+- Crime & Trial Discussion Forums (http://kristinarandle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Crimes and Trials (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Jodi Arias Trial (http://kristinarandle.com/forum/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: End is Near Hopefully (/thread-1.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Justice - 03-21-2015
Lunarscope, am I awful for hoping you are right about all of this? There has been so many seemingly illegal things happening, that due to my belief in 'right doing', I can't help but hope and pray that all the illegal stuff will be found out and the 'guilty' ones get found out and punished, according to the law.
I don't want to sound like a real 'hater', but the fact is...I hate injustice and I do not approve of those who live to see what they can get away with!
Keep us informed, please!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-21-2015
Much profanity about Nurmi wanting away from Jodi' funny!
http://reallybigmeandog.com/2014/09/25/the-really-big-mean-dog-school-of-law-gives-back/
Much profanity about Robert Durst' funny!
http://reallybigmeandog.com/2015/03/21/robert-durst-is-a-crazy-assed-crazy/
My pen name s fersur, as in 4-sure, Everybody thinks by the Who What When Where How and Why, I start Why then How, I'm often ahead of the pack understanding' but like everyone I get a percentage wrong' my track records decent!
Travis's book is out in first edition to family'5 minutes ago = Steven said he just finished reading it, it will soon be on the market, it has many many answers, and we wait!
I think a lot of hard-cover copies will sell, don't know anything about how its sold, the Hughes Chris and Ski have done a lot of work on it and it will expose wrongs and injustices' Arizona must do damage control the world will be reading, a best seller that's best seller quality, their must be consequences of Law, FBI will address many faults and Federal Courts wil address many faults or we have "The World in a handbasket"= an old quote!
Simply put JSS didn't let Martinez cross the defense testimony and he still wonover at least 11 + 2 alternate jurors, their never was a possibility of release after 25 years because it was only tabled in 2000 that voters voted away, Arizona has only a parole board for juveniles and that would have been the sliver of possibility, so first jury was mislead' their decision was only life or death, they asked JSS what life ment = parole tabled or not, question was never answered, but it was discussed (I call it a mini-hearing) by Nurmi, JSS and Martinez with confusion, their was a mistrial called twice with the single verdict form left blank both times.
To avoid a circus JSS opted a twitter blogger circus using stealth, the overcosts were not Martinez in any way form or manner!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-22-2015
From; Juan Martinez Prosecutor Support Page
If you are interested in getting on the email list to be notified when the book about Travis is released, (in about a month) click on the link below. http://ourfriendtravis.com
On June 4th, 2008, our friend, Travis Alexander, was savagely murdered by his desperately jealous ex-girlfriend, Jodi Arias. After a heart-wrenching, 5-year delay, the case finally went to trial, and became one of the highest profile murder trials in recent history. On May 8, 2013, his killer was convicted of first-degree, pre-meditated murder. During the grueling, 5-month trial, which was in large part a circus act of character assassination, lies and fiction, Travis' life was purposefully distorted and despicably misrepresented. Our Friend Travis is a book about the real Travis Alexander; his life, his light, his triumphs, his mistakes, his death, his trial and his legacy.
Chris & Sky Hughes, Authors
Our Friend Travis: The Travis Alexander Story
Copyright © 2014 OurFriendTravis.com. All rights reserved.
WEBSITE BY:
2SOPH CREATIVE SOLUTION
PHOENIX (KSAZ) - Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Chief Deputy have admitted to a judge they could be found in contempt of court, for repeatedly violating court orders.
It all stems from a 2007 class-action lawsuit where the judge ruled in favor of several Latino drivers who say they were racially profiled.
Broad changes were supposed to be put into place, but now there is evidence the Sheriff's Office failed to follow the judge's orders.
In court paperwork, the Sheriff and Chief Deputy admit at least three times that they failed to follow the judge's orders.
A hearing where deputies would have to testify is scheduled in mid-April.
Senators have been jailed, only question is shame or keeps his pension!
This petition is closed!
The wording is what I'm posting!
I do not recommend giving e-mail address to petition' because address becomes shared for more signing of petitions!
States Eric Holder and 1 other
Create Travis Alexander's Law:
Stop Allowing Highly Prejudicial Claims Against Murder Victims Without Evidence
Travis Alexander's Law
United States 16,622 Supporters
Defamatory, prejudicial and malicious claims about a murder victim should not be permitted by a defendant if clearly unsubstantiated and not directly related to a defense; particularly if the defendant has been proven to have made false statements previously.
