Jodi Arias Victorious Verdict Day: Video Coverage

in Latest News by

Following on from the mistrial & hung jury verdict, here are the relevant videos from yesterday:

The Verdict:

Kirk Nurmi’s Victory Statement:

Bill Montgomery Press conference (Juan Martinez starts @ 21:14):

Juror #17’s Husband Speaks Out: (links to CBS5AZ’s website in new window)

jodi arias holdout juror video. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For reference purposes only — here are the names of the 11 jurors that tried (and failed) to get Jodi killed:

#1 – Sarah Elizabeth Cummings
#4 – Trevor LE Nehring
#6 – Kathleen Ann Jarzynka
#7 – Andrew Norman Allen
#8 – Holly Leanne Hinson
#10 – Jade Lubben
#11 – Teresa Lynn Corless
#15 – Elizabeth Kingsley–Morgan
#16 – Emily Cova
#18 – Rodney C. Heuer
#19 – Haakon Liknes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In summary:

While we’re collectively pleased at yesterday’s victory, we are not too impressed that 11 jurors tried every trick in the book to coerce “Juror 17” into their twisted BS logic. That’s the only thing they really “failed” at. And that’s a good thing. The only real disappointment is that “Juror 17” already needs police protection from the pitchfork wielding pedo-hugging retards.

In the meantime…

We Are Team Jodi ---- And We Will Be Victorious!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We are here for the long haul.


Never question it.

Never doubt it.

Prepare for it.

You can mark my words on that.

Leave your thoughts & comments below…

Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

If you would like to help Jodi by way of a financial donation to the JAA APPELLATE FUND, click the Team Jodi link below for further details. All donations via go directly to the fund for assisting with the legal fees associated with appealing Jodi’s wrongful conviction. is the ONLY website authorized to collect donations.

In addition, please DO NOT, under any circumstances, donate through any other website or Facebook page/group claiming to be “official” and/or acting with Jodi’s approval or authorization. The same applies to any “Jodi Membership Clubs”, groups or fake Trust funds that have been set up. These sites are bogus – as are their intentions – and they should be actively avoided. If you are aware of any such sites, please help Jodi by clicking here and reporting them. Thank you for your ongoing support!

We Are Team Jodi ---- And We Will Be Victorious!.


  1. Remember… we are here for the long haul… and every day that passes takes us ONE DAY CLOSER to Jodi’s release.

    Never question it.

    Never doubt it.

    Prepare for it.


    Team Jodi #WINNING < <<

    • Thank you SJ. I too believe that Jodi will be released one day. Thank you and the admin of this site SO much for everything.

      • sit = site … 😉 at least I am consistent. OH! and thanks for those video links above. I’m not sure what to make of Bill Montgomery…his comment regarding Jodi (although he referred to her as “the defendant”) imo implied that he had a personal distaste for her. Throughout the entire press conference he SEEMED to avert personal opinion…but that part caught my attention and was absolutely unprofessional and quite unnecessary . I did, however, feel pleased that he mentioned the inappropriate cheering of the crowd outside the courthouse when the first jury found Jodi guilty of first degree murder.

    • A big Thank You to you, SJ for having this great site for Jodi’s supporters !!! Jodi is on the road to freedom !

    • Good Morning! Thanks for everything SJ! I appreciate this site because there needs to be balance provided to the general public. A place of Truth and also a sanctuary for us.

      Onward and Upward.

    • SJ, you have created a place where Jodi supporters can show the world that they are not ashamed to publicly stand behind her.

      I appreciate all supporters but I know it is much easier staying behind closed doors, expressing love & support and it is a whole other thing to post on a public blog PROUDLY and to vocal without fearing of or caring about what the haters’ reaction may be.

      Some of us here had to learn the hard way that supporting Jodi is no picnic! But the mere fact that in spite of all the hadrships, we haven’t given up on her tells me that no matter how long it takes we WILL be here for her, for the LONG HAUL! 😉

    • Thank you Team Jodi, thank you thank you thank you for a job well done. Kirk, I so loved what you said, short and simple and to the point. Congrats to Team Jodi for your victory! I will continue to pray that someday Jodi will get out and be able to live a normal life, a life without abuse, till then Jodi, take care of yourself and know that you are loved. I pray that God in His kind mercy will set you free. Anna.

    • Vicky, I cried when I saw it. I think we sometimes forget that it was a tragedy. As I have said so many times I hate what Travis did to Jodi but I never ever was happy that Travis died.

      I was not impressed with JM’s interview. It kinda of creepy to listen to him. Not even the same person we all have come to hate. I thought his “just another case” really bothered me. But it’s true all the attorneys have the other cases.
      Not that I will ever have respect for his behavior in this case but after watching my brother in court I wondered who that person was!! Not the person I know. LOL

          • LMAOOO! Not only his Sesame voice, did you notice how he TOTALLY looked exactly like Kermit the Frog too??? I was looking at him all tiny on the podium, thinking to myself how DISFUNCTIONAL he must be in social situations! He looked as if he was ready to run and/or extremely uncomfortable. Or as we say in Greece: “Like a fish out of the water” .
            The man clearly has issues and he apparently deals with them in a sick kind of way in the courtroom, being the bully and PSYCHO that he is.

  2. Darren Kavinoky ‏@DarrenKavinoky 6h6 hours ago

    Gaby, you’ve got my attention! RT @Schatzilein8 On Jan 12, 2000 Pros Juan Martinez sent #Juror17 Husband to prison!

    • No! This is unacceptable behavior!
      That is my first reaction. My second reaction…what did I expect of these despicable people?
      They are not going to get a verdict changed. They are spoiled, evil brats.

        • Unfortunately, Cindy, that won’t happen; it is news fodder and the jerk, Darren Kavinoky is eating it up, I’m sure. He is no more an attorney of any merit than Micky Mouse!

            • BB, it would seem to me that a juror would be judged fit to serve based on his/her own merit, not based on what a spouse’s history is. That only seems just and logical.

              • This is a non-starter. They can’t do one thing about the outcome. The truth is JA had a greater chance walking free if she had gotten death than getting a life sentence. It’s going to take at least another ten to fifteen years before that happens.

              • Carol Handy, I recall during the last phase of jury selection of the jury on which I served, the question “are you familiar with, friend of, or have you had previous dealings with any of the attorneys or parties involved in this case?” …and the names were stated. If juror #17 answered that question truthfully, and I expect she did, then all these insinuations are just lies; fuel to add to the bitterness of the haters. They need a reason to attack her and I wouldn’t put it past them to resort to lying to keep those fires ablaze.

    • CC53, what was he sent to prison for?? Is it the same person she is married to now??

      I’m sure that if people started digging into other jury members we all might be surprize. We have no right to do that!!!!

      • WE never would do that, Cindy. I don’t want to know anything about these people. I was very disappointed that all the names were published; that just isn’t my style.
        #17 has my respect and undying praise for her inner strength to withstand the bullying and vote her conscience, as I am certain we all do.

      • Cindy,
        I don’t know. There is more information with the above tweet but I can’t copy it and bring it here. Here is the info but written in a different format,
        Superior Court of Arizona
        Hon. Peter T. D’Angelo
        For Hon. Michael R. Mcvey
        CR 1998-015429
        CR 1999-001412
        State of Arizona
        Juan M.Martinez
        Daniel B.Patterson

        Clerk of the Court
        Form R176A
        A. Moore, Deputy

        I tried putting this info into Court Document site but nothing came up probably b/c info is not complete. Maybe SJ or someone can use it to get more info.

  3. Kevin Samantha‎Juan Martinez Prosecutor Support Page
    7 hrs ·


    “Please someone bring this to the attention of the media and the Prosecutors office….. The ex-husband and current husband of the hold out juror on the Jodi Arias case was prosecuted by Juan Martinez!!!! Please pass this information on. Thank you!”
    Like · Comment · Share

    Top Comments
    Allison Kilcher, Gail Holmes, Fran Mazza Amstutz and 17 others like this.

    Dawn Delta Caulder Send this to an admin on this page in a message WOW! She def had an agenda!
    8 · 7 hrs
    Kevin Samantha Dawn Delta Caulder – I did and I’ve also sent it to Nancy Grace. FYI, I find this to be disgusting and for the record, I am also a film and television producer and will get this out to major media outlets.
    28 · 7 hrs

    14 Replies · 5

    • This info is all over hater sites including The Trial Diaries, The State versus Jodi Arias, The Juan Martinez Support Page, etc.

      • Journee, What I’m taking from it is they are saying her ex and her knew husband were prosecuted by JM. It’s just craziness bs. Anyone with half a brain would know she sure wouldn’t be on the jury.

        I still would like to know who leaked it to the press when it first came up??

      • Journee: There are 2 names mentioned in CC53’s post above.
        How do we know who is who? We shouldn’t know!! It is not anyone’s business!!

        IMVHO these people are the worse of the worse, more despicable than mass murderers. They won’t stop!
        They are truly EVIL
        This woman and her husband MUST be protected by someone!!!
        Is there no respect for the LAW anywhere?
        Where are the lawyers offering to stand up for her?? Why doesn’t she have representation??

      • Could also be a bunch of gossip mongering lies (re JM being the prosecutor of the DV case ). We need to look at the source.. they STILL want vengeance and I wouldn’t put it past them to keep it up until SOMEONE is seriously injured. If they can’t get at Jodi, they may likely focus their hatred in another direction… (Juror #17 and her family) My heart goes out to Juror #17. She is currently being a victim of abuse by pro TA masses and needs to obtain an order for protection against ANYONE and EVERYONE who threatens her or her family. This is a serious matter that imo requires immediate attention.

        • I haven’t either. If I hear her voice for even one second I feel ill. She repulses me. No wonder she is no longer an attorney…she is an idiot AND extremely judgmental and biased. I can’t even imagine getting stuck with her if she was a public defender. Scary! UGH!

  4. Did the State Prosecutor Juan Martinez not interview each and every juror who served? It appears Juan Martinez found her fit to serve on this jury so they just need to accept the outcome. Disturbing people.

      • ♥ Thank you Carol but is pretty simple to me. Martinez would have zeroed in on her just like he did #1. She never would have been on the jury if all of the rumors are true. The Haters have always praised him for being on top of everything, now they second guess him? Giggling.

    • Exactly. There is NO way to undo the hung jury/mistrial that was declared yesterday…it is done……period. We now need to be prepared for LWOP which is what JSS will give her…and then on to the appeals….let’s just pray that her appellate attorneys are hard at work as we speak……….

    • I’m sooooo happy for Jodi, much love always, I’ve always been here reading, I just stayed in the back ground. Nice to know that there is so much knowledge shared on this site. Voice of reason is so apparent, JM interviewed all jurors, do you believe he would let her slip in, NEVER.

      All the best to Jodi, I’m so happy she has the support she does, you all know who you are! Xoxo

  5. These demented people need to get a life and go away. These people are so stupid they think they won’t get caught because they are using the anonymity of the internet. They can be.

    • I’m afraid if that happened tonysam the Phoenix area would only have a tiny population. 🙁 Yes, I hope the pot stirrers are revealed. Gosh, they could start with Nasty Disgrace and Dr. Pinhead they sure know how to sway the public.

  6. There is hardly any talk about Juan Martinez putting juror #17’s husband in jail on Twitter. Nothing on the media sites, news sites, etc. Either people don’t know about it or they are ignoring it. But, it is on Facebook and the hater sites. I see Journee writes we already knew about the husband who abused her so maybe this is a non-story. I hope so. I’ll stop posting about it.

  7. I found Bill Montgomery and Juan Martinez video interesting. Is it just me are extremely good at double talking? At 4:37 in a didn’t really understand what BM was saying, sorry , he confused me. Then with Juan, what happened?? to him. . .he sounded like a little old lady who was too meek and mild to speak. Does he have an alter ego too? Weird.

  8. One would think that the names of the jurors would remain anonymous for the protection of those involved in such a sensational case. Were the holdouts for life in the first trial victims of harassment like this or is it because there is only ONE holdout the reason she is under attack. The behavior of the hate mongers is par for their course. Dangerous bullies need to be kept under watchful eye.

        • That’s what I kind of thought. I couldn’t remember exactly.

          I think the venom leveled at this one juror is caused by the realization this really is the end of the line. These morons won’t be getting their pound of flesh. The kicker is even if she got death, she would be even more likely to walk free thanks to all of the outrageous violations in this case.

    • Like I said yesterday if any harm comes to this juror or her family Maricopa County will be held liable and they need to sue them for gross negligence…..the names should have been kept sealed for a minimum of six months just like they did in the Casey Anthony case….it is the only prudent thing to do with all the emotions and real danger of the threats………

      • Their names should have been with held but then again the 11 were so quick to jump to media attention. Their apologies to the Alexanders summed them all up for me. They went into this trial with their opinions already formed. They were hired guns. Pitiful excuses for human beings.

        • Yes, they were quick to jump to the media to spew their venom against the one hold out juror, but did you notice they all wanted their faces not shown….likewise, their names could have been withheld and should have been withheld by the court out of an abundance of caution….Maricopa better provide this lone juror and her family protection…..I would already have an attorney on speed dial ready to sue for whatever damages/injuries/emotional distress ensue as a result of their gross negligence in releasing the names of the jurors……

          • And yes, if the verdict count was 11-1 from last Thursday, then if you are going to claim that the lone hold out vote had her mind made up already, then likewise the 11 for death had their minds made up already….it goes both ways…..just listen to their comments….apologizing to the family like they are sorry for not being able to kill Jodi…..if they were truly unbiased jurors there would be no need to apologize….they had done their jobs….no apologies necessary….and the one man who said that he was soooooo excited to be picked for a jury and then saw who it was – namely, Jodi Arias – and then said “Oh, crap” WELL WHAT DOES THAT SAY???? THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES AS TO HIS BIAS FROM THE GET GO !!!!!!!!!

            • And the man who said that Jodi was lying about her and Darryl wanting to buy a house in a good school district bc Darryl apparently only had his son with him during the summer and therefore would not need to worry about where the house was….what FOOLISH analysis….are you kidding me? It was true that they wanted the house to be in a good school district for the child……who wouldn’t????? And then to say that you won’t listen or take into consideration anything else Jodi said based of his foolish conclusions????These jurors – the 11 – need to understand that there by the grace of God go I and pray that none of their children or loved ones runs into a pedophile abuser like TA……..

  9. I overslept this morning – had just woken up when I made those two posts earlier – could barely focus to type them, actually.

    And now I see y’all have decided to move on, which is probably prudent.

    But I wanted to toss this thought in, anyway.

    IF the court case in question IS the former husband of this juror, and he was being prosecuted for spousal abuse, she HAD to have been the complaining witness. AZ laws have only in recent years changed to allow for charges to be brought even when the victim won’t file a complaint.

    So this would be a situation where Martinez would have been an ADVOCATE for this juror, someone speaking on HER behalf and with her endorsement.

  10. Praying for juror #17.. no one should have to put up with the small minded. blood thirsty brats who will do anything to destroy someone because they didn’t get DEATH!

