Arizona Justice: The very strange case of Patrick Bearup

Arizona Justice: The very strange case of Patrick  Bearup

Fact-based reporting

by Rob Roman

research by Amanda Chen

dancing bears 2

 

In the midst of the Jodi Arias trial, people tend to forget that this case is happening in the state of Arizona. There are 18 states without the Death Penalty and there are 32 states plus the Federal Government that have the Death Penalty. The Federal Government, mostly due to acts of international and domestic terrorism, has dramatically increased the qualifications for and the use of the Death Penalty.

 

Among the states with the Death Penalty, there are states that rarely use it, there are states that use it, but are reluctant to carry out executions, and there are states that actively use and carry out the death penalty. Texas is a very prominent user and enforcer of the D.P., so is Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, and, of course, Arizona.

 

STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY (32) ·
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
WyomingALSO
– U.S. Gov’t
– U.S. Military
STATES WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY (18) (YEAR ABOLISHED IN PARENTHESES)
Alaska (1957)
Connecticut** (2012)
Hawaii (1957)
Illinois (2011)
Iowa (1965)
Maine (1887)
Maryland*** (2013)
Massachusetts (1984)
Michigan (1846)
Minnesota (1911)
New Jersey (2007)
New Mexico* (2009)
New York (2007)#
North Dakota (1973)
Rhode Island (1984)^
Vermont (1964)
West Virginia (1965)
Wisconsin (1853)ALSO
Dist. of Columbia (1981)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

 

constitution

Furman vs. Georgia was the landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision making the Death Penalty as practiced unconstitutional and saved the lives of the Manson family, for one. The decision paved the way for Capital punishment, formerly used for crimes like rape, to be used only for 1st degree murder. The decision caused all states using the Death Penalty to employ some sort of guidelines to narrow the types of cases which could qualify for the Death Penalty and make these qualifications uniform and fair.

The idea was to prevent prosecutors from using too much discretion to be able to unfairly target any particular individual with the Death Penalty. Many states used statutory guidelines called “aggravating circumstances” or “special circumstances”. For example, O.J. Simpson was charged with murder with the special circumstances of “lying in wait” and “multiple murders” (Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson). The prosecutor made the decision to take the D.P. off the table for the football star and celebrity, even though the crime qualified for this penalty in California.

Most states have similar aggravating circumstances such as the murder of a child, multiple murders, prior violent felonies, conspiracy, murder for monetary gain, or the murder of a police officer. Arizona has all these aggravators, but they have added more and more to the list until now, many people believe there is almost no murder that cannot qualify for the Death Penalty if the prosecutor chooses to use it. This seems to go against the entire purpose of Furman vs. Georgia.

mahatma-gandhi-quotes-036

The Arizona statutes now have 14 aggravating circumstances to qualify a defendant for the death penalty.

  1. Prior offense for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable.
  2. Prior serious offense even if committed at the same time as the murder.
  3. In the commission of the offense the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person besides the murdered person.
  4. The defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment, or promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value (conspiracy).
  5. The defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value (murder for hire).
  6. The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.
  7. The defendant committed the offense while in custody, or on parole for a violent offense.
  8. Multiple murders.
  9. Murder of a child or unborn child or a person over the age of seventy.
  10. Murder of a Police Officer.
  11. Murder as part of or to join a street gang or syndicate.
  12. Murder of a witness or Police informant.
  13. Cold and Calculated.
  14. Use of a stun gun during the murder.

This caused some public defenders in Arizona to make this statement:

“Two public defenders in Arizona’s Maricopa County contend that the state’s death penalty law is unconstitutional because its aggravating factors allow for a death sentence in virtually every first-degree murder case.”

The statute, they argue in the motion filed in February, “has no method of meaningfully distinguishing the few cases in which death is deserved from the many cases in which it is not.” The New York Times mentions the motion in a story about less culpable defendants who draw harsher sentences than co-defendants.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/pds_argue_arizonas_death_penalty_law_is_unconstitutional_because_it_is_indi/

20140802texas-race-death-sentence

Most of Arizona’s 14 aggravating circumstances are the same as most other Death Penalty states. The use of a stun gun (Number 14) doesn’t seem to make too much sense. “Cold and Calculated” sounds good, but the interpretation of exactly what that means could cause problems. Numbers 2 and 3 are unique to Arizona.

Number 2, like most states, provides that a prior violent felony can qualify a murderer for the death penalty. But in Arizona, that “prior” violent felony can be committed at the same time as the murder. This means that if the defendant is not guilty of the murder, then they might also be not guilty of another felony committed during the murder. So there is then a scenario in which an innocent person can be found both guilty of the murder AND qualify for the Death Penalty. Arizona has used this aggravator to impose the Death Penalty on defendants whose crimes would not normally qualify at all.

Number 3 seems reasonable, that a defendant who created a grave risk of death to another person besides the murdered person qualifies for the Death Penalty. This aggravator however, also seems to be wide open to interpretation.

heinous

The gold standard in Arizona, though, is number 6, the “especially heinous, cruel and depraved” aggravator. This aggravator has 3 “prongs”. There can be a finding of any combination of the three. The prong that is the most wide- open to interpretation is the Cruelty prong. As a matter of fact, 6 of the 8 most recently executed prisoners in Arizona had “especially cruel” as one aggravating factor.

That is the aggravating factor used in two out of three of the most recent Death Penalty cases in Arizona, Jodi Arias and Marissa DeVault. Cruelty stands out in Arizona as being applicable to almost any murder. There is no “especially” in “especially cruel”. According to the statute and the jury instructions, the prosecution has to show that the victim suffered, either mentally or physically, and the defendant knew they would suffer.

Why is this a problem? The problem is that almost every murder victim suffers. Even people who die a natural death suffer. There is nothing in the statute or jury instructions which make the distinction of extreme, extraordinary, or above average suffering, it is simply any suffering at all. On this basis, not just most murders but most natural deaths, even death by lethal injection, fit this definition. The Arizona aggravating circumstance, as written and as explained in the jury instructions, can be made to fit almost any murder. Defense attorneys have claimed this, Kirk Nurmi filed an appeal on this basis in the Jodi Arias case, and we have claimed this here at SpotightOnLaw.

So between this cruelty aggravator, the 14 Arizona Death Penalty Aggravators, and the other 3 strange aggravating circumstances, it seems clear that Arizona has a scheme to make any murder fit the Death Penalty qualifications if they want it to, thus violating at least the spirit of Furman vs. Georgia.

Maricopa County Prosecutor Juan Martinez even tried, unsuccessfully, in State vs. Miller to make execution style murders fit under the especially cruel aggravator.

More than this, the actions of Arizona prosecutors show that they target specific individuals with the Death Penalty, while not invoking the Death Penalty for other defendants whose crimes are as bad or much worse than those targeted.

 

Robert Towery - Executed March 8, 2012
Robert Towery – Executed March 8, 2012

SpotlightOnLaw showed the large disparity between the punishment of Robert Towery (Death), and his accomplice, Randy Barker (10 years) in the strangulation murder of retired philanthropist Mark Jones. We also showed the large disparity in the punishment between Richard Dale Stokley (Death) and his accomplice, Randy Brazeal (20 years), in the rape and murder of two 13 year-old girls.

Mandey Meyers, 13. Raped and murdered by Dale Stokely and Randy Brazeal.
Mandey Meyers, 13. Raped and murdered by Dale Stokely and Randy Brazeal.
Mary Snyder, 13. Raped and murdered by Randy Brazeal.
Mary Snyder, 13. Raped and murdered by Randy Brazeal.
Randy Brazeal, released back into society July 2011
Randy Brazeal, released back into society July 2011

Sometimes it’s necessary to give a sweetheart deal to one of the defendants in a murder case in order to get needed testimony and evidence against the other(s). We saw this with the Manson family, as first Susan Atkins and then Linda Kasabian, were given sweetheart deals in exchange for testimony that would help convict the other Manson defendants.

Usually, you have the least culpable defendant testify against the more culpable defendants. Randy Barker was Robert Towery’s accomplice, but Towery is the one who strangled the victim to death. Linda Kasabian was with the Manson murderers, but she was the designated driver and she did not participate in the actual killings. But in Arizona, they needlessly give co-defendants a sweetheart deal in order to get the Death Penalty for the other.

In the case of Robert Towery, Robert knew Mark Jones and devised the home invasion robbery. Robert Towery was the one who strangled the 68 year-old victim to death. While Towery was executed, his accomplice received 10 years and is now living among us. Towery was a meth. addict and had been severely abused as a child. It was prosecutor Juan Martinez who prevented Towery’s sentence from being commuted to life by falsely claiming there was no evidence of childhood abuse and falsely claiming that Towery injected the victim with battery acid (a claim that had been disproved 20 years earlier). It was Juan Martinez who made sure Towery was executed 6 days after his commutation hearing. Robert Towery was the more culpable of the two, yet the disparity in sentencing was massive.

In the case of Richard Dale Stokley, the opposite occurred. Two young girls were kidnapped, raped and murdered. Stokley couldn’t live with his guilt and went to the police the next day and confessed. Randy Brazeal knew the sister of one of the 13 year-old girls. He devised the kidnapping, rapes and murders. It was his car and entirely his plan. Most of the evidence pointed at him and he raped both girls.

Richard Stokely, executed December, 5, 2012.
Richard Stokely, executed December, 5, 2012.

