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.....
Speaking of weeds.... The only thing that matters to me is that she withheld
vital information, aka lying. This means to me that she
wanted to be on the jury. This makes her motivation
suspect. She consorts with felons, a FACT. Her ex was prosecuted for
murder by Juan, a FACT. She withheld during deliberations, a FACT, even if the criteria for deliberation were met. She now cries 'victim' and mistreatment and has LE protection. Her convicted felon hubby gives an interview and wants $$$. Meanwhile, there is NO evidence, NO proof thus far that she was ever the victim of DV. There is NO evidence of any credible death threats. But it's okay for people to find excuses for her even when there is no proof.
It's a shady DUCK, IMO. She's a lying liar who lies, a FACT, so why should I believe anything she says? If she were a witness in a trial I, as a juror, am allowed to put aside all her testimony if I catch her in a lie. I don't need to find excuses for her, or attempt to live inside her head for an explanation. It's her behaviour that matters. She is no victim.
One other thing, I particularly don't care for analysing her inner life unless there's a lot of information and behaviour and one is an expert. Just a pet peeve of mine, and not a reflection of this post. There's a lot, a LOT of ignorance out there thanks to pop psychology and the abuse excuse entrenched in society. I think sometimes we bend over backwards so much, our hearts bleed so much, that we abdicate all boundaries/critical faculties, and being a true victim has lost its meaning, and justice has been victimised to death.
