Lies and Juanipulation:
The Mirror Crack’d
Fact Based Reporting by
Amanda Chen and Rob Roman
His broad clear brow in sunlight glow’d;
On burnish’d hooves his war-horse trode;
From underneath his helmet flow’d
His coal-black curls as on he rode,
As he rode down to Camelot.
From the bank and from the river
He flash’d into the crystal mirror,
“Tirra lirra,” by the river
Sang Sir Lancelot.
She left the web, she left the loom,
She made three paces thro’ the room,
She saw the water-lily bloom,
She saw the helmet and the plume:
She look’d down to Camelot.
Out flew the web and floated wide;
The mirror crack’d from side to side;
“The curse is come upon me,” cried
The Lady of Shalott.
From The Lady of Shalott, by Alfred Lord Tennyson
“This individual, the defendant, Jodi Ann Arias, killed Travis Alexander. And even after stabbing him over and over again, and even after slashing his throat from ear to ear, and then even after taking a gun and shooting him in the face, she will not let him rest in peace.
But now instead of a gun, instead of a knife, she uses lies” – Juan Martinez
It’s important to remember that the prosecution has the burden of proof. It’s not a popularity contest and it’s not about which side has a better story. It’s about a search for the truth. We review Mr. Martinez’ efforts towards a search for the truth in his final argument.
“After all the lies you’ve told, why should we believe you now?” – Alternate Juror #17, Tara Kelley, questions Jodi Arias during the guilt phase of the trial.
This is a “white lie”. Typically a white lie is a harmless lie that is often done to be polite. Here it is a lie that plays into Martinez’ themes and theories, but it’s immaterial to the murder charge. These white lies are far from harmless.
This is an exaggeration. It’s a fish story where a mountain is made out of a mole hill.
This is a misrepresentation. It’s a deliberate effort to skew a fact to align it with other facts in the case.
This is a mirror. It’s a manipulation of the jury. Juan Martinez is projecting his own or other’s feelings, motives and behaviors onto the defendant.
This is a Whopper. It’s an obvious untruth in light of the facts. It’s deceitful and a breach of integrity
For Juan, Jodi’s intruder story illustrates how well she can lie and manipulate and how she can turn this situation into one where she’s the victim who then plays the hero. On the surface, this appears correct, but a deeper look reveals a far more salient truth.
Juan tells the jury that Jodi said “I wish I stayed and fought more”, showing how she plays the hero. Juan shows the jury how Jodi manipulates the story to make her look better. He tells them “Her lying does not stop. She lied to the jury, she lied to the medical professionals, the police, and the media”. “She lied and made herself look like a person who could not do it (murder Travis).”
Juan likes to dwell on the interrogation videos as evidence in the murder trial, yet Arias has admitted that she lied, and explained why she did it. The main thing about the intruder story is there is no way Arias could have thought that her story would be believed by anybody. It’s a really bad lie. She failed to manipulate Detective Flores and no one could possibly believe her story, including Jodi herself.
She claimed it was merely a stalling tactic, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. She’s still counting on the law of attraction to fix everything at that point. That’s what you see in her early interviews. So there are two remaining hypotheses. One is that Jodi is mentally ill (which has been proven), and the other is that she had a diminished capacity, was in an altered state of mind, and her self-defense story is true. Both of these remaining hypotheses are in favor of the defense.
Juan claims that Jodi had violent tendencies because she wrote that in an e-mail to Travis.
Note to Juan Martinez: Writing in an e-mail that you once became violent is not displaying “violent tendencies”, it is exactly the opposite. Juan highlighted an e-mail Arias wrote to Travis Alexander where she admits to having broken a door and a window at some vague time in the past.
Juan and his Psychologist witness both seized on this single report of violence in 15 years of journal entries and 80,000 communications as proof of both Borderline Personality Disorder and 1st Degree Murder.
Knowing that she has had violent episodes in the past (probably in her high school days), and acknowledging them is great therapy. It’s something known as telling the truth. It shows she has insight into her feelings and behaviors, she’s trying to improve them, and she’s acting on her feelings in a socially appropriate way by writing them down. If only Travis Alexander, or Juan Martinez, for that matter, had that kind of insight and honesty about their inappropriate behaviors.