Claims of a highly prejudicial nature should only be allowed if: a) substantiated by corroborating evidence and/or b) directly related to a defense; not as a means to tarnish the image of the victim in the eyes of the jury in an effort to sway their opinion.
In the case of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias, the defendant has made countless unsubstantiated claims, including a highly prejudicial and malicious claim that Alexander viewed child pornography on January 21, 2008, five (5) months prior to his murder. This should never have been allowed for the following reasons:
1. The police searched Alexander's entire home, computer, cell phone and vehicle. No evidence of any such material was found. There were no other witnesses to any such behavior, or even suspected behavior, other than the accused.
2. The alleged incident supposedly occurred on January 21, 2008, nearly five (5) months before Arias killed Alexander. It was completely unrelated to Arias' self defense claim. She fabricated this event in order to tarnish the victim in the eyes of the jury.
3. Arias has repeatedly lied to police, family, colleagues and friends regarding the murder of Travis Alexander. This has been proven and Arias has confessed to lying to "everyone". Given the circumstances, such a heinous claim against the victim should have only been allowed if supported by some form of corroborating evidence.
In addition, evidence of the accused's character is usually inadmissible because of the bias it could create, yet claims against a victim's character is allowed - even without a shred of evidence. The right to a fair trial should apply to the victim as well as the defendant. Biased and fabricated claims against a victim is not fair.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-22-2015
I want both Hardcover and a softback for reading!
Apology about money is unnecessary' the book is about being wronged, Travis was wrongful death but Travis's family and family of friends were wronged in every way form and manner possibly: back then and now still, I am embarrassed at how they were treated and ridiculed' it was Arizona being AntiAmerican, disgusting, I'd rather pay for the book etched with gold leaf!
This below is Quoted!
Lunarscope,
Congratulations! You're on the list to be among the first to know when "Our Friend Travis" becomes available. We will email you when the book is ready for purchase.
While you're here, we wanted to take a moment to answer a few questions we've been asked about this book.
Q. Why did you write this book?
A. In short, because Travis would have done it for us. We felt duty-bound and compelled to write this book. We feel it's our obligation as his good friends. So many terrible and despicable lies were told about Travis and his life. This is our counter to all of that. This is our way to let those that want to know Travis better, get to know him through us and those who cared about him.
Our book is Travis' truth. It needed to be written.
Q. Are you writing this book to make money?
A. If we wanted to make money, writing this book would have been the last thing we would have done. We have a few businesses and could "make money" much more easily by putting an increased focus on our businesses. Anyone who knows anything about self-publishing a book, knows that with very few exceptions, the author does not even recoup his or her expenses in creating the book, not mention the opportunity costs of the time invested. We wrote this book to tell the truth, even at great expense and incredible sacrifice. We're not complaining about it. We are happy to have done it, and would do it again. It was a labor of love. Travis deserves it.
Q. Will any of the proceeds be donated?
A. If there are any "proceeds," we will be shocked and amazed. "Proceeds" were not our goal. Our goal was to tell the truth about Travis' life. That said, if there are "proceeds," we have already chosen the perfect charity that Travis loved as much as we do; the Perpetual Education Fund (PEF). Learn more about the PEF below.
We hope this helps. By the way, any help sharing the book with the world would be much appreciated. We want everyone to know the truth about Travis' amazing life!
Thanks so much.
In love and gratitude,
Chris & Sky Hughes, Authors
Our Friend Travis:
The Travis Alexander Story
http://www.OurFriendTravis.com
PERPETUAL EDUCATION FUND (PEF)
The PEF was created in 2001 by Gordon B. Hinckley with the sole purpose of helping young people in developing areas rise out of poverty through education and training. In many parts of the world, there are many young people with great capacity and desire, whose ability to provide for themselves and their families is severely hampered only by a lack of education and skill training. The PEF is a remedy for this. The average loan amount is a mere $800 and is paid back at 3-4% interest over 2-6 years. Loan repayments and subsequent donations are channeled back into the fund, making it a truly "perpetual" resource.
To date, tens of thousands of people have received PEF loans and are enjoying a much higher quality of life.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-22-2015
Justice asked;
Lunarscope, am I awful for hoping you are right about all of this?
