03-11-2015, 01:00 AM
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.
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.