Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #6

[Nancy_Drew]

This is also from the same "STEALTH JUROR" Wikipedia page... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_juror

In June 2008, after a judge dismissed a juror, during deliberations in a “gang murder” trial, who was found to have falsely denied her gang affiliation on a jury selection questionnaire, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said: “It is our subjective opinion that she was a stealth juror, that she specifically wanted to be on this jury.”[10] Juror dishonesty on questionnaires threatened the six-month-long federal corruption trial of former Illinois Governor George Ryan.[7]

 

[Hope4More]

Seriously. It's his opinion. But other jurors have also spoken and they say she wanted to bring in the movie and other irrelevant things and would not participate in things that were either aggravators or mitigators.

I was not in the room, nor were you. We can only go on what we see reported. If the foreman thinks J17 did just fine, that's great for him. He can sleep at night knowing that. Other jurors might not agree with him, though. His being foreman does not give him more credibility, imo.

Have you read his interview? He gives a blow by blow of their discussion of mitigators, and vote counts for each. That is not opinion. She discussed mitigators. She voted on mitigators. She parted ways with the 7 then the 10 then the 11 when it came to abuse mitigators. The discussion of book deals and the like WAS irrelevant to deliberations, but she wasn't the one discussing that. The others were.

 

[TartLemon]

Juans fault....he should have known Mr. Z would be smitten with Jodi. Juan should have known!!!

Mr Z was not the only NO vote.

 

[Hez]

You're totally right about that MeeBee ~
I saw this post from the dark side a while back and wrote down most of it and paraphrased the rest:

The Appellate fund is a trust account.
Every bit of care was taken to be sure it would be protected from the lawsuit
we knew was coming.

Pretty much saying if you donate, it won't go to the Alexander's...
so send your cash it is safe. :dervish:

It also helps a convicted killer say that they are still 'indigent' and need funding from the State for their appeal. :gaah:

 

[Hope4More]

LOL....everyone else is at fault....sounds just like JA! IMO, J17 not only watched the movie, she watched the trial.

self-deleted for snark. But.....really.

 

[LambChop]

He could have asked what her ex-husband's name was, done a quick search of his court records, and seen his own name or even remembered the case.

Not sure about this but we can check with AZL to make sure. I don't think the state does background checks on jurors. They assume that you are filling out your forms and being truthful.

Obviously her answers were accepted and the expectation was that she was telling the truth. Had she said, my ex originally was tried by a prosecutor in this courthouse for 1st degree murder which was they plead down she would have never made it on the jury. Somehow the story coming out of what she disclosed is different. If she brought it up in the first place but misreported it she understood that she needed to be truthful so it was not as if she misunderstood the question. But maybe AZL can answer this for us.

 

[Bravo]

Good question. It does sort of look like it has already gone through the digestive process...

or something?

:happydance::laughing:

 

[MeeBee]

I remember that...blue wristbands vs. white ones if I remember it correctly. Does anyone know who the "Juan's Tie" guy is? I have a strong suspicion and he used to post over there and got booted. Nope, they DO have a few that access the "secret" vent room, LOL.

Who do you suspect Juan's Tie is? Please and thank you lol.

 

[Bluewater_Girl]

Seriously. It's his opinion. But other jurors have also spoken and they say she wanted to bring in the movie and other irrelevant things and would not participate in things that were either aggravators or mitigators.

I was not in the room, nor were you. We can only go on what we see reported. If the foreman thinks J17 did just fine, that's great for him. He can sleep at night knowing that. Other jurors might not agree with him, though. His being foreman does not give him more credibility, imo.

He seems like a good guy to me. If he did the interview the next day, he would have known that members of the public were upset by the verdict and many were questioning the motives of J17. He may have downplayed J17's lack of deliberation hoping to diffuse the situation. After all, he knew it was a done deal for life. What's the point of aggravating an already bad situation? JMO.

 

[krkrjx]

Nurmi has got to be loving this!! See!! It was all Juans fault! Juan is a failure! Juan screwed up! Juan is incompetent! Juan is a liar! oooops....think JW is the one who said that.....

He and his sidekick are laughing all the way to the bank. Probably the same one that Maria has the secret password to JA's account!!

Juans fault! :happydance:

Amster, I know where you are coming from on this but IMO Nurmi does not have the ability to love or even appreciate anything.

In his defense, he really did not want this case...ever. I don't like him or his tactics but our system is more at fault than he is. He did what he was allowed to do. That he was allowed to do it is the problem. I bet Nurmi feels happy this case is nearly concluded--or whatever passes as happy for him.

 

[TartLemon]

IMO, Nurmi is :happydance: since his time having to deal with this horror of a client is almost over. Counting the minutes.