No' your vested and I'm vested, we care and can only talk here and there, it's been a long haul, to form a conclusion a picture of Jodis future, we only need to capture the past' the now is a second in time, So we are made to understand the DP is off the table, So what's going on' Jodi was told by MDLR to stop the social media hate' to tell her supporters to forget her and stop sending her money, Jodi did a little but didn't tell JII to shut down So we have a stubborn Jodi' I think Jodi will cave and tell them to stop, but let's assume not, April 13 JSS will send Jodi to a year of Solitary Confinement, unless Willmott talks Jodi into stopping JII' and that's just not what girlfriends do, Jodi don't respect Willmott' 3rd try (and it will happen) Sheriff Joe gives it a shot, 4th try Nurmi tells Jodi that she risks 3 years of solitary confinement if her team Jodi support base doesn't close shop.
I think of Jodi as a 12 year old arrested development trapped in a woman's body with 27 years of life experiences, Jodi is demented or wired wrong and knows deep inside that she is psycho' but can't see it' to come to terms, So instead of thinking your wrong' justice think of Jodi going to the courthouse with all spectators holding wooden spoons, and her ride to Perryville with everyone shaking their wooden spoons, So in a nutshell we all just want to knock some sence into Jodi' because she is herown worst enemy' the world understands that Jodi's 4th copout lie excuse for slaughtering failed to work' just because Jodi thinks like a kid that for to lie with exaggeration, is easier than the absence of punishment that happens when truth be told.
At the work I do' with new hires, the main lesson is if you break-it tell you broke it 'quickly' or what was broke = not placed out of service, cost time loss plus time wondering, telling the truth means its OK' no repercussions' just learn from it, but lies about stuff come back and bites your butt or gets someone hurt, to me in life' it's a' if it willnot matter tomorrow, then it really shouldn't matter today!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-22-2015
From; Martinez Prosecutor Support Page
Oh Boy......Here we go....Juror #17's lawyer yapping about a civil suit if he finds out who released the holdouts name and that Juan was wrong for investigating her after finding out she was causing a hung jury. This article is written by M Kiefer of course.
@ Then the article;
In the wake of the Jodi Arias mistrial, trial watchers on social media have demanded that the lone juror who kept Arias from death row be investigated for juror misconduct. And Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has said that his office will "review the matter."
Tom Tingle/The Republic
Jodi Arias in court on March 5, 2015, in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix.
But Juror 17, the holdout for a life sentence, may have the legal upper hand.
Her attorney, Tom Ryan, calls an investigation conducted by the prosecutor during jury deliberations "an abuse of the office, and it's shameful."
In the wake of the post-mistrial outing of her name and address on Twitter and Facebook, Ryan said, "I believe a crime was committed by the release of confidential juror information, and we're going to the FBI to investigate."
Juror 17 has been threatened, harassed and is living under police protection. She told The Arizona Republic, "No one else is being researched but the holdout. It's upsetting and it makes you lose faith."
"I feel that as a juror I should have been protected," she said.
MORE JODI ARIAS COVERAGE
Roberts: Oh what a difference 652 days made (not)
Montini:End of a trial, birth of a legend
Editorial: Thanks, Jodi Arias jury, for the non-decision
Verdict: Our Arias coverage as it happened
Archives: A look back at the Jodi Arias murder trial
Social mediaTwitter reacts to verdict
How the trial went viral on social media
Sneak peek: Jodi Arias’ eventual prison home
Photos The Jodi Arias sentencing retrial
The Republic will not print the woman's name, even though it has been disseminated elsewhere.
Legal experts are split as to whether prosecutor Juan Martinez acted appropriately by conducting an investigation into Juror 17 near the end of the Arias sentencing retrial, when it was revealed to the court that she was the only juror blocking a unanimous verdict.
Martinez presented a screen grab of the woman's Facebook page with her name on it as evidence of perceived bias, but Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens refused to remove her from the jury. The case proceeded to mistrial by hung jury.
MORE: Angry Jodi Arias jurors say holdout had an agenda
Minutes after the mistrial was declared, the same piece of evidence — the Facebook screen shot — was posted online and sent to journalists waiting in the courthouse to interview the 11 jurors who wanted to send Arias to her death.
Juror identities are supposed to be protected. It is a crime to reveal them against their will.
It is a short list of people who were in the sealed court hearing where Martinez presented the evidence: the judge and her staff; the prosecutor; the case detective; defense attorneys; Jodi Arias; and the family of murder victim Travis Alexander.