    This lady was required by law to serve on the jury. She recognized Jodi as a survivor of DV and was bullied and persecuted for days by her fellow jurors!

    It seems that these twitter twats are having their last hurrah.. can’t wait until they move on.

  11. Did anyone else catch Dwight huth post from the bottom of the previous page. Interesting. Are people able to send letters to the jury to be read? Is that not jury tampering???

    • If the letter is to try to influence that juror to vote a certain way or contains any information connected to the case or has anything to do with the case (not just a friendly “hello” letter) then yes it would be jury tampering……..

      • If someone can find the video of this interview that would be a way to confirm what was said……..if it was said……..

    • I think theres some confusion about the letter issue.
      The juror discussing “the letter and its influence was talking about the letters( emails) from CASH and Travis-the email string that was discussed in court. It was said by a juror during yesterdays press conference that at one point the letter was showing there was abuse but then it was later ignored as far as deliberations.
      CASH did not send a letter TO the jury. Someone is confusing the two issues.

  12. Juror #4 was ranting about deliberation on the NAG show last night. When they first started deliberating the split was 50/50. This man came across to me as very forceful in his opinion and understand why juror #17 felt like she was being attacked. His biggest reason for his stance was that Jodi lied on the stand, repeating that story last night and in the post interview about Jack and the house. I checked the testimony and on page 142 of her 1st day of testimony of this retrial, Jodi testifies beginning at line 1:

    “… that first summer he was with the whole time,”

    lines 9-12

    “Yeah, he started school. We made sure to get a house in a good school district because the one she was living in was not good. We wanted him to go to a good school. So he –”

    I take from that testimony, that they needed to buy in a good school district because his ex was in a bad one and then they could register Jack in that good district vs. the bad one.

    I find it very disturbing that so many of the jurors would change their minds and from the demeanor of that juror last night I just wonder what went on, especially after the way they all ganged up on #17 at that press interview.

    I am so impressed with her strength and courage, even more so after listening to that man for an hour last night.,

      • That was being reported falsely by some reporters at first. Pyrite Patrol started his show saying that but was corrected by Chatty Cathy towards the end. I really slummed it last night NAG, Drew & Pyrite. It was definitely 50/50 when they first started deliberating.

        • I listened to the jurors press conference and I swear, I’ll listen again, that one talking juror said it was 11-1 right from the start. I’ll force myself to listen again, I’m hate it but now I’m curious.

            • Johnm, listen to the Pyrite report, and it is explained there, but it was also very widely reported that first vote was 50/50. Mark G. was talking about it on the Drew show as well.

              • I didn’t see pyrite’s name on the juror list. But I did hear a juror say, very clearly “11-1 from the beginning , so pyrite is fool’s gold to me

                • IIRC later in the jurors comments, someone else said it was 50/50 at the beginning.

                  One of the jurors that was originally for life said reviewing the evidence and talking about it, she changed to death penalty. I an not sure if I heard this on the local news here or not. There are several who were undecided during the initial vote too.

                  All the local news stations are covering the fact the police had to guard this poor woman’s house last night due to all the threats. SMH

                  All the local news are also now talking about how this is a done deal. JSS could never have removed this juror, you can’t boot someone from a jury just because they don’t agree with the rest. LOL cos that would nullify the jury system completely!!

                  The point is that it is a done deal! The death mongers failed and are venting some pretty awful stuff.

          • Well, didn’t JSS say before rendering a mistrial that the jury had been the same since last Thursday???? Someone correct me please if I am wrong… to me that says 11-1 from last Thursday……

            • So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and conclusion is that the 11 had their minds made up from the get go !!!!!!!!

            • They started on Wednesday afternoon. They also reported that most of them changed their minds fairly quickly once they got in that room with him and the others so by Thursday, it was already 11/1. That one woman held to her convictions alone that long after everyone around her had capitulated. She is my hero and why I still have the tiniest bit of faith in the jury system.

              • I can’t post the link here, but I urge anyone questioning me to listen to the Pyrite patrol towards the end when both Chatty Cathy and the other woman that Gold works with explained the confusion and corrected him.

            • I’m not confused, the words out of her mouth are clear
              “We’ve been 11-1 from the beginning”
              That’s not disputed anywhere I’ve heard

                • You’re not wrong CanadaCarol, freudian slips or zealots, they changed their minds to kill, they were the one’s that were wrong. They could easily have lied and said it was 50/50, I mean they’re attempted murders in my book, only #17 knows the truth!

                • johnm, you are right – at the beginning the woman says that it was 11-1 from the beginning, but a male voice in the background says something about Thursday afternoon. Then later same reporter asks if she is foreperson – no – so then asks the foreperson. This is about 6 1/2 minutes or so into the interview.

                  Q: Were your votes always 11 to 1?

                  A: The initial – when we first you know, when we first went back into the jury room that afternoon there was some time to get evidence, you know, video equipment and everything – but we did do a round table and it wasn’t – it was split near 50% – it was about 50 – a few undecided, but about 50% for the death penalty. But then as we continued Wednesday afternoon and Thursday – by Thursday after lunch, I wanted a data point, so I took a poll – I tried to take a poll every day so I could see things are changing, shifting daily – and from Thursday afternoon, it was steady, 11 – 1.

                • I got that- “split near 50,about 50, a FEW undecided, but about 50%”

                  So did you count? Does a few undecided = 50%? Are you the person they put in charge of the vote?
                  If your 1st poll was about 50% for death,were those 50% predisposed?I mean you counted right away(sort of) and you got a FEW undecided and that’s what you consider you 50/50?
                  Are you not showing your face ’cause your afraid of Jodi’s supporters?
                  Are you lying about the vote numbers of the 1st poll you took?

                  Honestly CanadaCarol, they are potential murderers. I don’t believe they deserve the vote they got! As this unfolds they better hope #17 is safe, or they WILL be responsible too!

    • Almost sounds like outside interference. The man sounds like a total idiot. Jodi never lied on the stand, and she lied to the police to protect that pervert and abuser Travis Alexander.

      • As soon as the NAG transcript is ready, I want to share some of the things that he said that really bothered me, but for now he said she lied, because first she said that they had Jack part time (summer) and then she testified that they were buying a house in a good school district. He found that to be a big enough lie to toss out everything that she said basically.

        He took from that testimony that they had Jack in the summer only, but all the testimony from Jodi and Darryl was that they had him “part time”, and on the “weekends” and sometimes they had him “three days a week”. They shared custody…. they moved around to be close to him and the ex …. when they were first going to buy a house in Sacramento they were to have Jack full time.

        I wonder if the guy isn’t the ex-death row warden. Chatty Cathy described him as her favorite juror because he always looked like he was mad.

        • Juror #4 was also talking about the fact that Jodi could possibly get out in her fifties and Mark E. correctly pointed out that this juror should not be considering the penalty in their decision making. Mark E. was on Dr. Drew last night and was defending juror #17, much like he did in the article that he wrote.

          The defence had half the jurors in the first vote and that’s what is important to me.

        • Part time residence in the school district would qualify Jack to attend school there. It’s done all the time in shared custody situations.

    • Hummm Now didn’t someone say it was 11-1 from from the start?? Seems to me there was a lot of bullying going on. Maybe after they are done cashing in for interviews down the road someone will have the guts to tell what really went on in that room…

    • Well if the defense “dragged Travis through his own blood” as sky hughes so profoundly 🙄 put it, let me point out that it was HIS blood! He made a name for HIMSELF! He was exposed and the “blood” ran through HIS veins. The defense DID NOT write those text messages, it was NOT THE DEFENSE who was recorded saying vile and abusive things. Travis’ TRUE nature was exposed….SO I guess there is a bit of irony in what she stated…whatever 🙄

      • And if the plea deal had been accepted at the beginning people would still believe Travis to be a Saint and we would have never heard of either one of them. . Travis or Jodi. The Alexanders campaign for revenge backfired on them. Too bad. It’s only about money to them, they have proved that over and over. I remembered Tanisha crying over her house flooding and crying over all of their lost things including “Lasers” which I thought was bizarre. . . .she never mentioned her children. . it was all about material things. . during her rant followed by send money please. It is money. All about Money. The train has stopped. Poor things. Get A JOB!

        • They will be the first to feel the karma – but they won’t recognize it as such. The miserable lives they are going to experience as karmic payback for their miserable attitudes and behaviors will all be blamed on Jodi.

      • How can people believe anything said by TA when his biggest lie was exposed for all to see? And just why would a grown man lie about being a virgin? He was nothing but a phony con man and his pathetic family is just as phony as he was. I don’t believe a word out of any of them.

        • The propaganda in this case is enormous. The catch- phrases, the mantras.
          Absurd, impossible statements repeated
          ad infinitum:
          ‘killed three times over,’
          ……..[ paraphrasing most recent version:] “The defense dragged Travis’s name through his own BLOOD. ”
          (…… putting the onus and stigma on the defense lawyers by using the double entendre of ‘dragging’)
          ………. saying how Jodi ‘kills’ EACH DAY, everyday, over and over, Travis and the Alexanders. ( for years)

          The situation reminds me of how some religious people can not tolerate or entertain doubt, so they have to insist upon the fanatical, because that is absolute and ‘pure’/ all good.
          And there is an underlying religious influence/ need to insist that the woman is always the sinner.
          And I also think of how some people need to idealize their parents, so transfer that.
          And I think a lot of people are projecting a transference regarding everything concerned with having a deep, intimate, romantic love relationship. Making Travis ‘their own,’ gives them an illusory substitute, one that is always supremely reliable/ faithful. Their devotion gives them the sense that Travis can somehow be/ is devoted to them, securely bonded to them.

          And they project their fear of someone/ something, interfering with, taking away, competing with, causing them to lose their love relationship, or their possibility of ever finding and keeping a love partner.

  13. What blows my mind is people who claim that the holdout was somehow biased for Jodi because she had seen parts of the Lifetime movie. Are they kidding me?! If anything it should have biased her against Jodi. The fact that she saw that piece of crap and did apparently had the impression that Jodi was a monster but after hearing the evidence no longer felt that way is an indication that she was the one with an open mind (unlike those other nitwits who were the ones who actually got on that jury with an agenda).

    • Justice, I believe the others DID have an agenda. HA! The mere fact that they even took into account Dr.Demarte’s diagnosis/assessment of Jodi OVER the other, FAR more experienced doctors, to me, indicates that they needed ANYTHING to hang on to, no matter HOW small. OMG! That statement blew me away!
      We all should listen carefully to the answers the 11 jurors gave in their post trial press conference. There were MANY points made that proved to me their obvious bias and their pretrial and during-trial involvement with this case. I highly DOUBT that those attention seekers, who couldn’t WAIT to get their voices heard in a public venue, stayed away from that EXACT media throughout and prior to the trial.

      • Believing an inexperienced individual like Tot Doc, speaks volumes, may their babble continue! It’s so disappointing to see how many people today have no problem putting another human being on death row?! It’s a shame they are protecting a pedophile!! I truly wish TA was alive so he could face the crime he committed. He is an abuser, one that thought he was above the law, I see why JM represented this case, he too feels like he is above the law!!

        All the best to Jodi Arias!!!

      • Yup and the reporters questions were very pointed, not one of them asked anything challenging. It was all geared towards shit talking Jodi as per usual.

    • And it is my understanding that even though the defense team argued that retrial of sentencing phase would be unfair because too many people knew about the case, and therefore the jury pool would also.
      Yet, the court and prosecutor contended that a fair retrial of the sentencing phase could occur, AND that any and all jurors declaring they had prior knowledge of the case, was O.K. with the court as long as the jurors stated they believed they could be impartial.
      And yes, if anything, the movie would have increased bias AGAINST Jodi. The eleven were just trying to come up with a fake excuse so they could get her off the jury.
      And unthinking people go by the version of what the eleven describe without pausing to reflect that their version is based on THEIR agenda.
      It is stunning to me that the eleven believed they had the right to ask for an alternate. And I think they asked very early on
      And the eleven never had a right to demand juror #17 justify/ prove her rationale for anything. And juror #17 paid attention to evidence the ENTIRE trial.

      I saw discussions on Twitter, I think, which pointed out that the eleven in their interviews specifically stated that they considered certain factors in their decision- making, that JSS specifically commanded them to NOT consider, and yet they did. And luckily what the eleven said to media is on the record, and it can be proven that they directly ignored JSS’s command.

      [ I think they ignored JSS’s command to not consider the fact that Arias didn’ t take the stand. I don’ t have time now to look it up, but it is in the media interviews from yesterday.

      • You are totally correct with your observations !!! I agree with everything you have stated….this lone holdout did NOT have to justify her vote to the others….you never do….she obviously agreed with the mitigation factors and said so…that’s all they needed to know……and yes someone earlier stated that one of the jurors mentioned that they discussed that Jodi could get out of prison in her fifties….What??? They were instructed not to take such things into consideration……Thank God for the hold out juror…she deserves a medal…… 🙂

  14. I taped the Drew show so am re-listening and his one guest, Daneen Manette, criminal profiler, brought up the even split and she said she was” very curious to know why those other five changed their positions and what point in the deliberation process that they did change their position. Were they bullied? Were they tired? At what point did they come to the conclusion for all five of them to move over to the other side?.. Drew talks over her with “great question and I’m sure we will hear about it ….”

    It was torture last night, but I didn’t lose my mind – I did hear it!!!

    • Well according to the interview they gave yesterday and what JSS said in court before pronouncing a mistrial they had been the same since Thursday (11-1) so if there initially was a 50/50 split then 5 jurors caved in immediately for some reason…..HIGHLY UNUSUAL to have that many jurors just cave in so short a time !!!!!

    • I think that in ANY group situation, even the most mundane, for instance people going to the movies and deciding what they want to see __ I think some people, many people, can be easily swayed, __ not even by arguement or logic really, but by the energies of the members. The energy can unanchor a person and he can easily forfeit his intended direction, almost against his will.
      I think a strong- willed person can affect the energetic balance, and much worse, I am certain more than a few bullies were on that jury.
      And again, it is preposterous to me that they believed they had a right to demand an alternate, and they did very early on.

  15. One thing this jury did tell us is that, on average, approximately 11 out of every 12 people in this country are hateful idiots. We saw how overwhelmed we were during these last two years and this now puts a number to it.

  16. Sorry to sound rude, but WTF is with that sobbing by TA’s sister or sisters that Jodi didn’t get death? It’s been seven effing years since be died. Get a grip for once.

    They’re just as sadistic as he was.

    • Exactly. Their crying was fake and “overkill”. They have not proven anything but they are master manipulators just like their brother Travis. SCAMMERS. Each one of them have become skilled in the art of deceit and lies. Heck they have been watching a State hired gun, who is supposedly the best. I was wondering what it was that Juan didn’t want to tell the reporter about his talk with the Alexanders in the closed victims room. Juan made it clear, it was only another case for him, it was his job. I knew all along he didn’t care one flying flip about the Alexanders or Travis. He wanted to win at any cost. And, might I add, got caught at his corrupted game of chess. The haters can’t see the truth because their noses are stuck too far up the Alexander and Hughes butts. So far up they will never see daylight again (or the truth), imo.

