Nern' all but,
Whenever a Jury is dismissed' all Judges authorises freedom to speak to the press' only after verdict, So they were aiming to get their 5 minutes of fame, that they worked for by being a juror.
In a note to JSS #17 gave her ID# to JSS twice, So she outed herself first' the 11 later told JSS about a lone holdout and that was already disclosed information, I don't see any blame for the 11 and would stand by a lone juror' if their was conviction or a consciousness, but that's absent, their is no 'honest' why!
On the money trail, talk of offshore banking that ties to overseas gambling done in the US' internet sports gambling, strangely relates to New Zealand ties, whereas all of this may be factitious' their are striking puzzle pieces being gathered, I am convinced that some of this has merits, and am sure' some will be wrong, but reports are relating more money transferring than Jodi supporters could muster, I read the FBI not Department of Justice, may not have its entire case ready until July, we will get a better idea on this before next weekend!
I agree, except for one fact that I'm wondering about. Did the Jurors tell her name or just her number? If I remember correctly, they may have called her first name, but not her complete name.
Also, juror 17 herself admitted that from the beginning, she deliberately separated herself from the other jurors. Wouldn't even eat lunch with them. To me, in the beginning, when there were 4 'undecided' and she alone, from the beginning (before they began their actual deliberations!) voted 'life'. And did not take part in deliberating, because (to me), she was set in concrete from the time they entered the jury room to vote for 'life', no matter what the evidence showed. Her mind was biased from the time she got on that jury.
If the investigation can prove she had spoken out AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY on social media or in any way before or during the trial, then she should not have stayed on that jury. That would show she should have told them during jury selection, "I don't believe in the death penalty at all, ever."
The other jurors did at least participate in deliberations and 4 people, due to those debates, made their decision whereas they had not decided in the beginning. The other jurors have no reason to continue to speak. They said what they needed to say and there's no more to add.
I don't think the Judge should have even considered a 'private' note from anyone except for the Jury Foreman. THAT was in their rules, that all questions would come through the foreman. That one juror did not even consider the rules laid out by the court.
But, she got a lawyer because she needed one. Not to prove her 'desire to be a GOOD juror', but because she had to get one, knowing she was being investigated, meaning...her facebook account and other social media was being investigated. From what Bill Montgomery said soon after the jury spoke publicly, they had no real evidence that she had been 'threatened'. She claimed that, and that may have been why her home was being guarded by the police. She claimed death threats. So, they had no choice but to check into her social media accounts, it seems to me. She made them obligated to 'protect' her, and thus...they did, but needed proof to see where any threats were coming from to continue 'protecting' her.
(03-22-2015, 04:13 PM)NERN Wrote: [ -> ]This time I disagree Lunarscope.
For me, it DOES matter who outed #17 first.
In the immediate interview after the verdict, the 11 jurors could have been far more diplomatic in their answers to the media and not blamed the entire mistrial on the one hold-out juror. it was not the time or the place to do so, IMO.
Instead, if they wanted something done about it, they should have gone to the court after the verdict and expressed their concerns.
If, after some time had passed, they wanted to express their personal opinions to the public, so be it.
They knew full well that their comments would start a fire storm in the court of public opinion and I find it very interesting that they are now silent.
They did the very best job that they could and should be commended for their deliberations but they deliberately OUTED #17. This put them in public favour. I disagree with their decision to speak so candidly to a public that was already fired up.
I have said before and will repeat - I hate the court of public opinion.
Maybe it was missed' I edited it in, #17 outed herself. Twice. During deliberations to the judge' in notes, the 11 then told the judge the same. Not before' but after verdict' Jurors can talk about trial freely' when is irreverent. Any fire-storm fer-say was eminent, she made the bed' 11 made their beds.
#17 first used a newscast recommended lawyer, then she gained another lawyer, now she has a high profile high dollar lawyer, I see nothing to blame the 11, and can only say Martinez is in a city notorious for corruption, #17 hasn't defended with a statement of conviction or consciousness to date, by fighting Martinez' theirs the avail of skirting deliberation or internet use improprieties, what is proven is she was following the trial at home' because she favorated a Jodi news web page that was only created in December, theirs no confusion or internet lies involved' it was on the Martinez paper that was released an hour after verdict, to cast any blame on the 11 lacks foundation, So we have #17' who I have not formally blamed, I just expose for consideration!