There’s some attention given by Martinez about there being no mention in that same e-mail of the chocolates, T-shirt and underwear that say “Travis Alexander’s” and “Travis’”, and the boys Spiderman underwear Travis was supposed to have given Jodi for Valentine’s Day 2007. We do know for a fact that Travis wanted to dress up as a park ranger, for example, and he wanted Jodi to dress up in a schoolgirl outfit.
Now, maybe Travis gave her these things and maybe he didn’t. Maybe Jodi bought those things for herself and maybe she didn’t. Maybe they both thought the Spiderman underwear was sexy and maybe they didn’t.
How are Juan Martinez’ accusations any different than those he condemns Jodi Arias for making? Jodi Arias and Travis did not exchange e-mails or text messages about the Valentine’s gifts. They still might have talked personally or called each other. Nothing was proven one way or the other. Juan Martinez does not get to say that Jodi Arias and her entire defense are liars, so therefore his baseless accusations are true, does he?
Obviously, Travis became very upset by something Jodi allegedly did or was going to do by May 26, 2008. But there is nothing about that in their communications. This, according to Juan, must not have happened either. They must have talked over the phone, or communicated some other way. So why doesn’t this apply to Valentine’s Day? Just because there is no mention of gifts by text message or e-mail doesn’t mean there were no communications about the Valentine’s gifts.
How do you apply a justifiable homicide defense without saying anything negative about the victim?
Travis has left us his reputation independently of what Arias said. But that sex tape really helps us to see that Arias was telling the truth about Travis. In just 45 minutes, he mentions orgasms and a 12 year-old girl in the same sentence, and talks about taking the virginity of a little girl, reveals his overbearing personality, his love for talking about himself, and his callous use of Arias solely for sexual gratification.
At least one former friend has finally come forward and talked about the Travis he really remembers as opposed to the sympathetic denial of anything bad Travis has done because of his awful death.
The pedophilia claims do not help her case in any way, except one. It’s a very dangerous claim to make in a death penalty case. The jurors will retaliate if they don’t believe you.
As a juror, even if the victim was a convicted pedophile, it would make zero difference to me as far as my sympathy for the victim or the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The only reason Arias brought up the pedophilia claim is to show what happened in January 2008, and why the abusive relationship may have quickly escalated into physical violence.
If Travis Alexander had a dark secret, he may well have confided in Jodi Arias. Her story about catching him in the bedroom with pictures of young boys also illustrates Travis’ open-door policy. She typically let herself in and she went right up the stairs and into his room.
Talking about a “twelve year-old having her first orgasm” and “corking the pot of a little girl” is just role playing and fantasy talk, says Juan Martinez, the apologist.
Pedophilia “is termed pedophilic disorder in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.”
Travis Alexander just happened to casually and spontaneously mention these things in the only sex conversation that happened to be recorded. Draw your own conclusions.
The Law of Attraction + my lies + my word + Alyce LaViolette = It did happen. – Juan Martinez (paraphrase)
Dr. DeMarte, when questioned by Juan Martinez , told the jury that she would take this entry in Jodi’s diary at face value. What he didn’t ask her is if she would take a client’s claim of domestic violence on the same day at face value.
Martinez wants to say that nothing bad happened between Jodi and Travis, like Alexander kicking her in the ribs, slapping her, or choking her into unconsciousness, if it’s not written down in Jodi’s journal.
Jodi did not write negative things about Travis in her journal, and besides a few carefully worded entries, we saw at the trial that there were none. We do know that Travis and Jodi had a large number of violent arguments and caustic break-ups, and that Travis was cheating on Jodi. Entries about these incidents are rarely found in her journals. These incidents must not have happened as well.
About the “three tender kisses”, when does Travis ever get romantic with Arias? When he’s leaving her or when he’s in trouble with her. So yes, the three soft kisses in April, 2008 could have been a sweet goodbye like Juan says, or they could have been an apology for physical violence like Jodi and Alyce LaViolette claim.
Remember, the defense only has to show that it’s possible. The prosecution must prove their case to the exclusion of any other possibility. This may also explain why Travis could not break it off for good with Jodi in January, like he told Dan Freeman he was planning on doing, because he felt too badly about what he had done.
Are there any other entries in 15 years of journals where Jodi writes that there was “nothing noteworthy to report”? That is something we would need to know. We didn’t see other entries like this. Martinez proved nothing here, and maybe it’s time for Juan to actually prove something, because this is a Capital murder case.
