20 “Inconvenient Truths” about the Jodi Arias Trial

By Rob Roman

The following are a breakdown of  20 “inconvenient truths” about the Jodi Arias trial. One, or some, or all of these facts are reasons why people think this was not a fair trial and why they do not support the verdicts in this case.

1)      The media continues to broadcast as fact ideas that are incomplete facts, incorrect facts, speculations, and complete fiction.

2)      The prosecution used incomplete facts, incorrect facts, speculations, and fictions to help secure the guilty verdict.

3) Given the actual numerous interesting and horrific facts of this case, there is no need to invent facts and pass speculation as truth other than a belief or fear that the true facts are insufficient to support the guilty verdict and / or the death penalty in this case.

4) Only one convict on death row in Arizona has received the death penalty under facts in any way similar to this case.

5) The order of injuries is crucial to deciding if this was a murder or self-defense. The way to determine what happened in the bathroom is to analyze the objective blood and crime scene evidence. No effort was made by the prosecution to determine what this evidence can show. The defense attorneys were not experienced in homicide forensics. 

6) Juan Martinez is notorious for providing evidence and information to the defense counsel at the last possible moment. He has done this at other trials before and since this trial.

7) Some evidence presented at trial by the prosecution and logical conclusions drawn from evidence presented by the prosecution support the defense theory or dispute the prosecution theory.

8) Juan Martinez used contradictory arguments. He used the same but opposite arguments more than once to demonstrate guilt (Plenty of time for extreme cruelty to occur but not enough time for the defense theory to be true. Arias lied in her story because she said she turned her back on her attacker while jUAN also claimed that Travis turned his back on her.)

9) Juan Martinez has lied in capitol murder cases before. (example: Claiming that Robert Towery injected his victim with battery acid 20 years after this was proven to be false).

10) Juan Martinez used illogical arguments and fantasy to discredit defense witnesses.

11)   Dr. Horn and Detective Flores changed their long held opinions and testimony on the order of injuries shortly before the trial.

12)  There is substantial reason to believe that this change in testimony was deceitful and deceptive.

13)  The death penalty aggravator called “especially cruel” in Arizona is vague and arbitrarily applied in order to apply a death sentence to selected defendants. Among these are poor people, minorities and media and political targets. Jodi Arias is all three of these. At least one juror made a specific comment about her race being a factor in her thinking.

14) Although many people believe that Jodi Arias lied constantly on the stand, many things she said during the trial and thought to be false were later proven to be true.

15) Although Juan Martinez and Doctor Horn were found to be honest, upright and believable, there is substantial reason to believe that both of these public servants lied at the trial to secure a guilty verdict.

16)  There is no doubt that defense witnesses and potential witnesses were threatened and intimidated before, during, and / or after the trial. These defense witnesses include Gus Searcy, Lisa Daidone, Darryl Brewer, Alyce LaViolette, and Patricia Womack.

17)   There is substantial reason to believe that witness intimidation was carried out by at least one member of the Alexander family, the Alexander friends, and Juan Martinez. (Examples: Gus Searcy received a threatening phone call warning him not to testify for the defense shortly after Juan Martinez released the list of potential defense witnesses to the Alexander family.

Juan Martinez shocked Lisa Daidone on the stand and the Alexander family by suddenly throwing a photo of the victim’s throat wound on the overhead. After this, Lisa Daidone blamed herself for Travis Alexander’s crude sexual behavior.

Alyce LaViolette was intimidated by Alexander family member Tanisha Sorenson after her testimony was complete. David Hall, a Mormon and friend of Travis Alexander, called Patty Womack a “crack head” on a major network. This is slander).

18) There is substantial reason to believe that some jurors were exposed to media information about the case, violated jury admonitions, and did not understand jury instructions.

19) There were two prior cases in Arizona, Maricopa County. One was a death penalty case and one was a  second degree murder case. The death penalty case was dismissed and the murder conviction was reversed and also dismissed after it was discovered that the major reason both were indicted and prosecuted was due to the faulty, misleading and speculative testimony of Dr. Kevin Horn.

20)  Many people blame Jodi Arias for the length and expense of the trial, the portrayal of Travis Alexander as having bad character, and the prolonged suffering of the Alexander family. In fact all these things were avoidable by a plea agreement or removal of the death penalty. These things exist because of the insistence of the prosecution and some Alexander family members on the death penalty, an unattainable goal in this case.


