Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7

[Nancy_Drew]

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.

In one of the court docs I saw it says that she spoke on behalf of the defendant.

 

[ShadyLady]

I'm sorry hope4... After I posted that I realized it came accross wrong.. Just venting my frustrations... Sorry about that...

I understood what you meant and took no offense. There are definitely bad neighborhoods. When you marry two felons, makes me wonder, too. So there!!

 

[FelicityLemon]

I'm sorry hope4... After I posted that I realized it came accross wrong.. Just venting my frustrations... Sorry about that...

I hadn't read your comment as referring to anything other than 'criminal element'. There are "them", people for whom crime can be a way of life and "us", law abiding citizens sometimes known as victims?

ETA: OH! And your use of the word "know" which has now taken on a whole new meaning with this trial

 

[ShadyLady]

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.go...=&entrytodate=&submit=Retrieve+Minute+Entries

Ex and Juan were very acquainted. So, therefore so was #17. T. Kelley made an observation on twitter, #17's interview was all about how she was a victim. Not one word about Travis and his family.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

This one, where she is listed as one of the relatives to make statements in court .. different prosecutor though by this stage, but it does give one reason to think she was supporting him throughout his legal struggles and therefore would have supported him by attending trial. You know the truth always comes out, we'll hear if she and Juan crossed paths. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072008/m3255785.pdf

 

[Hatfield]

I hadn't read your comment as referring to anything other than 'criminal element'. There are "them", people for whom crime can be a way of life and "us", law abiding citizens sometimes known as victims?

Thats how I took it too. I actually get upset when some people read too much into posts and try to put a guilt trip on others when there really was no malicious intent.

I dont even know what this juror looks like nor do I care. And I also just mark posts sometimes as I read down to accomplish 2 things. Mark where I read and also acknowledge to the poster that their post was read and thank them for contributing.

I also think the furor over the juror was dying down and that interview is just going to escalate it all over again so really confused why the juror would bring more attention to herself. It really makes me question the sincerity of her claims.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

I'll bet she watched the whole first JA trial, realized who JM was, and then started watching other shows with JM in them. Volunteering that you're not interested in something? Protest-ith much-ith?

Let's think about what she has said.

She says she saw Juan on some crime show about a killer wife.

She says she saw "bits and pieces"of A Dirty Little Secret while vacuuming.

So we can glean from that that she likes Lifetime movies and true crime.

Yet we are expected to believe she just wasn't interested in an actually famous murder trial going on in her own backyard where the defendant is a woman ( Snapped anybody? ) who viciously kills her "boyfriend" three times.

Okay. Sure.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

 

[Val1]

This one, where she is listed as one of the relatives to make statements in court .. different prosecutor though by this stage, but it does give one reason to think she was supporting him throughout his legal struggles and therefore would have supported him by attending trial. You know the truth always comes out, we'll hear if she and Juan crossed paths. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072008/m3255785.pdf

Yea, if she was still making statements on his behalf in 2008... as this document shows, then I really don't think she can claim ignorance about JM, especially if he was involved in her hb's case for what appears to be at least 3 years. As for her DV claims, the only one I heard her mention that involved her directly was a single time when she confronted her first hb about the kids having a bath so late at night when he was supposed to be caring for them and was allegedly drinking with his friends/relatives? instead. Other than that she mentioned remembering an uncle and aunt when she was a child having problems. Sure sounds alot like JA's kind of DV.:moo:

 

[Hatfield]

Let's think about what she has said.

She says she saw Juan on some crime show about a killer wife.

She says she saw "bits and pieces"of A Dirty Little Secret while vacuuming.

So we can glean from that that she likes Lifetime movies and true crime.

Yet we are expected to believe she just wasn't interested in an actually famous murder trial going on in her own backyard where the defendant is a woman ( Snapped anybody? ) who viciously kills her "boyfriend" three times.

Okay. Sure.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

The totality of the circumstantial evidence is what is convincing me so far.

The way she reacted as the jury and Juan tried to remove her shows me she wanted to stay on the jury. Which is her right but she never claimed that she wanted to stay to fulfill her duty. So why did she want to stay so bad? She never told us so we have to guess as to the reason. One of those reasons could be to go against the prosecuter.

Also, Flores indicated she had numerous news sites on her facebook. I think he listed about 5-7 different news sites. So that implied she may have been following the case closely in the news during the trial.

Its all circumstantial evidence but evidence nonetheless.

 

[Val1]

I don't think it was unusual or unlikely. High profile case, media interest, court might well have given jurors contact info in case they were being harassed, wanted to do an interview, etc.