Juan’s big contention that Jodi would have called the police on Travis just isn’t realistic. She wasn’t going to do that and it has nothing to do with the 911 call with Bobby Juarez. She was remaining loyal to Travis and she did so even after his death.
The idea that if there is no documentation, no photos, no journal entry, and no police report, then there was no physical violence is insulting. This is the reason that Jodi is working now on helping to get the message out that if you are physically abused, you should tell someone, document it and call the police.
Juan seizes on any minor inconsistency he can find, and then magnifies it into a major piece of evidence. Here is a big lie from Martinez: After Darryl Brewer testified in court that Jodi never told him she was going to Mesa, here is Martinez lying to the jury in closing arguments, and telling them that she did tell Darryl Brewer that she was going to Mesa, because it was in his notes.
Here is what really happened. Darryl, at the time he was questioned, knew that Jodi had gone to Mesa and killed Travis. What he was saying at the questioning incorporated what he knew then, not what he knew in June, 2008.
Juan jumped on this and tried to use it as proof of premeditation. Even after the witness said under oath that Jodi did not tell him she was going to Mesa, he still uses it in his closing argument.
This is the prosecutor who claims that even an exaggeration, a failure to tell the complete truth to everyone you know, or even a little white lie, is a shocking breach of trust.
“The only reason Jodi Arias went to Redding airport was to kill Travis Alexander.” – Juan Martinez
How does Martinez know this? Because, he says, Jodi lied about Priceline. This is a fact from Juan, so we better be sure. This happened in 2008 and the trial was 4 ½ years later. Jodi did make a purchase for air tickets on Priceline a few weeks later.
Jodi did use her records to refresh her memory and she did state she used Priceline to scout locations and prices. At no time does she say she purchased the rental through Priceline. If she did intend to say that, she could have been mistaken. After all, Jodi was on the stand all day for 18 days.
Here’s the thing: IF Jodi planned on killing Alexander, and the trip to Utah was only for purposes of an alibi, then the California, Nevada, Utah part of her trip would need to be very visible. Therefore, there is no reason whatever to hide a car rental. There’s better deals at the airport, whether you use Priceline or not.
Juan likes to make a lot out of the fact that Jodi brought the CD’s from her vacations with Travis. This tells Juan she knew she was going to see Travis. Jodi did say it was a possibility and she planned too many things for the amount of time she had.
These CD’s were never entered into evidence and we don’t know if they just have the trip photos on them or if they have all kinds of pictures on them. Many people, including myself, have CD’s and DVD’s in their laptop carrying case. They go with us wherever we bring our laptop.
There was no evidence to suggest that Jodi brought those CD’s because she knew she was going to murder Travis Alexander. It was merely an unsupported allegation presented to the jury with nothing to back it up. Think how stupid this idea is. I want to murder you, but before that, let’s reminisce about our lovely vacations together and let me give you those photos I promised you.
Here, Juan Martinez is trying to revive the blown theory that Jodi dyed her brown hair brown as part of some kind of plot rather than doing it to improve her appearance for Ryan Burns. This is the real law of attraction: Improve your appearance to attract a new boyfriend.
As far as the knife story with the apple and the rope and whether her ankles or wrists were tied, this doesn’t mean anything. There is no specific statement by Jodi which says the knife was for cutting an apple or her ankles were bound. These came from Alyce LaViolette’s notes.
Jodi Arias has a habit of talking about a subject generally instead of a specific incident. So when she spoke to Detective Flores at the interrogation about her fingers, she talked about other times she cut or hurt her fingers besides on June 4th. When she was asked about Travis shaving, she talked about other days that she saw Travis shave, besides June 4th. This is one source of inconsistencies Juan Martinez likes to seize upon.
This can easily be attributed to a misunderstanding or error of the person documenting the story. LaViolette specifically stated that she was hired to look into the question of whether there was domestic violence in the relationship and she was specifically not hired to be a detective or look into any of the events of June 4th.
About the sleigh bed, there is nothing about the bed which means you cannot have a rope. The rope could be behind the head board or looped around the head board. This can also explains why the rope was more than 20 feet long.
Juan Martinez told the jury that if Jodi were in an altered state of mind, she would have not taken off her socks and she would have left bloody footprints all the way out of the house. Martinez also stated that in an altered state of mind, Jodi would have left bloody footprints near the bed, when she went to retrieve the rope. Martinez offered no scientific evidence to substantiate his claims other than his own statements and a general assessment by Dr. DeMarte..