Unlike most blogs, ALL comments are accepted and will be posted.

38 thoughts on “20 “Inconvenient Truths” about the Jodi Arias Trial”

  1. 14) Although many people believe that Jodi Arias lied constantly on the stand, many things she said during the trial and thought to be false were later proven to be true.

    Can you explain this is more depth…with examples? I’m not saying that I think everything Jodi said is a lie, more that her honesty was questionable. I felt that her lies often held elements of truth which is why it is hard to sift the wheat from the chaff.

    “After this, Lisa Daidone blamed herself for Travis Alexander’s crude sexual behavior”…what crude sexual behavior are you referring to from her testimony? That the guy was trying it on? Um…is that crude, or normal?

    1. Grabbing Lisa’s ass at LDS functions and in public, always turning conversations to sex, forcing his hand up her shirt, and pressuring her for sex before she was comfortable with him.

      Jodi testified that Travis was not a virgin before they met and that he had sex with Deanna Reid, proven true by Deanna herself. Jodi staed that she would rather be executed than spend her life in prison, and that was true. She then ststed she would ask for a life term because it would be hurtful to her family and her friends convinced her she could contibute while in prison, and this is true. She also testified that she does not agree with the order of injuries as the M.E. testified to three times as trial. The evidence indicates that this is true. There are more, but I would need to review her testimony.

  2. 11) Dr. Horn and Detective Flores changed their long held opinions and testimony on the order of injuries shortly before the trial.

    Can you show me where Dr Horn changed the order of injuries? I know this has been claimed, and I understand the position on Flores – but I have been unable to find irrefutable proof that Horn did so? Can you point me in the direction of evidence that he did so.

    1. Henny, my basis for this is Detective Flores’ testimony outside the presence of the jury. He claimed that he is not a medical doctor and would defer to the M.E. to know the order of injuries. He claimed three times on the 48 hours interview that the gunshot was first. He would never believe what Jodi Arias told him. Also, there is nothing in Doctor Horn’s autopsy report which claims which came first. Therefore Flores’ opinion that the gun was first must have come from Doctor Horn. Pre-trial testimony surprised the defense because for the first time, Detective Flores and Dr. Horn were claiming that the gunshot was post-mortem. “Detective Esteban Flores testified at the 2009 hearing that based on his own review of the scene, and a discussion with the medical examiner, it was apparent that Alexander had been shot in the forehead first.”

    2. There is only circumstantial evidence of this. Please read “Spotlight on Dr. Horn. I believe that Detective Flores is an honest and good Mormon. I believe he got the idea that the gun was first from Dr. Horn. I believe he changed his idea to the gun being last from Dr. Horn. This change happened at a meeting Juan Martinez arranged to discuss possible death penalty aggravators. This is from Detective Flores’ own testimony at the trial and is viewable on YouTube.

  3. 10) Juan Martinez used illogical arguments and fantasy to discredit defense witnesses.

    Can you expand? What is your position of the defense allegations of pedophilia?

    1. Henny, What was all that talk about “the fog”, the stolen “ring”, Snow White, The Christmas tree, and all the talk about Bobby Juarez? What does any of this have to do with June 4th, 2008 and premediated murder? This is Juan’s style of ridiculing, showing contempt, exaggerating what has been said to discredit the defendant and her witnesses. Dr. Samuels has feelings for Jodi Arias? Through a plexiglass window? The illogical arguments are described in ohter articles on this Blog.

    2. What did you think of the Snow White line of questioning by Martinez? At the time I kept seeing comments from people insisting he was going to “tie it all together, just watch”, and this went on for quite a while. Do you think he tied it all together? I have no idea what his point was, do you?
      Ps. It’s worth seeing Alyce Lavioltett’s presentation to put all this in context, the presentation is well over an hour long and there is about three minutes spent talking about Snow White and the story’s symbolism to gender roles.

      1. Juan Martinez really thought he had something there. He wanted to show that Alyce LaViolette could make anyone into a battered woman.

        It fell aapart when Alyce replied that ot was just a catchy title, that Snow White was a fictional character and that she didn’t have a partner until the end of the story. They lived happily ever after.

