Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Nancy_Drew]

Yes...there are usually several court appearances before plea deal is agreed to.
Then he violated his probation and was resentenced

So how in the World would she not, even vaguely, remember JM??!!

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I've watched the first part of the three part series involving juror #17.
Made a couple of observations.

1. Intellectually challenged.
2. Emotionally unstable.
3. Very thinly veiled lies.
4. Added additional information where it was not needed.
5. Feigned naiveté.
6. Went online (social media) asap, after verdict.
7. Called bailiff to see if she could "help", (*see #6), directly after the ****storm began.

I've met some people throughout my life that have offered to "help" under the guise of control.

8. Lied some more.

I'm so angry but yet, if she broke her shovel, so to speak; I would hand her another.
Coupled with the facts that we know, and what she has said so far may be helpful to the investigation.

Her call to the bailiff to see if she could "help" sounds a lot like Jodi's calls to the detectives to see if she could "help" find travis' killers!!!!

 

[Amster]

In Texas, if one has young children to care for, you can be dismissed from jury duty......how old are her kids? The youngest is with her current prince....

 

[TexMex]

So how in the World would she not, even vaguely, remember JM??!!

She knew him alright. That interview was a load of crap

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I've watched the first part of the three part series involving juror #17.
Made a couple of observations.

1. Intellectually challenged.
2. Emotionally unstable.
3. Very thinly veiled lies.
4. Added additional information where it was not needed.
5. Feigned naiveté.
6. Went online (social media) asap, after verdict.
7. Called bailiff to see if she could "help", (*see #6), directly after the ****storm began.

I've met some people throughout my life that have offered to "help" under the guise of control.

8. Lied some more.

I'm so angry but yet, if she broke her shovel, so to speak; I would hand her another.
Coupled with the facts that we know, and what she has said so far may be helpful to the investigation.

And you are so right about #5 "feigned" naivety! She's street wise beyond her years...she's not fooling anyone!!!

 

[Hope4More]

The day after their wedding, she probably wasn't there either, especially if they already had children by then, the question still remains, did she know that JM was the prosecutor for his case and sorry but if she claims she didn't, that just seems unbelievable to me. She was the one who repeated in the interview how she is a stickler for doing the best that she can in everything that she does, so not even knowing who was prosecuting the father of your children the day after you married him, to the point that she didn't even recall his name??:blah::moo:

I think you overestimate how involved JM would have been in the ex's case. He didn't even show up for sentencing. He let the guy plead. There were continuances up the wazoo. The ex obviously didn't rate as top priority for anyone in the system.

Why the bleep would 17 have ever met him? The Atty the ex would have met with regularly- if even that- would have been his defense Atty, not the prosecutor. And geez, at the end if it, JM pled him out for 1st degree murder.

The ex would have a grudge.......why?

 

[Nancy_Drew]

In Texas, if one has young children to care for, you can be dismissed from jury duty......how old are her kids? The youngest is with her current prince....

I don't think they are very old... I saw a picture and I can't remember where!! Way younger than high school age... That's why I also think she was didn't leave husband #1 until more recently (more recently than she claims in the jury selection video)..,

 

[Nancy_Drew]

I think you overestimate how involved JM would have been in the ex's case. He didn't even show up for sentencing. He let the guy plead. There were continuances up the wazoo. The ex obviously didn't rate as top priority for anyone in the system.

Why the bleep would 17 have ever met him? The Atty the ex would have met with regularly- if even that- would have been his defense Atty, not the prosecutor. And geez, at the end if it, JM pled him out for 1st degree murder.

The ex would have a grudge.......why?

Here's the deal... In those neighborhoods they ALL know the prosecutors names!! There aren't that many prosecutors and they "know" them!!!

 

[Hatfield]

In Texas, if one has young children to care for, you can be dismissed from jury duty......how old are her kids? The youngest is with her current prince....

There were plenty of jurors that voiced they did not want to serve on this jury and some were excused. For this juror, she had more chances than all of them when she was called into the special meeting with JSS and the attorneys and she made no attempt to say she wanted off the jury.

That alone tells me she wanted to desparately stay on the jury.
And I dont believe it was just because she wanted to fulfill her civic duty at that point.

Juan was trying to get her removed and she did everything in her power to get to stay.

Same exact thing happened when the Foreman and the jury voiced their concerns about her. She turns around and does everything in her power to stay.

Something was up with her and that is my opinion and Im sticking to it.

 

[Val1]

She knew him alright. That interview was a load of crap

Especially if you read this... http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052000/m0139919.pdf
Her first hb was released only on the condition he would be residing with her... "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant shall reside with ......"

 

[Val1]

In Texas, if one has young children to care for, you can be dismissed from jury duty......how old are her kids? The youngest is with her current prince....

Well, they got married in the middle of 2012 and she said they had the child in the year before they got married iirc... so 3/4?, plus the two older kids from her first hb, certainly seems like a good reason except apparently she was working outside the home, so as long as the hours didn't interfere with her daycare, that really probably wouldn't be reason enough.

