The following is an excerpt from the chapter The 17th Juror:
Claudia claimed she didn’t remember Martinez from her first husband’s trial. Do you believe that? Here’s what she said during Excerpt 4 of her interview with Brahm Resnik from 12news.com:
“No, I didn’t… I… I honestly when I saw the name come up, when I saw it on social media and that link, like I didn’t… I don’t… I didn’t remember him. I, um… “
“I wanna say that I saw it… I’m not sure if I saw it Friday” [meaning after the conclusion of trial]…
Resnick seems surprised 17 wasn’t aware of who he was. 17 tries to explain herself but starts stuttering and then goes all over the place:
“I didn’t remember that he did, if you know like… I saw that it was there and when I walked into the courtroom and I saw him at the initial jury selection, the only time that… the only memory that I have of recognizing him is from TV. Nothing beyond that. Nothing like past that. You know, my husband, my husband, my ex-husband got out of jail in ’99… no I’m sorry, in 2000. And then he ended up, our relationship was you know very tumultuous. We got married in 2001, not in 2000, the date that’s being circulated. It was in 2001. And it just like, I mean… I didn’t remember him. I don’t want to say that I didn’t know him because now I don’t know, you know… I just know when I walked into the courtroom, I recognized him from TV.”
Is she telling the truth? One of the tell-tale signs of a dissembler is giving extraneous information when asked a simple question, and here Claudia gives a whole lot of extraneous information. She does the exact same thing when interviewed asked about whether she watched the Lifetime made-for-television movie [Dirty Little Secret] which we’ll get to in a moment.
As discussed in an earlier chapter, Juan did move to strike this juror during voir dire, but his request was denied. Prior to seating her on the jury, Judge Stephens asked 17:
Judge: “Is it your position then that you can separate what’s happened in your personal life and decide this case only on the evidence and the law that you hear, in this case?”
Juror 17: “Yes”
Did 17 actually do that? Did she make a decision based on her own life or Jodi’s? I don’t know about you but I don’t think she put her biases aside. Here’s what she has to say in Excerpt 6:
“I think that she looked a little more human to me just by her journal writings. I mean what she did was horrific so that was always there. That was always at the back of my mind. So as much as you want to… I mean I never understood what would drive her to do that to somebody that she really loved, um, but I really did try to, I really did try to not like dwell too much personally… like try to look at everything objectively and impartial. I felt that Dr. Geffner and Dr. Fonseca, um, I felt that they, you know, I believed that they proved a lot of the mitigating factors which was what they said that you know how it started out what they were going to show, I feel that they did. They showed breakdown. They basically, you know, broke down her life. And you see, you know, you can see the gradual deterioration. You know, you can see her dedication and her deterioration. And one of the things that Mr. Martinez said that kind of stood out, um, was that she loved too much.”
It’s interesting to me that of all the things Juan has said about Jodi throughout the trial, this is the one thing that she chooses to mention – Jodi loved too much. And also that Jodi exhibited dedication? Did she really? To who, other than herself? It’s truly mind-boggling to me that of all the hideous qualities Jodi exhibited, these are the two that resonated most with this juror.
“If I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty.”
Yes Jodi, and that’s what you deserve. But what does 17 think? Resnik asks her what punishment she would have wanted if Travis Alexander had been her son. This question interrogates whether or not Claudia was never really qualified to be seated on a death penalty case.
“I would want for that person to be punished.”
Resnick pushes the point – would you want for that person to die?…
MENDACITY: Jodi Arias: Secret Witness is available now on Amazon
2 Replies to “An Excerpt from MENDACITY: Jodi Arias: Secret Witness”
Nothing juror 17 says makes sense nor does it reflect an authentic voice or truth. She isn’t under interrogation yet she stutters, jerks, retracts and never appears to believe what she is saying.
To say she isn’t telling the truth is the least of it, she gives every impression that she is making up things as she goes because these questions were not in her ‘script’. Even she does not believe her explanations/excuses.
You have done a wonderful job of pointing out the nuances and verbiage which belie the story she is trying to feed those who see deception in her every word.
Juror 17 is a complete fraud. I heard her during jury selection and she sounded so uneducated in her responses to Juan’s questions. She said she “provided more information than the juror questionnaire asked for) that’s deceit right there. As a fraud examiner here’s a tip. When someone answers questions you haven’t asked. That’s a red flag. Deliberately providing more on her questionnaire would have caught my attention. Red flag
She claimed she watched “parts of the movie) but somehow just from “parts” she could tell Jodi wasn’t a monster like in the movie? Red flag
Both of her husbands are felons and she had no idea that Juan prosecuted her husband? That’s a lie. He’s kinda hard to miss and impossible to forget. She stuttered and stammered through that TV interview horribly. She wanted her revenge on Juan. It was her moment. All she did is hurt the Alexander’s. Nice legacy. I wonder if she knows it was a Jodi supporter who leaked her information. Read Jodi’s first letter from prison. She mentions this person. They probably hoped leaking 17’s information would be blamed on Juan. That backfired