        This attempt to cast scorn on Alyce died, and he swept it under the rug. This is the same tactic he used on Scott Falater, with the 6 different and not credible “motives”. for killing his wife.

  4. The ‘fog’ or PTSD is Jodi’s explanation for the events – not much support for that as far as executive function is concerned – and not a fantasy. The prosecutor had to go after that, of course! Bobby Juarez was relevant as Jodi’s behavior showed examples of previous tendency to a/ access a boyfriend’s emails, b/ follow him to a new location, c/ believe in magical thinking (2nd coming as told by a regular where she worked).

    1. Good answer.

      As far as Juarez, sure Juan can try to show previous patterns. Actually it would be important to me to see more of this kind of testimony. I had a roomate in University. His GF left him. He went to her apartment and threw a huge rock through her BR window.

      I was surprised at this. He is not the type. If he murdered her ten years later, maybe the prosecution would mention that. I don’t think that is relevant.

      PS Ten years later they are married and 3 kids.

      The Fog is a good visualization. Is it possible? I believe it is not only possible but probable with all I have learned about Jodi and about this case, Juan is highly seasoned at casting scorn on anything that he does not understand from his own personal experience.

      He might have a change of heart if he were suddenly dropped into a combat situation.

      1. Agreed, so it it relevant? Yes, because the defense want to say there is no prior evidence of Jodi behaving in this way, so it is painting a picture. No question, you cannot base your case on that, nor was that necessary to, but you can argue against the defense’s position. If your friend murdered 10 years later, or if he married some-one else and murdered her, it would indeed show an ability to act in a irrational way. Does that show someone committed a murder? No, of course not…but behavioral patterns exist and should be considered.
        In a murder case I followed closely, a man murdered his entire family – he went out on a mail route and the timing supposedly gave him an alibi. It was not allowed into trial, but it was later found out that he relayed to a friend that he had a concept for getting away with raping a woman…using his mail route. Should that have been allowed into court? I firmly believe so. If you can argue that in the taped phone-call, Travis’ 12 year old girl scenario indicated pedophilia, then I would argue that the same should be allowed for Jodi’s history.
        Jodi carried out actions that are not supported with her suffering from PTSD. Actions which required executive function. She even locked the door of Travis suite as she left. She washed and attempted to bleach the sheets, she deleted some photos, but left others. These are not the actions of someone in deep shock. These require reasoning.

      2. I agree. I understand why this kind of prior information is deemed prjudicial. But, I di believe past behavior that bears on the crime should be relevant. It can be just as helpful for the defense as the prosecution.

    2. Henny I think you’re right about a lot of things but I have a difficult time seeing her “clean up” at the scene as rational, in my view there is not much to indicate executive function. I believe the fog and PTSD was attributed to her by Samuels, I don’t think she used those words at all (though I could be wrong about the fog).
      But I think you have some really good, rational points.

      1. Don’t be confused Martina – Henny and Prue are the same, I’ll use Prue from now on! Disqus seemed to use my gmail ‘name’ automatically, but this forum doesn’t and I typed in my nickname. I don’t know if either of you have had any problems on Occupy lately, but the pages don’t load up properly for me 90% of the time?? I’ve almost stopped bothering going there because the posts load up on top of the pictorial background and I can hardly read them!

        The clean up/fog…I think we agree that regardless of the success of her activity in the long run, it was downright disorganized. I guess there are a couple of possible reasons.
        1./ She had some sort of dissociative amnesia which would mean she went into a trance-like state and completed these tasks almost like an automaton.
        2./ She initially intended the kill site to be the shower where cleaning up would be easy to both wash him down and limit the blood spatter. When the scene turned into the bloodbath, she made a few attempts to clean it up and realized the futility of that exercise in the small window of time she had. She chose to clean up the areas that she believed would most likely reveal her presence. The camera, the sheets (whether for hair and sexual fluids – or blood from dragging his body); the floor was probably where she realized the overwhelming extent of the task. From the luminol on one section of the walls, it appears she had started to wipe these down.
        I know that you know where I stand on that – but say you are correct, that she was in a fog, as I understand PTSD, it is entirely possible to complete routine tasks that have already established a neural pathway in your brain, but that tasks such as those performed, require a type of reasoning which should have been impaired. Deleting specific photos and not the entire lot. Putting items in the washing machine – and not only that but deciding to use bleach. Putting the dog gate around the stairs. Locking the door as she left. Taking the knife, the gun.
        I DO think that if she had intentionally murdered Travis, she would have been in a state of panic and with high adrenalin levels – and I don’t think she would have been acting in a rational fashion there either. So even in that adrenalized state, I believe that in fact her ‘poorly’ executed clean-up was understandable, not indicative of an impaired brain. Sometimes I have been surprised by the copious amounts of blood and mess even a mere nosebleed can generate.
        At the end of the day, if it wasn’t for the camera and that one palm print, her presence at the scene would have been a much harder case to argue. Under the circumstances, the clean-up was reasonably focused. IMO.