"When I find out who outed her, it is at least a civil case of invasion of privacy," Ryan said. "Whoever did this did it with intent to harm."
Or it could be a federal case, possibly with civil-rights implications.
"There is a constitutional obligation and a right to serve on jury duty," said Larry Hammond, a prominent defense attorney and former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor.
"To interfere with someone's privacy while they are serving on a jury may be actionable," Hammond said.
The effect is chilling.
"I think we all should be concerned with the integrity of the legal process if the prosecutors are allowed to investigate jurors simply because they don't agree with them," said Arias' defense attorney, Jennifer Willmott.
"If the jury ends up saying that the community wants things a certain way, that may keep you from voting your conscience. Will you do jury duty if you will need police protection or if you need to hire a lawyer?"
It is a felony to influence or coerce or threaten a juror to change his or her vote on a verdict, but those Arizona state laws presuppose that a verdict has not already been decided.
It is also in state law that juror names and biographical information are to be kept confidential unless ordered disclosed by the court.
According to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the guidelines for conducting trials, jurors may not be forced to disclose their reasoning, "the subjective motives or mental processes" that led them to vote one way or another in a case.
And in capital-case jury instructions, jurors are informed that they do not have to come to unanimous decisions as to the weight of mitigating evidence that may persuade them to vote for or against a death verdict.
In fact, jurors are told repeatedly during instructions to vote their conscience.
But the Arias case has blazed new trails, with trial watchers in cyberspace on both sides, pro-Arias and anti-Arias, trying to bully, insult and influence media coverage and the outcome of the trial.
Juror 17 is now essentially in hiding.
"I'm not the person I was when I went into this," she said in a recent interview.
'We were stunned'
In June 2008, Arias killed her lover, Travis Alexander, who was found in the shower of his Mesa home with a bullet in his head, nearly 30 stab wounds and a slit throat. Arias eventually confessed to the murder, though she claimed self-defense.
A jury did not believe her. In May 2013, after a tumultuous 21-week trial, she was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury found that the murder had been committed in an especially cruel manner, making Arias eligible for the death penalty.
The jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict on whether to sentence Arias to death or to life in prison, however. It split 8 to 4 in favor of death.
A new jury was impaneled in October 2014, not to redetermine guilt or innocence, but only to determine whether she should get a life or death sentence.
Juror 17 was seated on the jury. She wrote on her initial juror questionnaire that she had seen parts of a made-for-TV movie about Arias. She revealed during voir dire, the pretrial questioning of prospective jurors that prosecutors and defense attorneys do, that she had been a victim of domestic abuse and that both her first and second husbands had spent time in prison. No one asked follow-up questions about those convictions.
The sentencing retrial lasted 19 weeks, almost as long as the first trial. It went to the jury on a Wednesday, Feb. 25.
"We were stunned," Juror 17 said, noting jurors' surprise that it was finally over.
Relations among the jurors were cordial. Some carpooled. Some became Facebook friends.
Their initial vote on a sentence was split, with seven wanting death, four undecided, and Juror 17 opting for life.
As they discussed the case, Juror 17 brought up the made-for-TV movie.
There were words thrown around. "People can't think they can come to Arizona and kill people," she recalled being said.
"Right away I got the feeling that they were not an impartial jury," she said.
Juror 17 believed Arias was guilty. Though she carefully guards her reasons for voting for life, she said she considered the mitigation testimony of psychologist Robert Geffner critical. Geffner, a defense witness, said it was his opinion that Alexander engaged in multiple manipulative and exploitative relationships with women, including Arias.
"I couldn't understand: How can you kill someone you love?" she said. "We were asked to accept that she was guilty of first-degree murder and that aggravating factors had been found. But I also focused on the totality of it."
She didn't budge from her vote for life.
Two notes sent to judge
By the next Monday, the discussion was getting heated, she said. The next day, she was still holding out and she claimed the other jurors were telling her, "You don't get to decide" and "we're not going to be a hung jury."
She asked to send a note to the judge. The others refused, so she texted the judge's bailiff, asking him to bring a jury question form to her.
"Everyone was yelling in the background," she said. "They started drafting their own question."
Two notes went to the judge.
One said that Juror 17 was not cooperating and that the other jurors wanted her removed, because, among other things, she had mentioned the movie.