Richard Stokley was more or less just along for the ride. But Randy Brazeal claimed that Richard Stokley was the mastermind of the murders. He made a deal to testify against Stokely before DNA tests came back showing Brazeal had raped both girls. As a result, Stokley was sentenced to death and executed in 2012. Brazeal served 20 years. Brazeal was released in 2011 and was recently arrested (July 2014) in Arkansas for “urinating on Horseshoe Lake City Hall”.

http://www.kpho.com/story/26096822/convicted-murderer-urinates-on-city-hall

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/stokley-richard.htm

Similarly, Daniel Wayne Cook was sentenced to death in 1988 and executed in 2012. He and an accomplice, John Matzke, brutally murdered Matzke’s 26 year-old roommate and a 16 year-old co-worker. The murders included sodomy, torture, strangulation, purposely prolonging the murders and the burning of the victims genitals with cigarettes. John Matzke, received only 20 years for these heinous murders and is reported to be living in Tucson, Arizona, under an assumed name. We could not even find a photo of Matzke, who’s identity has been carefully hidden by prosecutors. Did prosecutors really need to give these sweetheart deals in order to convict their accomplices? Not really, but they needed them in order to achieve the Death Penalty for their accomplices.

Without the Death Penalty being involved, all these murderers would likely still be behind bars. Arizona prosecutors didn’t seem to mind that equally culpable or even more culpable defendants were allowed to plead to 2nd degree murder and get relatively short sentences, as long as one of the defendants got the Death Penalty. Sure, it’s great for the prosecution that one of the defendants was sentenced to death, but the other vicious and dangerous murderers were released out into the public.

Patrick Bearup. Sentenced to death on February 5, 2007, for the Februeary 2002 slaying, with 3 accomplices, of Mark Mathes.
Patrick Bearup. Sentenced to death on February 5, 2007, for the February 2002 slaying, with 3 accomplices, of Mark Mathes.

It didn’t seem to matter either, to Arizona prosecutors, if the more culpable defendant got a sweetheart deal as long as somebody was made to pay and sit on Death Row. This leads us to the very strange case of Patrick Bearup.

Four “skinheads” were arrested for the murder of Mark Mathes. Mathes was the roommate of Jessica Nelson, who thought Mathes had stolen $200 from her room. She called her “skinhead” friends and the four murdered the roommate. They were soon arrested as suspects in the murder.

 

 

Deadheads
Deadheads

 

Skinheads
Skinheads

“One of those defendants was Patrick Bearup, who helped three co-defendants in the murder of a man they accused of stealing $200 from his roommate. By all accounts, the Times says, Bearup was not directly involved in the killing, though he did help dispose of the body and severed one of the victim’s fingers to retrieve a ring. Bearup was the only defendant in the Maricopa County case to receive the death penalty. The three others, including a defendant who shot the victim, accepted plea deals and avoided execution.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/us/in-many-capital-cases-less-culpable-defendants-receive-death-penalty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Patrick Bearup
Patrick Bearup

Patrick Bearup didn’t beat the victim nearly to death with a baseball bat, he was not in the car that concealed the victim in the trunk. He didn’t shoot him twice with a shotgun, and he didn’t throw him over a cliff. His co-defendants did. Yet they all were allowed to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder while Patrick Bearup was sentenced to death.

Not coincidentally, Patrick Bearup is the son of Tom Bearup, a man who worked for Maricopa County and was Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s right hand man.

That is, until they had a big falling out. In fact, Tom Bearup was a born and bred local who gave support and legitimacy to Sheriff Joe, a transplant from Massachusetts . Tom Bearup rationalized Joe’s eccentricities to co-workers and assured the others that Sheriff Joe was a good leader. It wasn’t long before they had a falling out and became enemies.

Tom Bearup
Tom Bearup

Tom Bearup didn’t like how Joe Arpaio was making lots of money on the side selling pink underwear to the public (mimicking the pink underwear he forces all prisoners, men and women, to wear) and diverting the money to his personal “posse”. Tom Bearup started sounding the alarm that Sheriff Joe had crossed the line from eccentricity to being a very dangerous person. He clashed with Arpaio over the wrongful death of Scott Norberg, which cost the county 8.25 million dollars. Tom stopped supporting Sheriff Joe, claiming Joe had “turned into a monster”.

 

sheriff-joe-arpaio-pink-boxers brt

“In 1992, Arpaio, a longtime DEA agent, was elected sheriff in Maricopa County, the largest in Arizona, which includes Phoenix and its suburbs. Bearup was raised in Phoenix, and besides having been a police officer in and mayor of Soldotna, he was a longtime Republican operative. He worked with the Reagan administration, and was once nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to South Korea. His reputation and connections helped Arpaio secure his position.

After Arpaio was elected, Bearup became an executive officer in the new sheriff’s office. He was Arpaio’s right hand man, the buffer between underlings and the big guy. He managed the sheriff’s publicity and media relations—no small task for a lawman obsessed with seeing himself on television. In the process, Bearup helped forge Arpaio’s mythic persona—that of “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” a title later made famous by a January 1996 profile in Penthouse magazine (and also the title of Arpaio’s 1996 book).

Arpaio is known for many things: his “Tent City” jail, constructed of Korean War-era tents on concrete in a city that’s temperature reaches more than 110 degrees (43.,3 degrees C.) for long stretches; male, female, and juvenile chain gangs; dressing inmates in stripes and feeding them green bologna; and, not least of all, inmates dying in his jails. In 1997 Amnesty International issued a condemnation of many of these practices.

 

Joe Arpaio - "America's Toughest Sheriff" - according to Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Joe Arpaio – “America’s Toughest Sheriff” – according to Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“I’m so embarrassed that I’ve ever had the relationship I had with Joe Arpaio, because I helped him get to where he’s at,” Bearup tells Kelley. “I think a lot of it was my credibility that got him to where he’s at, because people trusted me when I told them about him. ‘Don’t worry about that, he’s a little bit eccentric, but his heart is in the right place. He wants to do the right thing.’ And I know there was something in my heart that said maybe there’s something wrong there… the guy’s a little wacky in some areas…He became a monster. And that monster is not anything that I could be with.”

Bearup ended up running against Arpaio after leaving the MCSO. His opposition to Joe earned him retaliation in the form of wiretaps and being tailed by undercover deputies. Bearup and his wife Adele eventually gave up on Arizona, heading north to Alaska, and freedom from fear.

adult-grateful-dead-green-dancing-bear-costume

But there’s another, sadder part to Bearup’s life, his son Patrick’s involvement with neo-Nazi skinheads here in Sand Land and with the brutal 2002 skinhead slaying of 40-year-old Mark Mathes. Papa Bearup contends his son is innocent, but his son was convicted for his part in the killing, which according to testimony involved Patrick cutting Mathes’ ring finger off while Mathes was still alive. Patrick is currently the only one on death row for the murder, though all parties agree he did not strike any of the fatal blows in Mathes’ beating death. Two others involved copped pleas. Ringleader Sean Gaines is still awaiting trial.

I’ve read about Patrick’s story before, and though he may not deserve to be on death row, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for him. Bearup’s die-hard belief in his son’s innocence seems borne of a father’s willful blindness more than reality.”

 

http://www.arpaio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=85a2a3c4a6e37a07075946fcfe8b449b

http://www.arpaio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=947

 

June, 1996

scott-norberg-lt-2 (1)

Scott Norberg was a local football star who got drunk and got in trouble with the law.

Amnesty International believes Scott Norberg was shocked multiple times with a stun-gun while he was handcuffed and forced into a face-down position. He was then transported to a restraint chair and strapped in with a towel over his face. He was surrounded by a gaggle of Corrections Officers.

After some time working on him, they quickly dispersed, laughing. Norberg wasn’t moving. There were allegations that the scene was washed down and evidence destroyed. After he was found dead, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them.

Settlement $8.25 million dollars.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-01-14/news/the-8-million-victim/full/

 

patrick bearup

Bearup, Patrick

With three accomplices charged with beating a man half to death with a baseball bat, throwing him in the trunk of a car, cutting off his finger, shooting him twice with a shotgun and throwing him off a cliff.

“The three men got out of their vehicles and approached the Mathes home. Gaines carried a loaded shotgun, Johnson had an aluminum baseball bat, and Bearup had a folding knife with a nine- or ten-inch blade. They advanced across the backyard toward Mark, who was sitting on the rear patio with Nelson.

Bearup, Johnson, and Gaines surrounded Mark. Johnson attacked Mark with the baseball bat, striking him in the head and upper torso as many as twenty-five times. Bearup maintained his location throughout the assault, preventing Mark from leaving.

The witnesses disagreed about whether Mark was alive following the beating. Nelson was certain that Mark was killed on the patio, while Johnson claimed that Mark was still conscious and groaning. After the attack, Johnson and Bearup dragged Mark to one of the cars and stuffed him in the trunk. Bearup kicked Mark’s head to make him fit into the trunk.

The four perpetrators got into two vehicles – Bearup and Nelson in Bearup’s car and Johnson and Gaines in the vehicle containing Mark’s body – and drove to an isolated area near Crown King. Johnson testified that he heard Mark mumbling and moaning in the trunk during the drive.

When the cars stopped on Crown King Road, Bearup pulled Mark from the trunk. Gaines and Nelson stripped him to make the body more difficult to identify. Nelson was unsuccessfully attempting to remove Mark’s ring when Bearup approached and cut off the finger with a pair of wire clippers. Mark was then thrown over the guardrail and, as he lay in the ravine below, Gaines shot him twice.”

http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bearup-patrick.htm

 

“Mr. Bearup’s case was one of 135 pending capital cases in Maricopa County in 2006, more than the combined number of cases in the next three jurisdictions at the top of the list: Los Angeles County, California and Clark County, Nevada., each with 36; and Harris County, Texas, with 17”

 

“The highest number of pending cases was 149 death penalty cases.” This is in Maricopa County alone.

http://www.omlaw.com/uploads/publications/2012-04%20-%20LAH%20-%20ARTICLES%20%20Capital%20Case%20Crisis%20in%20Maricopa%20County%20Arizona%20and%20A%20Response%20From%20the%20%20(4).pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2011__Year__End.pdf

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/pending_death_penalty_cases_weigh_against_maricopa_county/

 

Is it just a coincidence that the least culpable of 4 perpetrators of a horrendous crime sits on death row when the 3 people most responsible and who caused the death of the victim directly got sweetheart deals?

