Juror Thread: Mia McHaffey on Facebook

This thread is Mia McHaffey’s most comprehensive on-record account of what she relied on, what she excluded, and how she evaluated post-trial claims. Several disclosures have direct appeal relevance.

Juror #2. Mia confirms she was juror #2 (Thread 14). This maps her to a specific voir dire position, allowing cross-reference against her individual voir dire responses and seating chart.

Three excluded categories. Mia explicitly identifies three things she did not weigh: confessions, ballistics, and sketches. The sketches exclusion is new to this thread (Thread 8: “Anything surrounding a sketch is too subjective to hold much weight for me”). Together these three categories exclude the central contested exhibits in the appeal.

Van confession as knowledge-of-crime evidence. She frames the van detail as the dispositive item: “No one would know that but the killer” (Thread 4). She ties it specifically to the Dr. Wala confession and holds that the prosecution’s pre-confession public knowledge of the van is unproven. This is directly relevant to the appeal’s gravely-disabled confession argument; her verdict rested significantly on a confession element the defense argues should have been excluded.

Lying about seeing the girls. She identifies Allen’s statement that he did not see the girls as “chronologically impossible if we believe the other claims that he made” (Thread 8). This self-contradiction (not the confessions, not the ballistics) is her primary non-confession evidence anchor.

Geofencing. Mia was unaware of the full geofencing argument at the time of the thread. She asks whether the motion to correct error was granted and says she would need something substantive “on the record” to reconsider (Thread 8). She did not have access to this data during deliberations, consistent with the state’s successful motion to exclude it.

Pile of phones. Her comment to Nana Foster (Thread 15) confirms that Allen’s missing phone, absent from a home that otherwise preserved every old device, was a meaningful detail. This fits her broader totality-of-circumstances framing.

Odinist theory and new trial. She says the sketches and Odinist theory were “rightfully not included” but welcomes a retrial if constitutionally required (Thread 5). This is a named juror’s on-record statement directly responsive to the central appeal issue.

Drug angle. She states she has not heard of it (Thread 5). No awareness during or after deliberations.

Christine Salzer exchange. A person claiming to have been a trial observer accused Mia of posting on Facebook during the sequester. Mia denied it, noted the observer did not recognize her, and asked for a screenshot. No screenshot was produced in the archived thread. Angie Hopkins states in replies that Mia was sequestered and without a device (Thread 12).

Burden of proof framing. Mia does not claim certainty. Her stated standard: “a various amount of circumstances pointing to his guilt doesn’t confirm reasonable doubt. Inferences can be made without meaning there is doubt” (Thread 8). Totality of circumstances, not absolute certainty.

Cross-references: Full voir dire profile and juror comparison at The Jury. Earlier thread capture: PDF archive. Full thread: MHTML web archive dated Sept. 26, 2026.