 

[Hatfield]

JM was present for all the hearings up to that one from what I've gone through so far... want to peruse with me?
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.go...=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries

For the one where he was released to go live with her, I wonder if it can be found if she was present at the hearing. It almost seems like she would have had to have been present to vouche that he could live at her place.

I also am really surprised she would do an interview. Wouldnt you just want to let things die down instead of bringing attention back to yourself.

Someone brought up $$$$ and it is becoming highly suspect that perhaps they are looking to generate funds from this somehow. Why else would you want to bring more attention to yourself.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Grasping at Straws

1. Trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work.

2. Trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK I'm just going to say, that that interview as presented was an absolute disaster for her, it would have been so different if we had a snippet from the interview that said something like:

"Once I was in deliberations I weighed up the aggravators with these <insert> mitigators, and I couldn't with good conscience vote for death, at the end of the day I had to do what I thought was the right thing, and what I think is the right legal decision."

Media being what it is, she may well have said something like that .. but media has it's hands on a 3 part interview, and may just be printing the most sensational parts that fit a certain narrative.

I'm giving her a bit of a benefit, but that interview was a DISASTER, and if the rest are the same she's only added fuel to the fire .. best advice if in a situation like this .. lay low until it all blows over, standing up for yourself without editorial control is just asking for it.

 

[Val1]

For the one where he was released to go live with her, I wonder if it can be found if she was present at the hearing. It almost seems like she would have had to have been present to vouche that he could live at her place.

I also am really surprised she would do an interview. Wouldnt you just want to let things die down instead of bringing attention back to yourself.

Someone brought up $$$$ and it is becoming highly suspect that perhaps they are looking to generate funds from this somehow. Why else would you want to bring more attention to yourself.

You would think... anyway, still going through the paperwork but in this one, dated 2002, she was not only in court but spoke in her first hb's defense. By then the prosecutor was no long JM, though it certainly seems she would have been familiar enough with the court by that time that she would have known who JM was by then.:moo: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112002/m0820563.pdf

 

[ShadyLady]

That's crazy. She remembers him from a true crime show that she can't even remember the case. I have watched a lot of true crime shows in my day and if I saw one of the prosecutors in person I don't think I'd recognize a single one. No way. I am not buying it.

She watches true crime shows............but does not want to talk with friends that were discussing the JA trial?? Didn't want to get involved "in all that". She even SHAKES like Arias...LOL.

So many lies in such a short interview.

 

[Hatfield]

You would think... anyway, still going through the paperwork but in this one, dated 2002, she was not only in court but spoke in her first hb's defense. By then the prosecutor was no long JM, though it certainly seems she would have been familiar enough with the court by that time that she would have known who JM was by then.:moo: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112002/m0820563.pdf

I would have to take a guess that Juan would have stood out during any of the court proceedings where Juan was present. Juan's style is so unique, I could see where it may get people mad at him.

Juan was even raising his voice to his own witnesses. So I have to guess that any court proceedings where he was present, Juan would have left a lasting impression. And if I was the defendent I most likely would end up not liking him.

And if I was in a relationship with the defendent, I would most likely not like him either just from what I was told about him. Surely discussions would have had to go on. You would think anyway.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I know it can't be proven, but I very much doubt that she didn't go to court for any of those hearings with Juan between 2000 and 2003. It's just how women are, chances are she went to every single one.

 

[FelicityLemon]

OK I'm just going to say, that that interview as presented was an absolute disaster for her, it would have been so different if we had a snippet from the interview that said something like:

"Once I was in deliberations I weighed up the aggravators with these <insert> mitigators, and I couldn't with good conscience vote for death, at the end of the day I had to do what I thought was the right thing, and what I think is the right legal decision."

Media being what it is, she may well have said something like that .. but media has it's hands on a 3 part interview, and may just be printing the most sensational parts that fit a certain narrative.

I'm giving her a bit of a benefit, but that interview was a DISASTER, and if the rest are the same she's only added fuel to the fire .. best advice if in a situation like this .. lay low until it all blows over, standing up for yourself without editorial control is just asking for it.

Mrs. G: You made great sense of what could have been presented immediately in this first interview! This juror at this moment is less important than Travis Alexander's violent loss of life, justice for the Alexander Family, the justice system as a whole, and her personal self last. These are my opinions.

By all means, in the final part talk about the effect this whole episode has had on her life and the lives of her family, but to start with the it... wasted breath on many people unless or until shown see otherwise.

To start by standing behind her decision and explaining how she reached it, (because people want to know that and to try and understand). That would have fostered more respect, sympathy and perhaps empathy for her situation if this opportunity began with WHY she voted the way she did. That would have shown her character and integrity. People might have been more open to see her side of this.

I have to say that considering what this case was about - an incredibly brutal premeditated murder - I think it's obscene to describe the other jurors as brutally attacking and abusive and that the interviewer used the word "murderous" to describe the tweets about her, but that one's on him.

ETA: lolling at my sentences tonight - benadryl again doh!

 

[ShadyLady]

Here's the deal... In those neighborhoods they ALL know the prosecutors names!! There aren't that many prosecutors and they "know" them!!!

Even Jodi was told years before she had to face Juan in court.