More Arias Juror 17 Revelations



There are far more certainties than mysteries in the Travis Alexander homicide.

For example, it’s known that Jodi Arias murdered Travis Alexander in cold blood, that she spent a considerable amount of time planning and executing the homicide and covering it up.  She in fact spent years obfuscating her crime with a variety of tall tales.  Jodi Arias will spend the rest of her life in prison for this crime.  These are facts.


They had a tumultuous relationship; that’s a fact.  Travis was ambivalent about it but remained to some degree involved with her; another fact.  This trial costs Arizona taxpayers, of which I am one, millions of dollars; another fact.  Avoiding the death penalty, she saves AZ and Federal taxpayers more millions of dollars; yet another fact.

There are a few mysteries left.  Did Travis know she came to his home that night to kill him?  Where did she dump her weapons? What was the killer intending to do with the gun she had hidden in her rental car when she was arrested?  Where/how did she dye her hair enroute on her murder trip?

And now one more has been added to that short list.


Why did Juror 17 lie to get on that jury before refusing to effectively deliberate, thus saving Jodi Arias from the Death Penalty?

With new information coming to light this weekend, I’ve formed a distinct opinion which is that Juror 17 in the Jodi Arias retrial was, by definition, a stealth juror.

A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome.

(that’s actually an interesting wikipedia: read here )


Once it was uncovered after she single handedly hung the sentencing retrial jury, that the flamboyant prosecutor Juan Martinez had actually prosecuted her first husband and sent him to prison, the alarm bells started blaring in my head.


There was discussion online whether this revealed something about that juror and her disclosure prior to being seated.  What questions were asked of her, was she lying by omission or flat out lying or confused about the questioning process?


Now it’s clear, she was flat out lying but the question is why?  And the second question is, what charges are going to be filed against her for lying to get on a high profile trial? 

Of course since the scales of injustice always swing toward murderers defendants, this will bear no consequence to the lying conniving butcher Jodi Arias who benefited by this stealth juror’s agenda.  I also know that if Jodi had in fact been sentenced to death and some kind of egregious juror misconduct like this were uncovered after the fact, it not only would be appealed on ad to the point of nauseum but, she’d likely be afforded a new trial over it.

Close-up of the number 17 in red paint

I was once interviewed for the prospect of jury duty in the very courthouse where Jodi Arias was tried.  I did my duty on that rainy morning, took the day off work, drove downtown, found parking and walked in the rain in to the “holding room” and waited waited waited.  My name was called to appear in a courtroom.  It was a sex crime. I was shuttled in to the jury box with 11 others to be questioned in voir dire about my possibility to serve.


Now let’s be clear on something right now.  I will never serve on a jury where a victim of any kind is involved.  I’m biased and I know it. I don’t consider this any kind of character flaw or something to be ashamed of or “worked on”.  It’s in my makeup now after having navigated the system as a victim for over 25 years now.  I have zero objectivity and I’m ok with that.  I would be a great juror for the State and a terrible juror for the defense.  Let me just say it, as a natural leader I’d be a great foreperson but with no objectivity whatsoever.  Your basic nightmare. I’d never try and pass myself as anything other than I am.  A biased victim in the system who knows some things and one thing I know is that is NOT easy to convict an obviously guilty person.


The Judge opened the questioning by going through all of the players–starting with himself–asking us to raise a hand if we knew anyone in the courtroom.  When he got to the prosecutor I’d already eyeballed her and smiled inside.  I remembered a weekend a few months prior where we had worked on a team together–a team remodeling another prosecutor’s bathroom.  In fact it was our prosecutor Cathy Hughes.

Remember when that show Trading Spaces was in full swing?  Well Cathy and I cooked up a plan one night to do a fast inexpensive redo on her guest bath and we had an absolute ball.  She gave us $800 I believe and we added wainscoting, paint, a new sink, a corner cabinet, lighting and a new mirror. She assembled a team of her friends and about 5 or 6 of us participated over a long weekend. It was a blast.


And close quarters as we took turns moving in and out of that small space performing our various tasks.

I looked to the prosecution table and there was Jeanette–one of the women on that team. I remember her well because she was a bit bossy and got in an argument with another defense attorney over something like what tool to use for what.  I found it all pretty funny and entertaining and I’ll never forget her.


“Do any of you know the prosecutor?” he asked and my hand shot right up.

The Judge looked at me with surprise like “oh really?” and I’m not sure Jeanette even recognized me.

“How do you know the prosecutor?” he queried.