The only thing that gives me pause about it, is which bailiff? Was it perchance the same "assistant"/bailiff that we were speaking about yesterday that had some alleged misconduct written into the record?

 

[deedee21]

And let's not forget the crowd she runs with... These aren't feeble and meek folks... These are people who have PROVEN to be the types that have NO PROBLEM defending themselves in an altercation with ARMED individuals, and she has the NERVE to say they are threatened by WORDS over the Internet!!!

Shes a liar. Got caught. Busted. Deflecting.

 

[deedee21]

Wasnt hubby #1 charged with murder? Charges later dropped. Doesnt mean he did not do it. For this reason she never should have been on the jury.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

This one, where she is listed as one of the relatives to make statements in court .. different prosecutor though by this stage, but it does give one reason to think she was supporting him throughout his legal struggles and therefore would have supported him by attending trial. You know the truth always comes out, we'll hear if she and Juan crossed paths. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072008/m3255785.pdf

Well... That proves that she was with him until 2008... That's a lot longer than she makes it sound in the jury selection video..

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Let's think about what she has said.

She says she saw Juan on some crime show about a killer wife.

She says she saw "bits and pieces"of A Dirty Little Secret while vacuuming.

So we can glean from that that she likes Lifetime movies and true crime.

Yet we are expected to believe she just wasn't interested in an actually famous murder trial going on in her own backyard where the defendant is a woman ( Snapped anybody? ) who viciously kills her "boyfriend" three times.

Okay. Sure.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

Which, by the way I think the other case that JM prosecuted that she said she saw on a crime show was about Wendi Adriano... I googled to see what case it was, and I think that's it... Snapped did an episode on her June 2011 and so did Identification Discovery Sept 2011. And who knows if she saw the show on the original air date, or if it was a repeat.

But it definitely looks like she's into crime shows, and news shows that focus on these types of crimes!!

 

[josie1986]

Is it worth my time watching #17s interview or will I just end up more frustrated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

Hey, you know what else .. you know that bit in court when JSS asks all the potential jurors if they recognise anyone .. why didn't she stick her hand up and say 'I know that dude from the telly!' .. ANOTHER LIE!

I watched the video where J138/17 was in the initial pool and no one in that pool raised their hand when JSS asked if anyone knew anyone from the defense, the state, or the court staff. Over and over, for each of the case players, JSS said, "I see no hands." Then, during questioning of that pool of folks, many jurors said they had seen too much in the media about this case and could not get past that and the judge dismissed them. So some of the folks had seen JM, KS, JW and others and knew who they were, but no one in the entire pool claimed to know anyone when first asked by the judge.

Yet some members of a different group of potential jurors, as reported by someone else upstream, did raise their hands in their session when asked if they know Mr So&So or whoever was being introduced. And apparently those people then explained they knew JM or whoever from seeing them on TV or in the news.

I thought that was interesting.

 

[east2west]

IIRC, she will only get to keep approximately 50% of her earnings. If she works at $.10 per hour, that means she'll net approximately $.05. It'll take her all day to buy a soda, 2000 hours to earn what she has been spending in a week at Estrella. That's almost a whole year...... That's if she earns the privilege of working.....

Her eyes most definitely will be set on working at the Perryville Printshop. Looking forward to the printshop surveillance camera capturing her filching ink and paper. [emoji4]

 

[Hatfield]

Is it worth my time watching #17s interview or will I just end up more frustrated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BOTH.

JMO
You will get frustrated but at least IMO it helps confirm to me that there is something up with this juror.

It doesnt make any sense to me to give an interview at all if this was all legit to begin with. Things were starting to die down and yet she is bringing attention to herself again. And if it was all legit then different things would have been said and not what came out.

Some may see it differently but that is how I took part 1. I only read the part under #1 and havent seen the actual videos.

 

[Hatfield]

All JMO
The biggest thing IMO is there were 2 independent concerns about this juror. 1 from Juan and 1 from the jury members themselves. If we bring up ODDS again, then what are the odds that 2 different independent sources would both have concerns.

Then when the totality of the circumstantial evidence is looked at it begins to paint a picture of something is wrong. Too much smoke and waves for me to just think everything is legit.

 

[Hatfield]

Maybe we just have to be more patient because back in this thread there was a rumor about some more possible breaking news is going to surface soon about JA and some possible misdeeds.

Maybe if that news does break it could give some additional information. Although it could be nothing or it could just be related to the funds JA has been getting.