What kind of justice is this? All three should have gotten life sentences.

 

charles-manson

Well, you might say, Patrick Bearup was the leader who, like Charles Manson, didn’t get his hands dirty. However, it’s undisputed that Sean Gaines was the leader of the gang.

 

The 3 others will all be up for parole between 2019 and 2028 and could be out of prison and living in your neighborhood in 5 to 14 years.

 

Sean Gaines, 22, Jessica Nelson, 27, Patrick Bearup, 26, and Jeremy Johnson, 20, were arrested by Phoenix police on September 10 and 11, 2003 on charges of the murder of Mark Mathes.

 

jessica nelson

Jessica Nelson (14 years) –

Instigated the murder of her roommate. Mark Mathes, accusing him of stealing $200 and calling her skinhead friends, asking them to exact revenge

 

Eligible for parole 2019

 

jeremy johnson

Jeremy Johnson (14 years) –

Beat Mark Mathes nearly to death with a baseball bat, tossed him in a trunk and helped throw him off a cliff.

 

Eligible for parole 2019

 

sean gaines

Sean Gaines (25 years) –

Blasted Mark Mathes twice with a shotgun, and helped throw him off a cliff.

 

Eligible for parole 2028

 

bearup

Patrick Bearup

– Helped stuff Mathes into the trunk of a car and cut off Mathes’ ring finger to retrieve a ring.

 

Sentenced to Death

 

To his credit, Sean Gaines is reported to have denounced racism and his skinhead association, saying,  “I’m tired of living a lie. They can kill me, but at least they kill me with all of this off my shoulders.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/spring/the-transformation

 

Jessica Nelson and Sean Gaines.
Jessica Nelson and Sean Gaines.
Sean Gaines
Sean Gaines

 

 

“Superior Court Judge Warren Granville chastised the County Attorney’s Office at the time over the disparity in sentencing in the Mathes affair. “Granville was not pleased that Bearup was the only defendant facing the death penalty.”

 

dancing_bear_serbian-in-bulgaria

 

 

“He wrote in a 2007 minute entry:

The County Attorney, as the law allows, made a unilateral decision not to withdraw the death notice for Mr. Bearup, a defendant who, even under the State’s theory of the case, did not cause the physical death of Mr. Mathis.[sic] Under the State’s theory of the case, Mr. Bearup acted only as support for Mr. Johnson as he baseball batted Mr. Mathis [sic] to death or to near death, and helped drag Mr. Mathis [sic] to a car trunk and the desert. Under the State’s theory, Mr. Bearup’s act of cutting off Mr. Mathis’ [sic] ring finger while cruel and heinous, was not a cause of the death.”

“Granville further noted:

“This Court, nonetheless, finds that Mr. Bearup’s death penalty sentence for Count 1 was not justified in the context of the relative responsibility of the co-defendants whom the County Attorney chose to withdraw the notices of death and reduce their sentencing range. It is the County Attorney’s motto that `let justice be done.’ This, of course, coincides with a prosecutor’s unique ethical responsibility. This Court finds that justice was not done for Mr. Bearup in Count 1.”

 

“Patrick Bearup was no angel, by all accounts. I know his father was upset when I said in my 2008 column that I figured Bearup probably deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison. But to face execution, when the ringleader and the main protagonists cheat death? That’s more than a little whack.”

“Which is why I regard the death penalty as an obscene joke, one that should be banned. The Mathes murder is but one example. There are a plethora of cases just like it, where justice is a card sharp’s game. But they receive little or no attention.”

The jurists and attorneys involved are all playing their assigned roles. I wouldn’t argue that they shouldn’t.

But if Bearup is executed while those more responsible for Mathes’ slaying live on with the hope of eventual release, that just further proves that capital punishment should be abolished, because our criminal justice system is not capable of meting out such draconian judgments equitably.”

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/12/sean_gaines_gets_25_years_in_s.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/us/in-many-capital-cases-less-culpable-defendants-receive-death-penalty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

Protesting Arizona corruption
Protesting Arizona corruption
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

So, is there some kind of connection between the large number of Arizona wrongful convictions, the lack of the use of good forensic science, the tight budgeting of law enforcement in Arizona, the targeted use of the death penalty, more culpable defendants getting sweetheart deals, the secret deals and unexplained deaths in the jails of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the omnipresence of corruption in Maricopa County, the checkered history of prosecutor Juan Martinez, and the Jodi Arias case?

 

Or are these all mere coincidences?

 

spotlighonlaw

At SpotLightOnLaw, we have been trying to demonstrate to you that there is such a connection. Please take a look at our past articles (especially “Spotlight on Juan Martinez”, “What’s Going On in Arizona, Maricopa?”, “Stranger than Fiction – The real Sheriff Joe” “The Executives and the Executed” and “Spotlight on Dr. Kevin Horn”)

 

It seems as if Arizona likes to run things on the cheap, ignore and avoid a lot of forensic science, target certain people with the Death Penalty, make a lot of under the table money with schemes such as taking the meat out of all prisoners meals, “video visitation” at 65 cents per minute – no more face to face visits allowed, and the sale of pink underwear, and corruption just seems to permeate all areas of their “justice system”. We all know the Jodi Arias case could have been settled long ago, but instead it goes on ad infinitum, along with the suffering of the Alexander family.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2014/11/10/sheriff-joe-phases-out-in-person-visits/

 

Letter from Patrick Bearup (click to enlarge)
Letter from Patrick Bearup (click to enlarge)

Even though there is effectively zero evidence remaining against Deborah Milke in the shooting death of her young son, the D.A. still refuses to drop the charges against her after she wrongfully spent 23 years on Death Row. They cannot admit they were wrong and will not accept responsibility for the egregious error.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131206mcso-to-allow-video-jail-visits-price.html

 

Why is the state more capricious about who lives and who dies than most murderers?
Why is the state more capricious about who lives and who dies than most murderers?

Whether the Jodi Arias case is as it appears to most people, or the truth of it has been carefully hidden, we do have her case to thank for shining a spotlight onto the very odd occurrences, the very strange case of Patrick Bearup as well as all the other really strange goings on which many people have helped to uncover in Maricopa County, Arizona.

 

Do YOU concur?

i-dont-know

Comments from all perspectives are welcome.

You can also comment on our FB page

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Spotlight-On-Law/189870931203328

 

dancing-bears-fleece-blanket

Interesting sources about the article above:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2024664/They-said-monster-Casanova-Meet-woman-married-man-death-row.html

https://www.facebook.com/FreePatrickBearup/photos/a.444896288941973.1073741826.340851069346496/444896292275306/?type=1&theater

Advertisements

Milk and Cookies for the “Crusher” of Candy Crush

Milk and Cookies for the

“Crusher” of Candy Crush !

Opinion by Amanda Chen and Rob Roman

candy crush

Lisa LaSalle, a Canadian blogger, fired the first shot across the bow in the battle of the upcoming 2nd penalty phase in the Jodi Arias trial with her article called “The Infamous Trial of Candy Crush”. Lisa’s article was a very well written and intelligent summary of many of the problems Jodi Arias supporters and others see in the first phases of the trial.

This shot must have made quite a splash, because JustDaTruth, a well-known advocate for the prosecution fired back with a scathing article, called “Crushing the Candy Crush”. In this article, the author, who prefers to remain anonymous,  gave factual reasons and logical arguments for he believes the Candy Crush article was off base.

cookies-and-milk-cookies-367297_593_552In this article, we will be replying to the Crusher of Candy Crush, and we will not fire back. We will simply serve him or her milk and cookies, better known as food for thought, This culinary response is based on facts, logic, and reasoning.

These are the first articles we have read from Lisa LaSalle and from JustDaTruth. We were impressed with both articles as civil dialogue and a healthy exchange of ideas. Links to both articles are shared below. We highly encourage and recommend  that you read both of these articles to get some real insight into the major arguments from both sides.

Dear JustDaTruth,

justdatruthSome of your points were very good and interesting, but we find fault with some of your arguments. Your points are highlighted and below them are our responses:

One major point:

We disagree with the verdict of 1st degree premeditated murder. We do not find fault with the jury on that verdict. We are saying that what was presented to the jury was not the truth.

Why Try to Plead to 2nd Degree When Arias Claims it was Self-Defense?

Jodi is responsible for Travis’ death, regardless of whether it was self-defense, heat of passion, or murder. She knows this and she was willing to take a 20 year sentence for that responsibility and to avoid making this so public with a trial. However, she is not willing to take a life sentence or allow the state to execute her for a domestic homicide with no prior offenses, which has no business being a death penalty case in the first place.

“Jury Bias”

jury 8“Death qualified jury” means that no one who is totally opposed to the death penalty should be allowed to serve. That’s a whole lot of people. This is why the State of Arizona prosecutors like almost every murder trial to qualify for the Death Penalty. This means there are more people on the jury who will sympathize with the prosecution and be more willing to convict. This deprives Arias of some jurors who will understand the rights of the accused, including some who are especially empathetic and understanding of both domestic violence and some of the less understood causes of violence in our society.

(Please see new discarded jury questions for Jodi Arias….)

