End is Near Hopefully

[Observer]

Nern, I disagree with your statement that Juror No. 17 "was entitled to her opinion (whether it be for or against the DP in this case) just as all of the jurors were." If she was against the death penalty, she should not have been on the jury. All jurors had to be death qualified in order to serve on the jury so she had to have sworn in jury selection that she was in favor of the death penalty. She would not have been allowed on the jury if she stated she was against the death penalty. All of the jurors had to state they could vote for the death penalty. So if she was against the death penalty, she lied to get on the jury. That is jury misconduct.

I also disagree with you that HLN was pro Arias. HLN had defense attorneys who argued the defense side and prosecutors who argued the prosecution side. If anything, they were pro prosecution. Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew are always in favor of the victim and against the criminal. Their guests talked about Arias being a psychopath and being guilty long before the verdict.

My objection to HLN was that they had defense attorneys and prosecutors that argued the case and tried the case on TV in the court of public opinion rather than explaining the law to viewers and reporting objectively on the trial. Vinnie Politano had mock juries that tried Arias on TV night after night. She was judged guilty on HLN in the court of public opinion long before the jury found her guilty of first degree murder.

[Lunarscope]

I heard Day 2 first thing = day 1 was just an hour or more, and # 17 said hung jury, if true the trial was fixed!
Their were hung jury tweets pre-verdict on JII, and more than confirmable. So law needs to investigate JII secret and vent rooms, Shariff Joe just got 10 names' some of who were infiltrators!

[NERN]

Observer - you are absolutely correct in disagreeing with me about HLN. Again, it was another mistake on my part. I meant PRO PROSECUTION and typed pro Arias by mistake. Apparently I am not doing well - my mind is ahead of my typing.
HLN had her guilty right from the start and that is bias news reporting in my books.

With regard to juror misconduct, please enlighten me where Juror #17 said she was against the DP when being interviewed as a prospective juror. If she did say that, of course she would be disqualified to sit on the jury.

If, while in deliberations, she felt the DP was not warranted in this case after reviewing the evidence, so be it.

No one knows for sure where she stood as she sat on the jury. Too many are speculating that she had to have come in against the DP to have voted the way she did. I still believe that she was entitled to her opinion during deliberations and apparently the court and the attorneys did too. I may not like her position at all but she is entitled to it.

[Lunarscope]

I agree a hung jury of one is the best system' I think Oregon is guilty with 11 to 1 and that could be better' moot!

I want #17 to be caught' but that requires a second person or conspiracy, she may be innocent or just never caught, I never read or thought (reliable source) that #17 said she was anti-DP and if a conspiracy is involved that the main thing never to admit!

Same with the Mitigation Specialist' hope she did wrong and then hope she gets due punishment!

[NERN]

Troy Hayden @troyhaydenfox10 ·
@RealSheriffJoe just told me ‪#‎JodiArias‬ will be allowed to continue receiving video calls til investigation is complete.

This was posted on JMP Support Page 15 min. ago

[duluth45]

I think Arizona needs new lawmakers. Probably many states do. The more I am reading, the more disgusted I am. If Arizona doesn't have the money to put brakes on the phones, freedoms, etc. that prisoners can have, here's a thought - get these trials over in a month or less like other places do. That alone would save millions of dollars.
Justice seems to be very interested in protecting the rights of the defendant and not interested very much in the non-existent rights of the victim.
There is something very wrong with this picture.
I just have to say that Nurmi, Willmott, and de la Rosa made a big BIG paycheck.

---

Nern, never mind about typing pro-Arias when you meant the other. Think of when I addressed you as Nurmi!!!! Now THAT is pretty bad, lady.

[Observer]

Nern, I said if Juror No. 17 had said she was against the death penalty, she would not have been allowed on the jury. So obviously, she said she could vote for the death penalty on the questionnaire she had to fill out in jury selection.