“I did a Trading Spaces remodel on another prosecutor’s bathroom awhile back and she was part of the team”.


(I still find that moment funny)

I don’t know how he kept a straight face and I did note a twinkle in his eye as he released me.  I think I heard a few sighs as I slipped out the door being set free.

And I took that rainy day to go to the movies.

In all seriousness, had it gotten past that phase I would have honestly admitted that I have no objectivity in a trial where a victim is involved because of my extensive past with the judicial system and violent crime. That I would not naturally be able to objectively consider the defense’s case and that’s just the truth.  The unabashed and unashamed truth.


As I’d gone through that process myself in that very courthouse I was familiar with the protocol and was very suspicious of Juror 17.  How could she not have raised her hand when asked if she knew the prosecutor and he was the very person who sent her first husband to prison?  Let’s face it, Juan Martinez no shrinking violet.  The fierceness which blasts from his diminutive stature alone is memorable.  Plus he’s been in the news for years on this trial. How could she not remember him?  Or claim she didn’t “know” him?


(I ran in to him in the airport after the trial and we had a nice visit.  He’s always been very friendly and supportive to me.  Trust me, I was not the only person who recognized him either)

She did not raise her hand because she was lying, I believe. She did not do what any reasonable person in her circumstance would do that day; any reasonable honest person I mean.  Instead, she chose to stay mute.


It has now come to light that this initial questioning “do you know the prosecutor?” was not only asked but there is video confirmation it was asked.

“I see no show of hands” Judge Stevens confirms as this stealth juror sat there in silence, hands down by her body, withholding this secret, thinking/feeling what?


(this poster was created by @jodimindtricks on twitter and I handed a poster style quality copy of it to Juan Martinez the day he handed down his closing argument in the first trial- he loved it)

Juror 17 chose to remain on that arduous jury for months and she chose to refuse to actually openly and actively participate with her fellow jurors when the time came down to get busy.


The question remains:  why?

What was in it for her?  What is in it for her?

I think simple revenge is just that:  a simplistic answer.

I have some forming opinions that relate to co-dependence, manipulation, women who are drawn to felons (she has married two of them we know) and opportunism.  I will keep those to myself for now, until more information may come to light in the coming weeks and months.


What I know for sure is an investigation is demanded and a consequence is in order. If she gets away with this unchecked and unexplained then this adds another rotten cherry to the top of the shit sundae of the Arias trial.  Not to mention the message it sends to other potential agenda’d jurors.  And we paid for it. All of us taxpayers here in Arizona paid for every last dime of it, including the paltry per diem this stealth juror received at our expense.

This isn’t some John Grisham novel–this is real life and my (and your) real money.  Real victims, real murder, real abuse of the system.

She’s made her own mess.  As I addressed in my open letter, she has created an interesting consequence of her own.  It will become a secret in her life, one that was extremely traumatizing to her fellow jurors and I suspect her, that she won’t easily be able to talk openly about.  Ever.


The rest of her peers will be able to openly speak to their friends/family/coworkers/reporters about their experience on this arduous jury over all those months. The frustration, the agony, the PTSD they are still suffering from those images and having to confront evil like that month after month.


Juror 17‘s land of opportunities to process all of this are very very slim.

Then again, she will have Maria De La Rosa, Kirk Nurmi, Jennifer Willmott, one local reporter who championed for Arias and of course the murderess herself should she need a shoulder to cry on.

Good luck with that Juror 17.


I will say this, if anyone pays her one red cent for any interview or even one word as apparently her felonious husband has been requesting, there will be a consequence.

Even if it’s just right here on this blog spouting my opinions for victims, true victims everywhere, this will not go unchecked.  Before anyone has a cow, my only weapon is my keyboard but I do use it with abandon when it’s a cause I feel passionately about.  Usually this is related to how victims are treated-at least that’s my cause for now.


I look forward to hearing more about what’s been done about this assault to the jury system in my County.  The place I live and work and expect to be protected and safe.

I guess she’s going public with an interview tonight on my local news.  I’ll be setting my DVR with interest.  I’m suspicious for sure.  I’m sure she’s lawyered up.  I’m sure she has some after-the-fact bullshit explanation. I’m curious about who her lawyer is–if it’s a certain entertainment lawyer who’s been following this case, then all bets are off.

And I’ll be curious about who is interviewing her too.  Lots of weird stuff with certain local reporters with one at the helm of that Nasty Ship of Fools.

Lots of certainties in this trial and to that list, Jodi Arias and her supporters were not devoid of local media support.

I’m keeping my eye on that too.


