Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/05-08 In recess

[AngelWings444]

I think they allow people with priors on a jury if they haven't been convicted. They ask them if it would affect their decision or their ability to serve on the jury. It doesn't automatically exempt someone if they have a misdemeanor in their history. And Juan may have felt comforted by her honesty.

My point is that it wasn't a prior Juan knew about. She may have put a prior conviction on her questionnaire, but there is NO way she had an outstanding charge against her and Juan allowed her to be on this jury. Why would they arrest her if she was aware of this charge/potential charge and she was "handling" it? Her BF is a defense attorney or something like that. Something is "off" with this juror and this situation. Furthermore, I did not like the way she spoke for the entire jury and said they would all come to a unanimous verdict. Huge, red flag for me.

At the end of the day, it does matter, if only to me. If/when we get the document release and I am wrong about this juror, I will apologize. Until then, I will go with my gut and state she hasn't been 100% honest or forthcoming. She was NOT dismissed due to her schedule.

 

[katydid23]

Yup,It does not make sense that they would scuttle her over ONE DAY of availability, when they are only meeting once a week at best.

 

[bznbear]

Okay, entertain us...what in the world could it be in such super-secret hearings? For the life of me, I just don't know.

This is such an injustice to Travis' family, all these delays/reschedulings. I seriously feel so bad for them, what a financial and physicial (let alone EMOTIONAL) toll on them.

I'm just venting, I know...and I know you can't be thrilled with what you're seeing, either.

I think we'd all like to know what's changed so drastically from the first trial to justify the closed proceedings.

 

[bznbear]

From the State versus Arias Facebook page

"#‎JodiArias‬' attorney, Kirk Nurmi, said that Arias will not resume her testimony until the COA issues its opinion about the closure order -- the opinion will give the rationale for, and parameters of, their decision to vacate the closure order.

The defense may appeal the issue to the Arizona Supreme Court, according to Nurmi.

~Beth Karas, in part"

Wow, the arrogance.

 

[Katharine]

That's what I didn't understand! Why would they boot her over one day?! In the past they'd scheduled days around the jurors' schedules. She was obviously not telling the whole story.

MeeBee, you do such an excellent job and always very good posts, so do not feel bad. Hey, I do not have the instincts that so many of you have. And you did have that initial gut feeling. Juror #3 did quite a number on so many it sounds in both interviews. She either should have kept her mouth shut or been up front on the very first interview with her arrest. (So now I wonder about the 'integrity' of everything she has said.) Because I was yes so surprised that the court was not going to work with her over a day some time in January. That was the only part that pondered me from what you had written because everything else that she said sounded so good. And I want so to believe it is true that all the jurors are going to feel that same way. There is one thing I have found out about myself from this very long trial, I would not make a good juror. Thank you MeeBee. (Keep in mind this was posted by me soon after your first interview input from the second interview by Juror #3).

 

[bznbear]

How do I search here for a post if I can't remember which thread? I'm looking for the.post about someone's family member knowing JSS and commenting how nice she is......

That was one I recognized from here on BK's site. I had to go back a couple days to find the NB posts.

ETA: the post about JSS was from a guest, not NB, on Dec 4 hearing page.

 

[bznbear]

I couldn't find a Nancy B in the comments, but I did notice the new mod saying the issue had been resolved. Don't know if Nancy B banned, but the posts are gone.

she still has posts on Dec 4 hearing page.

 

[bznbear]

As much as I want this to be the last and final round for this mess, I would not blame every single remaining juror if they were to ask to be dismissed. Seriously, at the rate this thing is going it could easily go into and beyond February and I think it is asking an awful lot of the jurors to stick with it indefinitely. Civic duty it is but come on, there comes a time when it isn't even realistic to call it that anymore.

I'm repeating what I said at the beginning of this re-trial; JA's mantra has changed form "no jury will ever convict me", to "no jury will ever sentence me." And it will be JSS's burden to bear if that happens.

 

[Katharine]

People are saying the only way SW could have known the juror's name was if it was linked to her by someone in the know since she's never provided a full name and the chamber meeting is under seal.

I hate to ask and I do look all acronyms that I do not know but this one has me stumped. Who is SW??? I guess I will be embarrassed when I learn, huh? This Juror #3 situation still quite strange...this story. I have been reading on some other web sites in my search for identity of SW and some 'stories' are getting weird. Such as DT set her up, why would 8 yrs go by without any follow up, really how do 'they' find out who is writing these so called anonymous juror questions (or am I being that naive?). I still "stand by" my prior versed own opinion that Juror #3 should have been up front with this arrest on Nov 28 2014 on the first day she was interviewed.
TIA.

