My question is does the court's timing in unleashing this headline signal that the jurors have been rounded up and relocated at this point?
I don't think so. Sequestration in this case has more than one function. One function is to keep the jurors from press accounts. The jurors are under order to refrain from viewing the press and receiving communications about the case. Not that doing this "on your own" is as effective as having a censor between you and the outside world, it may be that the headline is unavoidable - no voice expert. They'll find that out anyway, and have already sworn to not allow past/outside information (experts said, in the paper, it was Martin) to influence deliberation. Any harm the experts might have done to the deliberations was already done, before the court excluded them.
Bernardo potentially created a credibility issue for the state by suggesting that the jury might hear from experts. He didn't have to go there. Now, if/when no expert appears, some jurors will wonder why not, and from their remarks, will be inclined to think it is because the expert opinions aren't reliable enough for deciding an issue that puts a person's liberty at stake. That damage is done whether the jurors learn "no experts" today (headline awareness) or by the time they are sent to deliberate on the evidence.
The other function of sequestration is to provide a sense of personal security, so that public reaction to the case, especially the threat of violent retribution, won't influence the jury. I have my doubts that sequestration can deliver what it "promises" in this area, as the jurors may view any crowds as they enter and leave the courthouse each day.
I think their sequestration will begin at 9 am Monday morning. Maybe a couple hours earlier, if the court transports them from their homes to the courthouse.