Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AZ Republic has article out about 17's interview. She says she didn't want to be on jury, was brutalized in deliberations, didn't remember JM......etc.
 
FelicityLemon said:
BBM - just because it's SO freaking funny! And thank you Zebra for the time stamp!

omg:laughing::rollercoaster::great::clap::tyou::yourock::lol::laughcry::laughcry::laughcry:


Juan Martinez to Det. Flores: "Were you naked on the stand?"
Click to expand...

I don't remember reading Tweets reporting these questions lol
 
YES!!!! It looks like one of you has engaged with Brahm Resnick!!! This is going to be sooo good!!

He's asking about the lies...
 
Juan Martinez's Tie retweeted
Doxing-Rx @DoxingRx · 6h 6 hours ago
There is 2 big stories coming out on #JodiArias - I can not release THEM however; @juanstie has pieced them sorta together

The curiosity is killing me, lol.

ETA:

Juan Martinez's Tie @juanstie · 14h 14 hours ago
Real mature Maria. You & the JA crew are going down.
 
Nancy_Drew said:
YES!!!! It looks like one of you has engaged with Brahm Resnick!!! This is going to be sooo good!!

He's asking about the lies...
Click to expand...

im pretty sure this was pre-recorded, right?
transcript was up before it aired...
 
Mrs G Norris said:
Juan at sidebar trying to get rid of 138 for cause because she cried

.. am I hearing this right? YEP listen: https://youtu.be/n7jqGuEniFA?t=26m11s
Click to expand...


Mrs G Norris said:
JSS says no basis for excusing her, she seems like a 'strong person' .. returning Oct 16th ..

interesting. I'm annoyed that nobody looked into the DV more, because it could have led to all the other information and she would have been dismissed at that stage, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

Mindmatters said:
OMG JSS asked her specifically if she could separate her personal experiences, i.e., DV history, from the evidence of the case to which she said YES.

JSS kinda advocated to keep this juror after further questioning...her use of words for why is very bothersome and quite alarming as it seemed rather opinion based IMO.
Click to expand...

1st RBBM: I KNEW IT : Juan wanted #17 [138] dismissed for CAUSE, and #17 should have been DISMISSED for CAUSE !

Juan KNEW this juror was going to be a problem !

:gaah:

2nd BBM: I KNEW IT : JSS was the reason #17 stayed on that jury!

JUAN wanted #17 GONE ... but JSS overruled him ...

JMO but I have NO doubt that JSS, and her "jud asst", tremendously dislike Juan !

:gaah:

3rd BBM: Of course, JSS "advocated" to keep this juror ...

JMO but I truly believe that JSS has an agenda ... her bias against Juan stood out like a sore thumb in that courtroom ...

I have always been critical of JSS ... and I will continue to be critical of her bias, the way she runs her courtroom, etc. etc. etc. ...

And I better go back to lurking because IF I say any more about JSS ... I will be at lalala camp !

:) Good Night ... back to lurking !

:) Thanks for the updates !

Check back in tomorrow !
 
Madeleine74 said:
Just listened to the juror voir dire, the one in which juror 138 (aka juror 17) was singled out for questioning. Here's the sequence:

1. JM wanted to excuse juror 138 (aka juror 17) for cause and made a motion to do so. The reason he gave the judge is that she appeared to get emotional and tear-up when talking about her past experiences with DV and he thought that was a sign she wasn't over it emotionally and saw that as a problem.

2. KN did not want her excused. Judge said she herself didn't see any tearing-up, but conceded the courtroom was large and that wouldn't be unusual for her not to see that level of detail being far away.

3. Judge decided they would ask J138 more questions after everyone else was out of the courtroom.

4. Judge questioned Juror 138 (aka juror 17), with the state requesting the judge to do so. Judge asked juror 138 about her prior DV and if she felt she could be impartial to judge this case. She said yes, she could. Judge asked juror 138 about her tearing-up and appearing emotional when questioned about her past DV. Juror 138 said she "felt embarrassed; she considered herself a smart person and yet she was in that situation and she felt embarrassed."

5. Back at the sidebar, JM renews his motion and wants her dismissed for cause. KN has no issue with juror 138

6. JSS said she sees no valid reason to excuse this juror and denies JM's motion to dismiss for cause and THAT IS HOW JUROR 138 GOT ON THE PANEL!


Now why Juan did not use a preemptory challenge I don't know, maybe he was out of them by then?


Sooo... Juan was concerned about the DV in her background and that's what he keyed in on right away. KN must have figured that might be good for his side, so he had no issues with that juror. And JSS decided to believe juror 138 at her word that she could be impartial and not consider her own DV background in this penalty phase.