The Defense Attorneys “Are Not Public Defenders”

All Arizona defendants in a capital crime MUST, by statute, have two attorneys. A mitigation specialist is now required. Nurmi and Willmott ARE public defenders no matter where they work now. They are under constraints of a budget when presenting a defense. They cannot advocate for the defendant in any way outside the courtroom. sweetLawyers who are strictly public defenders also clear their schedule for a major trial and are very busy at other times, just like private defense attorneys.

Niether Nurmi nor Willmott can compete in terms of trial experience with Martinez’ 25 years prosecuting cases and influencing juries in court. If you look at his trial history, you can see that winning the conviction trumps the truth and ethical considerations, in spite of his having convicted some really bad blokes.

(Please see Spotlight on Juan Martinez, State vs. Falater, State vs. Grant. You might also want to watch Martinez’ testimony at Robert Towery’s Commutation hearing on Youtube. Look at the defenses’ response and the testimony of Towery’s sisters. There’s something about this Martinez, there really is.)

Death Penalty

Arias is death penalty eligible meaning her crime qualifies her for the death penalty. But does it really? No one in America has faced the death penalty with similar facts. This is because of Arizona’s F(6) aggravator cruelty prong which can qualify almost any homicide for the DP. Three other women stabbed their partners to death in AZ in 2008. One shot their partner to death, and two ran them over with cars. None of these women, or any of the scores of men who killed their partners in 2008, or any other years, besides one man who chased down and stabbed his wife to death outside his home in front of witnesses, faced the DP in Arizona.

cookies and milk bffsTraditionally Non-Sequestered Jury in AZ.

If we always rely solely on precedent, we ignore the realities of an ever-changing society. The new reality, according to Alan Dershowitz, the very experienced appellate attorney and Harvard law Professor, recommended by Fox News, is that no one can expect a fair trial in a high profile murder case in this day and age. He went on to say that even judges and governors can be affected by ratings motivated sensationalism and the “lynch mobs” they create.

(Please see Heroes, Zeros ans Geniuses in the Jodi Arias Case)

Judge Stephens Controlled the Court Room

Judge Sherry is not experienced in capital cases and this was her first. What’s the reason? The court in AZ is jammed with capital murder trials, so they need more and more judges to preside over them. Judge Stephens was afraid to make the tough decisions for fear of political backlash and appellate review and she was not in control of her courtroom. Had a cell phone gone off during Martinez’ closing statement instead of Nurmi’s, do you think that Judge Stephens would have admonished the court instead of just giving a blank stare? The idea that Arias’ family said or did anything inappropriate in the courtroom is a flat-out lie, there’s no evidence of that at all and they are as just as about far away from the jury as you can get.

The Alexander family did in fact purposely make eye contact and conducted non-verbal communication with jury members. It’s not their fault, they were never told they cannot do this. This is entirely different than emotional reactions when they were looking straight ahead instead of to their left. This is forbidden in most court rooms throughout the US. Did you see this principle being clearly demonstrated in the Zimmerman trial? The Martin family members were stoned-faced throughout the trial, and they left when they felt they could not keep their emotions in check.

Evidence of this non-verbal communication is clear in many trial videos. Family members can be seen making direct eye contact with jurors. This communication revealed itself when one juror went directly up to the Alexanders and apologized for the failure to achieve a death verdict. If Sherry had no bias, how do you explain her emotions when the jury could not come to a unanimous agreement? Failure to reach a unanimous decision happens all the time, so what was that emotion about?

Electronic Devices Are Not a Problem

It’s just too easy to go on Facebook or Twitter, etc. and see things about the trial without meaning to do so. If these comments and reports are all one-sided, the juror then is aware of overwhelming public sentiment, and may feel compelled to act in support of that sentiment, which is the main argument for sequestration. (Please see New Discarded Juror Questions….)

Your statement “What exactly was out there that was patently false, that the juror’s might have been influenced by?” – You really can’t be serious by asking this, can you? Where would we begin?

Lisa Daidone: Stalking Evidence

Lisa Daidone hardly knew Jodi, had rarely been around her and only spoke of one incident when Jodi showed up at Travis’ home. She depended primarily on the word of Travis Alexander, who was derisive of Jodi to his friends while talking to Jodi for hours and having sex with her late at night between and after dates with Lisa Daidone. Did YOU watch the trial? Please tell me  who else testified with a first-hand story about Jodi’s “stalking behavior”?

cuteDeanna Reid didn’t testify that Jodi hid behind a Christmas tree or crawled through the doggy door. Deana Reid, Travis ex-girlfriend, showed up at Travis’ home one week when Travis was away on business. She claimed that Travis asked her to walk his dog, Napolean. Deanna went over to Travis’ home and was surprised to see Jodi Arias there. She claims that Travis had no knowledge that Jodi was there. Is this true? Jodi didn’t hide behind a Christmas tree then. Instead, she was baking and she offered Deanna some chocolate chip cookies. Deanna’s described Jodi’s behavior to the jury as like a “Stepford Wife”. Damned if you do serve cookies, and damned if you don’t and just hide behind the tree .

LaViolette Was Not Balanced / Fair To Travis

As far as Travis being afraid of Jodi, he did not report any incident, he did not change his locks, he did not change his garage code, and he did not even lock his front door. He did not stop answering the booty call. This is why LaViolette was saying that Travis’ actions did not mimic his words when he said he was in fear of Jodi.

Alyce LaViolette is one of this country’s foremost experts in domestic violence. She isn’t a “shopped for” witness. With over 30 years experienced directly dealing with both the victims and the perpetrators of domestic violence, she’s a wish-list witness. Her testimony is that Travis Alexander’s behaviors as reported by Jodi Arias and as objectively supported by independent evidence, were derisive and abusive throughout the relationship. They fit a pattern she recognized. LaViolette stands by her testimony to this day.

(Please see Spotlight on Domestic Violence)

Samuels Cheated for Jodi

Psychologist Dr. Samuels did not think that Jodi needed to be re-tested because whether she is a witness to a murder or a participant in a killing, the trauma she experienced is the same trauma experience. Therefore the idea that she needed to re-tested is a ludicrous technicality. PTSD victims have different symptoms and different ways of compensating, depending on their personalities, etc. Since you feel Jodi Arias does not suffer from PTSD, can either you or DeMarte explain the extra symptoms in her testing not accounted for by either BPD or PD non-specified (NOS), yet do account for PTSD? We are patiently awaiting your answer……

Offering Books to Prisoners

thinking man

Offering books to prisoners, to put it bluntly, don’t mean sh*t.
This is just nitpicking by Martinez.

Arias was tested by 3 psychologists in all and the findings of 2 were reviewed by a 4th psychologist. Yes, there were four Psychologists altogether. You may hear from the 4th Psychologist at the 2nd penalty phase. The sole dissenting opinion about the diagnoses came from Dr. DeMarte, a novice.

How do you know the prosecution did not “shop” for Dr. DeMarte, as they did with Ray Krone, who spent 10 years in prison and 2 years on death row on shopped for false expert testimony?

(Please see What’s going on in Arizona, Maricopa part 1 and 2)

Jodi Lied to Her Parents

What Jodi’s parents said about her, that was not brought into evidence at trial, was that Jodi did not CONFIDE in her parents. This is much different than saying she lied to them all the time. She hardly spoke with them. Jodi did not share the details of her life with her parents. This is understandable as she was shown little affection or love. If you think a good idea as a parent of a 14 year-old is to call the police because your daughter is growing some pot seeds in Mom’s Tupperware on the roof, then God bless you. Experimentation is the basic job description of teens and if your own parents are not on your side and loyal to you, God help you. Who throws their own child to the wolves and doesn’t even provide legal help for a daughter accused of murder? Fortunately people can change. Jodi has changed and her parents have changed.

The Defense Agreed with DeMarte

The defense did not “buy” Borderline Personality Disorder. They had already stated Personality Disorder NOS (Non-Specified). The defense adopted both BPD and the 1st degree premeditated guilty verdict at the time of the 1st penalty phase because that is what threy believed the jury accepted. At that point in the trial, you have to argue the facts that the jury most likely believes, not your own.

Martinez Destroyed Defense Witnesses

thinking man 2With both LaViolette and Samuels, Martinez did little damage to their testimony and the objective facts they presented. What Martinez is so experienced at is discrediting the source of the information. Samuels is nothing more than a Messy Marvin and a pervert aching to touch Jodi’s naughty parts. LaViolette is a kooky liberal lesbian who believes that even Snow White is a battered woman.

Defense Expert’s False Claims

There were no experts who claimed or tried to demonstrate that Jodi acted in self-defense or that it was a sudden heat-of-passion homicide. The experts presented merely provided evidence and testimony which demonstrated that it was a possibility, and that’s all they needed to do.

Gas Can Evidence Proves Premeditation

ccspresskitThe amount of gas purchased at Tesoro was 25 + gallons. The capacity of 2 gas cans and the Ford Escort gas tank is 25 + gallons. It was not proven that Jodi had 3 gas cans at Tesoro, nor was it proven that she did not return the third gas can to Wal-Mart. It was merely proven that a clerk, who testified that a SKU number is spelled S-K-E-W, did not find a record of return in the places that she searched.

Talk about skewed testimony! The defense had no opportunity to adequately investigate and respond to this claim.

Back Stabbing and George Barwood

A note about George Barwood.

George is a UK resident. He has painstakingly compiled many facts and ideas about the Jodi Arias case on a Wikispace. George is active in helping advocating for the accused in wrongful conviction cases and he has worked on issues such as reducing domestic violence and abolition of the death penalty.