      • Juan wanted another death penalty victory on his record, that’s it. Notice how fast he brought up the other death case he just tried and made sure to mention that he won that one.

        • Maybe these two recent “Juan cases” could join in a Class Action against his pattern of cheating.
          Could such a thing be possible?

    • Exactly! Not only was there a great deal of crying but they had to make sure everyone KNEW they were crying. And the tweeters and the media and the public all fell for it. “Oh, the poor Alexander family!” NAG, in her most phony sympathetic tone, had to tell us all about how Samantha was doubled over in pain. GMFB! This all because they don’t get a chance to see someone die? And then they dare to criticize the holdout for thinking this was all about revenge? What a fucking bunch of sickos!

      • I’m still amazed that NAG has continued her campaign in the Alexanders honor for the sake of an abusive, devious, lying, mentally disturbed sexual pervert, Travis Alexander. Hmm I think I covered him. So these are the types of people who NAG believes should walk in society along with all of us to prey on our children? How would NAG like it if her dear sweet innocent daughter one day falls prey to a young man just like Travis, now that would be KARMA. NAG better watch who she defends and who she condemns because it will certainly come back around and bite her in butt. She is beyond transparent in her coverage of this trial. NAG is a Scammer and Self Promoter, no wonder she draw those types in so close.

        • My hubby flipping through channels last night turned on hln, and just hearing her voice…omg aahhhhg turn it off! lol he did.

    • I’m not pro Alexanders by any means. But perhaps when you want revenge you don’t get it and you don’t get it…I don’t think you ever get over a lose. I can almost understand… They are stuck in their angry.
      I found it odd that only one sibling was the one of all the pictures were taken of and posted all over the media.

      • But the crying makes NO sense in a penalty phase. I haven’t seen this kind of overwrought behavior in other televised cases. They need to cut that b.s. out. Especially given the fact they were not close to Travis at all.

      • Tanisha is their ring leader. The rest just follow along, IMO. They have had plenty of time to get their grief in check. They proved their scam with their tears, as far as I’m concerned. Heck, they weren’t even close to each other when Travis was alive. Travis avoided his sisters because they were always wanting something from him. His words, not mine. Sorry I read his blog a long time ago. Fake and a scammer. He wanted to be a wonderful motivational speaker but never wanted to get the education and associate with people who would help him reach his potential. Travis surrounded himself with vultures and blood suckers, IMO.

    • I get the feeling a lot of them were prejudiced and overwhelmed by the pictures that kermit and then #4 kept displaying over and over. A lot of them report not having slept – are having nightmares that they feel will last their whole lifetime. It seems to me that the younger generation is much more easily swayed by others’ opinions and do not have the ability to stand by their convictions. Also, the fact that they discussed the sentence is a no-no and I think it had a lot to do with their change of mind.

    • Amen Sister Cindy. I’ve got to get myself busy around here so I’m climbing back on my broom and getting to matters at hand. 🙂 ♥ (((((((JODI & TEAM JODI)))))))) ♥

      • LOL I feel like a truck hit meeasily climb back into my bed….. But I can’t and the maid took time off. I think she is hanging out with typo elf in sunny Jamaica drinking a little rum drinks with little umbrellas…..

        I just hope all of us take time to decompress over the weekend and not let the hater effect our life anymore….. (((((Jodi))))).

  17. Now that the spector of death is defeated, can Jodi still practice her art? I think she should focus on her talents and show those pedo-loving scum that Jodi will always shine and become the best even in a temporary jail cell. I pledge to support her art work

    • They were discussing what her life was going to be like, and at first, she will be still quite constricted, but things can get better for her along the way depending on her good conduct. Eventually she could be in general population and take origami and drawing classes as well as other things. She is able to have a small TV for now if she can afford to buy one.

  18. I really loved the obvious delight on Maria’s and Jen’s face. This is brilliant, we can finally relax knowing she doesn’t have to worry about that barbaric death penalty any more.

    I was watching “The family’s impact statements” and they kept talking about how their family had been broken and how they now suffer mental health problems such as PTSD, anxiety and depression. If Jodi had gotten the DP, is it going to change that? NO. It doesn’t bring Travis back it only causes more pain to Jodi’s innocent family. It’s reasons like this that I’ve always found it hard to have sympathy for the Alexanders. Their bloodlust sickens me and them pleading for Jodi’s death like it would somehow fix their depression and other problems? Please! I don’t even think they have these problems, it was just a tactic to get the jurors to feel sorry for them. Thankfully, it didn’t work. We are one step closer to Justice For Jodi.

  19. So now juror 17 gets to have her life turned inside out and flipped over and threatened because she had the guts and courage to stick with what she believed in.

    In other words on a jury or anywhere really, you can have your own opinion as long as it’s the same as everyone else’s. If you think differently and express that we will destroy you.

    You gotta love America. Land of the Free. Home of the Brave and the pack mentality.

    Juror #17 is my new hero.

    • Mine too, Joe. Can you imagine the shock and grief we would all be in today if she had not held her ground? It’s scary to think how close it came and it took one very strong woman to put a stop to it.

    • According to Troy Hayden’s post on Twitter, her husband was prosecuted by JM, a day later they were married. She did not disclose this, she is also being investigated for other ties to members of DT. They can’t overturn the hung jury but it is going to get ugly and I imagine juror 17 will spend some time with Sheriff Joe and this may cause JSS to give a harsh sentence out of anger

      • According to Michael Kiefer, if they want to the DA to pursue Juror 17 and press charges or whatever the hell the psychopaths are screaming for, the entire conviction would have to be overturned.

  20. It’s time to think of some way to raise money for appeals. I know we can donate directly, but does anyone have and fund raising ideas?

    • Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 2h2 hours ago
      I propose someone start a Jodi Arias Help Line, so they won’t call me to vent one way or the other about the mistrial.

      Angela Simpson HIRED ‏@ma_butler 2h2 hours ago
      @michaelbkiefer hey u put yourself in that position! Go find another job if you don’t like it. Maybe city dump since you love trash so much!

  21. Since it has now been shown that at least 11 out of every 12 people are closed-minded idiots (demonstrated also by the amount of online haters relative to supporters), it does seem natural that, given a random pool of people, those with an agenda can easily bluff their way onto a jury. And we certainly know there are lots and lots of people out there with very nasty agendas. The fact that the judge thought otherwise can only mean she’s not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

  22. NAG Show March 5th – abbreviated NAG but Juror #4 is in its entirety.

    Juror #4: I’m shaken up still.

    NAG: I want to thank you so much for being with us and … what do mean by that you’re still shaky?

    #4: (Deep sigh) The emotion is just so overflowing – it’s hard to deal with having tried your hardest for so long to persuade someone to agree with you and it was painful in that courtroom – you know – just listening to the family wail and cry while we had to sit there as a group, even though we were mostly in favor of capital punishment to sit there and have it represented that we as a group were hung and Jodi was going to – not get away with it, but not get capital punishment was – it’s tough.

    NAG: …… Sir, when you said that she’ll walk, but no not really walk – actually under the law in AZ – there’s a possibility she can walk free in 25 years and that must have been like salt in the wound to the jury.

    #4: Yeah, yeah it was tough. And you know, when we were in deliberations we brought that up – we’re like if we don’t put forth the right judgement – if we’re not all in agreement – there’s a chance that she could get out in her early fifties. I mean that’s like a whole life to live after that, so what punishment is it really if she were to only get that? And …

    NAG: You know sir, …. (blood and sink) … dying …. can’t get that image out of my head, sir.

    #4: Deep sigh – yeah it was tough and we had to go through all those images over and over again in the deliberation room and we – you know, as a last ditch effort, we put all of the pictures down of all the blood and the shower and Travis’s body and we tried to, again, to come out with an unanimous decision – and I don’t understand – it’s hard to process – excuse me – for me to understand how those – that aggravating circumstance that we were looking at – that we had spread out all across the jury table – how that did not weigh enough for capital punishment – it just boggles my mind.

    NAG: ……. when you showed these pictures to the holdout, would she even deliberate – is it true that she had watched the Lifetime movie about Jodi Arias?

    #4: Sigh, she had said she had seen bits and pieces of movie, yes.

    NAG: thrown out of deliberations … did the judge know about it …

    #4: I think the judge knew that because we sent in a question form for the judge letting her know that this lady, who was holding out, mentioned it to the whole group. You know, she wasn’t even trying to conceal it. She mentioned to the whole group that she had seen bits and pieces of a movie and so we thought, you know, as a jury as a whole that was essential material – essential information – that the judge had to know. So we put it down on paper and let the judge know.

    NAG: ………. What is you feeling when you look back on what has just happened – that moment you came out when it’s represented hung jury – what’s your feeling, your physical reaction?

    #4: It’s a feeling of sadness – the feeling of my body almost wanting to shut down. You know, a feeling – a feeling that justice wasn’t served. And I know it was, because we went through the process – just the law tells you to. We went through the process and dealt with everything, but then when we went in there – it just felt horrible.

    NAG: …… when you actually heard Jodi Arias in court, what did you think of her?

    #4: When I heard her in court, I – she lied to my face (slight laugh) – that’s what. So I thought of her as a liar. (still laughing)

    NAG: In what way did she lie – what was the lie?

    #4: The lie was when she was describing her life doing a little chronological order, she mentions that when her and Darryl Brewer were picking out their house in Palm Desert, I believe it was, that they chose that area because of Jack, Darryl Brewer’s son and they wanted a good school district for him. And then, just before that, we had found out that they, in fact, only had Darryl’s son for the summer. So, she lied to my face – she told us that – you know – as soon as she said that – that she picked the house for their son so he could go to school in a good school district – and then I found out that he’s only going to be there during the summer. That said to me instantly what lack of character was sitting in front of us.

    NAG: What do you make of the possibility she came into this opposing the death penalty?

    #4: (Deep Sigh) I don’t know. She would adamantly tell you that she is absolutely for the death penalty but after being with her for month after month after month, and then deliberating for as long as we did – I just – I can’t understand it. My brain is trying to come up with a reason so that I can cope with what happened.

    #4: I just want the Alexander family to know that we tried our hardest to make sure that justice was served.

    • Do I need to post the body bag picture again, so everyone can see that JUSTICE WAS SERVED UP for that POS pedo on June 4th?

      Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

      • No, that frankly isn’t necessary, SJ. I’m not a fan of the Alexanders either, but trust me, every Thanksgiving, every Christmas, every birthday they see an empty seat at the dinner table and that’s more than enough of a reminder to them at their brother is gone.

        You’re a good man, SJ. All the work that you’ve done putting this website together and doing everything you can for Jodi is admirable and I thank you. Stay on the positive course you’ve been on for such a long time and don’t allow haters to drag you into the gutter with them. You’re better than that.

        Karma is a powerful thing and I believe that this time around it swung in our direction precisely because we’ve focused on facts, truth and evidence. And in the process we’ve stayed positive, sending so much love and compassion to Jodi and her family because we genuinely care about them and we’re not trying to profit off them or exploit them. Keep being the good man that you are and keep fighting the good fight, my friend!

      • YES SJ thank you for all you have done for Jodi Arias and her family. You have been a God send for all of us to have a safe place to come and discuss and share our opinions. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are a wonderful man!!!!

  23. Did this juror even listen to what Jodi said about the situation with Darryl Brewer and his son and wanting to be in a good school district for the child? Did he even listen…or was he too caught up, to anxious to pull the lever to kill Jodi? I think the latter…And to be discussing possible sentence outcomes – like perhaps she may get out after 25, etc… – this was NOT supposed to be considered or discussed but they did anyway so who is not doing their job properly as a juror?

    • And to think you are such a PETTY PERSON that you can kill someone based on your OWN FOOLISH CONCLUSIONS about something you know NOTHING ABOUT and IGNORING THE TRUTH that Jodi told you on the stand???? Did you hear her say that Darryl had shared custody of the child and that he stayed with them during the week sometimes and that he started school there ?????? PATHETIC LOSER !!! IMHO……….

        • They all wanted to kill Jodi…..they may deny that they were killing her by voting for death but HELLO? without each and every one of your votes that is EXACTLY what you are doing….each and every one of you would have been responsible for her death…..just like KN asked you “Do you want to kill her?”

        • That is terrible.
          He shouldn’t be so shook up that his vote didn’t kill Jodi.
          He’s a perect example of the kind of people that think HLN
          tells the truth and most people that make up their “minds”
          from the media. As long as we have this garbage media, there will be no

      • Well not sure about the started school “there” so I will defer to Canada Carol’s work on the transcripts which are posted above….but to me it sounds like the child’s mom lived in a bad school district and Darryl and Jodi wanted to buy a home in a good district for the child’s sake so he could get a better education and that he shared custody with his ex and that he had him part time and during the week sometimes and what parent wouldn’t want their child in a good school district….I just can not wrap my head around someone that is soooooooo petty as to condemn a person based on something that he obviously either misunderstood or didn’t have all the facts…..and something so minor in the overall picture of things…..Yeah I’m sure that number one on Jodi’s list to lie about was whether or not Darryl and her wanted to buy a house in a good school district, right? Are you kidding me !!!!!!!!!!!

    • BB you are so on spot. There is so much going on right now and add this to the mix, it’s just crazy. I can’t believe what the Fox News 10 has dug up on this poor woman.
      It seems like they are trying to get the mistrial thrown out . Have you ever heard of that happening?

      • NO, NO, NO, NO, NO NEVER !!!!! It will NEVER happen !!!!
        If anything the 11 jurors who discussed about Jodi possibly getting out in her fifties and then trying to replace the one holdout juror on the panel – those are the ones that should have been thrown out and replaced IMHO….for without that nonsense you may had a jury that voted unanimously for LIFE and then JSS may well have considered giving her life with the possibility of release after 25years…So they better BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT !!!! Everything that has happened in this disaster of a trial has happened for a reason…I believe….it is in God’s control….to work towards a good ending for Jodi…..we continue on that path with the upcoming appeals with a big THANK YOU TO THE STATE AND THE ALEXANDERS !!!!!!!!! for without their insistence on re-trying Jodi none of the Brady violations would have been discovered…….. her life line !!

        • I really didn’t think it could be but…with all that is flying out there today…not so much as the haters but what Fox 10 has found out. Who know if any of it’s true…could just be another person with the same name…
          I’m going back to my focusing on jodi and your family and forgetting all this other bs..

      • Cindy, I see what you are referring to on Fox 10 News, however, the prosecution accepted her as a juror and that is that, PERIOD !!!! If they had a problem with this woman’s past, it was INCUMBENT UPON THE PROSECUTION to say so and strike her as a juror….if they failed to do their homework and didn’t know or didn’t remember certain facts about her history then TOO BAD !!!!!!!! The mistrial has been declared and recorded and it is OVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Now that we know the history of what was going the “secret” questions make sense, and considering the Alexscampsters would be aware of the changing of minds of these jurors, it also makes sense that they would be in their faces every day playing for their sympathy. And from what some of the jurors said, they were bothered having to walk past the press and family every day.