ETA
1. Okay SW is Sharon Weber and now I will have to sleuth out what she has done as a JA supporter.
2. Someone did apparently leak on purpose after she answered interview questions X2 separate days.
3. Still no answer related to the 8 yrs passage of time for alleged bad check written allegedly by ex-hubby.
4. How does the DT find out who writes the anonymous juror questions (or am I being that naive?)
5. Now am of opinion Juror #3 should have kept quiet until after trial ended

 

[bznbear]

I think some others, Hope4More and others, were even more correct. I thought she was genuine just was worried about her. Something did rub me the wrong way. She's all talk about integrity but runs to Jen to get her story out before her arrest goes public. I thought it interesting that she kept saying the reason she was let go, making sure everyone understood she was excused not dismissed. It was obvious she wanted that known. Still thought she just wanted people to know she did nothing wrong. Protesting too much, maybe. Now we know the real truth.

Still think there's nothing wrong with talking to the press. But I question her intentions now. Still regret her not making it on the jury. But it's good she's gone. She must not have revealed her arrest until she was forced to reveal a court appearance due to the trial running long.

:sigh:

She claims she did admit her arrest on her questionnaire, and that she didn't write the check.. so, guess we'll never know for sure, but this does sound like the reason for dismissal...

Melissa's (Juror #3) response - "It was a 2006 issue. An ex wrote A (singular) check out of a closed joint account that I was the primary on, fraud and identity theft charges are being pursued on that.

In the meantime, I am having to deal with the immediate issue of resolving it out of my name. I was released on my own recognizance - which most should know is because it is of no threat or risk. I also disclosed the prior class one misdemeanor on my selection questionnaire. I stand by my honesty.

http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-juror-3-arrested-over.html

 

[04009margaret]

BN would like you to know some things about the 'Skymeister':

Certified Audio & Video forensic expert: Federal, Military, State, US district courts, DOJ, US Army CID, Aviation. ABRE-ACFEi-NATAS-AES-ASCAP-BMI (SAM# & DUNS#)

What We Do: Clarify Video, Still Pictures (Film or Digital) and Audio so jurors can better see & hear evidence. Our equipment is superior to law enforcement agencies [sic]. We have over 3 decades of professional experience and our Studios are equiped [sic] with more sophisticated Hardware & Software than Federal Afencies [sic] such as the FBI.
We can transfer video to large format still pictures for use as Exemplars. We can present high resolution video in court. We will come to Court and explain to the jury “Procedures” or Evidence of “Tampering”, etc. We can spot and visually explain “altering of tapes” (using 3D Sonograph and Spectrograph printouts... etc.) Video Recreations with Emmy Winning 4K Camera Crews.
We have use of the most technically sophisticated aerial helicopter ever built. (6k 4:4:4 format)
5 axis gyro stabilized. We also have a 4K drone for SOCOM use.

Specialties: 34 Years Professional Experience
Certified: Federal, State, Aviation, Civil & Military
US Distridt [sic] Courts - Federal Grand Jury
39 EMMY Awards received for Technical Excellence (National Association of Television Arts and Sciences)
14,000 hours Aerial Photography. Cineflex Jet Helicopter available 5 axis gyro 4:4:4 HD. Seats 5 with 4 HD monitors, scopes etc. State of the Art Movie Helicopter.



​

BBM

After comparing his LinkedIn profile to the DT's motion filings, I think Dog-In-The-Eye Guy may have received a little résumé assistance from JW.

For being such a technology wizard, rudimentary spelling and grammar check skills -- software notwithstanding -- have mysteriously eluded him.

BBM

Sorry had to have a big laugh at that....A "DUNS#" is a specific id number attached to a company or business entity by Dun & Bradstreet for their database & "Business who's who" publication & for credit references. I worked for Dun & bradstreet for many years & helped compile these records & edit the yearly publication in their Australian entity. I wouldn't have thought it worthy to have it on your company bio to make it look like a qualification.

http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform

 

[Katharine]

There was a fabulous comment this morning where the poster pointed out that reporters are not doing their job. No one is questioning all of this absurdity and the cost. They should be challenging events and they are not.

This is only the 2nd trial I have observed. Though both trials I did get into late (the other being The Florida trial) played catch up continuously, and apparently from what I am understanding this trial is a bit unusual in its secrecy and maintaining of a proper court room by a Judge. The popularity is just not like it was last year and in part that no doubt is due to the no live streaming. And yet I would think it would be of interest to the AZ taxpayers, so it seems odd that the reporters "are not doing their job".

 

[Katharine]

No, it doesn't matter who broke the story any more than the real reason for her dismissal matters. It's better she's gone, obviously. But we shouldn't outright condemn her without the full story. It doesn't make me angry. It just is. There's no reason to be mad at her.