I don't believe Juror No. 17 should have ever been on the jury because she had been a victim of domestic violence, had read the book and/or saw the movie "The Secret" and like Arias believed in the Law of Attraction, saw the Lifetime movie and she was married to two convicted felons which means she loves felons and she had a lot in common with Jodi Arias and could not have possibly voted for the death penalty even if she believed in it.

Salhapatica and I both believe Juror No. 17 and her convicted felon husband conspired to hang the jury because she is timid and couldn't have held out without his pushing, intimidation and or support. That meant she was discussing the case with him, which is a violation of her oath. He was the one who answered the door when a reporter knocked on the door and he wouldn't allow the reporter to talk to her and said he was proud of her for sticking to her guns. Convicted felons are usually controllers who control their spouses and battered women are too timid to stand up to them.

Here are the reasons, I believe Juror No. 17 got on the jury to specifically hang it:

1- Juror No. 17's first husband was prosecuted by Juan Martinez and she married him right after the sentencing so she knew Martinez and did not disclose it when asked if she knew any of the parties in the Jodi Arias trial, which indicates she had a vendetta against Martinez.

2- Juror No. 17's husband marked "like" to Jodi Arias' facebook page and Juror No. 17 marked "like" to Nancy Grace's facebook page so they obviously followed the case and favored Arias even before she went on the jury.

3- Convicted felons and their spouses see other convicted felons as wrongfully convicted like them and sympathize with felons, not the system or the victim.

4- Juror No. 17 could have seen Arias as a "sister" because she too was claiming domestic violence and they both read and saw the movie "The Secret" and believed in the Law of Attraction.

5-Juror No. 17 told the jury after the first vote and before deliberations, to call the bailiff and say they were hung. Most of the jurors had never even been in a courtroom but she had been in a courtroom with her first husband so she knew what a hung jury was. She didn't even want to deliberate. She wanted to walk after the first vote, which changed from 6-6 to 11-1 in two days of deliberation. She never considered changing her vote. She had her mind made up when she walked into the deliberations.

6- When they asked her if she believed in the death penalty, she said yes, but not for this case.

7-When they asked her what case could she vote for the death penalty, she couldn't answer.

[NERN]

Thanks Duluth - glad we all make dumb mistakes - brings some humour into play.

I agree that the laws need revamping - probably not only in Arizona, but everywhere.
I know here in Canada that the government is trying to change our law to "Life means Life". Right now, Life means the possibility of parole after 25 years. Most do not get paroled but the possibility is there. Unless one is designated a "Dangerous Offender" which means they are put behind bars indefinitely, the chance of parole is there. Hope this law gets changed.

This trial went on far too long making time management the culprit. JSS is known for not rushing through cases and as outraged everyone is for how long the Arias case took, they are still assigning her capital cases. Makes me think it is not a real issue in the eyes of the law.

The people that can affect change are the citizens themselves. By lobbying and advocating for change and by voting not out of habit or just for the sake of voting but by knowing WHO they are voting for and WHO CAN help make changes, this will help.

[Lunarscope]

What if' What if I was there, Deliberate telling judge it may take months to resolve' because I juror has convictions that do not have answers, we will continue to try understanding, but you have received our letter that a alternate juror replacement will likely resolve, we are committed to respecting the systems rules!

[NERN]

I believe there is a great amount of speculation about Juror #17.

I also fundamentally do not believe everything is a conspiracy.
I believe that Arias is evil and is where she should be given the verdict.
I believe that the defense team has no conscience as well.

We were not present during the voir dire and therefore we do not have definitive knowledge as to what was asked and answered.

Observer.....
You said -
I don't believe Juror No. 17 should have ever been on the jury because she had been a victim of domestic violence, had read the book and/or saw the movie "The Secret" and like Arias believed in the Law of Attraction, saw the Lifetime movie and she was married to two convicted felons which means she loves felons and she had a lot in common with Jodi Arias and could not have possibly voted for the death penalty even if she believed in it.

