long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

[LambChop]

She's the judge. If clear misconduct were reported to her she would act on that and not wait for a motion. That makes it clear to me that this is not some clear egregious misconduct but likely some random statement the juror made about someone....like Nurmi! I can imagine all kind of things I'd be tempted to say. So, the juror says Nurmi's a doofus or picks his nose or something. Is that seriously going to taint the other jurors and prevent them from properly deciding guilt or innocence? But I can see the DT trying to make hay out of it.

That is what I said. Well, not all of it but I agree with the rest of what you are saying. :floorlaugh: I forgot about his nose. I figured #5 agreed he was a "snake."

 

[Litigatrix]

I think the fact that Nurmi cited to the Reeves case (which is about a comment made in jest to a juror that resulted in the Supreme Court remanding a case back to state court after a conviction for a determination of whether the comment hindered the defendant's right to a fair trial) along with the vague nature of the motion, means that Juror No. 5 made a comment purely in jest that was somehow deemed "prejudicial" to Arias by the DT.

I doubt that the motion gets any traction...but time will tell.

 

[panthera]

From what was reported by Beth Karas today, she allegedly said something that showed her bias for the prosecution to some of the other jurors, or at least so that they heard. Apparently this information was found out during the questioning of the jurors over the other motion (about Martinez signing autographs etc). It is heavily speculated that another juror or jurors ratted her out for what she said.

Thank you. Dr. Drew has Beth Karas on now and she is explaining what happened. Unfortunately I had missed everything earlier today while at work.



It sounds like another desperate attempt to postpone the inevitable for JA.

MOO

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I know there are many 'types' of women that wear Birkies.. I just lived in SF and Bezerkely too long...saw plenty. Making an observation that Birkenstocks was a go to shoe for gender bending women is not being judgmental, it was purely an accurate observation. I have also seen many other women wear them and looked very cute!

My son-in-law wears them....PhD in Mathematical Physics (a true rocket scientist!)....so what does that say? :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Pensfan]

Beth stated on Dr. Drew that Juror #5 is a very active juror, sits on the front row, takes a lot of notes, and submits a lot of questions.

 

[G&AMom]

Yeah, that and as someone else pointed out while ago... (sorry, don't recall who, but it was Brilliant) She was sooo disappointed to find out that "Morman" did not mean MORE MEN. It was simply spelled Mormon.

I just watched the interrogation videos where Det. Blaney was questioning Jodi, right up to the point where Flores returned. That poor detective. By the end of Video 8 it was obvious Jodi was playing her, but she stuck it through another hour. Then Jodi asks for Flores.

Of course, you can't blame Blaney. We know now that Jodi wasn't going to answer those questions no way no how. And then wanting the male detective to come back -- what a piece of work.

 

[TXHoney]

If he starts over, now for sure everyone has seen this one. It would only be to stall this out and hopefully try to get off the case. During the interim he will ask to be removed and a new Public Defender will come in.

They "might" let him if they get a mistrial. The new Public Defender will ask for a new trial date probably 12 months in the future so he can review the mountain of paperwork. I'm not sure if Willmott would stay on either. She might get a whole new crew including Psychologists.

And so it goes, into the next Century. The result will not change much, her address will stay the same for the rest of her life.

Hopefully Samuels and ALV would NOT be called the next time. Surely the DT has learned something through this.

 

[JSR]

So upon further reading it does appear that this might involve more than just Tri-color. And when reading the below paragraph it does sound like other jurors ratted Tri-color out.

"On March 28, 2013, a sealed in chambers meeting was held with the jurors to discuss what they mayor may not have seen in relation to the State's decision to pose for pictures and sign autographs outside the courthouse. During that hearing information came out that Juror 5 had engaged in misconduct that affected more than one juror. As the details are sealed, Ms. Arias would simply refer the court back to the transcripts of these proceedings as being the factual basis for these assertions."

I also hope the Judge didn't let the Defense have a free for all and let them question all these jurors about all sorts of things. It shouldn't have been used as an opportunity to vet the jurors about where they stand on trial or evidence. Meaning it should not have been a fishing expedition for the Defense.

 

[LambChop]

I know there are many 'types' of women that wear Birkies.. I just lived in SF and Bezerkely too long...saw plenty. Making an observation that Birkenstocks was a go to shoe for gender bending women is not being judgmental, it was purely an accurate observation. I have also seen many other women wear them and looked very cute!