    According to discussion with Mark E. and Dr. Drew when they were talking about juror #17, they said it’s a done deal – regardless.

  25. The whole penalty phase jury seems twisted. The jurists are already supposed to accept that Jodi is guilty and just decide if she should live or die. What rational person would want to be put in that position? It’s coming in with your mind already made up. Very weird!

  26. 😯 I’m still trying to get Juan’s smile and voice out of my mind. Eeeeecccckkkkkk!
    Sorry but now that is weird. Two people in one frog’s body. Maybe he was doing a Kermit
    impression. SMH

    • Oh the frog was pissed!!!!!
      He was a lion in the court room he had vengeance in his mouth!!!! He lost the case…. He didn’t want to say it, but guess what, his demeanour said it all!!!!!
      I can not emphasise the feeling when the prosecutor is convinced that he is right, only to find out that his poor little ego was bruised when he didn’t get the verdict he so much worked for….ha! Karma works in the strangest of strange ways!!!!!
      It’s posted for the whole world to see!!!! The meek rat he was to do anything and everything in that court room to win. I believe he signed his soul over to the devil! It backfired!!!! Go back to Mexico

      • R, I love this comment from the “Comment Section” of this article.
        “The stupidity of this case is just really starting to get to me. I feel like I’m looking at the kind of mentality that enjoys championship wrestling.”

    • Caleb Broward,, ((Are you new to this site)? …Thanks for observing that we are such a devoted group of people for Jodi. …And, you ask how long has this site been up? …Yes, Dec, 2012.
      …Go to main page, upper right hand corner under the picture or Sandy & Bill, find box labeled: POST ARCHIVES, CLICK DOWN ARROW near Select Month, drop down box opens & scroll all the way down to the bottom & find: December, 2012 (10),,,,& click on that date. …That should open up the very first postings in December, 2012. …
      …Congratulations, now you have access to tens of thousands or comments (maybe over 100,000) since Dec/2012, on this site.
      …And, you can search around Google & find almost anything about this case including:
      …The trial commenced Dec 10, 2012, and Jury Selection Dec 20,2012.

    • Hi Caleb Broward welcome feel free to join in our discussions. . .We Love every one but the Haters and then we just ignore them. 😉

  27. Will official transcripts of ALL of Jodi’s trial and sentencing be available at some point? I like the videos but I find portions are difficult to hear especially Martinez because he was always walking/talking (hopping?) away from the microphone(s).

      • Yes, you are, Carol. I’ll keep that in mind next time. As for transcripts, I don’t know if they do that or not. Maybe, just wishful thinking on my part.

    • He’s still there perhaps I don’t know but what don’t you get about it being her EX husband….she told the court her ex husband was imprisoned for robbery when they were separated….she divorced him…..she says he’s an idiot….the court knew all of this and they still picked her for the jury…..

  28. Two Mensa members discussing Jodi’s trial:
    Jodi F Eisen Mistrial? Is she still incarcerated?
    15 mins · Like
    Scot Weaver Hung jury, technically, no?
    15 mins · Like

  29. Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 1h1 hour ago

    #jodiarias atty Jennifer Willmott, “We all knew (#Juror17’s) 1st husband had a past. If Juan didn’t check it out, that’s his fault.”

    • I believe JM knew exactly what her background was and that he was involved in her ex-husband’s prosecution years earlier….see my comments below on same subject if you care to……

  30. I learned what a presentence interview is during my slumming. It is like a background report, sometimes from probation officers, that give the judge an indication of the person’s history as they are usually strangers to the judge, but in Jodi’s case since this judge knows everything about Jodi anyway it really doesn’t seem necessary.

  31. Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 34m34 minutes ago
    Re holdout juror: AZ Rules of Criminal Procedure 24.1(d) say you cannot question how a juror arrived at an assenting or dissenting verdict.

    Pencil of the Court ‏@CourtPencil 33m33 minutes ago
    @michaelbkiefer But they are expected to inform the court if the father of their kids was prosecuted by the same Prosecutor.

    Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 27m27 minutes ago
    @CourtPencil If they can prove it, yes. The woman disclosed his record in voir dire. The lawyers, with due diligence, could vet that info.

    • After sifting all this info today on juror #17 I believe that JM knew exactly the facts of himself being involved in the prosecution of her ex-husband…..I believe that he felt strongly that she would be in favor of the state’s case as a woman who knew domestic violence and who divorced this same husband whom he put in jail and who had a very negative opinion of her ex-husband….he felt she would be a plus for the state….that is what happened IMHO…..I don’t believe for a second he didn’t due his due diligence and looked into her background and her ex-husband’s background…..

      • I believe that JM felt that he would be able to show that TA did not commit domestic violence against Jodi and that a woman (the holdout juror) who knew about and had experienced domestic violence would be angered by Jodi claiming domestic violence……BUT A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE DEATH CHAMBER …..JM didn’t count on all the exculpatory evidence being discovered that showed what a porn addict and abuser TA was…..JM BET WRONG !!

        • Yes, Martinez got his entire reputation snookered & destroyed by a woman (Juror 17), who had experience with domestic violence from a man. …And, I bet that Alyce Laviolette would love to invite Juror 17 to one (or more) of her “domestic violence” seminars. …And, make many friends there.

          • (((Wouldn’t it be funny))) if someone could dig up some evidence that (and I am guessing), perhaps JM actually specifically selected “her” (later to be Juror #17) from his searches of juror possibilities and perhaps personally suggested “her” to the Jury Selection Board, to send her a Notice for Jury Duty ?? …And, perhaps he thought he had her “DEATH VOTE ” in his pocket before she got a Jury Notice for possible jury selection?? …Can someone investigate the Jury Selection Board to determine if prosecutors can search through records & make suggestions as to who should get Jury Notices for certain cases??? ….
            …FBI, where are you guys???
            …Where is J Edgar Hoover, he would investigate a Jury Selection Board. …And, if unauthorized persons (prosecutors) can make suggestions as to who should get Jury Notices for possible specific cases, could the Jodi Ann Arias GUILT VERDICT be REVERSED?? ……..(((I am just guessing))).

  32. Steve Krafft ‏@SKrafftFox10 14m14 minutes ago

    Lawyers worry outing jurors could make them skittish about deliberating freely. #jodiarias

  33. So let me see if I have this right…the prosecution, some in the media and various knuckleheads on Internet websites who have too much time on their hands are crying foul and complaining that the hung jury decision is unfair? I’m sorry, but who was it that wanted this retrial in the first place? If you want to blame a jury or particular jurors, why not place blame on the first trial’s jury that voted Jodi Arias guilty of first-degree murder yet couldn’t come up with the same amount of conviction to sentence her to death? They could have done the right thing and voted “not guilty” and let an innocent woman be free and then none of this would be happening today. Or Judge Stephens could have sentenced Jodi to life in prison two years ago, saving lots of taxpayers’ dollars and time in the process.

    Because one lone juror made the choice to hold on against putting someone to death, choosing life over death, her life has now been turned totally upside down within a span of 24 hours. Regardless of whatever her background or experiences, she is an American who is to be protected under the same laws and privileges that every other juror is. The fact that there has already begun a witch hunt against her simply because she chose to spare the life of someone who isn’t popular with some people in this country is truly sad and chilling. This woman, juror #17, could have easily been intimidated and caved under pressure to change her vote and go home. Instead, she courageously stood up for her principles, knowing full well that she was setting herself up to be ostracized, attacked and targeted for ridicule like so many others have done prior to her. Personally, I think that this demonstrates a lot of integrity and character and, if anything, we need MORE people like juror #17 serving on our juries.

    And, one last thing, I respect the fact that some people aren’t happy about the decision yesterday. I totally get why they’re upset and angry about it. They’re allowed to vent and express their frustration, however, they shouldn’t be allowed to bully, harass, attack and terrorize someone simply because they don’t like how they think. I recently watched an old documentary about people who were behaving in a similar way although it was a little hard to understand because most of it was in German.

    • The mentality of these people is distinctly sick, especially the Alexander sisters.

      They could look to the family of murder victim Jay Orbin on how to act in court. His killer who was also his wife, technically ex-wife, was spared the death penalty, only this crime was premeditated and particularly heinous. Orbin’s family didn’t threaten people or carry on with fake tears. They were satisfied she was convicted.

      The Alexander family could learn a lot from the Orbins, but they are too busy hustling for dollars to care how unseemly their courtroom antics are. Well, the gravy train is about to run out for this bunch.

  34. Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 1h1 hour ago
    Re holdout juror: Judges I spoke to said there’s no turning back and the only way to get a new trial would be to overturn the conviction.
    0 replies 8 retweets 11 favorites

    MissTrixie ‏@LuvTheGiantsSF 49s50 seconds ago
    @michaelbkiefer oh by all means then lets! Overturn! Oh and Thanks for all you do for us twatters. I appreciate your hard work.

  35. Stupid question of the day (in spite of rumor there are none):
    When Jodi gets a new trial, would there be any possibilty she could face the death penalty again? I expect DP’s off the table for good but just wanted to make sure that “nastiness” is gone forever in this case.

  36. Miss Triixie is on today. 😆 😆 😆

    hjblank81 ‏@hjblank81 51m51 minutes ago
    In the history of Death Penalty Cases, man murdered, in home, has roommates, what case do roommates bypass testifying? Jodi A. Arias Case!!

    MissTrixie ‏@LuvTheGiantsSF 15m15 minutes ago
    @hjblank81 This doesn’t pass the smell test for sure


    • Troy Hayden ‏@troyhaydenfox10 4h4 hours ago

      #jodiarias def atty Jennifer Willmott told me she did not know #juror17’s husband was prosecuted by Juan Martinez. #Fox10Phoenix

    • For the first couple of years, yeah, sounds much like the same conditions she’s had since her conviction. Just a different small room where she’ll be confined. Two improvements over Estrella – she gets to have a TV in her cell, and she gets to receive real letters instead of postcards.

        • I gathered that from what Stephens was saying in court the other day – some reference to Jodi’s custodial situation remaining the same or something –

          but then I also saw some Hayden blurb about footage of Jodi’s transfer to Perryville – and I didn’t click because I refuse to give ‘hits’ to haters

          • Journee,
            “refuse to give hits to haters”
            Oh no, Journee, not you, too. I believe getting information where you can get it but I feel if I post here I have to give the source. I can’t just take the person’s name off the tweet or FB quote. I know some people don’t like it. I’m not sure what to do. I’ve been ignoring (for the most part) the little snipes. On Twitter, I expect to get attacked anytime I post something and it doesn’t bother me in the least but here it’s a different feeling.

            • OH, honey, that wasn’t a dig at you or anyone else who has the intestinal fortitude to stomach that stuff.

              It’s just my own thing. I luxury I can only indulge, BTW, because of folks I trust, like you.

              Hayden’s a creepy bottom feeder who, like many others, has sought to forward his career off of this tragedy. I know the things he says that we need to know about will end up here so why should I indulge his efforts at self promotion even a little bit?

        • I figure solitaire is solitaire. Presumably the cell that awaits her has a window, I don’t think she has one of those at Estrella.

          • Not true…..lumley sucks. It’s hot, dreary and lonely until they let you mingle after 2 years. Estrella is a country club compared to perryville lumley unit. It’s bullshit how inhumane joe dickhead arpaio is allowed to treat and humiliate as he pleases without answering to anyone. Such a egomaniac

  38. Apparently some retrial video has been released already.

    Don’t know where it’s coming from but state page is posting them.

  39. Just is case anyone is wondering why Michael J. Strickland’s posts got deleted — it turns out he was never a Jodi supporter in the first place. He was actually a pedo-hugger with no interest in the site until last week. He’s probably on the sex offenders register somewhere too.


    Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

  40. Interesting little tidbit I ran across: Samantha Alexander put out a statement stating that they did not condone or support more or less any attacks on juror number 17. if there’s any perjury they will leave it in the hands of the state to investigate.

    Now if the State/JM would have the balls (do frogs have balls). Perhaps this BS might start to die down.

    • People who are jumping to the conclusion that this lone hold out juror “knew JM” better slow down….she was not the defendant and she stated that her ex-husband was imprisoned during their “separation” so who knows if she even knows who prosecuted this guy….she said he was a “bully” and “threw her into a room” so apparently she was abused by this guy and she called him an “idiot” so what makes everyone think she had any idea who prosecuted him? She may never have had any contact with the people who prosecuted her ex husband and probably didn’t care as someone who was being abused by him…….so this goes to the “perjury” insinuation that Ms. Samantha was making in her statement….

      If she didn’t know who had prosecuted her “idiot” ex husband who abused her then when she was asked as a potential juror if she knew anyone on the Jodi Arias case including judges, lawyers, or staff her answer would be no and it would be truthful…..

      • They are describing this woman juror as in her early 30’s – this case that was against her ex husband was over 15 years ago….she was a teenager….

        • Curiously no one has reported anything from JM himself about whether or not he recognized her or knew this juror from prosecuting her ex husband….It is likely that he never had any contact with this woman (teenager at the time) and that she had nothing to do with this case he prosecuted and she had no knowledge of who JM was…….

  41. Someone ought to kick that damn groundhog’s (I’m talking about Phil) ass six ways to Sunday. Geez it’s cold outside.

  42. Try this again…daaa

    Morning Al. Who is Phil??

    Geez sorry about your weather…it’s sunny and 70dy here…..LOL. Going to about 50dy here in Mich. Next week…!!!

      • Oh that Phil…lol. That sounds a bit pricey!!
        I know my sons charge a bit more on weekends and for emergencies but not that much… Humm how long cans you go without hot water??? OK how long can Mrs. Al go without hot water before she goes to the hotel…….

        • Today – she’s going. Me I could go along for a while- what do you need hot water for anyway?

          Dishes – heck we have cabinets full of those. Clothes – got bunches of them. Shower – a little bit of dirt helps build up your immune system.

          And no, I don’t have an answer to the wife’s question – how did I end up with you?

          • Omg too funny!!! But you could say: Honey,
            look at those two wonderful kids I gave you!!

            It must be a riot at your house… I’m sure that you already have hot water or very soon…

      • You mean in Chicago. Yup sure did, I guess I was one of the lucky ones. Had the whole family all set on the computer at selling time. Got mine – Yeah!

        • Oh OK Chicago.. SF would be the one for me as I’m west coast of BC.

          Great that you got tickets !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wonder if anyone will stream ???

  43. Good morning Team Jodi! Just trying to think of ways to help, anything else besides getting money to appeals fund?

    • Well I didn’t win the lottery last night.. ha.. but I do dream of that and getting the best of the best appeals lawyer for Jodi. I also dream of finding evidence that would clear Jodi once and for all!!

  44. GOOD MORNING TEAM JODI ~~~ The sun is shining here 😎 and I’m thankful for our God Given Gift in the form of Juror #17. Juror #17 is truly an American Hero and should be praised and protected.