Being the victim of DV does not mean one cannot serve on a jury. That is being prejudicial to me.
Being married to two felons does not mean one necessarily loves felons - could be just bad choices.
These reasons do not automatically mean that she would have voted against the DP.


You said.....
Salhapatica and I both believe Juror No. 17 and her convicted felon husband conspired to hang the jury because she is timid and couldn't have held out without his pushing, intimidation and or support. That meant she was discussing the case with him, which is a violation of her oath. He was the one who answered the door when a reporter knocked on the door and he wouldn't allow the reporter to talk to her and said he was proud of her for sticking to her guns. Convicted felons are usually controllers who control their spouses and battered women are too timid to stand up to them.

I think that assumptions are being made with this reasoning. We do not know this juror and whether she is timid or not.
The fact that he answered the door is of no consequence - it is his home and given all the hate for his wife, he may have just been protecting her.
Not all felons are controlling and again another assumption.
We do not know this man.

You said.....
1- Juror No. 17's first husband was prosecuted by Juan Martinez and she married him right after the sentencing so she knew Martinez and did not disclose it when asked if she knew any of the parties in the Jodi Arias trial, which indicates she had a vendetta against Martinez.

Juan Martinez is not a stupid man and he does his job thoroughly. It is his job to know the background, where he can, of any prospective juror. Quite obviously, this was not an issue that concerned him.


You said.....
2- Juror No. 17's husband marked "like" to Jodi Arias' facebook page and Juror No. 17 marked "like" to Nancy Grace's facebook page so they obviously followed the case and favored Arias even before she went on the jury.

It was pointed out that other jurors were using their facebook pages as well. How many of them liked certain pages that could be considered biased.

You said......
3- Convicted felons and their spouses see other convicted felons as wrongfully convicted like them and sympathize with felons, not the system or the victim.

That is a general statement being made and seems to encompass all felons and their spouses. Again, an assumption.

You said.....
4- Juror No. 17 could have seen Arias as a "sister" because she too was claiming domestic violence and they both read and saw the movie "The Secret" and believed in the Law of Attraction.

I do notice that you say "could" in this statement. Could be, but also maybe could not be. Everyone is not the same in their experiences.


You said.....
5-Juror No. 17 told the jury after the first vote and before deliberations, to call the bailiff and say they were hung. Most of the jurors had never even been in a courtroom but she had been in a courtroom with her first husband so she knew what a hung jury was. She didn't even want to deliberate. She wanted to walk after the first vote, which changed from 6-6 to 11-1 in two days of deliberation. She never considered changing her vote. She had her mind made up when she walked into the deliberations.

All jurors sat through the trial, hearing all of the evidence put before them. Apparently there were a number who were initially voting for Life just like #17 when they took their first vote. Unfortunately, #17 continued with her vote for Life, while others changed their minds. No where does it say she didn't even want to deliberate but rather she was ineffective in her deliberations - and this came from another juror. Following the impasse, she apparently got better in voicing during deliberations. It did not change her mind however.


You said.....
6- When they asked her if she believed in the death penalty, she said yes, but not for this case.

Fair question and she answered.

You said.....
7-When they asked her what case could she vote for the death penalty, she couldn't answer.

Again, fair question and she probably should have tried to explain. But she did not, nor did she really have to.

--------------------------------

I am not defending this juror and I am not condemning her either.
I just believe a lot of speculation (something rampant in this case) and assumptions are being made when we are not privy to all of the facts.
We hear snip-its from the jurors, all of them, along with the media and other posters and because we are so outraged that the DP was not given to Arias, we form opinions.

You are absolutely entitled to your assessment and opinion Observer, but I am as well.
Until actual facts - like the recent minutes that we have already discussed - are brought forward, I reserve judgement.

Good people, bad people, felons, victims, etc. do not all fit into a nice little box and all act the same. Just look at Arias. she is a prime example.