If We the People who are paying to keep our communities just and safe lose the ability to speak out about it…well, let’s just say we’re not going to.  Lose that ability.  At least I’m not.




31 thoughts on “More Arias Juror 17 Revelations

  1. Before anyone has a cow, my only weapon is my keyboard but I do use it with abandon when it’s a cause I feel passionately about. (respectfully snipped from your amazing post above).

    Thank You Kathy for all of your blog posts, Twitter posts, WS posts etc. You’re a true victim advocate. I’m so proud of you I may just pass on this interview (I’m in WI) although it may not even be available to me here. I will await your feedback and critique. I’ve never been disappointed in your great talent as a writer.

    God Bless You Our Kathy ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

  2. spellbound4

    Looking forward to your review of this juror’s interview tonight. Thank you so much for being our Bad-Ass Gal! Someone has to do it..

  3. Nancy B

    Tonight Juror # 17 will be interviewed on ABC 12 @ 10PM
    I find it especially disturbing that several media reports have stated that no wrong-doing has been elicited from the court’s investigation thus far. These vague reports seem to indicate that the court’s investigation has been completed; which is a stunning conclusion, that I will never buy. The above video is proof positive of her lack of candor and that it was calculated, IMO.

  4. Suzie

    Amazing as always. If Juror #17 isn’t investigated to the FULLEST then there is a bigger conspiracy than we think. The voir dire in and of itself is proof positive that she wanted on that jury for a reason. She needs to suffer the consequences of denying the tax payers of Arizona, and the Alexanders, a true a just conclusion to this farce of a trial. And I for one hope it happens.

  5. I was able to take a look at her facebook page prior to her taking it down. She was active on facebook during the trial because she posted pics, commented, etc just from what I was able to see on her public posts and the dates of those. She had ‘liked’ and unusually large amount of news channels. We know when we “like’ something on facebook, the likelihood of it coming through our newsfeed is great. If we check ‘notify me’ on the same box we check ‘like’ …all their posts will come through our newsfeed.
    Seems when Det. Flores raised the concerns about finding out when she ‘liked’ some of these things..including…The Secret..etc etc…it was said it would take 2 weeks to find out that info. So its not been long enough for that to have taken place…..dont know how anyone could reach the conclusion she was not investigating, exposing herself to things she was told not to, etc during her time as a juror.
    Did she not look at her newsfeed during the trial? Because the news of the trial in her area would have been all over her newsfeed with those things ‘liked’.. When I turn on my facebook, it automatically goes to the newsfeed, instead of directly to my page.
    You would think since she chose to participate on facebook like she did, she would have gone through and unliked those things to prevent likely exposure.

    I love the way you write and how your mind works. Thank God for people like you who stand up for whats right.

  6. Gail

    Awesome post! I love your blog and your wisdom… I believe it is probably therapeutic for you to be able to express yourself through this blog, but believe me, you are helping a lot more people than just yourself get through a lot more than just this case… jmo… ❤ take care!

  7. berkshiregrl

    Your unique insight is especially valuable here. You know how the system works, which means you know the players and the moves.

    Although I live across the country I see through your eyes, the filter of common sense and the obvious acts of the manipulators, whether the manipulator is Jodi Arias, biased reporters or Juror # 17..

    What do we know? We know Juror 17 LIED. The only possible purpose of the lie was to get on the jury. There is no remotely reasonable reading of her actions that would permit the adjective “truthful” to apply to her recitation of her respective husbands history of felonious interactions with the AZ justice system.

    She had already been with her first husband for several years when he encountered the Maricopa country attorneys office, where Juan Martinez was involved in a case against hm, a case which included charges for several violent felonies, including 1st degree murder, the same charge that Jodi Arais was found guilty of and thus the same charge that was the underlying offense in the case Juror 17 was trying to become a juror on.

    So, you would need to ask, whether it can actually innocently happen that a prospective juror tells the story of her two husbands and their respective felony charges but somehow “forgets” the series of other violent felony charges that happened while she was with husband #1 and the fact that those felonies were being prosecuted by the prosecutor standing in front of her in court and that her husband was sentenced in connection with those crimes on the day after their marriage?

    The obvious, and only rational answer is, “No”. It is not credible. It did not happen. It was not innocent. And we can all easily see what DID happen. A prospective juror lied to get on the Jodi Arias penalty phase jury. That’s what happened.

    And if I were an AZ taxpayer I would be furious. And if I were an AZ resident who believed in a fair, transparent and honest justice system, I would be furious. And the fury extends beyond the state border but it is up to the people within the border to ensure this is not swept under the rug.