    I woke up to Good Morning America talking with 3 of the blood thirsty biased jurors. SHAME ON THEM, they don’t even have enough sense to shut their mouths! What a bunch of stooges. Talking about people planting jurors on the jury, who to say it wasn’t the State who put those 11 in place? They stated at the beginning of deliberation it was a 6 to 6 split which very quickly went to 11 to 1. They made another effort to throw poor Juror #17 under the bus once again. They appear to fit right into the brainless twits that have chosen Travis Alexander to be a Saint for being a sexual perverted abusive scamming scum bag. Their minds were made up before they ever went into the trial. These people who are filled with ignorance and hate are disgusting.

    • R. Aren’t they the lucky ones?? GMA, HLN and who is next? Me thinks there could be a few civil suit filed in the future…. A plant seriously???? The said that on national TV??

      • They said as much on the FOX 10 video about the one lone juror. They believe she got on the jury by DT’s motives. Weird? DT is too smart for something like that to happen! Juan interviewed her! GMA said the juror made her mind up from the Lifetime movie when she saw Jodi didn’t appear to be a monster like she was portrayed in the movie. . .but the “brilliant” stooges knew better.?. They also went on about how she would not deliberate with them. But you know, when you have said your piece and they won’t listen why discuss with them? I don’t blame her, she was in a room full of bullies. God Bless Her and Her Family!!! So happy she was able to hold her own against the likes of them. Pitiful closed minded group of stooges. HAHA One looked just like Dave Hall. 😆 The other two . . .well they didn’t appear to be the sharpest tools in the wood shed. ((((((((JUROR # 17))))))))) ♥

  45. CC53, now isn’t just fine… lol Too bad they didn’t print that within a hour of the verdict the states page had #17 name plastered all over their page. I call foul, tit for tat!!!

  46. I took a really long break from following this case because of all bias, prohibited evidence and testimony, and mostly because of the witch hunt lynch mob mentality. I felt from the beginning that the death penalty was not warranted and watched in horror as millions of AZ tax dollars were spent to appease a family of trashy phony liars and bolster the ego of a short prosecutor. Now with even more tax dollars and more time spent using Jodi as a whipping post we have accusations of a stealth juror and a conspiracy involving the entire defense team. You can’t make this stuff up. I tried to read up on things on another website but had my post deleted when I pointed out the definition of crucify to that mindless herd of sheep.I didn’t realize that you had to actually hate Jodi and love the Alexander family to be on that site. Live and learn I guess. Jodi is not the monster these other websites make her out to be and if one mentions TA’s issues your posting days are over. Anyway, I hope this juror can stay strong and if investigated I hope all turns out well. From what I have heard there is no going back on the verdict no matter what the outcome of an investigation.

  47. 😯 I’m still having trouble trying to forget that Frog interview, that smile, that voice. . .oh my…….
    PS Snow White will never be the same for me again either. 🙁 GGRRRRRRRRR

    • Me too. There is so much I would like to see, and not just rely on the “Twitterverse” for their accounts.

  48. One good thing (if possible) coming out with the lynch mobs going after the holdout is that the naive public may start to understand why 14 people who wanted to testify in Jodi’s behalf were afraid for the lives and for their livelihoods.

    • If they were too densely clouded to see it before, Justus, they’ve little hope of seeing it now. IMO anyway.

    • Justus, the general public (those not taking sides) will see one thing clearly: there is something wrong with people who do not accept a juror’s decision, no matter what it is. The public will learn what they most probably were unaware of (believe it or not): and that is that there was too much venom spewed in the public arena against Jodi and her attorneys. The more these jurors talk, the more they reveal of what happened behind closed doors, the more the public will learn about the injustice in this case. By publicizing their opinions of juror #17, they are also disclosing their own pre-formed biases.

      • There never should have been another trial for the penalty phase. Bill Montgomery said the
        prosecution spent 132,000 in direct costs, 132,000 too much in my opinion.
        These 11 people sounded very immature. It is clear they had their minds made up very early
        on in this trial.

        I hope that the DA s office will think twice before they retry another case to get the DP

  49. I honestly didn’t think this case could upset me even more than it already has. I didn’t think that was possible. But the vilification of this juror has gone beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my almost 50 years on this planet. This juror should, herself, be subjected to the death penalty — according to the Twitterverse, anyway. (Oh the irony of it being the “twitterverse” — look up the meaning of “twit” or “twitter”.)

    Based on all the infinite wisdom I’m reading (pardon my sarcasm here), I think we need to go back and look at every juror who has not been able to find for the death penalty. (Luckily, that limits things as there are only a handful of states in which a jury determines penalty. In most states, that’s the judge’s job from the onset. A jury only determines guilt or innocence.) Once we determine which jurors were unable to vote for the death penalty in those cases, I think we should execute them all. That’s what they deserve. After all, if a case is death penalty eligible, the jurors should vote for it. At least, that’s the logic I’m reading on Twitter and elsewhere today, so it must be true. That’s what the other 11 jurors said as well, and they are the most intelligent people on the planet, I hear.

    This brings up another question though. What do we do about all the people in this country who don’t believe in the death penalty period? Should we also execute them? It would do wonders for population control, after all.

    Now, there are some people in this country who only believe in the death penalty for serial killers. Of course, we know that Jodi Arias would have become a serial killer if she hadn’t been “caught” in this case. In fact, she was going to execute all of her ex-boyfriends, their family and friends, right? The Hughes family actually believed she was going to kill them more than a year before she killed Travis and they’ve said that on multiple interviews. They saw it in her eyes one night. They lost sleep over it. (Of course, even after recognizing her for the serial killer she is and what a serious threat she presented to their children, they waited until the next day to ask her to leave. They let that emerging serial killer remain in their house until the following morning because well, you can’t ask a serial killer to leave your home in the middle of the night as that wouldn’t be polite, I guess. That makes TOTAL SENSE, right?)

    Alas, I digress. Let’s go back to my question. Should we just execute all the people in the US who only believe in the death penalty for serial killers? How do we know whether or not someone like Jodi could become a serial killer or not? So as to avoid the risk, we just might need to execute EVERYONE who kills someone. And we should do it BEFORE they’re found guilty if the evidence seems to suggest they are guilty (which is EVERY case).

    Now, what about people who kill spiders? Should we execute them too? Wait, let’s take this a bit further. What about someone like me, who gets angry when someone kills a spider and reminds them that could have been their grandmother (I’m a Buddhist). Maybe we should execute people who don’t believe in killing spiders too. After all, it only stands to reason that a person who doesn’t believe in killing spiders, if called for jury duty in a capital sentencing matter, would not be able to kill a person.

    So, if we executed everyone who ever sat on a jury and couldn’t find for the death penalty, plus everyone who was tried for a death penalty eligible case but didn’t receive the death penalty, and everyone who doesn’t believe in the death penalty (even if only in certain situations), we could drastically reduce the population, right? So, that makes TOTAL SENSE, right?

    But now, let me key you in to the ULTIMATE WISDOM I have learned on Twitter today. Gee, I feel so smart.

    During voir dire of Juror #17, she revealed that she had an ex-husband who committed acts of domestic violence against her. She was hit, she said, and she sometimes, hit back. He either neglected or abused their children (depending upon which account you read). And guess what? It may have been Juan Martinez who prosecuted him all those years before. She might well have been spared from years of abuse because of Juan Martinez. And this made her so angry that she found a way to get onto a jury today where Juan was the prosecutor just so she could vote against whatever he wanted. It had nothing to do with her own moral sense of justice. According to the “twits” in the Twitterverse, she just wanted to get her “revenge” against Juan for depriving her of more abuse. That makes TOTAL SENSE, right?

    I have an ex-husband who abused me. After 10 years of marriage (and abuse), he tried to kill me and he was arrested. But, we had dated before that and we broke up. After his arrest, I learned that he had been prosecuted for a different crime, and that prosecution probably led to our break up (although I never knew that back then), and he spent time in the penitentiary. If that hadn’t happened, we might have stayed together and gotten married back then. Wow! So that darn prosecutor from all those years ago essentially deprived me of an additional 6 years of abuse? I really need revenge against that prosecutor. I *must* determine his/her name and find a way to get on a jury where he/she is the prosecutor so I can hang that jury. I could have had 6 more years of abuse. Seriously. I was deprived of ALL that extra abuse because of that one prosecutor. Damn it! Now, that makes TOTAL SENSE, right?

  50. I have learned so much from the “Twits” of “Twitterverse” in the past couple of days (pardon my sarcasm). The hold out juror revealed during voir dire that she was a survivor of domestic violence (according to multiple reporters present). Her ex-husband hit her and she, apparently, hit back. Depending upon whose account you read, he was either abusive or neglectful towards their children too. He was arrested and spent time in prison. While he was in prison, she was spared from whatever abuse he might have inflicted upon her during that period. And that prosecutor might have been Juan Martinez. Of course, she resents the prosecutor from depriving her of all that time of abuse. Who wouldn’t? She *had* to seek revenge against the prosecutor (which might have been Juan) for daring to deprive her of YEARS of abuse. That makes TOTAL SENSE, right?

    I have an ex-husband who abused me. After 10 years of marriage (13 years together), he was arrested for trying to kill me. But, before our marriage, we had dated and we broke up. What I learned after his arrest was that our break up coincides with the time he was prosecuted for a different crime and spent time in the penitentiary. I never knew about any of that during our marriage. Now, I realize that if he hadn’t been prosecuted for that crime, we might have married 9 years earlier. So, I might have had 6 additional years of abuse. Perhaps I would have been killed and it would only be my ghost writing here now. (Not sure my posts would show up, but well, that’s beside the point.) Darn! I am so angry. That prosecutor deprived me of 6 additional years of abuse. I really have to find that prosecutor and get on a jury trial he/she is on so I can hang the jury. I need revenge! I was deprived of 6 years of abuse. I’m going to get right on that mission. It makes TOTAL SENSE, right?

    • Wow, you just mad my point…and you lived it….sorry you had to endure such abuse….and I am positive you can’t wait to get back at that nasty old attorney who prosecuted your ex husband, right??? LOL !!!

      • OMG BB, just to think of it! I could have had 6 more years of that abuse. Like I said, I might just be a ghost reading this site now and wishing I could post something but I’m not sure my keyboard would work. (SJ? Could I post here as a ghost?)

        It has been 4 years since my ex was arrested. But when I think of all the beatings I missed out on, all the cussing and emotional abuse, all the times I could have been told over 6 years what a piece of shit I am. Damn! How could anyone have deprived me of them? I so desperately needed those extra 6 years, right? Why didn’t I think of going back in history and sitting on a jury so I could hang it and “destroy” the prosecutor who deprived me of ALL that abuse? What is wrong with me? I am really stupid, obviously. That juror was BRILLIANT. She so totally got her revenge for all that time of missed abuse. Not to mention what he could have done to their daughters.

        And, did you know, she brought all this hatred on herself? I learned that from the Twits on Twitterverse too. This is really beyond ludicrous. I shouldn’t even be mocking it, as I am. But it is seriously disturbing.

    • The dolts who are trying to grasp at straws make NO sense whatsoever. Like juror #17 wanting revenge for JM having something to do with putting her ex in jail. JM had something to do with her being on that jury. If HE didn’t recall that case in which the idiots are claiming juror #17 was involved, then HE is as much suspect of having an “agenda” as the juror. After all…he had to authorize her qualifications.

    • Perfect, StillOutThere! Those boneheads don’t think past the end of their nose. They just grab out at any fact and see just how quickly they can, off the top of their head, twist it any way possible to fit your agenda. (That’s called “Confirmation Bias”, you idiots!) Like the fact that she saw pieces of the Lifetime Movie. First off, are they trying to tell us that none of them actually watched that movie that was played over and over again about a murder that took place in their own backyard? Give-us-all-a-fucking-break! Or is it more likely they just didn’t mention that fact while they were dreaming up ways to throw Juror 17 under the bus? And what if she did watch the movie? She, at least, had the good sense and moral fortitude to not let it influence her. That should be playing in her favor, not against her. (How is it possible for so many people to be so brain dead?)

  51. The news reporters and the other jurors are all over this juror #17 as having committed some wrong bc she did not reveal that she knew Juan Martinez….Have they ever stopped to think that maybe she had no idea who Juan Martinez was at the time she was separated from her abusive “idiot” ex husband when he was imprisoned…..she was a young teenager at the time in 1999/2000…..she probably had no involvement in the case whatsoever and never met or knew who was prosecuting her “idiot” “bully” ex husband……….so before you other jurors make statements like what she did is “despicable” you might want to wait to get all the facts…bc facts do matter………even though IMHO you all couldn’t separate fact from fiction when you voted to kill Jodi….IMHO

    • Here’s a comprehensive look at what she said during voir dire (IF it can be relied upon):

      According to that record, as a child, she had experience with domestic violence in her family (aunt/uncle/cousins) that went on for many years (from she was 6 or 7 until she was 15 when her aunt left her drunk abusive uncle.) She had an 11 year relationship (from age 16) with an abusive man. She called him a bully and an idiot. As she began to work and better herself, he became more abusive (sound familiar?). During their separation, her abusive ex spent time in prison. She has daughters with her ex and sought counseling so that they would not believe because she allowed abuse, it’s okay. Yet, she married a second husband who she met online and who had previously spent time in prison for something he’s now very embarrassed about.

      Here’s what I find interesting. Apparently, she grew up thinking abuse was just “par for the course.” Although her uncle abused his wife, and her family gave her aunt and their children shelter, no one in her family took any action to stop her uncle. So, she grew up (as so many of us did) believing “Oh, it’s just the drink” or whatever, while seeing her aunt and uncle reconcile again and again and again. She got into a relationship at 16 with an abuser, but she didn’t recognize it as abusive. Of course, she wouldn’t have recognized it. No one had taught her about the “red flags.” (No one taught me or Jodi either. Today, we know, but not then.) She was young, impressionable, and she had become “accustomed” to abuse occurring — even though it wasn’t directly to her (unfortunately). It was part of her “culture” (no offense to Hispanics), and part of the life she grew up with. Been there, done that.

      Somewhere along the line, she (as I did, as many of us did), said NO MORE. Having daughters, she didn’t want them to grow up with the same mentality that it was acceptable because their mother didn’t teach them otherwise. She bettered herself with education, a better job. She worked hard to do that, and her ex didn’t like it.

      But, after all that she went through, she still kept her heart and mind open to another man with a “somewhat questionable” background. (I don’t know if I could have done that, to be honest. I needed “squeaky clean” to even dare to trust again.)

      The more I learn about this amazing woman, the more I admire her. I don’t have to be a “Jodi Supporter” to feel that way, either. This is the kind of woman I hope to be and I hope I’m becoming. After all of that, she stood strong with her own decision on this case. She wasn’t going to be stomped on again. Wow!

