Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[Love Never Fails]

Hi KCL... Can't help myself here, just have to say, again, that she did NOT refuse to deliberate. If she had refused to deliberate things would have turned out differently. Maybe she knew to deliberate just enough so she wasn't booted, maybe not. But deliberate she did. If she lied in voir dire and charges aren't filed, I hope the DA's office pays a steep political price. Not holding my breath on that one.

What IS demonstrably true...taking her own words at face value and believing what the jurors said, is that she swore in voir dire that she could put her DV experience aside in deliberations, and THAT she clearly did not do. But... that is not against the law, and she can't and won't be charged for it.

The 11 other jurors said she refused to deliberate.
I read the interview with the foreman and while he was doing his best to be kind and fair, he let it be known she didn't deliberate.

 

[Madeleine74]

Absolutely. For example, to flip it and if I recognized the defense attorney in my exact real life scenario and say, he'd defended the men who killed my sister I would say "yes I know him, he defended the men who killed my sister". That's my closest analogy from real life.

But then again, I wasn't trying to get on that jury.

And to the same question I would answer, "I know who he is (followed by the explanation of how I know who he is) but I've never spoken to him, and I don't know him." In other words, we're each defining what that means and without being prompted we're explaining why we answered the way we did, and neither of us would be lying.

I don't know if J17 was trying to get on the jury. She very well may have. And she didn't offer up information that she had. We might consider it lying but is it lying in the legal sense? I don't know.

 

[Soulsad]

This first video release kind of puts the soullessness of these girls front and center.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wisconsin-slender-man-20150313-story.html

There was a also a 20/20 full episode called 'OUT OF THE WOODS'

also this - http://perezhilton.com/perezitos/20...yton-leutner-speaks-out?from=engagement_links

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/22/girls-who-tried-kill-slender-man-264218.html
Payton Leutner survived is doing remarkably well.

Lambchop please forgive this off-topic. I will stay to the arias news here from this post forward.

Id like to know how they decide whether to enhance a juvenile to adult courts. I'm not saying those girl's don't need to be punished but spending a LIFE sentence from 12 years old.. I just don't feel okay with that. What are the charges in adult court ?

 

[Hope4More]

Here's the entire tweet ( :tyou: Val1!) :

(@JMartinezUpdate) tweeted at 2:56am - 14 Mar 15:

#JodiArias Juror 17 (Formerly Juror 138) was in this batch of jurors during jury selection >>
http://youtu.be/U-j3OARmDZk

Asked if any1 knew JM. (https://twitter.com/JMartinezUpdate/status/576683428696834048?s=17)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone verified that juror 17 was in that bunch (was 138 or whatever)? If so, that's concrete evidence of step 1- she WAS asked, directly, if she knew JM. Who was looking into court docs about the trials(did he go to trial or do a plea bargain?) of 17's ex?

 

[RadarLuv]

Celeb Crime Reporter @Celebrity_Crime · 5h 5 hours ago

#jodiarias Penalty Retrial Jury Selection : Oct. 1 http://youtu.be/2nRC1edC2wU?a

[video=youtube;CAXGZwD3NLQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXGZwD3NLQ&feature=youtu.be&a[/video]

 

[RadarLuv]

Yep, she lied. That is my opinion as you would NEVER forget the man that put your husband in prison. Ever.

Has anyone verified that juror 17 was in that bunch (was 138 or whatever)? If so, that's concrete evidence of step 1- she WAS asked, directly, if she knew JM. Who was looking into court docs about the trials(did he go to trial or do a plea bargain?) of 17's ex?

 

[Hope4More]

The 11 other jurors said she refused to deliberate.
I read the interview with the foreman and while he was doing his best to be kind and fair, he let it be known she didn't deliberate.

Curious....love you, but that ain't so. According to the foreman, 17 deliberated and voted with the jury on mitigator 1, 2, 3, and the BPD and PTSD disorder mitigators. He was very specific about her participation to that point and beyond, and I have no reason to doubt him.

The jury expressed concern initially that she wasn't deliberating EFFECTIVELY, not that she wasn't deliberating at all. They seem to mean that she was unable or unwilling to explain the WHY of her positions when they began discussing abuse and mental health mitigators. I understand their frustration and their anger, but her failure to explain herself after a certain point doesn't constitute failure to deliberate.

 

[ShadyLady]

Jodi thinks she is such a celebrity and I think she has no idea what awaits her at Perryville. Ive been googling forums about the prison and I really cant imagine getting sent there. If you are assigned to a minimum yard it sounds survivable. But she will probably never get to one . I think she is in for a very rude awakening when she arrives there. I dont think she is going to be able to manipulate anything when she gets there. My guess her *advertiser censored* will spend alot of time in one of those cages sweating to death. She is used to tantrums and getting her way. I think thats all came to an end for her and she is probably gonna wish she got the DP. jmo

Completely agree. Heighten sense of entitlement, arrogance, snitches and chronic liars will be recognized immediately. And I don't think JA's family has enough "pull" or money to keep her safe. I think her days of buying favors might be over.

 

[ShadyLady]

Celeb Crime Reporter @Celebrity_Crime · 5h 5 hours ago

#jodiarias Penalty Retrial Jury Selection : Oct. 1 http://youtu.be/2nRC1edC2wU?a

[video=youtube;CAXGZwD3NLQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXGZwD3NLQ&feature=youtu.be&a[/video]

"DO any of you know Mr. Martinez?": @ 9:25. Pretty clear what JSS meant.