Sometime before the shower and photos incident, the bed sheets were removed and thrown in the wash by either Travis or Jodi. At that time, the rope could have been taken downstairs. Self-preservation is automatic and it extends to removing evidence. Juan’s repeated contention that Jodi would have to leave bloody footprints through the house or to get the rope are nonsense.
There is no forensic evidence saying the gun was last. Every bit of logic and evidence, forensic and otherwise, suggests the gun was first, except for the photo of the bullet casing on top of a 2 inch spot of blood at the edge of the floor and the highly questionable testimony of Dr. Horn.
We know there was a large amount of water on the floor. We know there was a cleanup and a lot of hectic movement in the bathroom after the killing. We know the roommate went into the bathroom and found the body and the police went in after that. We know there is an unexplained foot print in blood near the closet door and things were moved around.
It would be far more likely that the shell casing was not in it’s original position than that it remained exactly where it landed after the gun was fired on June 4th, 2008.
Juan Martinez points out that someone in an altered state of mind would behave randomly, not “striking to kill”, but stabbing someone all over, like a blind robot. Where is the science for this? That’s not the experience of documented homicides in an altered state of mind.
The blood on the carpet appears more like Arias wiping her feet than stomping and hovering over him. This says nothing about what happened. Arias also left the camera in the washing machine. This is all chaotic activity. Here, Juan is saying that Jodi is both goal directed and chaotic. But you can’t have it both ways, can you, Juan?
Juan states that in an altered state, there would be knife wounds all over instead of a strike to kill. There were knife wounds all over and the idea that someone in an altered state of mind cannot have directed behavior such as aimed stabs and some clean up is a fallacy. There is no evidence for that.
Juan’s contention seems to be that if this happened the way Arias says it did, then Travis would have stab wounds randomly all over his body. He would not have a slit throat, he would have been found at the end of the hallway. There would be bloody footprints going out the bedroom and down the stairs. There would be bloody footprints around the bed as Arias retrieved the rope. There would have been no cleanup and all the incriminating evidence would be left behind.
This is the same argument he used in the Falater case. But there is no evidence, facts or testimony and no serious source which can prove that this is what would have happened if a killing took place by a person with an altered state of mind.
“It takes time and takes thinking to chase and kill. In front of the sink, in the mirror, Travis can see ‘that thing’ deliver the strikes to his back.” – Juan Martinez
That Alexander can see Arias coming at him with the knife in the mirror is totally unsupported speculation. There is nothing to support the idea that Travis was stabbed in the shower or in the back at the sink. A person under attack would not support themselves on their severely wounded left hand as Martinez claims. A person under a knife attack would not be able to stand at the sink for that length of time.
A hand cut as severely as Alexander’s left hand would have left much more blood than that at the sink. If Alexander were stabbed in the shower, he wouldn’t have taken a left and headed for the sink, trapping himself in the bathroom. He would have gone right and out the closet door or down the hallway immediately. He wouldn’t have gone to the sink at all. The prosecutor’s theory makes no logical, scientific, common, or intuitive sense at all.
A “strike to kill” has no bearing on state of mind. This is not blind man’s bluff or a blindfolded girl striking at a piñata
Here is a crystal clear instance of projection by a dangerous sociopath and Maricopa County’s “Prosecutor of the Year”.
Like the Falater case, the Grant case, the Carr case, the Lynch case, The Morris case, the Miller case, the Towery case and the Chrisman case, Juan has once again badgered witnesses, misrepresented facts, made exaggerations, given incomplete or distorted facts, told white lies, told regular and ornate lies, and presented mere speculation as fact.
The Falater Case:
Juan suggested no less than six competing motives for why Mormon high Councilor Scott Falater killed his wife. None of the six motives were supported by any facts, testimony, or evidence. Juan badgered and ridiculed defense experts, yelled at a priest, and intimidated child witnesses.
Martinez produced a highly biased expert witness who was chosen for his rapport and communication skills rather than for his knowledge on the subject. Martinez misled the jury by suggesting, that people in an altered state of mind cannot engage in goal directed behavior and do not clean up or remove evidence . There was only one college graduate on the jury.