    • Martinez had more influence in deciding whether or not juror #17 was qualified/chosen to be a juror. The haters aren’t going after HIM! WHY NOT? Just wondering….hmmm

        • Exactly! I went to law school and I have worked with practicing lawyers on jury selection MANY times. Because of her history of domestic violence, she could well have been dismissed from service with cause. I don’t know what occurred based on the tweets, but even if the judge determined there was not cause to dismiss her, each side (prosecution and defense) had peremptory challenges to jurors available to them. They are typically used cautiously because they are few. What that means is that they can simply ask for a juror to be dismissed for no apparent reason — perhaps because they dislike blondes and the juror is a blonde, or they feel a potential juror who wears red is not someone their jury consultant wants as a juror. It can really be such a ridiculous reason. It can be simply because of a “feeling.”

          Now, I don’t know whether or not Juan had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges by the time this juror came up for selection, or not. If he had exhausted them, and he moved for dismissal for cause, and the judge denied that, then, he was stuck with her. But her domestic violence history alone could easily have resulted in a challenge for cause and no one is suggesting that occurred, not even one of the tweets I have read on the “Twitterverse” from all the so-called “edumacated” “Twits.” So, I have to wonder why. Did Juan think she was a wonderful juror for his side? There are, after all, MANY on the “other side” who are abused women and absolutely detest Jodi.

          The defense (Jennifer Willmott), apparently, admitted they knew of her past in a brief statement with that Troy “reporter” dude.

        • What irks me here (and, I will admit, intrigues me) is that during jury selection (voir dire), each side has challenges for cause to a juror being selected. The very fact that this woman had domestic violence in her background would have been a good “cause” for Juan to raise as an objection to her serving. Not one of the “Twits” on “Twitterverse” has reported that he did so.

          Not only that, but each side has a few (haven’t looked up how many in AZ) peremptory challenges available. That means they can object to a potential juror because well, they don’t like the fact that they have brown hair and brown eyes or is wearing red. Actually, they don’t have to provide a reason. It can be based on a “feeling” they have or that their jury consultant has. They can just exercise their peremptory challenges.

          Having said that, I’m not sure when this particular juror came up in the selection process and whether or not Juan had, by then, exercised all of his peremptory challenges. Attorneys usually reserve those extremely cautiously. But, her background would have provided a legal challenge for cause — and it may well have done so, given that she was privately questioned. Yet, she made it onto the jury panel anyway. Hmmm

  52. I found this site when the trial first started because every where I looked, everyone seemed to be convinced that Jodi was guilty as can be, and I didn’t know squat about the case. So on a whim I typed “Jodi Arias innocent” into Google and voila this is what I found.

    I don’t know Jodi – never met her, or talked to her or met anyone who has, and probably never will. I have no idea what she’s like as a person, or what her personal thoughts and desires are or were. I just followed this as an interesting case and a chance to view American jurisprudence. And I must say I was disappointed at every turn in the long and twisted path that has brought us to where we are today.

    But the folks I am most disappointed in were Jodi’s defense team – and I’m hoping to make my argument in that respect here.

    This is how this case was stacked when we got started:

    1. It was a death penalty case, and given that, today, a majority of this country is against the DP the jury is now drawn from that minority that still favors the death penalty, and so is probably going to be more inclined to believe the state. That’s pretty well acknowledged.

    2. You have a defendant who had told some sort of story to the police, that was different from the defense being presented – which means that the prosecution was going to make a whole bunch of hay while that sun was shining.

    3. You have a prosecution that has changed its story about the order of events – and you know there is a reason for that, and it is something you need to overcome.

    4. There are no witnesses to what actually happened, and so whatever story you need to tell comes from only the defendant, who is already regarded with suspicion by a jury (any jury typically tends to believe that the defendant must have done something wrong or the state wouldn’t have charged them), plus you have the issue with the change in story. You need something to bolster the defendant’s story.

    This is what the defense was up against. The prosecutor in this case actually took these issues and flew with them. JM , regardless of what we may think of him, actually was really smart about how he presented his case. Here’s what he did – he presented the basic elements of the case, which he has to in order to prove that a crime was committed and let the jury know why he felt the defendant did it. So he presented the discovery of the body, a basic recitation of the forensic evidence (with absolutely no inferences drawn from it), a gory presentation of the autopsy results, with only one set of conclusions from Horn – the order of wounds (never tied any of that back to the other forensics results) and an exhaustive exploration of Flores’ interviews with Jodi. Then he rested – because he was lying in wait for the defense. He boiled most of his case down to not so much proving his point as disproving the defenses point. It isn’t supposed to work like that but that’s what he made it, and for him it worked.

    In fact, other than Jodi’s interview with Flores, he had no evidence that she was even there when TA was killed. In fact if she had said nothing to Flores, I don’t think they would have had anything to be able to pin the time of death, or the fact that Jodi was there when it happened. In fact there were statements from the room mates which were at odds with the State’s assessment of time of death. That all got swept away, but if they didn’t have Jodi’s interview, those statements from the roommates would have carried more import.

    Now comes the defense – they have the same situation. But they are presenting a story of self defense, and they have the change in the State’s timeline of wounds. They have got to know that the jury, especially a death qualified jury, is less inclined to just take Jodi’s word for it. They should have tied her story into the forensic evidence. They needed to have a set of forensic experts (blood spatter, pathologist, etc) analyze the evidence and present how that ties into whatever story it was that they were presenting. They should have had a firearms expert testify about the lethality, or lack thereof, of the .25 ACP. I believe that they should have had a burglary expert, possibly a police officer, testify to how common it is for everyday burglars to take handguns and leave long guns and other heavy stuff like TVs, etc behind. I believe they should have has someone testify to how unlikely it is that the car rental dude actually remembered that the person who rented a car months ago had blonde hair. Heck I can’t even tell when my wife’s had her hair done, and this guy remembered one person with having blonde hair – c’mon, really?

    At the end of the day, in a case like this it’s your sales pitch against the other guys pitch – remember there were no witnesses, at least that anyone had identified, to the events. So each side is going to tell a story and you have to make sure the jury buy’s your story as opposed to other guy’s. And I think that’s another area the DT fell flat. It wasn’t just the story but how they told it and who they used.

    Sometime, pragmatism dictates that you look at what the other person has and possibly accept a deal that is the best you can get. The defense was on that track when they offered to accept a plea to M2. But when that wasn’t accepted they just blew it, in every sense of the word, and they missed stuff all over the place.

    First look at their witnesses:

    Look at Samuels – his whole credibility, and the value of his testing was destroyed by one single question and answer – Q. If the purported reason for the trauma was different shouldn’t you have re-given the test? A. I guess. There goes that testimony – pfft. How come the defense didn’t catch that?

    Here was my problem with ALV. Any time you make a presentation – you have to present to and for your audience. It doesn’t matter what you may personally feel. So if I had to make a pitch to the NRA would I be better off using one of the Duck Dynasty yahoos or Jerry Garcia, or Mahatma Gandhi? You are presenting to a death qualified jury. A new age presence exuding Souther California person, in Earth Goddess smocks wafting patchouli is going to go over like a lead balloon. I don’t care how qualified she is – it isn’t going to work. This is a sales pitch, don’t let it fool you, and you have to choose the right spokesperson. If they had to make a DV argument, they would have been much better off getting someone who came to court in a suit with a business aura about them. In fact, not to sound sexist, but I believe they would have been better off with a man – not because a woman is less qualified, but because it shows that this is a universally accepted phenomenon. In fact I believe that’s why JM had a woman psychologist presenting his side. It’s little stuff but it matters.

    Then there’s the stuff they missed altogether.

    There’s the whole forensic side of things, the firearms stuff, the fact that they had to play catch up on Horn’s report. They knew he was going to lie before the trial started. I don’t know if they asked JSS for more time after the state notified them of the change of story (and if they did and she refused then that’s potentially judicial error), but either way they should have had a pathologist testify during their case in chief as opposed to Geffner during surrebuttal.

    All the stuff about the blood spatter and things that jade brought up on this page. What was with that funky footprint anyway?

    And the computer virus issue. Why did they not get that checked for earlier?

    I remember someone in here talking about the camera not being able to insert time stamps on the pictures – don’t know if thats true or not, but if it was they should have had someone do something about it.

    There’s this whole flap about camera memory cards. Who knows what was going on there – I haven’t been able to figure it out, but it seems someone should have addressed something about it.

    And not destroying Flores little science experiment with the shelves. Heck even the bozos at HLN were able to wreck that argument.

    Then there were little things, that they just didn’t present clearly enough. I know, and you know that the reason Nurmi was focussed on that whole “harder, stronger, better” YouTube video was to show that Jodi’s description of people dancing with bags on their heads was accurate and hence marked the time she got there. But leaving it hanging let JM argue that the defense was implying porn due to the salacious nature of the title – when that was not the case it all. By the time KN got around to arguing it the impression had already been made.

    But the worst thing was that this whole defense was marked by a complete lack of pragmatism. You have to realize that she is coming into this case with two strikes against her – a death qualified jury, and that darned interview with Flores. Of course it could have been due to an insistence on the part of Jodi, and may have been why KN was trying like crazy to get out of there, and if that was the case – then it is what it is. But if it wasn’t on her insistence then the DT screwed up once again.

    So here’s the deal. Every once in a while, regardless of what the circumstances of the purported crime a defendant can find himself in a position where the truth is unprovable, or the prosecution has enough irrefutable evidence. This is why some states have a nolo contendre plea, or why sometimes people accept a plea to something they didn’t do – because the danger of not doing so is too much. In other cases, as in this one, the prosecution may not make a plea offer, or accept one. In that case I would assume that the defense must take the path that offers the best chance of success.

    In any case brought against a defendant there are only three possible choices – I did it and guilty as charged, some other dude did it, or what you think happened is not what happened and here is the true story. The first of course leads to some sort of plea deal – which wasn’t happening here. The second , the famous SODDI defense was a story she had already told once to Flores, leaving us with the third. But if you have to present the third case – as was done here, you really have to gauge what you present and the perils of going down down each possible path. So in Jodi’s case there were two possible paths – Self defense, or the whole heat of passion argument which just says it isn’t M1. That was something she seemed willing to plead to in any case.

    The problem with the self defense argument is as follows – you must either have other witnesses and evidence of the self defense or you have to put the defendant on the stand. A lawyer friend of mine told me he wouldn’t put Mother Teresa on the stand if she was accused of stealing a little kid’s lunch, because somewhere, somehow there is going to be something that is said that will be misconstrued by the jury. But in this case there were bigger issues. Firstly there was the whole “Ninja” story to Flores. Then there were some really cringeworthy parts of Jodi’s testimony, which, although not connected to the event were nonetheless awkward or more – like her whole thing about liking the jizz on her face except when it got in her eyes. The problem with that is that it adds an unsavory light to the person saying it, and impressions count. But the biggest danger lay in the fact that the only argument they had for self defense lay in Jodi’s words – and though they may be true, you still have to weigh them against the possibility that something, somewhere in her testimony could be pointed to as further untruths, as happened in the whole gas can issue. Again who knows what really happened there – to me her story sounded perfectly plausible, but when JM started counting gallons and payment methods, it had to raise some questions with some people. Then there was all this other BS stuff that JM argued about hair color, and license plates, etc. But by the time the defense got around to addressing them it was sort of late in the game. I know the jury is not supposed to make up its mind before its all in, but I don’t think that’s how it works. People are people and they start forming opinions as they go along, and the sooner you address nagging issues the better off you are. But the biggest issue with what the DT did with presenting self-defense and then arguing the heat of passion as an alternative is actually signal the unbelievability of the self defense argument themselves. I believe they would have been better off just arguing the heat of passion thing from the get go. It may not be the truth, but, at east in my opinion, it offered the greater chance of success. But then I have the advantage of being a Monday morning quarterback with no real client. I believe they may have been able to get this reduced to M2 or even manslaughter. Which in the overall scheme of things would probably end up being the same amount in terms of time served as any follow on appeals, etc. And by the way she would still have the option of appealing whatever lesser verdict was handed down.

    So now instead Jodi finds herself in the unenviable position of being convicted of M1 and having to count on the appeals process to get her out of this mess. And that is a long long road. From the best I can tell she needs to first appeal to the CoA, then go through Post Conviction Relief with JSS, then the Az Supreme Court, and then possibly federal courts.

    From what I can tell, the appeals courts are a strange place. There is a venue for appeal based on lack of evidence but it is rarely used or successful. However, if you leave that out, you enter this strange sort of twilight zone. The appellant can only argue procedural error (judicial, prosecutorial, etc), however the appeals court can weigh that claim of error against how they (that is the Appeals court judges) read the evidence. So an often seen result is the CoA acknowledging an error, but then saying it doesn’t rise to the level of reversible error, because the evidence presented was enough to convict in any case. The appellant can only argue evidence if it is new evidence, or evidence that was excluded by the trial court in error. So a lot of issues that may be considered as judicial or prosecutorial error still have to rise to the level where some set of judges are convinced that had it not been for that error the outcome of the case would be different. I do believe there are such instances in this case (most notable lack of effective counsel), but, that’s me, and what do I know. And who knows what happened in all of those sealed meetings that might have something in there that sets things in a different light. For instance, the whole issue of ineffective assistance of counsel may go right out the window if there is a record of the DT saying one thing, and the client insisting on a particular line of defense. And the first appeals will be handled by some overworked underfunded PD. When they do get around to a private lawyer people have to realize that lawyers don’t come cheap. You have lawyers easily charging over $300/hr and associate fees, and paralegal fees, and PI fees, and documentation fees, and the time it takes to review all the documents associated with a case that went on for almost 6 years (remember all that pre-trial stuff has to be reviewed, and all the motions made, and hearings, etc other than just the testimony in court). This stuff adds up fast. But the biggest issue with appeals is that over 90% of all non-capital convictions are upheld on appeal. This means that the chances of overturn on appeal are really slim.

    So, at the end of the day, I believe that the results of this case could and should have been very different. I only hope Jodi can get some sort of relief through the appeals process.

    • I know you are right Al and it depresses me to think of how this could have been.

      I am thankful that Jodi will not be on death row and will have some comfort and be able to have a job . The appeals process seems difficult and long, but has to be done. We need a great lawyer who would consider some pro bono.

    • Thank you, Al. It all needed to be said and you did say it succinctly.
      I hope it will be given the consideration it deserves.

      • Al, I decided to copy and paste your post. I keep going back and re-reading it, it is that thoughtful. It may get lost to me as days go by and I forget what day it was posted

        To help Jodi and to finally arrive at the truth, and Justice in the American Way, those who can and should help her will need to understand what the road looks like ahead, how to maneuver the road, when to slow down or speed up, when to stop and when to go. Jodi has learned patience. No roadblocks should be put in their way, no detours should slow them down, one-way signs should be followed. We are all just passengers on this journey. We can backseat drive among ourselves, but it is the Appellate attorney that has to maneuver and drive at the proper speed to safely arrive at the desired destination.

    • It’s easy to armchair quarterback. Let’s be honest: the prosecution had NO case whatsoever for premeditation. This was as shoddy a case as has ever been tried. It wouldn’t have mattered what the defense did. They didn’t have to present a defense at all.