 

[Hope4More]

Yep, she lied. That is my opinion as you would NEVER forget the man that put your husband in prison. Ever.

But...IIRC, JM DIDN'T put him in prison. The ex went to prison because he violated parole. Am I wrong?

 

[RadarLuv]

I just love all the jurors that obviously could not stand her enough to be impartial.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Curious....love you, but that ain't so. According to the foreman, 17 deliberated and voted with the jury on mitigator 1, 2, 3, and the BPD and PTSD disorder mitigators. He was very specific about her participation to that point and beyond, and I have no reason to doubt him.

The jury expressed concern initially that she wasn't deliberating EFFECTIVELY, not that she wasn't deliberating at all. They seem to mean that she was unable or unwilling to explain the WHY of her positions when they began discussing abuse and mental health mitigators. I understand their frustration and their anger, but her failure to explain herself after a certain point doesn't constitute failure to deliberate.

We didn't read the same articles.
But I won't split hairs about it. The jurors words and anger said it all. Do we want to get down to defining the word "effectively" also? I just don't. It becomes a debate, an argument that I didn't plan to join. But I do appreciate you playing devils advocate for those who want to play.

 

[Hope4More]

Curious....love you, but that ain't so. According to the foreman, 17 deliberated and voted with the jury on mitigator 1, 2, 3, and the BPD and PTSD disorder mitigators. He was very specific about her participation to that point and beyond, and I have no reason to doubt him.

The jury expressed concern initially that she wasn't deliberating EFFECTIVELY, not that she wasn't deliberating at all. They seem to mean that she was unable or unwilling to explain the WHY of her positions when they began discussing abuse and mental health mitigators. I understand their frustration and their anger, but her failure to explain herself after a certain point doesn't constitute failure to deliberate.

ETA, and not directed at you, Curious. I give up on posting about this didn't deliberate thing again. Isn't worth the time. It is a fact she did meet the legal requirement of deliberating, and went beyond that for some part of the deliberations. Beyond that...., I'll wait and see whether or not it is true that she knew JM.

 

[Love Never Fails]

"DO any of you know Mr. Martinez?": @ 9:25. Pretty clear what JSS meant.

Haha. Yes and some posters here remind me of Bill Clinton when he said it depends on what your version of "is" is.
Guess Clinton taught you all very well.

 

[ohreally]

Do we even know if it was legal for Juan to background check prospective jurors without court permission? I have been trying to research this and cannot come up with an answer. From what I have found it seems (but I haven't found the actual law) that in federal cases the judge has to give the ok for attorneys to do a background check. I have also seen where in state courts problems have come about by doing background checks on jurors such as discrimination issues. I am wondering what the law is in Arizona. Just my guess, but I think we will find that attorneys need permission from the court to do so.

 

[Hope4More]

We didn't read the same articles.
But I won't split hairs about it. The jurors words and anger said it all. Do we want to get down to defining the word "effectively" also? I just don't. It becomes a debate, an argument that I didn't plan to join. But I do appreciate you playing devils advocate for those who want to play.

See my post above. I could split hairs about hair splitting, but think I'd rather just split as in leave and go do the things I'm supposed to be doing. Hope you're doing well...haven't "seen" you for what seems like a really long while.

 

[ShadyLady]

I think, what the jurors that spoke meant by saying #17 did not deliberate was that they "felt" something was wrong. That she came in with an agenda. I think they are the best meter of how #17 acted. It was not an honest deliberation and they felt it. They did not know about #17 connections to Juan....but knew something was "off". I TRUST THEIR JUDGEMENT. And they didn't even have all the facts.

JSS asked potential jurors..."to be fair and impartial jury"...... " do NOT withhold information to be seated on this jury"..... "be honest and candid when answering questions".

Ya, right....

 

[RadarLuv]

Well he was the prosecutor.

Maybe I should be as honest as the jurors that raised their cards that they could not be impartial if selected to this case. There is not ANYTHING that would make me believe that J17 did not have some sort of agenda against the DT. Nothing. I would be a terrible juror as I tend to believe where there is smoke there is fire in ALL matters. And this juror is on fire.

But...IIRC, JM DIDN'T put him in prison. The ex went to prison because he violated parole. Am I wrong?

 

[ohreally]

I think, what the jurors that spoke meant by saying #17 did not deliberate was that they "felt" something was wrong. That she came in with an agenda. I think they are the best meter of how #17 acted. It was not an honest deliberation and they felt it. They did not know about #17 connections to Juan....but knew something was "off". I TRUST THEIR JUDGEMENT. And they didn't even have all the facts.

JSS asked potential jurors..."to be fair and impartial jury"...... " do NOT withhold information to be seated on this jury"..... "be honest and candid when answering questions".

Ya, right....

BINGO. The bold says it all IMO.

 

[bonjoviblonde]

Come on. When you are being questioned on whether you know the prosecutor (or defense attorneys or the judge), you know darn good and well what they are asking of you and you know darn good and well that if the prosecutor is the same man who prosecuted your husband that means you know him! You, through your husband, have had direct dealings with him. I really don't see how anyone can excuse her for this by saying she didn't understand what they actually meant by the word "know". Some have questioned her intelligence but like I said, come on!