This is the reason Jodi and MDLR made the 3way call' that was outed (in it's entirety), smart Jodi took her only day off from court (no jury day) for making the call, it's just illegal 501 fundraising stuff that been reported and is being investigated, not much worth for us, just background proof of MDLR's banking for Jodi!
http://t.co/3ujwWavvY2
I heard the jurors talking to the media that day. I have to say that it sounded to me like they were so frustrated that they could have pulled their hair out. Juror 17 of course had her right to vote as her conscience told her if it was her conscience she was listening to. The other eleven had the same right. Bottom line is Juan should have investigated Juror 17 better when he was picking the jury, I think. Surely no prosecutor would want a juror on a criminal trial who continually marries criminals. That alone tells us that she is a little off, not in the mainstream, however you want to call it. People who always hook up with criminals are not your everyday person. Maybe she thinks criminals are sexy? And exciting? It reminds me of those women who marry murderers on death row in a way. There is some psychological reason that makes those types of men interesting to those types of women. Whatever it is all about, I can't imagine that the prosecutor would seriously want a woman who likes to marry criminals a good candidate to be picked for the jury on a murder case. Maybe I'm wrong. But common sense tells me that since Juror 17 chooses to marry criminals, she is a fan of criminals in a strange way. I think she has said that she thought Arias had mitigating factors to do the murder, so I would guess that she believed the defense's lies and maybe that is how she feels about criminals in general - 1) they are exciting and 2) they aren't responsible for the crime because something forced them to commit crime and it's not really their fault.
Okay. What I have just written is total nonsense, of course. My point is Juan probably didn't do his homework. No way this gal should have been on any jury, criminal or civil even. It doesn't matter. It is what it is. It's over.
I do suspect that Juror 17 was taken in by Arias's ability to pull certain personalities in. But I will never know. I believe the foreman in the first trial was pulled in for sure. Arias simply has that power over certain people. This is another reason I am hoping she gets life without possibility of release. And wears prison stripes on sentencing day.
Agree kinda' I have not heard a #17 mitigating factor' just that mitigating factor was discussed, she leaves herself no out, and she was watching news' Nancy grace was a favorite listed and Kieters station' due to the new web news favorite link, we don't need more, the law will itemise' but I convinced, if #17 believed something' what was it' she is the one that has no answers' but the 11 were willing to talk, yea they were aggravated with her' she could not justify her position!
Now' her attorney argument against Martinez is dramatic major misconduct, I hope for the best, But that's not mistrial it's after jurors were released' all the jurors information was pocketed by reporters, their is no possibility of serving (that trial) and not be asked to talk on news, every one of them, just consider last trial' we saw them on camera in a packed room of newsseekers, fanatics and supporters from both sides!
If (and I doubt) jurors were on facebook with each other (carpooling was mentioned) why jump to a conclusion against their respecting the court, JII outed Jurors last trial mid-trial, I can post a dated link from JDT's blog, all the jury got hassled, the fact is Jodi had no mitigating factors and #17 hasn't exacted any! JII also posted the 11 names middle names with Facebook and twitter addresses in the same first hour after hlateng-verdict!
To late for consideration that' Martinez / Flores should have searched her maiden name and considered her husband' but we do not know if the pool of jury allowed large scale scrutiny, their were a limited amount to widdle down from!
If Willmott knew Jurors were compromising' she had a duty to report' and that would have reduced the jury chairs' her ultimate goal of mistrial, if Jury was down to 10, I bet #17 would have found a excuse to quit or be dismissed, and we do not know what Janet said for the 2 jurors to be dismissed just before deliberations (one saying let's fry the bitch), but whatever it was its suspect because she is suspect, she got to the first Jury foreman' whatever results she costs Arizona a million, and that is public opinion, MDLR was a hate poster inside the Jodi team upper encampment while banking and spending Jodi appeal money, maybe with Jodi OK' cause Jodi OK Simon who takes 90%!
JSS by law' should have saw Martinez's Facebook proof and kicked her out, mid deliberations or not' it would at best be a appeal argument denied' its not confusing she was serving Jodi news channels on the internet, JSS made many rookie calls both trials and was intimidateable' So Nurmi kept her desk full and her mind going in various directions, much like his case to the jury!
I have a friend who had 3 bad marriages, one to an alcoholic, one to a real wife abuser, and the third was an alcoholic-wife beater-car and riding lawn mower convicted thief. She swore she'd never get married again, but she moved in with the next man she dated. He was good to her, a good, decent man, not a drinker, was tender-hearted, took her back and forth to see her 3 children in prisons (each one took after their 'bad boy daddies'), and still she kept telling me, "I'll never marry again. THEY CHANGE AFTER THEY GET MARRIED."
I finally started telling her, each time she said that, "You know that is not true...you wanted the 'bad boys' and bad boys make bad husbands!" One day she surprised me by calling to invite me to her wedding! I told her, "Hold on...I've gotta go sit down. I thought you invited me to your wedding."
She said, "You are right, and I got tired of hearing you say that in my head before I'd go to sleep each night. I've admitted to myself that I hunted the bad boys and I paid the price and my children paid the price. I've found a good man, and I'm finally accepting his marriage proposal." That was about 6 years ago...she is battling ALS now, a terrible terminal illness, and her husband is tenderly caring for her and loving her till the end.