I could never understand why women continue to wear heels that kill their feet. I still have some of mine but never wear them. I like the flats. It's harder to fall off them.

 

[G&AMom]

I know there are many 'types' of women that wear Birkies.. I just lived in SF and Bezerkely too long...saw plenty. Making an observation that Birkenstocks was a go to shoe for gender bending women is not being judgmental, it was purely an accurate observation. I have also seen many other women wear them and looked very cute!

I live in a town called the Berkeley of the East and I believe it is the law here that people wear Birkenstocks. I have several pairs myself.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

what did she say? Anyone know?

----------------------------------
Arias’ lead attorney, Kirk Nurmi, asked that a female juror be removed claiming that: “statements Juror 5 made in front of her fellow jurors amounts to misconduct that inserted partiality in what is supposed to be an impartial body.”

 

[al66pine]

katiedid2 at post 1210said :
....Maybe a rougher approach with JA would have been more effective.
I'm not saying Flores isn't effective, it's just that his soft spoken calm demeanour was what kept her calm.
Maybe she needed an aggressive approach! The scare the crap out of her approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read the above sentiment from several posters but IMO
the rough, aggressive, scare-the-crap-out of-the subject-approach
wd likely have resulted in Jodi lawyering up, right on the spot.

Then...
1. LE wd not have gotten video of the multiple versions of events according to Jodi.

2. The State wd not have had videos in court to show judge & jury what a liar she is.

Scare-the-crap-out-of 'em wd not have provoked Jodi to break down and confess.
Look at her behavior on the stand...
...as JM cross examines; she barely budges a millimeter on any point;
... w. her own counsel, on direct, she fences, thrusting & perrying. (She's also thrusted w. a number of men, but that's far O/T).


Yeah, she's charged w. murder not lying to LE, etc., but IMO many of us agree all her lies do not help her case. In fact, none of her lies help her case. MOO.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Where did you hear that? Beth Karas just said on HLN that perhaps other jurors ratted her out but that was just speculative on her part.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

I respect Beth Karas but why is it when HLN report anything or speculate about anything they always get it WRONG? I think we should wait until tomorrow. Maybe juror five did nothing of the kind. Maybe the DT made it up, like their list of witnesses (JA, RS and ALV) made things up. They have no credibility.

 

[spcagrl]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm so glad Steely mentioned this. I was driving myself nuts trying to think of who she reminded me of.

This is who she reminds me of.........

 

[panthera]

Exactly. Hopefully this is just a lot of nothing, and the juror will be dismissed.

Worst case scenario, in my opinion, is that it is serious enough to dismiss this juror. The problem the defense has, it appears, is they know their case isn't making any points with the jury and they are grasping at straws for a do-over.

MOO

 

[pip]

I could never understand why women continue to wear heels that kill their feet. I still have some of mine but never wear them. I like the flats. It's harder to fall off them.

I am the same way...I probably own 2 pairs and they are 2 inches at most.. I live in flats and comfy shoes..! Definitely no sex in the city girl here.
Off track. Carry on.

 

[ClosArgs]

Okay, so I read Nurmi's motion. He seems bound and determined to get a mistrial. My question is, why? He can't possibly think another trial is going to go any better than this one. Does he think JM will be more agreeable to a plea rather than starting over?

Imo, it's because if there is no mistrial he is going to lose. Better to get a mistrial, because he won't be representing her if it comes to another trial.

 

[LambChop]

Beth stated on Dr. Drew that Juror #5 is a very active juror, sits on the front row, takes a lot of notes, and submits a lot of questions.

It could have been an innocent statement from a couple of the jurors about #5 taking the notes. Maybe referred to her as the secretary. It really could be anything at this point.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

That is what I said. Well, not all of it but I agree with the rest of what you are saying. :floorlaugh: I forgot about his nose. I figured #5 agreed he was a "snake."

Yes - lol
It really bothered him when Skye called him that, didn't it? haha

 

[JSR]

I've missed a lot of posts the last few days (spending family time because they are TIRED of mom and her trial), so I apologize if this has been discussed already. But didn't the judge say the jurors would be questioned one by one, and not as a group? If that's the case, this one particular juror must have said something that set the DT off, but it wouldn't contaminate the other jurors, right?

According to their Motion more than one juror was affected. Which is why they asked for a straight mistrial or in the alternative removal of No. 5.