In the second note, Juror 17 identified herself by number and claimed she was being harassed and forced to consider irrelevant matters like whether Arias would write a book or get early release.
The judge and lawyers are not supposed to know the split in a deadlocked jury, nor which way the majority is leaning. But the jurors had divulged that information in the two notes.
Judge Stephens asked the lawyers to meet that day after lunch. Arias and the Alexander family were present at the meeting. Prosecutor Martinez asked that the juror be removed in accord with the other jurors' complaints. But Stephens noted that Juror 17 had disclosed having seen the film about Arias' case, and other things, on her juror questionnaire.
Later that afternoon, Martinez produced the Facebook page, which identified Juror 17 by name, and asked that she be removed. Though attorneys are not supposed to refer to the jurors by anything but their numbers during trial, the Facebook page was presented in the presence of Arias and the Alexander family.
Martinez again asked Stephens on Wednesday, March 4, to consider removing Juror 17. She would not. The next day, Stephens declared a mistrial.
Under state law, Arias could not be tried again and she had to be sentenced to life.
"I was so emotional, I was sobbing," said Juror 17. She claimed she had gone home crying several nights. For the last three nights of the trial, she was escorted out separately from the other jurors.
Identity made public
As jurors chatted with Stephens after the mistrial, media members — newspaper and TV reporters, as well as non-traditional media such as bloggers and tweeters — waited in a room on the first floor of the courthouse for an audience with the 11 jurors who wanted to sentence Arias to death.
Minutes after the mistrial, they were looking at a screen shot of the Facebook page that Martinez had used as evidence of Juror 17's bias. It had her name on it. It was unclear who was sending it to select journalists.
The jurors filed in shortly after and lambasted Juror 17.
"I think she had her mind made up from the beginning," one said.
"It's been an emotional toll on us and our families and jobs, and we feel we have failed," said another.
They would not identify themselves. But Juror 17 had already been warned by the court that the public knew her name.
She immediately was bombarded with "friend" requests on Facebook and new followers on Twitter.
"I deactivated all my social-media accounts," she said, before the messages started rolling in. But her relatives were caught unaware.
Meanwhile, tweets and Facebook posts were going viral, listing her name and asking that it be passed on.
"My phone started ringing off the hook, so I changed my number," she said.
Her relatives started receiving threats and doctored photos. The trial watchers began scouring the Internet and revealing details of her life, including the convictions of her husband and ex-husband — and the surprise that the first husband had been prosecuted by none other than Juan Martinez. That fueled speculation that she had been a "stealth juror" intent on undermining the prosecution's case.
Juror 17 claims she had no idea who prosecuted her first husband. They were high-school sweethearts, both 17 and not yet married. There was no trial, just a burglary plea deal. And although she attended his sentencing, she only remembered that there was a judge, a prosecutor and a defense attorney.
They married when he got out of prison, but she divorced him years later, alleging abuse.
Ryan, her attorney, said that if she had planned to discredit Martinez, "This is the luckiest vengeful woman I've ever met in my life."
She now has police protection at her house, and there are arrest orders in place for people who approach.
"This woman is living in fear of her life," Ryan said. "And for what?"
Legal community divided
County Attorney Bill Montgomery would not comment on Juror 17 beyond a written statement he issued last week.
"In instances where there is credible information of misconduct, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office will review the matter, request an independent investigation, and then seek an independent review for any potential charges and then for prosecution," he said.
But then he called for reason from the trial watchers.
"In the current situation surrounding the State v. Arias trial, attacks on Juror 17, which can only presently be based on speculation, must cease. There is a process for review ... Anger and frustration at suspected actions inconsistent with our jury system does not provide justification for death threats or disgusting characterizations of what should happen to someone's person. Instead, the same fidelity to fairly assessing available information as expected in the underlying criminal trial should be observed in this matter."
Whether he intends to pursue allegations of misconduct against Juror 17 remains to be seen.
The legal community is split on whether Martinez should have investigated a juror keeping him from getting the verdict he wanted.
"You're telling people that their opinion really matters and that they should consult their consciences and understand that this is one of the most important decisions you can make," said Hammond, the defense attorney. "But please be forewarned that the prosecutor can conduct an investigation into your private dealings while you're doing that."
David Derickson, a former Superior Court judge, said, "I think there has to be a distance between the law-enforcement investigating and the people who are seeking to disqualify. I think it's lawyer misconduct. I don't care about prosecutor misconduct. It would be outrageous for a defense attorney to do it for the one juror holding out."