If Juror #17 seeks out 'bad boy' husbands, she will pay the price eventually. Just as my friend did. You can't trust those 'bad boys'.
Likewise, Jodi Arias is the female version of those 'bad boys'. Her followers are like my friend, they'll defend her to the max, because of her 'bad boy' image that she bragged about for 18 long days on the stand, taking up an entire month of her trial. She was proud of the image she was portraying on that stand, while we saw her only as a serial slut who went for the 'benefits' and certainly could not be trusted. Still can't be trusted. I'm telling you, she's the female version of the 'bad boys'.
Great posting, Justice. We all know these kinds of women. It is sad, but they are the ones who make the decisions of who excite them. As far as Juror 17, I don't care what happens to her, but I do think the probability is that she likes bad boys. And girls. Her call. In the meantime, she gets to be pitied by people who think she was abused by the other eleven jurors. It is hilarious if you think about it. Seriously.
The more I am seeing of this retrial, the more obscene it becomes in my mind. I am watching where Arias got to testify "secretly" because she feels ....... whatever she feels which is simply another lie. And let's face it - she is so "special". And we all know that the jury wasn't told to disregard her testimony in the end and Juan was not allowed to cross-examine her. What a crock. But in the end eleven jurors realized that Arias is a manipulating lying murderer, maybe because she testified secretly. I will never know. In the end, her and the defense ploys didn't work. She is seen for what she is by at least these eleven jurors. They knew the things she told about Travis were total lies.
I will be SO glad when April 13th happens and she is in her prison stripes.
I wholeheartedly agree' her time for punishment (karma) will come, (April hopefully) I repeat (think I was to blatant' last time I said this), I think #17 has mob/mafia husband or exhusband or both, and I think Nerm pondered way back, I think she herself is a victim of domestic violence, before or still, but I'm unjustly guessing' so I don't want to press the issue, its what we are talking about!
Bad-boy or misery finds company, or drugs results in lack of empathy, I'm just suspecting! I had a friend' was a long time drug user and after heart bipass quit' and I was helping him = room and board, but that ended-up ending, later he would stop by and often tell me people were stealing from him (bad neighborhood) then one day I got home to find him (with a shady unknown) stealing gas from my lawn-tractor-mower that only holds 1 1/4 gallon when full, I had kicked him out of my house' not from drugs' but thinking and acting like drug dependents do, and after he moved out he was fully using again! = Thieves claim theft and if you lend them money for a second time' it to them is the first time with prior debt ignored, the druggie way!
I lost a uncle to ALS but it was just his throat mainly, he basically starved away, Watch "Fear of Flight" its a great movie!
Martinez may have stretched the law, and I wish him the best' but sometimes what looks bad has advantages, say he gets a punishment for releasing (it could be Flores) and worst case, So what' he is one outstanding great prosecutor who would be best off fighting for justice and victims rights in a big city private practice, we are lead to believe the cost to Arizona for Martinez's services was' including whatever else is involved, was $150,000.00 and Nurmi well over a Million, what the heck, their forcing him to ..... I just hope him the best and Arizona doesn't deserve him or they would be compensating his abilities!
I don't think Martinez presented his case for the entire retrial for over 3 hours' JSS didn't allow him to do his job and more than Jodi didn't get cross from Martinez.
On tape when Judge stopped Jodi from testifying' (go to) watch Willmott look and big smile at Nurmi, It was the happiest moment of her life' both before and for whats to come!
I still find it hard to believe that a victim of domestic abuse would claim in open court during voir dire that she was an abused woman because they tend to be quiet about being abused. But whatever. And I also find it hard to believe that an abused wife could stand so defiantly against eleven strong people because often these women are very scaredy cat types. But I know I am about the only one on this blog who believes these things. And that's good. You guys probably know better than me. We'll see what we see later on down the line. I will just say that I saw those types of women in the law office where I worked and they never seemed to be strong personalities, rather the opposite. But this old gal might be a very strong personality and likes being pushed around at the same time. By a bad boy. Or girl.
Just saying what I said makes me think even more strongly that Juan should have pricked up his ears at that point in jury selection.
I have to agree with you, Lunarscope. Arizona doesn't deserve him. He's way too superior for those courts. And certainly not appreciated enough. Just think if he went to the other side!!!! He wouldn't do that, I'm sure. But many defense attorneys start out as prosecutors.
Yep' wonder if standing up to 11 was easier than living with a mad abuser, (she did say she cowarded' sitting in bathroom) because theirs the brainwashing or controlling possibility of him having empowerment, enough from me I don't have the people experience to even convince myself, beyond that I agree!
This is good talking' less for us about #17 but the trail leads there looking for answers!
Again I'm talking without a clue, but I think lawyers who lose early cases become defenders then Public defenders if they can't get enough work to build a practice, I think Prosecuting is way harder' for lawyer abilities!