    I have watched this trial and retrial and the manipulative shenanigans of the defendant, her defense team, biased alleged “journalists”, a less than professional “mitigation specialist” and now the blatant malfeasance of Juror # 17.

    It is hard to take in. It is hard to accept the failures of the system we rely on for justice. But it is also imperative we do so.

    Many people, within and without the system, are invested in maintaining the illusion of fairness and justice and an unbiased system. But, hopefully, other people are equally invested in ferreting out the TRUTH.

    The trial, this retrial especially, was a travesty of justice. The constitution was cast aside by the trail judge to allow a convicted murderer to give secret testimony. Victims rights were cast aside to allow a liar continents away to submit testimony that could not be cross examined that accused the murdered victim of sensational, unsubstantiated and ridiculous charges that were clearly lies. The defense was held to no schedule and thus allowed to try and create mistrial by juror loss. And it goes on and on. It seems to never end.

    And now Juror #17 has been coached and prepped and will submit to a friendly fake “interview”. It really doesn’t matter what prepared lines she parrots. The truth is already there for all to see. It is merely a question of who can be bothered to look.

  8. visitor

    In all fairness, anyone could legitimately claim that when asked if you “know” someone, if you don’t know them personally (i.e. friends, neighbors, co-workers, someone you had personal conversation with), then the answer could be “no”. The question was not asked if they had ever “seen” the prosecutor before. Because even I would have to say yes to that, since I’ve seen him on TV and watched the trial. If you’ve ever been inside a courtroom, you’ve “seen” the judge, the attorneys on both sides, and maybe have some involvement with them, but you don’t technically “know” them.

    • I suspect that’s exactly the kind of semantics slicing and dicing we will hear from this juror. I’ll put it in perspective from my own experience. If I was asked for jury duty and the defense attorney was the attorney who defended my sister’s killer was defending the defendant and I was asked if I “knew” him according to your logic it would make sense to indicate that I did not. I don’t know him personally or work related or socially. But I spent very “loaded” time around him in a court of law so would naturally feel it my duty to disclose this. Naturally I would assume I was being asked that question as a first line to determine my level of objectivity related to my personal knowledge of any of the players. That assumption would be correct.
      I will respectfully disagree with your assertion being “in fairness” as I find it so far out of field it’s not even in the same territory.
      But thanks for reading and sharing.

      • visitor

        Your point is well taken. Just to clarify, I share your anger about the “cageyness” of J17 and think she should have never made the jury. Did she have a “moral” duty to contemplate her full history with the prosecutor? Yes. Did she legally “lie” about “knowing” him? Probably not. And because you get such wide assortment of characters in the jury pool, they really need to spell everything out in the clearest terms and they absolutely don’t. If they did, they would have a strong legal basis to charge someone like her because she couldn’t deny it. They left too much grey area. See, if JM or the judge or *someone* had spelled out the issue as clearly as you did for the “juror went wrong” post or the discussion above, it would be more effective.

        In legal matters, everything needs to be very precise. If we know that “not guilty” is not the same as “he didn’t do it”, why should “know” be the same as “have sufficient exposure such that I have an opinion”.? If that’s what they want, that’s what they should ask. In fact, they should ask a series of questions instead of just one, and not in a simple show of hands.

        Believe, me, I know how it looks like “splitting hairs”. But if you want to avoid this, they should tighten up the system.

        Can we at least agree that there was so much botched about the whole affair from start to finish?

      • pilcherje

        “loaded time” Such a perfect analogy.
        Not that far removed from ‘observing’ the actions and words of Nurmi, Willmott and Arias from the confines of my own home. It was enough to “know” their ideals are not representative of my character. In other words, I formed opinions, distasteful opinions during this “shit sundae” of a trial with Arias. Some words can’t be printed here, so I’ve stolen your opinion, it’s cleaner than mine. I’ve formed an opinion about Juan Martinez too, whom I have great respect. His quest for justice for an act that was/is unjust, is squarely up my alley.

        I don’t need to “know” any of them personally to form those opinions, I’ve “seen” them in action, I’ve heard their words. I don’t think I’d be far off the mark either to say…they’re the same in person as they are in their chosen professions and Arias – she’ll never be anything else than what she was to begin with, evil. I’ll never forget any of the players.