      2. I’m happy you said that about Occupy, Prue, because I have the same problem. I thought it was my computer. First the text was over the pictures with no white background, Now the text is all over on one side.

        So do you think the “rainbow” was Jodi trying to clean up or Travis’blood as he keeled over at the end of the hallway.

        I agree with every thing you said. The problem, bboth in Juan’s sleepwalker case (State v. Falater) and the Arias case is organized behavior.

        The idea is the person would be in an altered state and just drop everything and leave lots of clues. I don’t think it’s impossible to have organized behavior.

        I’m suspiscious about exactly which photos were deleted. I’m not sure I believe that sll their photos from that day were deleted.

        That roomate got home 6:00 to 6:30 and it takes maybe 30 to 40 minutes to do a load of wash. The sheets were in the dryer. So I think they were washed before the shower photos.

        You could say that the camera photo was an act of God. You could say that. I find it hard to believe that was the only print they found in blood. But they did do a thorough job of looking for prints.

        Without the print and the camera, you could not place her at the scene beyond a reasonable doubt.

      3. Good, you too! I’m glad – I thought it was my computer too…was clearing history, reloading etc. There is obviously a problem there…maybe too many comments!
        I believe all the photos with Jodi in, and of that day were deleted. There were a number of photos which were not. These were of Napolean and other things I believe.
        Yes, the sheets didn’t have bleach on them from memory, did they? So you might be right about that.

      4. PS No, there was another photo which seemed to show up blood rivulets down the ways. These were showing up under luminol I think. I think the swipe on the wall is TA’s body slumping over or Jodi dragging him. They BOTH would have been drenched in blood.
        Can you post photos here?

      5. I wanted to get Disqus, but you have to have to purchase the premium site. I can figure out what you mean.

        I guess because we have edit on Disqus, we are used to not double-checking.

      6. Some items definitely showed signs of bleach…Those marks were some sort of oxidation through chlorine I presume.

      7. Did you see those items with the oxidation marks? what other reason do you think there was for that other than bleach?
        I just can’t recall exactly what they were without looking – I think at least a towel, and some items of clothing. What other explanation for the color leaching?

      8. I went and got one photo of the towel. It can be bleach. It looks to me like the original color of the towel. This can happen when the area where you grab the towel does not meet blood. This towel is full of blood.

        I am amazed she got out of the bathroom with all those bloody items and there is no trace in the bedroom or the resr of the house.

        If I did this, my goal would be to get out of there quickly and to not leave evidence pointing to me. So, I guess if I bled on him and I bled down the hallway, I would want to get him in the shower and clean up the blood trail. I wouldn’t stop outside the shower and take the time to shoot him.

    1. By the definition that Dr. DeMarte gave, pedophilia is merely a sexual interest in young children. You do not have to act on that interest. No one is saying that Travis ever acted on it.

      The idea that Jodi would bring up pedophilia, because she finds pleasure in hurting the Alexander family or to make the jury hate Travis, so they will give her a break, is just ridiculous to me.

      That sex tape, he just happens to say something about a 12 year old girl, on one 45 minute tape, is way too much of a coincidence. He doesn’t say “school girl”, he doesn’t say “High Schooler” and he doesn’t say 16 year old. He says 12 year old.

      I have every reason to believe that Travis confided his interest to Jodi. Look at Travis’ chilldhood. He is left alone with no parenting with his 3 or 4 younger sisters. amd brothers. He has no emotional stability and no guidance. What do you suppose happened?

