day of being employed as a mitigation specialist. She just doesn't know it yet, although I am sure she suspects it to be the case. MOO

One would hope. She did a lousy job of mitigation and behaved completely inappropriately during the course of both trials. IMO there well should be an investigation into her activities re the income Arias was earning from her "artwork" and other things we may not know about, it seems clear she has crossed many boundaries of her capacity as a 'mitigation specialist'.

 

[katiecoolady]

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again D), but what if the court appointed Victim Advocate for the Alexander family behaved in this manner? The defense would have filed multiple misconduct/mistrial motions and they would have tried to get the Victim Advocate removed from the case. They probably would have filed an ethics complaint with whatever body is responsible for that in Arizona. Yet for some reason MDLR has been given a free pass to smuggle artwork in and out of jail (artwork that was labelled as being for the killer's 'mitigation', but was never actually used in court), lash out at Travis' supporters on social media, glare at the family during their most emotional moments during the trial, and finally assist (allegedly) a convicted murderer with hiding potential restitution funds from the victim's family. I just can't wrap my head around this. :gaah:

This needs to be reposted! And MDLR used to be a Victim Advocate...even the real VA in that courtroom can't wrap their head around this. Unreal.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

How true! When you watch back the footage of that day--Jodi literally had the wind knocked out of her. She expected to walk free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwJcVXYyUo

Thank you!! I needed that!! ...you are so right, the look on her face...and she even made a little gasp...

 

[RR0004]

No. We don't. We only know that she answered- honestly- about watching that Lifetime movie, and honestly about her ex-husband's conviction.

I can't wait to hear what her response to that question was. That's the crux of the matter, IMO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

17 looked at the autopsy photos. I think it is clear she felt intimidated. She faced 11 angry folks in an overcrowded room ,deliberating life or death, cussing at her for not agreeing with them or being able to explain herself.

There is no actual EVIDENCE that says she was a stealth juror of any kind. There has is no evidence that's been made public,if it exists, that she lied during voir dire.

It was the State's job to look into jurors' truthfulness during voir dire if any red flags were raised, and there were at least several raised by 17 that should have been looked into, ESPECIALLY given this was a retrial of a high publicity case, and ESPECIALLY given the role of social media in the trial. No excuses.

Either JM misread her and should have moved to strike, or if he was out of strikes, all the more reason to investigate the heck out of the raised red flags. Maybe 17 lied, or maybe she didn't...either way the State didn't do what it needed to do.

Even if 17 DID lie to get on the jury (speculation) it is speculation based on another speculation to assume she did it to hang the jury for whatever reason. Maybe she just really wanted to be on high profile jury and for her that was a good enough reason to not volunteer info that wasn't asked for, or to lie about knowing JM. If she did know him.

Beyond that is too much in the weeds of speculation to go.....

Thank you, and exactly .. even if Juan was out of strikes I think she could have been dismissed for cause if her ex-husband's connection to Juan was explained to JSS. There is no changing what happened this time, but here's hoping the state has learned their lesson and it wont happen with future jury selections.

 

[steelman]

Faint singing was heard coming from the Jodi Arias's cell today.......

" 99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer, take one down-pass it around , 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

98 bottles of beer on the wall, 98 bottles of beer. take one down-pass it around, 97 bottles of beer on the wall.......

97 bottles of beer on the wall, 97 bottles of beer.........."

 

[GigiG]

Her hands are so huge. They seem too huge for her body.

Which is weird, and goes to show how far off perceptions can be. Yesterday I watched a news segment where Troy Hayden said that one of the things that struck him about her (in person), was that her hands were smaller than his 13yo (I think) daughter. How can that be when some of her features seem too big or out of proportion, judging by what we've seen in photos and on video?