George is attacked as “not an expert” and not from the United States and therefore not qualified to give his opinion. This is the typical Martinez tactic of attacking the source rather than the information. Since George Barwood, as posters  say, is not an  expert, then you don’t need to be an expert to refute his ideas. So how about attacking his ideas and opinions with some of your own, instead of trying to cop out and attack him personally? Hmmmm?

The questions surrounding the tight pattern of wounds on Travis’ back have been contemplated by many people with the autopsy photos and a sense of reasoning. It is not only George Barwood’s theory, but agreement among many people, including, believe it or not, Juan Martinez.

Many people on the defense side of this trial have vastly differing beliefs about what the verdicts should be as well as having vastly different theories. This includes ideas from George Barwood, a meticulous collector of facts, and two articles by Richard Speights, on how the knife attack can be defensive in nature and a theory about the gun being first. Various others with varying degrees of experience and common sense, have also come to similar conclusions.

It was Juan Martinez himself, demonstrating using the court reporter as victim, who showed that a person can be stabbed from a variety of angles and positions. Juan used both sides of the same argument to make his points many times during the trial.

Travis autopsy diagramIf you stabbed a person in the back from in front, the sharp edge could still be facing downward depending on how you grasped the knife. Most of the stab wounds are diagonal. How can a stab wound to the back be an inch or more deep when they were all stopped by the ribs and spine? – Only due to the decomposition / bloating of the body.

Use of Felony Murder Charge

If the prosecution was so positive it was a premeditated murder and only Jodi was involved, then there’s no need for the 1st degree felony murder charge. You stated that under felony murder if a fight breaks out and a person is killed, if it’s the victim’s house, it’s first degree felony murder and if it’s at the perpetrator’s home, it’s not.

This is what you said. Think about it. That’s ludicrous.

This is why felony murder and domestic violence don’t mix. The added charge of felony murder means that the prosecution does not believe the gun was last (Gun first is the only reasonable explanation for felony murder). The felony murder charge can also mean that the prosecution doesn’t believe that only Arias was involved in the crime (felony murder charges are often used when accomplices are involved) and/or that this was a pre-mediated murder (felony murder charges are used when the murder is not pre-meditated).

In any case, this doesn’t bode well for a fair trial, because the jury believed all of these ideas.

This is just an advanced version of Martinez’ trick questions akin to “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”. A good example of this is “Did you cry when you were stabbing him?”. How clever! Both trails of yes and no choices mean you beat your wife, you stabbed him and you are going to the execution chamber.

Sex Evidence Used for Distraction

cookies and milkThe sex evidence was not used for distraction or to win over a horny juror. The sex evidence was crucial in showing Travis’ carefully hidden character and why it was possible that he suddenly could fly into a severe and violent rage. This was a hidden relationship with hidden activities, hidden conflicts, and alleged hidden violence. Without that sex evidence, no jury could ever believe what Jodi was saying about Travis, an ordained elder in the LDS Church. The sex evidence was not aimed at “trashing Travis”

(Please see An Open Letter to Wendy Murphy)

“Humiliation / Battery” of Victim’s Family

Perhaps this is just your perception because of your viewpoint. There is no real evidence that Jodi lied under oath about Travis. There is no basis to claim that she has done anything at the trial or publicly during the trial or since that “batters” or “humiliates” the Alexander family. This is begging for sympathy for Travis, which by the way we ALL have, but not when evaluating the facts.

As a matter of fact, Jodi Arias sided with the prosecution against her own attorney in arguing to clear the court for the playing of the sex tape.

If you insist that your allegations of “humiliation and battery” are true, please supply specific examples. Travis’ lifestyle and behavior were objectively proven, independently of Jodi’s testimony, to be abusive and demeaning throughout the relationship. In fact, he was abusive to Lisa Daidone and Mimi as well. Deanna was all for living with Napoleon, not so much with Travis.

Oh Holy Night

Both Lisa LaSalle and JustDaTruth are correct. Sheriff Joe has not done anything negative towards Jodi Arias, in fact he has done some good things for her (allowing her interviews, supplying her with excellent protection during the trial, allowing her participation in a talent contest at Christmas time). Regardless of how anyone feels about the other policies of Sheriff Joe, he has been generally good to Jodi Arias.

Lisa laSalleLisa LaSalle’s paragraph about Oh Holy Night (the song Jodi sang in Estrella Jail to win the Christmas talent contest) wasn’t about Sheriff Joe, it was about how so-called “haters” love to hate Jodi and love to wish her cruelties and suffering even at Christmas time.

This hating of a complete stranger continues, even though Jodi Arias is in custody and will face life in prison or execution for her acts.
…….As if somehow this is not enough.
Relax. Let justice run its course. Listen to both sides of the story, follow the 2nd penalty phase and enjoy some milk and cookies!

Lisa LaSalle’s Article:

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/12/18/the-infamous-trial-of-candy-crush/

JustDaTruth’s Article:

http://justdatruth2012.blogspot.com/2013/12/jodi-arias-crushing-candy-crush-blog.html

George Barwood’s sites about the Arias case:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JodiAriasOpen/489720477813066/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/

Heros, Zeroes, and Geniuses (Dec 8) #2 Lights Out

Heroes, Zeros, and Geniuses in the Jodi Arias Case #2 Lights Out

The Jodi Arias Murder Trial: The Other Side of the Story

geniuses

Fact – Based Reporting by

Rob Roman and Amanda Chen

Well folks, we now know that Jodi’s motion to dump her lead attorney was denied. The defense motions for a change of venue and individual voir dire (questioning) of the jury were also denied. The motion to obtain the Twitter handles of jurors was denied and the defense motion to sequester the jury was denied.

batmanJust a few days ago (Dec. 5), renewed motions again asking for a change of venue and individualized voir dire were denied again.

Judge Sherry Stephens has now officially become the Queen of Denial. We can call her Cleopatra. It seems the motion to move in slow motion was granted.

Jury selection is imminent, and the trial is scheduled to begin sometime in Mid-February, 2014.

A motion to limit media coverage was granted. It’s lights out for the 2nd penalty phase. We will have to depend on the few reporters who will be inside the courtroom.

So, it’s time for another Heros, Zeroes, and Geniuses segment. We have some from the original penalty and guilt phases as well as some current treasures, in both the normal and ironic senses of the word.

Hero #1

court cameras

Courtroom Cameras

Cameras will still be in the courtroom, however, and we will be able to watch the trial after it’s over. The entire original trial exists on YouTube and other internet sites for everyone to see. It’s your decision whether this was a fair or unfair trial. We say “No way, Jose!”

When hearing reports in the second penalty phase, it’s important to realize just who is doing the reporting and whether what is being reported is factual, or biased speculation. If the person making the report just happens to be hawking their latest book about Jodi Arias at the same time (like Josh Hoffner, the author of “Killer Girlfriend”), be cautious.

This is the guy who claimed he had a “stare down” with Jodi Arias in the courtroom, even though Jodi probably had no idea who he was and was just wondering who this man was who had appeared on her side of the courtroom. This Associated Press Journalist with lots of experience went on CNN’s headline news, but tellingly, had nothing other than that to report as he hawked his equally speculative book about the killing.

Hero #2

donavan

Donavan Bering

Also on Jodi’s side of the gallery almost every day of the trial was Jodi’s jailhouse friend, Donavan Bering. If the chips are down, and the whole world is against you, this is the friend you would want.

Ms. Bering was one of the few guests talking to reporters in support of Jodi Arias. She was a guest on CNN’s Headline News studio a few times, where she reportedly burned the house down!

Sorry, Donavan, just joking. Donavan showed a rare phenomenon in a friend known as loyalty, and she stuck by Jodi’s side through hell and high water.

Now free on parole from an arson conviction, Donavan, was absolutely vilified and lambasted by the media, for being nothing but a good and true friend. The world needs more people like Ms. Bering, who by many accounts is a really nice and caring person.

Hero #3

jennifer willmott lt

Jennifer Willmott

Not nearly enough attention was given to the truly heartfelt and heroic closing statements delivered by Arias’ 2nd chair attorney, Jennifer Willmott form the original penalty phase.

Just listen to it one more time (below).  This was a visceral and heart-felt plea for sparing the life of Jodi Arias. Ms. Willmott may have been responsible for the 4 jurors who would not back down on their votes for life.

When you have a tragedy, especially with Arias’ circumstances of good character, nothing more than a traffic ticket, and a lifelong mental illness, you try to salvage what is left from the tragedy. You don’t throw a person’s life away on the basis of what’s been presented in this case. Execution still hangs over Jodi Arias’ head, and it will be interesting to see which defense attorney does the closing arguments this time.

Zero #1

troy hayden brt

Troy Hayden (Fox News Phoenix)

and Ryan Owens (ABC correspondent)

This man is the Fox News reporter located in Phoenix, who interviewed Jodi Arias after the guilty verdict (see the video below). What Jodi said in this interview was the reason why she was confined to the jail psychiatric unit for 3 days after the guilty verdict (risk of being a danger to self). His interview was very fair, compared to the interview from Ryan Owens, an ABC correspondent.

ryan owensRyan Owens lied to Arias when he agreed not to show Jodi’s prison stripes or leg chains, as a condition of the interview. His reasoning was he didn’t have to abide by this agreement because it was made with Jodi Arias. Ryan Owens aggressively attacked Arias in the interview, demanding of Arias ‘When are you going to finally tell us what really happened in that bathroom?

 Jodi spent a lot of time under oath explaining what happened in the bathroom. What really didn’t happen in that bathroom is what the prosecution says happened, because the forensic and crime scene evidence contradicts their theory.

Last week, Troy Haden reported that he had interviewed a former cell-mate of Jodi’s who claims Arias wanted to know why Juan Martinez doesn’t love her and that Arias threatened to have Juan Martinez killed by way of “Mafia Bow tie”  or slit throat.