  5. I respect that you ‘believe’ that, but we are talking about evidence are we not? That you believe her is a decision you have made based upon your opinion of her, not on facts. You mention ‘the idea that Jodi would bring up pedophilia etc is ridiculous’ – that is emotive. I did not bring that up, I am merely stating that the defense brought up things, the prosecution did the same. It is a battle between opposing sides and they use what they have.
    To assume that someone is a pedophile because of their background can not be used as an argument. Again, you have every reason to believe…but that is not enough.

    1. Well, I just ask myself is it possible.. I see no reason for Jodi to bring it up if it had no basis in reality. I also believe the letters are real. That is the evidence that Jodi expected to have in court.

      What probably is the evidence was not admitted, so I believe Jodi’s attorneys told her we can’t use it and she went ahead and used it anyways.

      Battle between opposing sides and use what you have, yes i agree.

      My conviction that Travis probably did have sexual feelings towards young children and that he probably did confide that to Jodi is no better or worse than your conviction that he didn’t.

      It fits the facts very well. Travis had some problems for sure. Serious problems. This is not to “drag him through the mud” but to be realistic. If he had this interest, it is not his fault but due to his childhood. He didn’t act on it and that is commendable.

      1. “He didn’t act on it and that is commendable.”
        Being Devil’s advocate here, we don’t know that that Travis ‘didn’t act on it’ either…whichever way we look at it, it is an allegation without proof. No victims coming forward, no friends saying ‘oooh, he was alone with my kid, and she’s been having nightmares’ etc. That’s why I don’t like it because it served no other purpose than to alienate – oh, and give some fodder to those at JAII!
        “I believe Jodi’s attorneys told her we can’t use it and she went ahead and used it anyways”…so when Jodi said Nurmi was the boss, she wasn’t strictly being truthful?? 🙂

      2. I believe Jodi did not follow her attorney’s advice on occasions and that’s why Kirk Nurmi said 9 days out of 10. The defendant is always the boss. It is up to the defendant to follow advice or not.

      3. The pedophilia was a gamble. It could get the jury to vote for death. I just think that Jodi was trying to explain why things got so escalated in the months prior to June 4th. Double edged sword.

  6. Not a stranger to working in a government agency, it seems to me that the Judiciary in Arizona has a “quota” of death penalty cases that it needs to fill. At some level of government budgeting/policy someone needs to justify the “return on investment” for the death row inmate facilities in Arizona. The death row section of the women’s prison looks expensive to build and maintain. Jodi’s case and other death row cases in Arizona point to an unholy alliance between the Judiciary of Arizona and owners of the prisons. Arizona seems overly proud and willing to share prison footage with mainstream media. The prison sentences for the women depicted in HLN show seem extraordinarily long for the impact their crime had to society. Some very politically connected suppliers of grapefruits and peanut butter in Arizona are run very profitable businesses. I wonder if there is a common religious affiliation among these individuals.?

    1. Hi Carrie Berlin,

      I have found myself wondering the same things.

      The prisons are a big money and big politics industry.
      Many communities the prisons are located in have become dependent on them for their economies. I’m sure certain religious affiliations are favored.

      They need stability and growth. Mandatory minimums and the more outrageously long sentences for some crimes help to ensure this. Ecpecially as the “baby-boomers” retire and there are less prisoners.

      There are currently 120 men and only 2 women (Wendi Andriano and Shawna Forde) on Arizona’s Death Row.

      I have also wondered if Arizona needs more women on death row to make it economically viable. After all, it is cheaper by the dozen.

      I have also wondered if Arizona is employing a “use it or lose it strategy towards the death penalty. There are more death penalty cases now on the dockets than there are now on death row.

      I do believe there is a strong connection between States like Alabama, Texas, and Arizona and “biblical law”.

      Thank-you for your comment, and I hope you enjoyed the content.

    2. Great comment Carrie. I think the grapefruit and peanut butter growers of Arizona sent Nancy Grace to Estrella for marketing purposes, she moaned in ecstasy after she tasted their gourmet Skippy lunch, what an ad.

    1. I would like to know what lies YOU think Jodi told. Though many believe that Jodi lied about everything on the stand for ”secondary gain”, she had a better incentive to tell the truth.

      This is because she had told a number of lies in this case prior to trial, so it was very important that she be believed. 18 grueling days on the stand, and where are all the lies?

      I detailed some of the truths Jodi told in a comment a few above this one.

      Ihanx for posting.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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