The Grant Case:
Juan withheld evidence from the defense, objected over 50 times during the defense opening statements (something that is just not done), pressured the judge to not allow evidence into trial, wouldn’t let defense witnesses fully answer questions, and then objected constantly when they were being questioned by the defense.
Juan accused defense witnesses of lying but offered no supporting evidence. Juan intimidated defense witnesses by claiming they had violated the law in some way. Juan’s theory of the crime was fashioned out of whole cloth.
The jury did not believe his theory of the crime, and Doug Grant was found guilty of manslaughter instead of 1st degree murder.
Juan withheld evidence, was admonished by the judge for an offense punishable by jail time, and refused to admit wrong doing. He was provided with a top attorney by the County. He blamed the defense for his actions, was forced to write a letter of apology, and lost the case.
The Lynch Case:
Juan told the jury there were four death penalty aggravators when in fact there were only two, forcing a retrial.
The Morris Case:
Juan unsealed an evidence bag containing the jacket of a victim who had been buried near Morris’ trailer and invited jurors to take a good whiff. Juan lied to the jury by trying to convince them that Morris had sex with his dead victims because the dead bodies smelled badly.
The Miller Case:
Juan is still angry at Judge Bartlett for not doing something that no judge has ever done: Charging Miller with the cruelty aggravator for execution style shootings. He argued with the Judge even though Miller already had four other death penalty aggravators (prior violent crimes, pecuniary gain, multiple murders, and the murder of a child).
Juan never forgot this, even though Judge Bartlett was protecting him from being over-zealous. To this day, Juan declares that Judge Bartlett, who has presided over numerous death penalty convictions, is soft on crime and the death penalty. He is continuing to try to get Judge Bartlett thrown off the pending Redondo case in favor of a “hanging judge” .
The Towery case:
Juan suggested to the commutation board that Robert Towery injected his victims with battery acid and his claims of severe childhood abuse had no foundation – two obvious and and glaring lies.
The Chrisman case:
Juan told jurors that Officer Chrisman was lying because gun powder residue was not found on the bicycle, proving that the decedent, Danny Rodriguez, did not threaten him with the bicycle before Chrisman fired his weapon. In fact, no gunpowder tests were ever performed on the bicycle. How is this not a lie?
Juan did not get the 2nd degree murder conviction he wanted, but he blamed that on the police and he told the jury this was because the police must have somehow hidden his evidence and obstructed justice. Juan, as usual, offered no facts, testimony or evidence in support of this allegation, other than the allegation itself.
The Arias case:
Juan purposely dropped the camera on the floor, then denied any wrongdoing. Juan invited Alyce LaViolette, a completely non-violent therapist working with the victims and perpetrators of violent domestic crimes, to spar with him. Juan badgered defense witnesses, threatened at least two of them with criminal prosecution if they testified, and made baseless accusations. Juan personally attacked the defense attorneys on such things as their knowledge of the law, their appearance, and whether or not he would kill himself if married to one of them.
Juan once again withheld evidence until shortly before the scheduled start of the trial and there is reason to believe he suborned perjury in the testimony of the medical examiner. Juan bent the law and logic to the breaking point by insisting that if it is not a 1st degree premeditated murder, then it’s a 1st degree felony murder because Arias entered or stayed in the home with the intention of committing 1st degree premeditated murder.
This carefully planned and concealed surprise intimidation of defense witness Lisa Andrews- Daidone, which also needlessly shocked and emotionally traumatized members of the Alexander family, is typical of Martinez’ courtroom decorum in a capital murder trial:
(The video itself contains more lies about Arias’ reaction to the photo. She was looking at the judge, not at the video screens.)
Juan Martinez sees everything in black and white. In a rare case where things are not as they appear, Juan insists on seeing things only as they appear on the surface. Juan is the mirror in this case, projecting his own flaws and inner demons onto Jodi Arias.
Juan Martinez is a certified liar.
- Superficial charm and good intelligence
- Untruthfulness and insincerity
- Lack of remorse and shame
- Poor judgement and failure to learn by experience
- Specific loss of insight
- Pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love
Juan projects the behaviors of a typical hardened criminal or psychopath onto Jodi Arias. She is proven to be neither of these. His closing arguments, on the shallow surface, make sense and are logical, but a closer, deeper look, coupled with a history of Juan’s behavior in other cases, shows that once again, Juan told a pack of lies, and the mirror crack’d from side to side.
All comments are appreciated and opposing views are welcome!
All Rights Reserved