We became immediately suspicious because

super heroA)    No details were provided such as when was this said? Where was this said, under what circumstances was this said? How long was she cell-mates with Arias?

B)    No details were given about this cell-mate such as what was her crime, what is her current status, etc.

C)    No other statements were given from the former prisoner, besides the derisive statements about Arias. What else happened while the two were cellmates? Are there any positive things that happened?

No real reporter could take this report seriously. Yet all the major outlets and all the most popular blogs, and all the social media parroted it like it was gospel.

Few people reported any facts at all about this prisoner, who appeared to be quite obviously mentally ill.

Since there is now a media blackout, the media will be dependent on the reporters who are actually in the courtroom and viewing the trial live. So, it’s no small wonder what Troy Hayden was trying to do. Troy Hayden is another opportunist who wanted to get a scoop so he could set himself up as the go-to guy for the 2nd penalty phase. It’s really that simple.

Zero #2

nancy grace

Nancy Grace

At least we know Nancy Grace is not liked by people on all sides of this case, regardless of her odes to the fallen heroes in Afghanistan.

Nancy Grace  did everything in her power to incite the lynch mob against Jodi Arias, including declaring her guilty of premeditated murder a few days into the trial, because Travis was stabbed in the back. Actually, the stabs in the back may actually be defensive blows made by Arias while under or face to face with Travis Alexander. The description, shape and pattern of these wounds are much less likely to be made in an offensive manner as they would in a defensive manner.

zerosNancy was much more fair to Brett Seacat (fair trial – guilty – private legal team) and Dr. Martin MacNeil (fair trial – guilty –  private legal team). See if you can spot the differences.

The good news is that CNN and Headline news are now under a shake-up due to low ratings. The new boss has promised that CNN and HLN will be unrecognizable in 2014 from what they are now .

We hope this means Nancy grace will lose her show and get the old Heave-Ho. We are tired of watching her be rude to guests who disagree with her, hang up on them, talk over them, or disconnect them in mid-talk as she has done to Beth Karas and others so many times.

Zero #3

sheriff joe

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Jodi Arias reported that a toilet near her cell was running continuously and yet no staff did anything about it for days. These are people who are supposed to notice stuff like that. So, it’s small wonder that other prisoners at the jail have cried and screamed for basic medical attention and nobody ever came around, after which they needed to be hospitalized and some died in their cells.

japanese zeroJoe made our list by reducing visiting hours just in time for the holiday to .5 hours per week (probably to save on overtime). Sheriff Joe also took all meat out of the prisoner’s meals to save money. He boasted that he had gotten Thanksgiving dinner down to a cost of just 60 cents per meal. Way to go, Joe!

Joe is such a good, frugal money saver, especially in election years in Arizona. So allow me to mention this fact from Wikipedia:

There have been two thousand lawsuits and the 43 million dollars in payouts against Sheriff Joe.  That’s “50 times as many prison- conditions lawsuits as there were in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined” (Sources: Wikipedia and AZCentral.com).

For a guy who sure can save that money, you sure are losing a damn awful lot of money. Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Genius #1

cassandra collins brt

Cassandra Collins

Okay, look at this hairdo and look at the facial expression. I don’t mean to be judgmental, but this was immediately indicative of mental illness, having worked in this field.

But that didn’t stop Troy Hayden from broadcasting every inflammatory word this woman had to say about Jodi Arias, including that Jodi Arias allegedly posed for Cassandra naked with her buttocks jacked up like she was in that famous photo that Travis took, and asked Cassandra “Does this look forced to you?”

Readers who know the facts later determined that Cassandra Collins was Jodi Arias’cell mate sometime in 2009.  If we wanted to research this for consistency and reliability, a good reporter would get the month and date these supposed things happened and see if they match up with testimony given in pre-trial hearings, etc.

sherry stephensJodi Arias denies this account. She also denies that she threatened to have prosecutor Juan Martinez killed if she received the Death Penalty, by way of a “Mafia Bow tie”.

A “mafia bow tie” is not listed in the urban dictionary at all, and is nothing but an actual bow tie. A Columbian or Mexican Neck tie, is when someone slits a victim’s throat and pulls their tongue through the slit, as a message to rivals.

Although, this was mildly amusing, few people reported the fact that Cassandra Collins was found to be incompetent to stand trial (not mentally capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong). Not only that, she was adjudicated as being “not likely to become competent any time in the near future”.

How do we know this? Jodi’s proxy tweeted the court records out on Twitter.

Did Jodi get naked and up close and personal to get Cassandra the hell out of her cell? I wouldn’t blame her. Most likely, Cassandra made the whole thing up because she wanted to ride on the Jodi train.

Good luck Cassandra in your future pursuits (of fame).

Genius #2

Metallic Twitter Logo

Twitter Twits in the Twitterverse

I always want to check on what facts and relevant information the Prosecution Supporters are working on. Here is what I found:

Terri Stefaniw ‏@TerriStefaniw

#jodiarias Twas the night b/4 xmas, and all through “the House”, every jailguard is glowing cause Hodi’s been blowing.

– That’s not nice!

Jtwitter 1effrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq

#JodiArias asked court to reconsider change venue & individual juror Qs motions in light of @troyhaydenfox10 interview with cellmate: DENIED

Favorited 13 times

– In light of Troy Hatden’s childish report. No self-respecting reporter would ever have submitted such trash, but in the case of Jodi Arias, all’s fair, I guess.

Hodi‏@HodiHo69

There’s #jodiarias again! #lotlizard @JodiAnnArias pic.twitter.com/wgpK9CN6Sg

jodi truck stop brt

– This one is quite self-explanatory.

twitter 2Morning Express ‏@MorningExp 3 Dec

Could alleged #JodiArias revenge plot impact the final phase of her murder trial?? http://on.hln.tv/52ozvO

– Why should it? It’s not credible. It’s being investigated by both the defense and the prosecution, so we will be hearing more about this. If she did this, bring her up on charges! You never will, because it’s ridiculous.

Nancy Grace ‏@NancyGraceHLN 8 Nov

I guess the #MartinMacNeill defense team took a page out of the #JodiArias playbook & decided taking the stand was a big no-no

– Martin MacNeil was not claiming self-defense, where a defendant is obligated to take the stand, in most cases..

geniusTeri ‏@Teri423 13m

@nuts2beanz @TerriStefaniw @JodiAnnArias There is nothing that will EVER clean that GASH. It is PITIFUL, well, she is. #jodiarias

Uh Oh…. potty mouth!

boomer ‏@nuts2beanz 19m

@TerriStefaniw @JodiAnnArias this would be a great oxyclean commercial. Might even clean up that gash of hers #jodiarias

– Peer pressure!

ESNEET4113 ‏@esneet4113

RT“@debrasweet1959: @esneet4113 I’m not sure about that Dahmer was still loner not Manson” Manson was a manipulator just like #JodiArias

– When did Jodi Arias get into the same class as Dahmer , Bundy, and Manson? Since she killed her dog, like many serial killers do! Of course, why didn’t I allege that?

Vinnie Politan ‏@VinniePolitan 3 Dec

4pm on @HLNtv I will be talking about #JodiArias and her alleged threats against #JuanMartinez

– Because I have nothing factual and informative to talk about!

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 26 Nov

Nurmi is saying that asking jurors for their Twitter handles is less intrusive than asking their address and phone number. #jodiarias

Retweeted by InconvenientTruthsTV

– Michael Kiefer, the only fair reporter out there.

Another reason we wanted to draw attention to some of these tweets is because they are a precise blueprint for how to stalk and bully on the high –  tech Interweb.

Free speech is free speech. If you want to scream to the world that you are an ignorant fool, have at it.

bullyI don’t know the age of these people, but what are these people teaching their sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, or their children when they use  the social media to attack a person like this?

It makes people feel bigger when they can project their own evilness and sickness onto soneone they feel deserves it, and gain some friends for good measure. I am the coolest because I threw the biggest rock at Jodi Arias! miley smThe kicker is that Jodi will never see these Tweets.

Great way to show us your naked cruelty, aggravation, and penchant for vengeance. Really Nice!

Great way to memorialize Travis!

So while these Twitter Twits of the Twitterverse are sharpening their claws on Jodi Arias, who are they stalking and attacking in real life? Who are they teaching to do the same?

These geniuses are pitiful, ignorant and  maybe a little bit funny if they weren’t so sad.

Genius #3

Jeffrey Martinson 9 years in prison: Case dismissed
Jeffrey Martinson 9 years in prison: Case dismissed

Maricopa, Arizona Prosecutors

PHOENIX, Nov. 20 (UPI) — “Citing “a pattern and practice of misconduct” by prosecutors, an Arizona judge has freed a man charged nine years ago in the death of his son.

Judge Sally Duncan dismissed first-degree murder charges against Jeffrey Martinson in the 2004 death of his 5-year-old son, Josh, and ordered the father be released Sunday, The Arizona Republic in Phoenix reported Tuesday.

jodi arias 88Duncan dismissed the charges “with prejudice,” meaning Martinson cannot be tried again on the same charges.

In a 28-page ruling, Duncan detailed what she called the prosecution’s “win-by-any-means strategy.”

Duncan said Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Frankie Grimsman charged Martinson with felony murder, then tried him as if he were charged with premeditated murder.”

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/20/Arizona-judge-dismisses-murder-charges-over-prosecutor-misconduct/UPI-91401384973035/

Here we go with the felony murder vs. premeditated murder thing, again.

Let’s do a review.

wonder_woman 2Felony murder is usually when an unintended murder is a by-product of another intended felony.