Former Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley, Martinez's longtime boss, agreed.
"I don't understand why Juan chose to investigate the juror at that time," he said. "That's supposed to be taken care of in voir dire."
But Michael Terribile, another defense attorney who says outright that he is not a Martinez fan, disagrees.
"I don't know if a lawyer does anything wrong by checking it out. It's what you do with the information later," Terribile said. "Where it broke down is, the judge didn't tell the other jurors that nobody has a right to tell anyone they're wrong."
And former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton noted, "If the facts are egregious enough, and you discover information the juror failed to disclose, then yes," it is appropriate to conduct an investigation. But he added that he was not impressed with the specific evidence Martinez proffered.
There was no debate about revealing the juror's name and personal information, however.
"That's more than troubling," Charlton said. "If someone disclosed that information to intimidate her, that is of extraordinary concern. If it was done intentionally, then someone needs to answer for that."
Juror 17, meanwhile, wants no more part of jury duty.
"I don't ever want to do it again," she said. "You're asked to take an oath that you're going to be impartial and you're going to take everything under consideration. And you do, and get punished."
RE: End is Near Hopefully - duluth45 - 03-22-2015
Justice, I too hate injustice. I guess we still wait and see what develops. I want more than speculation regarding all this money thing though. I wish we could hear more from authorities saying they are investigating these things.
Lunarscope, I heard last night that Arias's manifesto was written while she was in the Yreka jail for several weeks before being transferred to Maricopa County jail.
I am really looking forward to seeing the butcher in prison stripes while being sentenced to surely life without possibility of release.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - Lunarscope - 03-22-2015
Thanks Duluth I knew she wrote it early-on, theirs talk of the DUI bust, investigation of Jodi art' the self-called boyfriend' that the bank accounts include a massive offshore Sports Betting connection, if So SJ _ Simon look-out, but we wait, I will say that' if so, all the quiet investigation would make sense!
The above Martinez story is not in any way beneficial' I hope proof of #17's information release is found that predates' It really doesn't matter if the other 11 jurors information was outed first, because we are talking about less than an hours time, professionalism is at stake, nothing else, the little bit of news to be released' I was talking about may just have been about the book release, it was from who I was listening, we could be waiting for days with nothing much reported!
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-22-2015
Again, the controversy over #17 is wearisome. Let any investigation take care of the matter.
However, two points from the above posting were very interesting and telling to me.
1. The judge and the court are not to know the particulars of how a jury is deliberating and voting. It was the jury ITSELF who disclosed this with the two notes sent to the judge prior to a mistrial being called.
That is just plain wrong.
2. The 11 jurors who voted for the DP were outed on social media with the release of their full names. Everyone was outraged and investigations are now underway to find out how this information was leaked.
BUT.....it was these very same 11 jurors who publically outed #17 as the only hold-out. They did this immediately after the mistrial was declared. They stated their personal opinions on how this juror acted during deliberations and essentially began the huge "fire" that is now raging around this issue.
Whether Martinez was right or wrong by disclosing #17's Facebook Page complete with her name, it was not done in open court but rather done in a closed meeting, in the judge's chambers, with only key players in attendance. Again, an investigation will and is being done.
The 11 jurors, however, spoke of this lone juror in the question and answer interview with the media right after the verdict and then in subsequent interviews. Since then, they have fell silent.
These jurors were applauded for their candid remarks regarding #17 and so the rage against #17 began.
What was the motive behind doing this?
Now, juror #17 has spoken out, at least 2 weeks after the verdict, giving her side of the story.
It is too late for her.
The damage has already been done and no matter what she says, she just seems to get into the mess deeper and deeper as the "verdict" is in regarding her.
She has been accused of being a liar, a stealth juror, having an agenda, etc., etc. and nothing she says will change anyone's mind.
So...in my mind, the jury was wrong in their actions.
They told the judge information that was not to be revealed.
They began the issue over #17.
Are they silent now because of damage control tactics?
Anyway, very interesting information provided in the above posting but in fact, it still changes nothing.
I too look forward to seeing Arias in stripes and shackles in court, being severely admonished by both the judge and the Alexander family and then sentenced to spend the rest of her life in Perryville.
RE: End is Near Hopefully - NERN - 03-22-2015
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.