Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
RUMOR ALERT, RUMOR ALERT: rumor has it that MDLR is being investigated (no specifics), as is Aunt Sue (linked to release of jurors' names).

:seeya: :tyou: ! And "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire" !

:please::please::please: that they are investigating JA's crew and their unethical tactics !
 
Unethical will not get someone charged by a prosecutor's office. Illegal is the only thing that can do that.

However, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the IRS might be interested in MDLR's banking activities.

I hope someone does something, though. Her behavior is not acceptable, if not illegal. How can we have a society of law and order if we neglect to enforce law and order?
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:
 
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.

For all those reasons, considering the DT strategy of going after jurors in all three phases of this trial, it makes no sense to me that the DT didn't go after this juror.

I want to see the transcripts of why she was called into chambers near the beginning of this phase and what transpired from that. Who brought what to JSS's attention? If she was already being flagged for the Dr Drew mixup, why didn't the DT go after her for her social media usage? She was commenting on news sites in November. Wasn't that in chambers meeting in November?

MOO
 
I think that in order to take action against J17 the state would need some concrete evidence that cannot be refuted. They may have that but I don't know the specifics. Sometimes how things look are not enough to prove an allegation.

One thing I am sure of is if the DT did not like something about this juror, no matter how small, an in-depth investigation would have commenced immediately or, better yet, she would have been removed from deliberations immediately.

I agree.

The fairly simple way I can think of is her social media records and phone and text messages would have to be pulled to see if there were disucssions shortly before and also during the trial about this case.

Once those were in hand it would be easy to see if purposeful actions had taken place to get on this jury and decide for life was set in stone before the jury got the case.

I dont know if any investigations would go that far at this point. They may not want to scare off future jury people. Which is sad because it sure seems like it is very possible they might find some evidence.

I dont think Juan understood the severity of the concern until the jury began to have problems with Juror 17. He did have all weekend that weekend to do some digging which is surprising he at least did not uncover the possible relationship to someone in prison. It could have been because of last names being different or something along those lines.
 
LMAO looks like "meat cake" I once found in the back of our fridge. Old meatloaf LOL

In the pic it looked like it was trying to get up and run away.
 
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
Yes, an expert witness for the State having their laptop stolen right before they are scheduled to testify is almost as coincidental as having the gun that was 'stolen' from your grandparents house turn out to match the calibre of weapon used to kill your former boyfriend. :moo:
 
Yikes! That stuff looks scary. :biggrin:

If I'm not mistaken, that's a tasty plate o' hot wings with two sides of cooool blue cheese dressing for dippin'! Meant to make the comically tragic *sarcasm* comparison to ja about her 'mystery loaf'.

I don't eat chicken, but those look fabulous to me!

:D
 
I agree.

The fairly simple way I can think of is her social media records and phone and text messages would have to be pulled to see if there were disucssions shortly before and also during the trial about this case.

Once those were in hand it would be easy to see if purposeful actions had taken place to get on this jury and decide for life was set in stone before the jury got the case.

I dont know if any investigations would go that far at this point. They may not want to scare off future jury people. Which is sad because it sure seems like it is very possible they might find some evidence.

I dont think Juan understood the severity of the concern until the jury began to have problems with Juror 17. He did have all weekend that weekend to do some digging which is surprising he at least did not uncover the possible relationship to someone in prison. It could have been because of last names being different or something along those lines.

State wants to be careful to protect the jury system, broken as it is. Also, without something big to point at, they would be accused of "sour grapes" if they dig too deep into an issue involving a juror that upset their case. But you know if the tables were turned, most citizens would feel the defense had a right and an obligation to investigate--defense would be less likely to be accused of sour grapes and more likely to be viewed as doing their job. IMO
 
God bless those health care workers, and all the other people threatened by this virus. :(
 
Police protection OK - but why does she need an attorney.......... unless the investigation has found that she did something very wrong.......

Thanks EXACTLY what I was thinking! People don't usually "lawyer up" unless they've done something or have formally been accused. Weird.

And I doubt they had the money to pay a retainer, so the attorney probably took her on pro bono (for the media exposure). And, I wonder if it's an ambulance chaser type of attorney who contacted her, or if she actually went out and found a good attorney.
 
I still don't have clarity on why she made that choice. Not that a sociopath's reasoning ever makes sense. And she won't be able to appeal on it now at all. I just wonder what she was up to...other than exerting what very little control she still had.

I've been thinking about that same thing - why did she do this? I don't bekieve her security concern at all. It's ridiculous. I came up with three thoughts-
1. She just wanted control and wanted to see if she could once again get her way and nothing she said in the allocation would be of substance.
2. She was going to lie about seeing/hearing/knowing something about Travis that she did not want anyone to hear because it was even worse than what she has already lied about.
3. She was going to say something that would go against her defense or say something she didn't want her "supporters" to know about.

Or, like you said, she's just a sociopath and most things they do don't make any sense to the rest of us!
 
I almost choked AND spit out my smoothie on that one. POST OF THE DAY!!!! lmao....dingdingding!!!

View attachment 71038

BTW, I just love the applause gif. It makes me wonder about the lives of the people in the photo. They would never have imagined a world in which their images from that night would be seen by countless people yet unborn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,158
Total visitors
2,323

Forum statistics

Threads
601,631
Messages
18,127,550
Members
231,111
Latest member
Paolo67
Back
Top