You go to rob an empty home. Someone is unexpectedly there or shows up unexpectedly and you kill them. That’s felony murder,

You go to rob a bank and the teller has a heart attack and dies. This can be felony murder.

You rob a bank with a friend and the friend shoots and kills a cop. You and your friend  have both committed felony murder.

You rob a bank with a friend and the friend gets shot and killed by a cop. You have committed felony murder.

You go to a home to kill someone and after that, you decide to rob him. Tthat’s premeditated murder and a separate charge of burglary.

*

So, what happened in this case? Martinson was accused of child abuse and the death of his 5 year-old son. It was a death penalty case.

The prosecution theory is that Martinson abused and drugged his child many times, and one time when he was abusing him, the child died.

The case was  presented to the Grand Jury, charged, presented to the court, and presented to the defense attorneys as a first degree felony murder. In the course of the defendant committing the felony of child abuse, the child died. The Aggravator making the case death penalty eligible was “ extremely heinous, cruel or depraved”, stating that it was depraved because it was a “senseless murder”.

super shopperShortly before trial, in spite of objections from the defense and warnings from the judge, the prosecution presented the case as a first degree premeditated murder.

This means that they must have discovered at the last minute that they couldn’t get a conviction on their original theory, so they changed it. But the prosecution did not inform anyone about this change, but they tried to hide it.

In addition, the aggravator of senseless depravity is not relevant to premeditation in this case. The prosecution refused to admit this error and violation of the rights of the defendant to know what crime he is being charged with .

This dismissed case was a Death Penalty case. The man was in jail and prison for 9 years. You do not play games when someone’s life is at stake.

If you have read some of the other articles on this site, you will know there is a clear pattern of “get the conviction at all cost no matter what the facts and the evidence are” in Maricopa. Arizona.

….and the mainstream media will never report about that!

(Thanks to SW, for this one)

Troy Hayden interviews Jodi Arias

Ryan Owens interviews Jodi Arias

Jennifer Willmott, Heroic closing argument

All comments are welcome and appreciated

All Rights Reserved

sources:

http://www.azcentral.com

http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062012/m5297705.pdf

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131119man-held-sons-death-ordered-freed.html

The Executives and the Executed (part 2)

The Executives and the Executed (part 2)

Meet Arizona’s Recently Executed Death Row Prisoners

Fact Based Reporting

by Amanda Chen and Rob Roman

The Arizona Executive Board of Clemency

can reduce sentences for any prisoner convicted of a felony. For death sentences, it’s almost impossible. For doing such things as reducing a 7 year sentence to a 5 year sentence, here is what a popular Arizona newspaper says:
symington 4“Statistically, if you are convicted of a felony in Arizona, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than granted clemency by the governor. Excluding the cases of inmates nearing the end of a terminal illness, Governor Jan Brewer is on track to grant the fewest clemency cases in more than two decades – even when a judge and unanimous board recommend a shorter sentence.
Recent board members interviewed by The Arizona Republic believe clemency will be granted even less frequently in the future.
Indeed, (Governor Jan) Brewer’s decision to replace three of the five clemency-board members at once last month (April, 2012) has led to legal and political turmoil: Departing board members say they were ousted for voting to grant clemency; and attorneys for an inmate scheduled to be executed Wednesday will be in Maricopa County Sperior Court on Monday, seeking a court order to nullify the appointments, arguing that they violated state laws. If the court agrees, it would invalidate dozens of board decisions from the past three weeks and could stall the clemency process.”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/04/12/20120412arizona-prison-clemency.html#ixzz2i8iEj2RK
Jane hull(web)-150Less than four months later, two of the new members resigned after having controversies with the longstanding board members. This is motly about the shorter term felony sentences. For the prisoners facing an execution: forgetaboutit!
images (1)The other controversy revolves around the drugs used to execute prisoners. More and more companies are refusing to supply the drugs for the purpose of taking as life. States have had to change theit drug protocols and they have even shown a willingness to “improvise” if needed.
jan brewer 5These are the last   7 prisoners executed in Arizona from 2012 – 2013. A quick look at these brief but interesting histories tells us something about how the death penalty works and does not work in Arizona.

So let’s take a look at the Arizona’s most recently executed prisoners:

Robert Henry Moormann

moormann 1Crime: January 13, 1984

Sentenced to Death: May 7, 1985

Executed: February 29, 2012

This man went on a trip from Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada, no problem with that. He stopped at several hotels along the way, no problem with that. He took a female companion with him, no problem there. The female was eight years old and he didn’t know her. That’s a BIG problem.
3 aggravating circumstances:
Prior conviction punishable by life imprisonment
Pecuniary gain
Especially heinous, cruel, or depraved (all three prongs)
 motelMoormann was incarcerated and his mother would make the three hour drive to see him from time to time. He was granted a temporary 3 day humanitarian release to visit his ailing mother. While visiting his mother at a hotel within eyesight of the prison, he smothered her with a pillow and dismembered her body. He tried to hide the body parts at various places around town, including at the prison. There was a BIG problem there, too.
And this was the end of humanitarian releases for violent convicts.
moorman 2There were issues of mental incompetence and he was found to be mentally retarded by an IQ test administered when he was in grade school. There were also reports that his mother had sexually abused him throughout his life.
Just before he was put to death, Robert Henry Moormann used his last words to apologize to his family and to the family of the eight-year-old girl he kidnapped and molested in 1972. He said: “I hope this brings closure and they can start healing now”.
“I just hope that they will forgive me in time.”
Most states use a 3-drug combination for lethal injections:
1)      An Anesthetic (either Pentobarbital or, formerly, Sodium Thiopental),
2)      Pancuronium Bromide (a paralytic agent, also called Pavulon),
3)       Potassium Chloride (stops the heart and causes death).
Moormann became the unintended first recipient of Arizona’s new single drug protocol, a lethal dose of an anesthetic. This occurred because it was discovered on Monday that one of the three drugs had expired. Moormann was given only two days notice of how he would be put to death instead of the usual 7 day notice.
Moorman is considered to be severely mentally handicapped. He was probably not completely sure of what was happening to him. The U.S. Supreme Court refused his request for a stay of execution just 2 hours before he was put to death.

Robert Towery

robert-towery

Crime: September 4, 1991

Sentenced to Death: November 20, 1992

Executed: March 8, 2012

This man robbed a 6 year-old man, injected him with a veterinary syringe filled with an unknown liquid, then strangled him to death with a zip tie.
4 aggravating circumstances:
Prior convictions for offenses involving the threat of violence
Prior convictions for which life imprisonment was impossible
Pecuniary gain
Especially heinous, cruel or depraved (cruelty prong only)
towery 2Also known as “Chewey”, Robert was usually high on meth. He enjoyed mayhem and made use of strong arm robberies to finance his lifestyle.  During one robbery, he targeted a well known philanthropist named Mark Jones who financed the college education of hard-working graduate students. He had even lent Robert Towery some money in the past and gave him advice about starting a business.
With an accomplice, Towery tied up and injected him with a substance before strangling him with a plastic zip tie. This substance was rumored to be battery acid, giving him the name of “the Battery Acid Killer”. However, it was found at trial that neither the syringe nor the victim’s body had any traces of battery acid.
Most of the evidence against Towery, including the idea about battery acid, came from his accomplice who served only 10 years for 2nd degree murder.
towery sisAt his commutation hearing before the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, a prosecutor again brought up the battery acid rumor. He also explained that Towery’s mitigating claims of severe child abuse were unfounded and a phony plea for mercy. These were lies told by Juan Martinez to secure a death sentence. At this same meeting were Towery’s two sisters, who each explained in vivid detail the horrendous abuse endured by Towery. He often protected his two sisters by taking beatings that were meant for his sisters.
PHP4F5395C5EB2AARobert Towery in his last words, apologized to his family and to the victim’s family and friends. He regretted having made so many mistakes in his life and continuing to go in the wrong direction.
Remeber that Towery had injected his victim with a liquid filled syringe? Curiously, the execution team took an unusually long time finding a vein and stuck him many times, finally arranging injection portals in both his arm and his groin. The one hour delay was not attributed to the struggle to find a vein but to ‘extra time Towery spent with his lawyer and a minister’.
Towery cried before being injected, but this was attributed to his emotions about his family. His final words were “potato, potato, potato”, perhaps a reference to his last visits with his family ot to his childhood with his two sisters. Robert’s final words were “I would like to apologize to Mark’s family and friends for what I did to them. I would like to apologize to my family,” Towery said. “So many times in my life I went left when I should have gone right and I went right when I should have gone left. It was mistake after mistake after mistake.” “I love my family”. “Potato, potato, potato”.

Thomas Arnold Kemp

kemp 1

Crime: July 11, 1992

Sentenced to Death: July 9, 1993

Executed: April 25, 2012

This man with an accomplice killed an illegal immigrant named Hector Juarez and left him naked in the desert.
3 aggravating circumstances:
Prior convictions for offenses involving the threat of violence
Pecuniary gain
Especially heinous, cruel or depraved (cruelty prong only)
Kemp and his accomplice abducted their victim from his community college. They forced him to withdraw $200.00 for his bank account and drove him into the desert. They forced him to remove his clothes and then Kemp shot him twice in the head.
After the murder, the two kidnapped a couple in Durango, Colorado and sexually assaulted the man. They separated and his accomplice was arrested after contacting the Police about the murder.
kemp 2He did admit to having regret and remorse about the incident. He was remorseful that he had become too good of friends with his accomplice to summon up the will to kill him, too. He stated he very much regretted not killing his accomplice, who was the only witness to the murder.
Kemp stated that his victim was not legal to be in the U.S. and so was “beneath my contempt.” He further stated “If more of them wound up dead, the rest of them would soon learn to stay in Mexico, where they belong”.
az_kemp_thomasKemp refused to ask for mercy and refused to appear before the Arizona Board of
Executive Clemency. He told the judge and the court at sentencing that the victim was in the United States illegally and did not deserve to live. He told the judge “I spit on the law and all those who serve it.”
Kemp also had something to say to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. In a handwritten note, he said, “I, Thomas Kemp, state that I decline to seek executive clemency due to the futility of that process. In light of the board’s history of consistently denying requests for commutations, my impression is that a hearing in my case would be nothing short of a dog and pony show.”
In that regard, he was exactly right. Perhaps it’s easier to have a death sentence commuted to life than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. More than likely, after anyone meets with this board, the needle is going into you, and in one hell of a hurry, too. His final words were “I regret nothing”.