 

[krkrjx]

He seems like a good guy to me. If he did the interview the next day, he would have known that members of the public were upset by the verdict and many were questioning the motives of J17. He may have downplayed J17's lack of deliberation hoping to diffuse the situation. After all, he knew it was a done deal for life. What's the point of aggravating an already bad situation? JMO.

The non-verdict is not a bad thing. I do not care for people getting away with lying under oath and that is a whole different gripe for me but I am not unhappy with this hung jury. It was 11-1 for death which vindicated Travis and slapped down the defendant and her team.

I have to be out of the J17 conversations now because I have said all I can say on it. Nothing will come from it; it probably should, but it probably won't. In that vein, what's left to discuss?

All IMO, of course.

 

[Hez]

Have you read his interview? He gives a blow by blow of their discussion of mitigators, and vote counts for each. That is not opinion. She discussed mitigators. She voted on mitigators. She parted ways with the 7 then the 10 then the 11 when it came to abuse mitigators. The discussion of book deals and the like WAS irrelevant to deliberations, but she wasn't the one discussing that. The others were.

BBM - That was according to J17 when she was questioned by the judge, but I haven't seen any of the other jurors state that. J17 has no credibility with me. :moo:

 

[Hope4More]

Not sure about this but we can check with AZL to make sure. I don't think the state does background checks on jurors. They assume that you are filling out your forms and being truthful.

Obviously her answers were accepted and the expectation was that she was telling the truth. Had she said, my ex originally was tried by a prosecutor in this courthouse for 1st degree murder which was they plead down she would have never made it on the jury. Somehow the story coming out of what she disclosed is different. If she brought it up in the first place but misreported it she understood that she needed to be truthful so it was not as if she misunderstood the question. But maybe AZL can answer this for us.

I'd like to hear from her too. Facts are good. I think BK is trying to get hold of the full voir dire docs. If she does and posts them, I'll be happy to summarize what she found.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Who do you suspect Juan's Tie is? Please and thank you lol.

Well, I am not 100% sure, but MOO is, it might be G.B. Okay, and you're welcome.

 

[Endora27]

I agree Katie! I don't have a clue where Troy is getting the small hands from because her hands are overly large. I find them hideous actually. In the photo where she has her hand around Travis' neck it is obvious that she has very large hands for a female. They are very mannish looking.

With female sadistic murderers like Arias.... I have often wondered if their testosterone level is much higher than it should be for a female.

Her hands are freakishly large... not so much her hands but it's her fingers. And, that photo with her hands around Travis' neck creeps me out so much. That smile of hers while she looks like she wants to choke him. EW!

 

[lithgow1]

He seems like a good guy to me. If he did the interview the next day, he would have known that members of the public were upset by the verdict and many were questioning the motives of J17. He may have downplayed J17's lack of deliberation hoping to diffuse the situation. After all, he knew it was a done deal for life. What's the point of aggravating an already bad situation? JMO.

I agree - from that interview it sounded like he did his best to keep everyone together and concentrating on the task at hand in what would be a difficult and tricky situation. He came across as honest, open and essentially decent so I really don't understand why he's now being criticised for trying to do his 'job' to the best of his ability.

 

[MeeBee]

Well, I am not 100% sure, but MOO is, it might be G.B. Okay, and you're welcome.

Really? But Juan's Tie seems so anti Jodi?

 

[Bluewater_Girl]

Well, I am not 100% sure, but MOO is, it might be G.B. Okay, and you're welcome.

:jawdrop:

 

[Shadowboy]

I'm happy with LWOP, and don't really care about juror 17, to tell you the truth. I started off just playing devil's advocate, knowing what the vast majority of active posters on this thread think. But I have to say after I actually read what the foreman said and did an outline of what happened, I am less inclined to see the foreman as a hero and 17 as a conniving evil liar intent on saving JA or finding fame and fortune.

Finding oneself in the minority isn't for sissies when the majority is convinced they're right and that either you'd agree with them if you just tried harder, or that you're just flat out wrong, period.

Hope4, I'm right there with ya (although I've tried to stay out of the J17 discussion).

In this week's news, I was thrilled when 'ol Joe shut down JA for the rest of her Estrella stay. That means instead of a minimum of 30 days near-solitary, she'll be doing at least 60 days (30+ in Estrella and another 30 in Perryville).

And she could get more if she doesn't behave.

That's a long time with little/no human contact or conversation, especially for a 'star' like JA. Guess she'll just have to practice her singing and her headstands. Can you imagine listening to JA sing "O, Holy Night" over and over again via the vents in the Lumley Unit?