And that right there is when this phase was lost....

Juan was right on the money.

Juror 138 (aka Juror 17) did not appear to have an axe to grind against the state because husband #1 (who called "an idiot" multiple times) was in prison, nor husband #2, who she said realized he had done wrong and came to believe he was better off getting away from the people he had been associating with and told the court husband #2 was embarrassed about being in prison.

I now believe she was biased on the DV front -- specifically that she would end up seeing the rude things TA said to JA as abuse and whatever stories told by the defense would be ones that would most resonate with her. I think the defense had to have realized this. FGS juror 138/17 got teary during her voir dire on the DV issue. RED FLAG.
Click to expand...




Great summary! Number 5 though. Did JM renew his objection? I didn't hear that, just a mumbled sentence......
 
prima.facie said:
to those who cant stay up to watch...

the 'transcript' can be found HERE
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...s-jodi-arias-juror-interview-part-1/24829299/

ETA. I dont believe her. at all.
Click to expand...

I have to suspect the whole thing after reading just the very beginning. This smells like it is going to be 1 sided based only on this first part.

""I feel like I'm being judged," Juror 17 said. "I didn't ask for this. I just showed up for jury duty."

Did she make any attempts to declare she wanted off the trial during Juan's questioning? NO. She had plenty of chances rigth there to demand she wanted off the case.

And then we have this.

"This interview came about when Juror 17's attorneys offered it to me without my having asked for it. I did not cover the Arias trials but I have worked with Juror 17's attorneys in the past on other sensitive stories." "

Sensitive stories? WTH? I have a bad feeling about this entire interview is going to be 1 sided opinion piece. Friends with the attornies. Nuff said.
 
Juror 17 says when the new conspiracy theory involving Martinez and her ex-husband broke online, she immediately texted the court bailiff.

"I gave all my information up front," she said she told the bailiff. "I didn't know the connection until now. Please let me know what I can do."

^^ THIS is kind of fun, because that bailiff could be Janet, so that should get tongues wagging :D
 
Mrs G Norris said:
"People are being attacked that didn't even know I was on jury duty."

Oh come on!!! WTF is that about .. seriously, does anyone seriously believe all the old ladies on Twitter are jumping her family and friends .. what a load of effing BS!
Click to expand...

""After the verdict was announced," she said, "the judge ... told us the media already had our information. That some of us had been followed home.""


Really? Yet, none of the other jurors have claimed such a thing. Who is "us" ?
 
Mrs G Norris said:
Juror 17 says when the new conspiracy theory involving Martinez and her ex-husband broke online, she immediately texted the court bailiff.

"I gave all my information up front," she said she told the bailiff. "I didn't know the connection until now. Please let me know what I can do."

^^ THIS is kind of fun, because that bailiff could be Janet, so that should get tongues wagging :D
Click to expand...

so she texted the bailiff who in turn did.............nothing?

oy vey. its too late for this...my head is spinning.
 
"It wasn't easy, I didn't ask for it, I didn't want it," she said of the jury assignment. "All I did was answer the questions truthfully. I didn't want to be involved. I didn't want this pressure."
Click to expand...

lying. she is lying. these lies have been uncovered.
 
is it normal for a sitting juror to have the phone/text number of a bailiff?
is that how a juror would get in contact if maybe they are sick or for some reason just cannot make it to court?

i sat on a jury once (about 15 yrs ago) and i dont remember getting the baliff's number ?
 
Hatfield said:
I have to suspect the whole thing after reading just the very beginning. This smells like it is going to be 1 sided based only on this first part.

""I feel like I'm being judged," Juror 17 said. "I didn't ask for this. I just showed up for jury duty."

Did she make any attempts to declare she wanted off the trial during Juan's questioning? NO. She had plenty of chances rigth there to demand she wanted off the case.

And then we have this.

"This interview came about when Juror 17's attorneys offered it to me without my having asked for it. I did not cover the Arias trials but I have worked with Juror 17's attorneys in the past on other sensitive stories." "

Sensitive stories? WTH? I have a bad feeling about this entire interview is going to be 1 sided opinion piece. Friends with the attornies. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

It's such BS. You don't want to be on a jury you find a way off. She was clearly answering questions in a way that she knew would get her on.

And she misrepresented the info about her husbands' pasts. If you don't want to be on the jury why lie???

We knew she'd pull the I couldn't remember Juan. I'll just leave that one alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 3,544 (members: 141, guests: 3,403)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
3,403
Total visitors
3,544
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,279
Messages
18,154,307
Members
231,694
Latest member
Jonnyfastball
Back
Top