      The simple truth is the LDS culture rampant in that part of the country plus the unprecedented media attention and distortion that began in 2009 with Maureen Maher’s shoddy reporting for 48 Hours, uncritically pushing TA’s friends’ utterly stupid narrative, sealed Jodi’s fate LONG before there was ever a trial. Unlike most, I followed this case from the beginning.

      The idiots who convicted Jodi are just like the idiots who acquitted O.J. Simpson. Facts weren’t important to them.

      • The point isn’t that they didn’t have to put on a case. That was overcome by the fact that they decided to. I agree that they could have argued a circumstantial case on the premeditation and the fact that in as far as any circumstantial evidence is concerned the jury must give the benfit of the doubt to the defendant. So the stolen gun could just have been a random burglary – perfectly reasonable and that is what the jury “must” treat that as. The act of renting a car and in Redding, perfectly normal given that there are plenty of people who rent cars for long trips, and seeing as how Yreka has only some small town rental agencies renting at an airport is better. Again perfectly reasonable and the jury “must” accept. The rental car guys testimony of blonde hair is offset by the pictures – again the jury must accept. Same with the use of multiple credit cards and the use of gas cans – which actually are more apt for the trip back from Salt Lake using the northern route where there is a stretch close to 200 miles without a gas station (I checked it on Google Maps).

        But they chose not to do that, instead presenting a self defense case. I don’t care what the law says – once you put on an active defense that argues against the State’s case by presenting an alternative narrative then in the real world not only do you have to prove why the state’s case is wrong, but your narrative must stand up. That’s just the real world. You have to do it, doesn’t matter what the jury instructions say.

        So, its great to live in this ivory tower that says that here’s what the jury needs to do, and here’s all we need to do. But in reality jurors bring a whole bunch of their personal quirks to the process, and regardless of what their instructions are – there is one that let’s them rely on their personal experience and that then over rides everything. You don’t believe that you will lose the case – every single time.

        At the end of the day a trial in an American court becomes the equivalent of a sales presentation. Think about it – no surprises, no hidden evidence, every side is supposed to know everything and then you go present it to the jury. So what’s left – to win your story should be more believable than the other person’s. That is why the lawyers resort to theatrics, that is why the presentation matters.

        In any business, where your success depends on having your customers decide in your favor as opposed to your competition, your presentation matters. And you don’t have a lot of time to set that first impression. I know, I own such a business. If you don’t make that first impression or lose credibility with the audience you are toast. And a lawyer who doesn’t get that should be not be in trial court.

        And armchair quarterbacking is what we are all doing here. As far as I know, not a one of us was involved in the trial as an attorney, or witness, or anything. So if one feels that Jodi got a raw deal here then the fault lies with one of three sets of people – the DT, the jury or the judge. Everyone’s already been yelling very loudly about the jury and JSS. The point I’m trying to make, is given all of that you still have to look at the job the DT did.

        They were faced with a case with immense local publicity, a media and public howling for blood, a sidewinder for a prosecutor, whose reputation seems to be well known in local circles, a state that seems to love sending people to the death chamber, courts that seem antagonistic to the defendants, and a client that had already given a weird interview to the police and an interview to the press. This was all known to the defense. They had to know they were in for an uphill climb with cement boots against a head wind. Unless they had some magic bullet, the least they could do was make an effective and flawless presentation. They didn’t.

        We would all like to live in a world where juries and courts operate under not just the letter, but also the spirit of the law. Unfortunately the world we live in is far from perfect. So while the jury made a dubious decision, and the judge was less than effective, in my opinion the DT did Jodi’s case no favors either. That’s the point I was trying to make.

      • Been there done that. The point I was making with regards to appeals was this – the direct appeal and PCR are paid for by the state, and probably handled by some attorney at the PD’s office, unless a conflict of interest as in the main trial let’s her get and external attorney. The vast majority of those appeals fail – the CoA affirms over 90% of all convictions. Even when you have cases of judicial error or prosecutorial misconduct, the benchmark becomes reversible error and whether or not the error, in the judgement of the CoA judges would have made a difference to the case. SO in fact when making that decision the judges make an assessment of the evidence. They have to. If not how can they say whether or not the alleged error would have had an impact on the final result in the case.

        The PCR comes right back to JSS’s court. Remember a judge always has the ability to override a juries decision. In fact a judge has the ability at various stages to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to warrant a conviction, or even the case progressing. That is why every trial attorney always makes those motions at regular intervals. Also if the error is egregious enough the judge always has the option of declaring a mistrial. If you have gone through all of that, and the CoA and are now back for PCR to the same judge – do you really think you have a chance of the judge ruing in your favor. I wouldn’t put my money on that horse. So the odds are that after the direct appeal and the PCR you are going to have to pursue other avenues of appeal – in over 90% of all cases.

        And the constitution doesn’t afford a right for counsel at those later appeals, so the defendants are on their own. They can either hire an external appeals attorney, or try do it themselves. The point I was making is that appeals lawyers don’t come cheap. A simple contract case can end up costing over a quarter of a million, and this becomes a more complex case. Someone has to pay for all that stuff and a thousand here and a thousand there and pretty soon you’re talking real money. So maybe Jodi’s appeal fund has that kind of money – I don’t know, but what they have to be ready for is a real hefty sum.

        I did some research about pro bono type appeals. Again I don’t know if my impression is well founded but it seemed to me that most of the folks undertaking those cases seemed to work on cases where the client says he just didn’t do it, and someone has reason to believe them. This is a different case – Jodi says she killed TA. You only have one of two sides to that coin. Either she did it, and it wasn’t M1 (could be self defense or M2 or something) or she had nothing to do with it and committed perjury. Take your choice there is no third option. So in the case of a pro bono case the lawyer is either arguing that the jury just got it wrong, and was led there due to errors on the part of the court , or prosecutor or defense team(remember they can’t really argue the sufficiency of the evidence for the most part) or they have to find some procedural or other error/misconduct to show that Jodi’s testimony was coerced or something like that. But either way they are really arguing degree of culpability and not a complete case of – she just wasn’t there.

        So my point is that I wouldn’t hold my breath on this leading to some great wild success. In fact I would say that their best chance of success is probably in the first appeal on a lack of effective assistance of counsel basis. Heck the lawyers didn’t want to be there. And when forced they, not to put too fine a pint on it, fucked it up completely. I don’t know if that was intentional or not, but I think one could make a good case for it.

        So, unless they can shake something loose in the first appeal, or they have raised a butt load of money, I fear this case, like so many others, may just fade away into the dark mists of time.

        I would love to be proved wrong – because it would free someone who I feel was wrongly convicted of the charges brought against her, and it would revive my faith in our justice system.

    • Al, I’m soooo glad you’re back on this site. You were someone I really really missed. I wish we could connect outside of this site, actually. I don’t know if that would be okay with you, so I have never pressed the issue.

      I have some thoughts on your incredibly well presented argument above, but have very little time right now. I want to address a few things later, but we are in agreement.

      Thanks so much for coming back! I missed you.

  53. Al, it seems to me that Malware had the autopsy pics and that seems to be the only things the juries, especially the second, took any account of. It is not supposed to be decided on emotion, but he has given 24 people permanent nightmares.

    Do you know what Santiago case they were referring to in the Hernandez case when it came to the picture of the deceased and his mother not crying in court? I would like to learn as much as I can about that case.

    • I remain shocked that the autopsy photos were used and accepted into evidence. Autopsy photos are ALWAYS disgusting for anyone to look at. In any other state, those would have been considered far too prejudicial. Crime scene photos are a completely different story. But autopsy photos? I’m in shock.

      • I just came across BK, Scoopy and Jason when the jury was out nine hours. Scoopy agrees with me that the autopsy pics were the strongest evidence he had. She and Beth brought up the Alexscampsters’ trick of all getting up and walking out and how it would have been a mistrial in most other places. They said that JSS seemed to be very upset. Scoopy also brings up what the Hernandez judge said about how the mother couldn’t cry. It seems so irrational – this difference from state to state.

        • The thing is, having been a victim of trauma, I know all too well that you don’t react “normally” or, at least how the public expects you to react, and that’s especially the case when you’ve been through years and years of trauma and have become “accustomed” to it. The night my ex was arrested, I appeared cool as a cucumber. I videotaped him trying to kill me. (Oh, I set him up, didn’t I? That was thrown at me later by the way.) Admittedly, I was “ready” (as you can ever be) and knew he was going to kill me that night. He had told me that would happen. I had no other option than to try to make a record of it. I guess, in hindsight, I should have just let him kill me. That would have made me a more sympathetic victim — but I would have been dead, most likely. Instead, I’m alive today, 4 years later, talking about it. Would it have been better if he killed me and I was dead now? I’m honestly not sure. At least, then, he would have been found out. But I do kind of like being alive …

          So, having this video of him saying “I’m going to kill you right now,” standing over me, and he was twice my size, literally, that *still* wasn’t enough. I was way way way too calm, apparently, and I wasn’t emotional enough. (What’s enough?) I was videotaping him. I wasn’t in hysterics running out the door. Yeah, what good did that do me in the past? I was actually able to play the video to a sergeant, who arrested him, not just once, but three times. I was *that* calm. Does that mean I wasn’t in trauma? No, not at all. I’d been abused by this man so many times that I knew it was best to remain calm. Anything else fed him and I got worse abuse. Living with that for as many years as I did taught me a serious lesson.

          After he was arrested that night, a friend called me and went on and on about a personal situation she was in. I don’t remember much of what she said, if anything. I just knew she was in trauma and needed help, someone to talk to. I couldn’t give her that. I couldn’t even breathe. I called a different friend, someone religious (a terrible mistake because of the particulars of her experience, but I wasn’t thinking) and asked that person to call her. I just wanted to get her some help, and I couldn’t even speak without hyperventilating. But, can you even imagine if that person had been called to testify and what she would have said? I was waaaay too calm. I should have been hysterical, a mess, I guess.

          I recently witnessed another crime, nothing I had anything to do with, but one where someone in a parking lot was beat up by 4 people. I thought he was going to die as I looked at the situation. I thought they were killing him. I felt total panic, but I got a-hold of my emotions and I called 911. I didn’t know what else to do. I did know the victim a little, although we’re not exactly “friends.” He’s not the type to get in a bar fight. I’ve seen him out enough to know that. We were at the same bar that night; we’re both regulars there. We were all just trying to go home when he got beat up badly by 4 kids on drugs. I was one of several 911 callers. Apparently, I was too calm in my call about what occurred on that night so the victim must have instigated things, they say. I was calm enough to give the license plates of the perpetrators. I do become “calm” under stress. I feel it later, trust me. I fall apart long after the fact, delayed reaction. I don’t act “normal” when in trauma. And seeing that guy lay there being stomped on by 4 kids, oh yeah, it was total trauma to me. But I went somewhere else in my mind. I didn’t react “normally.” I wanted to do a headstand, anything, just something else. I haven’t yet been called to testify, but what I said above, that’s what has been said in 2 other plea bargain hearings. Now, there are the other 2 and they have lawyers.

          My ex taught me not to react. He taught me to be calm under duress. Now, it isn’t just hurting me, it’s hurting other people.

          • You were conditioned, and you might already have a cool temperament. I’ve known people who are easily flustered by small things. But when you see them in an emergency, they are heroes. An internal calm under pressure is probably a quality abusers seek in victims. People who have this temperament try to find a way to cope effectively with tough situations, not escalate them.

          • Wow, we’re here for you StillOutThere! I imagine you move mountains. I hope you find a way to move a mountain for Jodi!

      • They always let them in. The defense always argues about the prejudicial nature. The state always claims they are probative, and every court in this country let’s at least some subset of them in. Just the way it is.

        Everyone knows there is only one reason to get them in – shock. But they do and that’s the way it is.

  54. Many of the reporters are not very thoughtful, because they fail to comprehend that the rules in place insisting upon unanimity are stringent for a reason.

    The creators of the law certainly forseaw the problems of bullying, peer pressure, aliances, and bad judgment.

    I read that William Pitt ( although he said apparently everything juror#17 said and did is LEGAL), he did not understand why the judge didn’ t replace her because according to the eleven jurors, juror #17 did not deliberate.

    Here is the answer William Pitt: Because it only takes one person to affect the ultimate outcome for a very important reason. It is the ultimate safeguard of freedom and justice.

    Any time a group of jurors wishes to force a verdict they can make up facts and reasons, contort facts and reasons, similarly excuses etc., to procure the outcome of THEIR agenda.

    Doing so, and heaven forbid, succeeding in carrying out their agenda by tampering with the composition of the jury, is very simply CHEATING.
    It is like winning a card game because the cheaters made sure an essential card was left out so that a predetermined outcome was inevitable.

    There is no doubt that juror #17 deliberated: she has ears! She heard the arguments the eleven offered. The law says a juror does not have to justify or provide a rationale for her decision. As even Mark Eirglish ( sic) said, just because the woman might not have the oratory skills of Abraham Lincoln, does not mean what she does say is insufficient.

    Allowing a jury to substitute another juror, is to make a mockery of one of the most delicate processes that are instrumental in providing the checks and balances that prevent an individual from being the prey of intentional or arbitrary tyranny.

    The only one responsible for not checking into the situation is Juan Martinez. He knew a person could possibly be related to a person he prosecuted. It is disingenuous to suppose that Juan Martinez had no awareness of the possibilty.

    Indeed, there are ways such a relationship could have been to Martinez’s advantadge.

    Juror #17 was never required by law to mention Martinez. She never knew she had to, and there is nothing unethical about her not mentioning, it, and she might not even had realized that he was the prosecutor.

    Juan Martinez thrives through his use of devious tactics. He tries to force people to distort their answers into his yes/ no format. He slyly chooses specific words to force an answer into the grooves he cut. He corals discussions into ultra- compartmentalized fractions divorced from context, or designed to support prefabricated contexts of his designing, and all with the absolute intention to manipulate the proceedings to fit his agenda.

    Juror #17, is not required to anticipate what lawyers may want to know. It is entirely incumbent upon the lawyers to decide what they want to know and ask it.

    Time after time Martinez would insist that the person questioned only answer specifically what he was asked.

    In fact, that tactic served him well when Deanna Reid, in more than one instance relied upon contorted semantics, hair- splitting, and parsing of words, to tell untruths. I think Deanna Reid even smugly stated that she only answered according to how the defense team worded their question, even though she knew full well the questions’ import and the misleading, disingenuous implications of the sly answers she gave. And she did this even before trial, and had she answered ethically, and without an agenda, the entire investigation and trial would have proceeded very differently.

    I truly believe juror #17’s sole intention was to fairly assess the mitigating factors, and she did. She had no wish to seek revenge. The eleven juror ‘death squad’ were the one’s seeking revenge. They admitted that they despised the defense lawyers.

    The eleven jurors were profoundly unethical in stating their belief that Jodi Arias is a psychopath, when even the prosecutor’s psychologist determined that Jodi is NOT a psychopath. And obviously the eleven’s unfounded contention that Arias is a psychopathic, factored heavily in their wish to have her murdered by the state.

    Now the yellow journalists can promote themselves with their unwarranted outrage, and further inflict harm on innocent, well- intentioned people.