I have to agree about not judging Juror #3 without knowing the full story. It is how I felt last year about that very first Juror, I believe it was Juror #5, who was dismissed/excused and before I knew Websleuths existed, another web site crucified her as soon as the announcement was made. There were just a rare few of us who kept saying we were not going to judge her but it was mob like and fell on deaf ears. I was so glad to find this forum where there are rules of respect, etc. a class act forum. I spent a couple of months in a horrid environment but I needed to view the discussions as an outlet. So I hear what you are saying. We just do not know at this point. Thank you for your post.

 

[rose222]

I think we'd all like to know what's changed so drastically from the first trial to justify the closed proceedings.

This is what aggravates me the most. What has changed now? We were able to watch the trial live last time around. Nurmi threw a hissy fit about his witnesses. It didn't work. JA presented her allocution. That was pretty much it. It was a short trial and it worked in JA's favour...four jurors voted for life!

This time around...

We can't watch this trial live or even with a 30 minute delay.
The Judge closed the courtroom doors for the defendant and the secret witnesses.
She allowed the witnesses to openly disrespect the prosecutor.
Even after the COA's ruling the Judge continues to coddle Nurmi. Witnesses refuse to testify. Nothing is done about it.
The Judge will probably allow the issue to be presented as evidence. As for the non-existent child , who knows how she will rule?
Delays, delays and more delays.

Logic is supposed to take us from point A to point B. Two penalty trials and two completely different ways of handling them? I don't see the logic in that. She has completely veered off course this time around. A judge is supposed to be mindful about the costs of a trial, jurors' well-being etc. If she was concerned about JA never seeing the light of day again then she would have ensured strict schedules, deadlines and absolute order in her courtroom. Delaying this trial only benefits Arias. How can expect these jurors to hold on for yet another two or three months? This whole trial is a mess.

 

[Katharine]

Seems a little suspicious that this woman claims to have disclosed her "bad check" from 2006 in a questionnaire and that she gets arrested for it during this trial. Is it possible that everyone assumed this was an old charge that had been dealt with and the defence decided to look into it when they were looking at ways to get rid of jurors?

It is also very suspicious that JA supporters knew her full name and already had the information about her arrest as soon as she gave a pro state interview. There should only be about 8 people who would know her name in that courtroom correct? Was it used by the judge the day she was removed? When JSS, JM, Samantha, KN, JW and JA were in chambers to discuss it? How many court clerks or employees would know it? How did a JA supporter get her name?

I guess it doesn't really matter. The defence can do anything they want with impunity it seems. There is no "motion for mistrial" or any other punishment for their behaviour.

MOO

This truly does make me wonder too when you put it the way you did. What is the juror name release protocol? It use to be names not released unless the jurors agreed, right? I thought they are always unknown unless the jurors decide to give interviews and even then some may want to be called by their number. It is hard to believe that the name would be released in the Judge's chambers in that meeting. Or is this how it is done? Hmmmm.

 

[LaLaw2000]

My point is that it wasn't a prior Juan knew about. She may have put a prior conviction on her questionnaire, but there is NO way she had an outstanding charge against her and Juan allowed her to be on this jury. Why would they arrest her if she was aware of this charge/potential charge and she was "handling" it? Her BF is a defense attorney or something like that. Something is "off" with this juror and this situation. Furthermore, I did not like the way she spoke for the entire jury and said they would all come to a unanimous verdict. Huge, red flag for me.

At the end of the day, it does matter, if only to me. If/when we get the document release and I am wrong about this juror, I will apologize. Until then, I will go with my gut and state she hasn't been 100% honest or forthcoming. She was NOT dismissed due to her schedule.

BBM:

I certainly agree with the bolded part. Once someone lies to me, that's it. That is when I would have a hard time believing anything else this person said.

:moo:

 

[blefuscu]

Just trying to sort things out in my head.

Has it been established as fact that these files actually existed on Travis's hard drive, seeing as they weren't seen in the first trial phase? If they do exist, has it been proven that Travis downloaded them, and they weren't there because of a virus or someone planting them?

 

[salberg7]

Juror #3 has lost credibility with me. I don't believe her. Why wait 6 yrs for an arrest? No, there is something fishy here. You don't go on interviews in the middle of a trial if you have respect for your team (the other jurors) nor discuss your own possibly criminal case. Glad she is gone.

 

[bsk]

I'm repeating what I said at the beginning of this re-trial; JA's mantra has changed form "no jury will ever convict me", to "no jury will ever sentence me." And it will be JSS's burden to bear if that happens.

Given the right judge, for the moment it appears to be "no jury will ever live long enough to be able to complete the penalty phase and sentence me".

 

[Ricki]

Does anyone one know if this is a credible tweet.
@tarakelley320 @JarrettSeltzer A #JodiArias court officer was fired for saying Juan should be stabbed 27 times. YOU BET YOUR LIFE insiders



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk