Jims final response

Okay Jim,   You say that you checked your notes twice.  Maybe the foreman missed those two times. I bet they were Rivera saying I know my cars, and something about the uniform and the tag supposedly being torn off.  Those are two things the prosecution closed with.  Again, no checking notes for the defense, only for the prosecution.  Three hours of deliberation is ridiculous, and you were a part of that.  Live with it.  You really should read Dean's book, Four Years of Freedom; but you probably do not want to know the real person and family that you hurt.  Thanks for your communication with me. 

Jurors 1, 7 and 12

Going back over our notes from jurors, the consensus was that 1, 7, and 12, were sure Dean was guilty before they even stepped into deliberations, and they went about making sure everyone else went along with the program. Juror 1 made a big deal about Rivera saying "I know my cars". That is crazy. All Rivera knew was that it had stock wheels, and was a Blazer.  Did this juror remember the testimony, that in the first trial, Rivera said the Blazer was blue?  Did this juror number one put credit with this witness when he described the driver as looking just like Johnny Roy, and he had seen Roy later at a liquor store and recognized him?   Did juror number 1 ever ask how is it possible for 5 guys to get in a two door blazer, where a bloody crime has been committed and no blood of the victim ever got in it, and no fingerprints of the supposed 5 are in it either?  How does one clean a car of that, yet leave defendants' blood on the steering wheel, windshield, dash and outside door handle?  Did anyone in the jury ask that question? It's impossible.  Did anyone even suggest that Blazers are a popular vehicle and there could be 2 or 3 used by the gang?  Nope.  All these three did was walk in to deliberation and throw out things that the D.A. said for proof, and then say they just didn't believe Deans' story.  You aren't supposed to go with your emotions, but go on the facts, and spend time looking at both sides facts.  That takes days in a long trial.  No one did that.  They just let jurors 1, 7 and 12 lead the way to conviction.  No one stood up for Dean.  Women told us that they never saw the Blazer in the video, but the foreman said that all you needed to see was a likeness.  That was wrong.  If you do not see the Blazer, then it was not there.  We thought the whole jury had gone crazy, so we had an expert from NASA blow up the section of the video with the garage. They said" There is no vehicle there ...period"   The power of suggestion by the D.A. led those who wanted to convict see a "likeness".  How insane.
 Jim, you were a huge note taker, yet the foreman said that you never once went back and looked at your notes.  Again, bias walking in.  What was wrong with you?  What was wrong with the collective group?  Poor jurors, maybe what awaits them next life is worse than what awaits Dean.

Jim insists that he was a juror

Well Jim,
   I do not know how your memory is so different from the five that we have heard from.  Maybe you were in a daze too and now have created your own memory for your conscience.  It is confusing to me.  This brings me back again to how you got your info, and to please let me know any other  information that you got.  You now see the lies that we were up against.  The women may have been active during the trial, but in the jury room for three hours, they were not. They admitted that to us.
All of them told us about the "monster drink guy" and how he tried to be an authority on things he knew nothing about.  Why he had it in for Dean is beyond me.  I know some day karma will come around to him so that he will understand how bad it was what he did.  I do not concern myself with that.   I am just a mother who knows Dean is innocent of murder, and prays that he will one day soon be free.
 The Jody Arias verdict came back and her jury spent 15 hours and four days to decide. They were a responsible jury that went back over all the evidence and testimony, instead of walking into the deliberation only listening to the prosecutions' final arguments which by the way had a few lies in it.
That people on Deans' jury could decide a life in three hours is pathetic and shows the bias and laziness.
You keep harping on the prosecutions allegations and late information (which was wrong), but never do I hear you wondering about all the doubt and the defense points. Don't you see that shows that you believe "guilty until proven innocent"  instead of " innocent until proven guilty"?  That is wrong when you are a juror.
Please send me an e-mail and tell me any other information the prosecutor told you after the trial.  It might help in the appeal.   Hermosatara@gmail.com

Jim's response

Yay...Jim wrote back.  Boo...He refused to reveal who had mis-lead and mis-informed him of his wrong info on Dean.    I now believe that Jim is not a former juror, but possibly an investigator of the prosecutor.   He states that he never said that Dean testified to a different story , but that there was a different story from the first trial.  A juror would never say that.  The only person who would say that is someone who was lied to by the prosecution, or someone who listened to a jailhouse tape where I, Tara, stated that I believed the evidence was tampered with, and I wanted to investigate it.  The main reason that I believed this is because: 1) I was there the night the lead detective took Deans' only tennis shoes as an afterthought before he left our home, and those shoes were sparkling white like they always were, because Dean was obsessed with having clean white shoes.  2) the sock that was supposedly Dean's and had blood on it, was way bigger than the other sock that was its' "pair". I thought a switch was made with a victims sock, because Deans DNA was not in the sock that had the victims blood.  Explain that. 3)The lead investigator kept Deans shoes and socks in his office for two days before submitting it to the crime lab. (very suspicious). 4) The lead Detective had been in the newspaper for misconduct and poor morals when representing an investigation in Canada. Their police filed a complaint against him.  5) The lead detective was not allowed by the court to look in the Blazer until there was justifiable evidence to do so. Having the victims blood on a sock or shoe of Deans would be that evidence. How hard is it to go to the murder site, and turn the shoes upside down and dirty them up in the blood, and switch one sock with the victims sock that had blood on it?
The bottom of Deans shoes had no blood.  How is that possible when you are standing and walking in dirt with fresh blood? 6) the shoes shown in court looked dirty, and even the other detective who had seen the shoes said that they did not look like the clean shoes he had seen on Dean. hmm? and finally 7) He never wore his tennis shoes when going someplace directly from work. He had on his dark work shoes. His tennis shoes were at home.   All of this made me think that there was evidence tampering because I still could not talk to Dean un-recorded.
I asked his attorney to follow up on it, but he said that it was not needed and Dean did not agree with me. That was frustrating.  So.....nothing ever came of it, but I still think that is a theory worth exploring.  After Dean's first trial though, when I could visit with him in person at prison, he did provide me with the way the blood got on him.  He apologized for ever being involved and said that he did not want to tell me, because he knew it would hurt me to know that he wasn't completely innocent.
 Jim argues with me that the female jurors were not passive because he was there and saw it.  This makes me know he was not there.  We got letters from two female jurors and the jury foreman who all stated that the women were sheep in the deliberations and acted like they were in a daze.  The young male wanna be cop juror (or Monster Drink guy as the jurors told us they referred to him)  was the most aggressively outspoken and critical of Dean, coming up with body language interpretations of him and talking about knives like he was an expert. We got letters of apology from jurors for their not doing their duty in the deliberations and rushing through the process.  So Jim, you were not there and I do not believe for one moment you are a former juror.  I think your conscience is bothering you, and that is a good thing. Maybe your guardian angel is trying to reach you to come forward and help Dean get his freedom.  I think he has been punished enough for being an idiot gang member in his youth.