    Nancy Grace is a disgrace. Has she ever cared one bit about the extreme harm she causes to Jodi’s family?

    • I would like to know how many people on that jury are Mormons. I know 11 of the 12 are Morons, but I think there had to be a bunch of LDS.

      • I heard one woman in the interview say she was and there was the young mormon convert that looked like a country boy during selection – so two for sure that I know of.

      • Tonysam, only one owned up to being LDS, and she said she wasn’t active. I don’t know where you live (what part of the world), but after listening to a bit of the local radio in AZ, I really felt like I could NEVER live there. Talk about the wild wild west. I grew up in Europe, so it’s a completely different mentality. But you’d think I’d been here long enough (30 years) to understand to some degree? Nope. I was lost.

        • I live in Oregon now, where there are few LDS. I did live in Nevada, which borders on Utah in the east, and I can tell you there are plenty of Mormons. Both US senators, Reid and Heller, are LDS. Now I don’t want to paint all Mormons as being big on the death penalty, but you will find a lot of sentiment in its favor among Mormons, much greater than the general population. Couple that with the church’s medieval attitude toward women, and it is no wonder Jodi Arias is vilified.

          Another thing I have heard about LDS is how important it is to protect the group and one of their own. It is cultlike in that respect.The reason Jodi told that stupid story to the police about invaders was not so much to protect herself as it was about protecting Travis. It is the identical reason TA’s friends and associates came up with the equally stupid story about the reason Jodi killed him was she was this crazed stalker who was jealous he was going to Cancun with another woman.

          The LDS presence is the 800-ton gorilla in the middle of the room, and virtually everybody ignores the cultlike atmosphere of the LDS. People can get mad at the defense over this or that, but the fact is there are sociological factors at play, like the OJ Simpson murder trial, that make any other outcome impossible.

    • Thank you Amy. I listened to the jurors RIGHT after they left the court room. The hold out juror DID deliberate. She stopped, after several days, and I don’t blame her for that. By then, she was being essentially bullied to change her own moral opinion.

      But she did deliberate initially. In fact, one of the other jurors said she asked them to look at Jodi’s journals. She even said that she saw PARTS of the Lifetime movie (please note the “parts” emphasis — she never said she watched it all) and that to her, in HER opinion, Jodi wasn’t the monster portrayed in the movie which she EXPECTED to see. Did she go into that jury expecting to see some really dreadful person that she was ready and willing to put to death? It sounds like it to me. But after hearing evidence, she gradually changed her opinion. Isn’t that what our justice system is about? If not that, what?

      • Apparently these morons believe the definition of ‘not deliberating’ is not agreeing with their point of view. I bet that poor woman shut down after a while because nobody was bothering to listen to her. They were going to bully her into seeing it their way and decided she didn’t deserve to be listened to since there were eleven of them and only one of her. Same mentality we encountered in the general population.

    • Bravo !! Bravo !! Amy, simply brilliant post and couldn’t agree more with each and everything you stated ! Music to my ears 🙂

    • I have liked you for a long time now, CanadaCarol, but did you have to put me through that? I know you apologized and all, but really, is that enough? I think I need you to get on your knees and beg me for your forgiveness. Actually, no, I think you deserve the death penalty for making me watch that. I can’t think of any other just punishment for you. Can you?

      Well, you didn’t “make” me watch it, but really, you posted it, so I had to. I mean (very sarcastically) what punishment is it if Jodi spends 25 years in prison and then gets out? She killed a man. She was on her way to becoming a serial killer and will become one if she gets out in her early 50s. She will have her whole life ahead of her at that point (if she gets parole, if she gets life WITH parole, which hasn’t yet been determined). How how how could you not want her to get the death penalty? What is wrong with you CanadaCarol?

      (I hope you know this entire post is tongue-in-cheek nasty, not serious, CanadaCarol. Sorry to make you “my” victim. I’ve been here since the beginning and we have chatted back and forth many the time, although you may not realize that (thanks SJ). I’m trying “hard” to adopt the mentality of so many out there. I can’t do it well, because it’s just not “me,” but it was an experiment to show the insanity out there. I actually like you a LOT, girl. Pardon me, please.)

        • NOOOO! Stand up. You are amazing. This clip was beyond ridiculous.

          Dear God (that I don’t even believe in but others here do sorry), I don’t even know how to say this, but this vilification just HAS to stop. Or, our world will become even more chaotic. If you’re up there, please please let your presence be known.

    • Carol, thank you for posting this clip (except NAG 🙁 ) but anyway, this juror #4 perfectly illustrates the blood lust this jury had to kill Jodi….he was sooooooo upset bc he they tried sooooooo long to convince/persuade juror #17 to kill Jodi and he is just sooooo upset that he didn’t get his kill which literally what those 11 people decided to do….their decision was NOT a recommendation but was binding…or did they not know that?? and if they knew that then they all need to admit that they were fully prepared to kill….IMHO

      • The worst part is that these jurors were wanting to kill Jodi to appease the filthy family. Why that pack of sniveling phonies was allowed to interact in that manner during the trial should be enough for an appeal and that includes the original murder trial.

      • I felt the same way as you did…Juror #4 trying to put it out there that Juror #17 had an agenda…and after watching what was said the last few days, it sounds obvious to me that Juror #4 and the other Jurors had the agenda all along…

        If those jurors had really looked at the evidence they would have seen that it didn’t warrant the death penalty…More than likely those jurors just glanced at the evidence and then deliberately took a few days to convince everyone in the social media that was watching that they were looking at the evidence…when all along those jurors had the agenda before hand to vote for the death penalty…

        Those jurors hadn’t realized that Juror #17 was really going to look at the evidence thoroughly and not feel that Jodi should get the death penalty…and that is what upsets those jurors the most…they didn’t win…they thought they had all the jurors in their hands to vote the death penalty…and it looks like it really upset Juror #4 and the other jurors when they didn’t get their way…those jurors reminded me of the blood thirsty evil people on hunger games…

  55. So, I just watched a bit of the juror interviews that will air tonight. First time they put their faces out there, apparently. Sure, it won’t be the last. I’m trying to get ready to go out and have fun tonight, but I yelled out AAAAAAARGH!

    Sure, jurors are entitled to their opinion, but do they really have to give interview, after interview? But the one who ANNOYED me in the presser after they were released, annoyed me even further on this “preview” and now, I got to see her face and damn it, she’s a highlighted blonde, as am I, but I am not as “dumb” as she comes across. I know, this doesn’t make sense, but I hate that it stereotypes further the “dumb blonde” stuff”. She was the stupid one who mentioned “biasness.” Aaaargh! I can NOT handle stupidity.

    STFU. I am sooo over this. Sorry, I had to let some anger out. Get your 15 mins of fame, jurors. Write your books. But then, stop talking because you don’t have a CLUE about domestic violence. YOU, fame whoring jurors (which you are, sorry), YOU put us through hell and YOU are despicable, and I mean you, Ms. Big Mouth Juror. And I don’t even know Jodi or her family or the Alexanders or their family. I just know that you have NOT helped in any way, shape or form, and you haven’t helped any of us.

    Okay, vent over!

    • Sad thing is, she’s typical of all those on the hater sites and the worst twit twatters. This juror and the other ten we well aware of the public sentiment (manufactured early on by media) that Jodi was guilty no matter what, and were pre-disposed to vote Death before they even entered the jury room. Brainwashed by media, cowards who cannot use critical thinking to buck the zombies.

    • Hear!! Hear!! $$$$$$ dollar signs dancing in their air heads and they are all too stupid to realize that there but for the grace of God go I…….these types apparently will never understand until it happens to them or to one of their loved ones….their actions show that they have no true understanding of domestic violence except juror #17 who had been abused herself……

  56. Someone was wondering that if Jodi got a new trial would she face the death penalty again. I just listened to an interview with Mike Watkiss and Jason Lamm, and according to Lamm, she wouldn’t. It would be life. My post with the link went poof.

  57. They are saying over on the other sites that only 6 copies of the list of the jurors names existed – judge, 2 court aides, court reporter, prosecution, defense…..each got 1 copy

    • And do they also believe that there are no copy machines in the state of Arizona?

      Obviously a person or persons failed to guard their copy as carefully as they should have.

      • And that person might have deliberately stepped away for someone to look at the copies…

        Do you remember during the first trial, when it was break time, the azcentral would go blank, well during this one day at break time, the screen didn’t go blank, and one of the reporters or some guy was looking at the crime scene pictures on the overhead projector and it was actually showing them on screen…and we, the tv viewing audience was getting views of pictures that should not be airing, because only a few people were in the courtroom during the recess…after a few minutes, when it was discovered, someone immediately turned off the projector and tv screen and we didn’t see more of the photos…then court resumed later after the recess and no one mentioned that HUGE mistake at all…

        • And I forgot to say….I believe that was done INTENTIONAL by that unknown person for the tv viewers to see the crime scene photos…agendas….agendas…and more agendas…they have used this strategy since day one…

            • Not saying that there wasn’t an agenda, because IMO there was no reason the public ever needed to see those pictures.

              But that wasn’t a reporter acting alone doing something sneaky. That was a prearranged segment over which there were no doubt hearings and arguments and the judge allowed it.

              The idea was that a few stations were carrying the trial live, and that some (or all) of the photos being published to the jury that day were not appropriate for live, daytime television. So it was agreed that the pool camera would not record those photos as they were published to the jury. But it was also decided that the media WOULD have access to those photos, so they set up this private viewing during recess.

  58. Somewhere earlier up I saw this comment about the Alexanders and their cohort walking out. Of course its sort of moot now because that phase ended in a mistrial in any case. However, when I was looking into appeals on such cases I found that the supreme court says that it’s definitely an issue when it’s State sponsored. In the case of the public it’s still on a case by case basis. However they did say that demonstrations that lead to the case becoming a sham are definitely not OK. But that led me to another though, something we had discussed here almost 2 years ago, and that had to do with the publicity in this case.

    It seems to me that every so often a case comes along, where the media influence becomes an issue. It also seems like these cases line up with advances in media access and at least one of them gets overturned along the line that then sets up the boundaries that need to be followed. So when print news became timely, they had case where they felt the newspapers had undue influence, and the same for radio, and TV, and each of these led to courts crafting safeguards.

    Now I don’t personally indulge in Twitter, or Facebook, or any of those other high fangled communication schemes. Heck I don’t even send texts – when the kids send me one I just call them back. But it would seem that in this case there seemed to be an inordinate amount of social media chatter. Everyone now becomes a journalist, hiding behind the 1st amendment and saying whatever they please with no thought to the consequence. Even the professional “reporters” seem to have taken to off the cuff opining. And the real time dissemination of this stuff seems to have led to intimidation of witnesses, attorneys, possibly jurors and who knows what else. I wonder if somewhere in there one has an argument for the inability to get a fair trial I know on the face of it , it seems like an obvious and valid point – but how the Appeals Courts view that is what I have to wonder about.

    • Yeah.

      Ever since social media was used to launch a campaign of witness intimidation on a HUGELY unprecedented scale, I’ve thought THAT would be the issue that would make this case SCOTUS material. Because something’s gotta be done, and FAST.

      This can’t be allowed to continue are we’re all headed for hell in a hand basket.

      • I suspect you may be right. I remember discussing this with a person who went by the moniker “Also Abused” here a couple of years ago.

    • Having this case go to the Supreme Court would be ideal. Putting everything else aside and focusing on Social Media including television programs devoted to ‘amateur evaluations’ of everything from evidence to experts would be really good for the US Justice System, and it would potentially protect others who will be on trial in the future from having to endure the onslaught of media propaganda and all that goes with it.
      And, perhaps it would be the quickest route.

    • You should take a look at the Alyce LaViolette talk which was recently posted here. She talks in part about all of the death threats leveled at her on the internet. The cyberbullying played a HUGE role here in Jodi’s wrongful conviction.

      This is the type of case that could break new ground.

  59. Moving on to a completely different topic from judges and juries and lawyers and such.

    So I’m and old time hippie (anyone notice my taste in music?). My wife feeds all the local critters, we have even been putting out dog food for a fox that seems to have hurt its leg. I could absolutely empathize with the kid when she was in the dumps when a bird flew into the window pane and broke its neck. So that’s where we come from.

    Every once in a while, I’ve looked at these tweets (BTW I really must thank Pandora and Maria and all the others who copied those onto this page so we wouldn’t have to go get them). And I’m mystified by the venom being cast out there by people. OK I understand that we are a country based on the ethos of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. And so in some way I can say, OK the Alexander’s lost a brother. I’m not going to gauge their relationship because I don’t know. And if their credo demands that a death be avenged by death then that is it – I don’t agree with it, but it’s the law, and if their intrinsic makeup demands that end result, so be it. But what’s with all these people on the internet calling for the death penalty – not just calling for it but doing so in crude and vituperative terms. I refuse to believe they all knew TA and felt some sudden, grievous personal loss at his passing. So if its driven by the abhorrence of homicide how the heck do they reconcile that abject abhorrence with demanding another homicide? And to do it in the manner that they do is almost archaically barbaric. It’s sort of the 21st century equivalent of the crowds gathering around the public square for the burning of the witch or the local torture, hanging and quartering.

    I wonder how these folks justify this. Obviously they do, and for them its OK. But if you were to read some of the venom out there it makes one question the sanity of our fellow humans. I mean here’s a young woman you don’t know, and a young man you don’t know. One killed the other, for whatever reason. Happens every day, all across the country. What would drive one to be so actively involved in seeking vengeance in this almost vitriolic manner?

    How the heck can one carry that much anger inside of themselves? Its got to chew you up mentally, spiritually and I suspect physically.

    Brings to mind a couple of verses from some really cool Grateful Dead songs. From Uncle John’s Band we have:

    “Ain’t no time to hate,
    Barely time to wait.
    What I want to know – where does the time go”?

    and from Franklin’s Tower:

    “Whichever way your pleasure tends,
    You plant ice, you’re going to harvest wind”.

    • Al, I know!! That is what bothers me, you said it so well. I am also from the Peace Love age (when my sons describe me they say I am an old hippie 🙂 What happened to those days when we thought Love would change the world? Seeing how people jump on this kinda hate bandwagon and the media feeding it is so very scary to me.

  60. Thanks for being good company tonight folks, since I was alone. The wife and daughter went to some classical music recital. And the “beast” claims he was emotionally blackmailed into going along, though I suspect he misses Mom and Sis being away from home for the first time.

    But it’s time for this old dude to go curl up with a good book and gently drift off.

    Good night and God Bless.

  61. Personally, I don’t think juries should have a right to make any decision about a whether a defendant should live or die, it’s just to much responsibility. That juror had every right to vote the way she wanted, and she does not owe anybody an explanation, for whatever her reasons were, she stood her ground, and that says allot….

    • Really Kone,
      What’s so wrong in her standing her ground and the other 11 standing their’s?
      They didn’t deliberate??
      The way people are acting about this is very inhumane!!!

  62. I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to catch up yesterday….anyone know what civil case jodi is involved in. Is it the bs lawsuit by family

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Latest News

Go to Top