I believe he repeats "she was crying". As to JSS flashing a smile at KN, it does appear so but the film is crappy so not positive if she is smiling at 138 as she is leaving or at KN. Either way, I didn't like the smile. Something that kept going through my head during voiredire of the juror 138, was she was really stressing how much prison did to help her second husband and how he became a better person from going to prison. That freaked me out more than the DV because she already had true belief that people can learn from prison and improve. You don't put someone to death if you believe in rehabilitation.
Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #7
- Thread starter LambChop
- Start date
- Status
I believe he repeats "she was crying". As to JSS flashing a smile at KN, it does appear so but the film is crappy so not positive if she is smiling at 138 as she is leaving or at KN. Either way, I didn't like the smile. Something that kept going through my head during voiredire of the juror 138, was she was really stressing how much prison did to help her second husband and how he became a better person from going to prison. That freaked me out more than the DV because she already had true belief that people can learn from prison and improve. You don't put someone to death if you believe in rehabilitation.
Beccaboo
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
I found it very interesting her attorney did not try to pull the interview when all those video's came out. I will never understand why some people insist on talking when what really makes sense keeping quiet! In this case sitting down and shutting up seem to be in her best interest.
JMO-Maybe the attorney did advise against the interview.
Seems to me that both felons and the women who love 'em probably tend to not think things through, and may not always take good advice.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,084
Ultimately it was JSS who denied Juan's motion to excuse J138/17 for cause. When asked, J138/J17 said she thought she could be fair and impartial and not use her DV situation and feelings to determine an opinion in the JA case. JSS chose to believe that. JM saw the level of emotion J17 was experiencing and wanted her gone.
That's how this went down.
To me it did not appear that the issue had anything to do with husband #1 getting convicted of a crime, nor husband #2. DV was the red flag flying in this situation, based on the voir dire. In fact, looking at how she voted in the mitigators, it was age of defendant and 'prior abuse' as the 2 mitigating factors J17 chose to believe. That aligns exactly with the issue JM raised during her voir dire.
J17 was predisposed to seeing abuse and violence, based on her own background and emotional response.
That's how this went down.
To me it did not appear that the issue had anything to do with husband #1 getting convicted of a crime, nor husband #2. DV was the red flag flying in this situation, based on the voir dire. In fact, looking at how she voted in the mitigators, it was age of defendant and 'prior abuse' as the 2 mitigating factors J17 chose to believe. That aligns exactly with the issue JM raised during her voir dire.
J17 was predisposed to seeing abuse and violence, based on her own background and emotional response.
You don't vote to put someone to death if you're pretty sure they will get LWP if you don't either... at least not if you think they only deserve 2nd degree like a certain assistant and "friends" in the media were apparently promoting.
Bravo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 20,354
- Reaction score
- 64,584
Anyone who admitted to DV during voir dire should have been stricken. IMO it would be very few who had that experience (or claimed to) could put aside their emotions and make a decision on facts presented. Especially in a DP case! This woman demonstrated she has a history of making poor life choices. She never should have been on this Jury from the get go. Whether she lied about Juan or not we will likely never see proof. Concrete proof. That aside for other reasons stated she just should never have been on that Jury. What a shame. A shame for Travis and Family. IMO.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,721
There were several things I found quite interesting about juror #17s interview.
1. She picked the station that has been more favorable to JA throughout the case.
2. Her attorneys (2) setup the interview.
3. The interviewer said these particular attorneys had setup interviews in the past with this same news station.
4. The interviewer had not even kept up with the JA trial.
It made me question:
1. Who are the attorneys in question?
2. Why does she need two attorneys?
The overall short interview wasn't that revealing and pretty much went down the way I had imagined it would.
I found her to be like JA somewhat and playing the victim card. I wonder if she knew or her attorneys knew at the time of the interview airing that all the jury selection videos were going to be released before the interview?
IMO
1. She picked the station that has been more favorable to JA throughout the case.
2. Her attorneys (2) setup the interview.
3. The interviewer said these particular attorneys had setup interviews in the past with this same news station.
4. The interviewer had not even kept up with the JA trial.
It made me question:
1. Who are the attorneys in question?
2. Why does she need two attorneys?
The overall short interview wasn't that revealing and pretty much went down the way I had imagined it would.
I found her to be like JA somewhat and playing the victim card. I wonder if she knew or her attorneys knew at the time of the interview airing that all the jury selection videos were going to be released before the interview?
IMO
prima.facie
Long Time Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,534
- Reaction score
- 2,581
absolutely agree. and i believe the HATE is for her actions, not her being. and obviously she is defending her actions which are criminal - THUS A CRIMINAL MIND. it all comes back around.
instead of her blasting her ex for being an abuser that caused her suffering to this day, she just called him an idiot. instead of her saying that she is emotionally damaged over DV in order to get off the trial she claims she wants, she just laughs and calls him an idiot and that he did stupid things.
i think most logically intelligent people see whats going on here...........
east2west
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 3
Rickshaw, thanks for the vids. wish she was mic'd so we could hear the clanging of her leg and waist chains.
JMO-Speculation only: Certainly could be. Maybe another possibility is that she isn't paying for the attorneys, someone else is? In that case maybe they might have a different take on what's best for the employer vs her. (I wouldn't agree that's ethical, I'm just musing.)
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
No, her attorney contacted Brahm Resnik to set up the interview. This reporter doesn't normally cover the crime and trials beat, his focus is politics. J17's attorney knows Resnik from some earlier story, and reached out to Resnik to set up the J17 interview. This information was part of the voiceover intro in the lead story on Channel 12's news at 10pm last night.
Will she be sentenced in April in stripes and chains? I am hoping that her dry cleaning minion won't be supplying yet another freshly cleaned and pressed outfit for that day.
JMO-So her attorney contacts a someone who isn't particularly familiar with the case.
Good strategy for her. Do we think she's paying for this attorney?BBM - That's assuming she wasn't just a stealth juror with an anti-DP agenda.
From what the foreman revealed in his interview it certainly sounded like what some of the other jurors told of their life stories were far worse situations than the one incident of being pushed into the bathroom by a drunk hb and witnessing your aunt and uncle having arguments which is all that this juror had revealed.
I dunno, I would rather that someone working in the health field, as she does, would be more inclined to be anti-DP than be swayed by the mere looks of someone(but she was just a "girl"....) that had already been convicted of premeditated first degree murder/with cruelty and had the evidence in front of her to prove it.:moo:
daisydomino
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reaction score
- 2
JMO-Actually my post isn't a conclusion, it's a question.
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 30
J17 can deny ever meeting JM but why would she not disclose her ex's first arrest unless she was aware that JM was the prosecutor in that case. If she did not remember she would have disclosed it. But all she mentioned was the Verizon theft. That is significant that she failed to disclose information she knew would keep her off. jmo
- Status