        I was objective about #17 in the beginning, too many questions. I was waiting for answers. The information highway was full of comments. None which were verifiable, with exception to documents regarding #17’s husbands…those were the only things that kept my suspicions on alert about #17. After listening to her interview, “People don’t even know me” – she’s right, I’ve never seen her…but I know her by her decision to remain as a prospective juror in spite of the events in her life surrounding her ex-husband, someone she had an invested interest in… and her ‘interests’ in crime shows, news and those involved. One she says she doesn’t recall from her own experience – Juan Martinez.

        That interview wasn’t an interview in the sense of relevant questions. But it did reveal #17’s hesitations in response to some innocuous questions. She ‘lied.’ That’s what my gut says. I wouldn’t have been questioning the odds of selection for the Arias penalty re-trial phase had I NOT been following the case. But #17 did. I’m awaiting further information. Whether there will be any fallout, legally, remains to be seen. I’d like to know if #17 attended her then soon to be husbands trial in front of Juan Martinez.

        To the “entertainment lawyer,” yes, he’s quite entertaining. Speaking of fools, I guess he forgot that he could have responded within his “TwitLonger” format in response to you…instead, I found his response distasteful in less than 140 characters. Funny how he always seemed to be in front of the cameras for an interview. And in 2014 – one of his TwitLonger comments caught my eye, I had saved his page – its when I suspected something about to unfurl regarding the death penalty and those involved with tabloid media…a picture with Arias comes to mind as does a personal ranting on and on about Juan Martinez with information being fed from the defense to that “wanna be” journalist #tabloidhack #killerlover. #FriendofZervakos. Even during the final phase.

        I know you Kathy by your words and actions through the Peterson trial and the Arias trial, your blog and FB, your words hit home. You know how I feel about your experience with Cindy and through our conversations. Finally, I had the pleasure of meeting you here in Seattle…you’re as down to earth as they come…and when something shakes the foundations you were built from, you rise with every ounce of integrity that I’ve come to know. Thank you for being you.
        xoxo ❤

      • spellbound4

        Very well said, Pilcherje. Thank you for sharing.

        (hope this goes with your Prost. If not,the I apologize in advance)

  9. Kat

    Besides your eloquent analysis of Juror #17 versus the State of AZ Justice System, I was reading along when suddenly appearing before my eyes was a faux jeweled number 17, my heart stopped for a brief second as lo and behold …..a knife and a gun. Goose bumps! Wow!!

    John Webster
    Chat Conversation Start
    May 2, 2014 10:59 am

    u fucking bitch u are laughing nw bt ill get the last laugh and u cn mark my words on that! u think jodi showed no remorse u havent seen shit yet cunt!

    • visitor

      “and u cn mark my words on that!”

      That sounds like he is channeling some other person who used the EXACT SAME PHRASE on TV… I wonder who… it was a female and she referred to being convicted by a jury….hmmm….. any clue? You have to go back a few years, it’s not contemporaneous but it is very PARRR ticular. And very de-edifying.

      • too funny. yes it was a parrticularily funny message.
        So much for Einstein. properly put she would dis edify him.
        Or when Juan was asking he about the day he was banging his head against the wall or bathroom cupboard doors and she said “I tentatively approached him” Juan says “tentatively?? but she doesn’t catch it. Not then and not PRIOR.

      • visitor

        I hate to get so off-topic, but now you have me wondering. What is the issue with “tentatively”? It seems to fit there if you use it as I imagine it which is “unsure, careful, hesitant”, etc. Can you help me out? Or, I should say, can you edify me? (Which is the CORRECT use of that term) 🙂 And please be contemporaneous.

      • you know to give you the exact statement she made in which she used that particular word, I’d have to go back prior and find it on the video again. However, if my fog is lifting, as I did just wake up, she had no hesitation ‘going quickly’ to his aid, to ameliorate the situation. Image, She goes running up the stairs concerned about what the banging is, finds him banging his head again hard surface says she wants him to stop so….. she “tentatively” approached him. So yes by your definition even, the word was a strange choice of verbiage.

      • feel free to go off topic visitor…no rules here except be nice to everyone and esp to/about victims. I too find this killer’s word choices so unusual . I chalk it up to the sociopath’s inability to truly feel normal human emotions so they are always mimicking and getting it wrong even if by a touch.

  11. visitor

    I don’t have a twitter, so I want to comment here to offer you guys a little chuckle for some relief going into the weekend. I made a note during the TV movie. In the morning “Jodi” tells “Travis”, “where are you taking me for breakfast?” and “Travis” is like “cocoa puffs are in the kitchen.” Oh, Snap!. You just *know* the producers threw that in there on purpose…. I wonder who caught it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s