 

Samuel Lopez

samuel lopez 2

Crime: October 29, 1986

Sentenced to Death: June 25, 1987

Executed: June 27, 2012

This man raped and murdered a 59 year-old woman, a grandmother and poor seamstress who lived alone.

1 aggravating circumstance:
Prior conviction involving violence
(struck on appeal because the past violent conviction was for “resisting arrest”)
Especially heinous, cruel, or depraved (all 3 prongs of the aggravator)
samuel lopezShe was found by the police in her home half-naked, gagged and blindfolded. There were 3 stabs to her head, one to her face, and twenty three stab wounds to her left breast and chest. Her throat had been slit. There was blood all throughout the home, especially in the bedroom, the bathroom, and the kitchen. The victim had been raped and he was caught in a separate rape case less than a week later, matching his DNA and tying him to the murder case.
The Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, had previously dismissed two members of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, and substituted her own members.  Lopez’s attorneys successfully won a delay in execution by arguing that the new members of the board had not received their training at the time of the scheduled hearing. The court ordered a temporary stay of execution, while the new board members received their mandatory 4 week training, like that was going to make any difference.
Lopez then sought a second stay arguing that Republican Governor Jan Brewer had appointed “political cronies” to the board, making a fair hearing impossible, which was rejected by the state Supreme Court.
In earlier executions, witnesses only saw the prisoner after the catheters had been inserted.
Samuel LopezHis execution was the first in which witnesses will watch, via closed-circuit TV, the insertion of the catheters that deliver the fatal drug pentobarbital. Attorneys for inmates in prior executions condemned the practice of inserting catheters into the prisoners’ groins. Officials said the executioners had found it difficult to find suitable veins in the arms and legs.
Prior to Lopez’s execution, witnesses only saw the condemned inmate at the time the of the injection. Lopez’s execution was the first time Arizona set up a closed-circuit TV camera so witnesses could view the insertion of the catheters into the arm, leg, or groin. In light of what happened to Robert Towery, maybe this is for the best.
Daniel Wayne Cook

az_cook_d

Crime: July 19, 1987

Sentenced to Death: August 8, 1988

Executed: August 8, 2012

With an accomplice, this man beat, tortured and killed one of his roommates in an argument over money and then beat, sodomized and killed a second friend because he walked in on the scene.
3 aggravating circumstances:
Especially heinous, cruel, or depraved (all 3 prongs of the aggravator)
Multiple homicides
Pecuniary gain
Carlos Froyan Cruz-Ramos was tortured by Cook and his accomplice, John Matzke. He was tied to a chair and then stabbed and beaten with a metal pipe for a few hours. They also burned his genitals with cigarettes. Finally, they crushed his throat with the metal pipe.
When Kevin Swaney arrived on the scene, he was forced to view the scene and the body. Swaney was tied to the same chair. He was beaten, sodomized, and then strangled to death with a bed sheet.
cookedCook’s accomplice, John Matzke, furnished the prosecution with much of the evidence. The acquaintance served just 20 years for the two brutal murders, and he’s free today.
daniel_cookCook won a stay of execution in April 2011 when the U.S Supreme Court explored claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during both the trial and appeals. There were claims of child sexual abuse by family members and a foster care worker that were never presented for mitigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the execution was rescheduled.
Cook’s last words were: “I’d like to say sorry to the victim’s family. I know that’s not enough . . .  . . . Where am I? To my lawyers, thank you. Red Robin, yum. I’m done. I love you”.

Richard Dale Stokley

stokley000

Crime: July 8, 1991

Sentenced to Death: July 14, 1992

Executed: December 5, 2012

This man, with an accomplice, abducted two 13 year old girls at a county fair. The two kidnapped, raped and murdered the young girls and threw them down a mine shaft.
3 aggravating circumstances,
Especially heinous, cruel or depraved (all 3 prongs)
Multiple murders
Age of victims (under 15)
richard-stokely-crimetickerAfter the rapes, they decided to kill them for fear of being caught. They each strangled one of the girls to death. According to his accomplice, Stokley made sure the girls were dead by repeatedly stomping on their bodies and stabbing each girl in the right eye.
Stokley turned himself in and confessed to the murders. Even so, Stokley’s accomplice turned State’s evidence against Stokley. The accomplice served just 20 years for the two rapes and murders, and he’s free today.
Stokely did say he was sorry for the victims and their families. He did not meet with the Arizona Executive Board of Clemency, and he declined to ask for mercy of the board which has the power to delay his execution or commute his sentence to life in prison.  A clemency request would be futile because the board hadn’t shown mercy to other death-row inmates, he told the board in a handwritten letter. ‘I don’t want to put anyone through that, especially since I’m convinced that … it’s pointless,’ he wrote. ‘I reckon I know how to die, and if it’s my time, I’ll go without fanfare.’
Stokley has said he thought his life was worth saving, that he knew he had made ‘grave and irreversible errors’ and that he was sorry he ‘was mixed up in these awful events that brought me to this’.
stokely 2On his execution day, Stokley had plenty of time to socialize and joke with the execution team as they spent 52 minutes trying to find veins that could be used to administer the drug pentobarbital. “I grew up a long time ago,” Stokley said. “I do wish I could die doing something meaningful, you know. This seems like such a waste.”
When Stokley was asked if he had any final words, he simply responded, “Nah.” He refused to look at the victims family members and said nothing at his execution.

Next in line for execution in Arizona:

Edward Schad

schad 1

Crime: August 1, 1978

Sentenced to Death: December 27, 1979

Executed: October 9, 2013

 

This man was convicted for the 1978 murder of Lorimer Grove, 74, an Arizonan on his way to WashingtonState.
Grove was driving his Cadillac when Schad allegedly hitched a ride or asked him to stop for help. Grove was strangled to death. Schad was AWOL from the Army and was found in New Yorrk driving Grove’s Cadillac, with the victim’s ID in his wallet, and having made purchases with the victim’s credit card. Schad had served time for second degree murder in the strangling death of a fellow Army member. He claimed it was an accident during rough sex.
3 aggravating circumstances:
Prior conviction punishable by life imprisonment
Prior conviction involving violence
Pecuniary gain
Schad has consistently denied murdering the victim. He admitted that he was a thief and he had stolen cars before, but he claimed he had not hurt anyone he stole from.
Schad, at 71 years-old, was the oldest man on Arizona’s death row. He had spent 35 years behind bars. There was a stay of execution, while the appeals court determined if Schad’s attorney had failed to bring up Schad’s mental illness as a mitigating factor.
Schad’s attorney also brought up the issue of whether it was impossible to get a stay or commutation to life in prison from the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. He charged that the Governor’s office had improperly influenced the Clemency Board to refuse any requests for postponements or leniency.
schad000The lawyer also demanded to know what drugs were going to be used and for the court to make the state reveal the source of the drugs. The state was very reluctant to comply and only complied in part.
“A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix ordered the state to reveal the source of the drugs – the state begrudgingly complied in part – but she did not stop the execution.”
Schad’s execution was stayed in March by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow time for appeals. The appeals were denied and Schad was executed October 9th at 10:00 AM.

Robert Jones

robert jones

Crime: May – August, 1996

Sentenced to Death: February 17, 2000

Executed: October 23, 2013

 

This man was served with six death sentences by the court, one for each of his victims.
scan0019fm1Robert Jones is a Texan who was just released from prison when he teamed up with an accomplice to rob a smoke shop in Tuscon. Five people were shot and two of them died of their wounds. Two weeks later, Jones and his accomplice tried to rob the Firefighter’s Union Hall in Tuscon, shooting and killing four people.
5 aggravating circumstances and 42 felony counts:
Convicted of other offenses for which life sentence or death penalty imposable
Convicted of other “serious” offenses
Pecuniary gain
On parole at time of offense
Multiple homicides
The killings were mostly execution-style. Robert Jones seemed to enjoy shooting people in the head even more than the robberies. Jones and his accomplice, Scott Nordstrom were turned in by Nordstrom’s brother, David, the getaway driver in their burglaries.
jones 1Robert Jones was first jailed in 1972. The murders were committed in 1984. He has served 26 years on death row in Arizona. His accomplice, Scoot Nordstrom, remains on death row. It seems that Scott Nordstrom’s execution date will also arrive in 2013.
Jones’ execution date is set for October 23, 2013.

Let’s compare to Jodi Arias

jodi arias jail

Crime: June 4, 2008
Sentenced to Death:
Executed:
This woman committed a domestic homicide. She shot her ex-boyfriend, stabbed him 16 (not 27 and not 29) times and slit his throat during a violent altercation. She has a long term mental illness and had been mentally and emotionally abused by the victim. Arias also was possibly sexually and physically abused by an ordained elder in the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) in a secretive sexual relationship.
1 Aggravating circumstance
Especially heinous, cruel or depraved (cruelty prong only of the aggravator)
No prior convictions. In the four years prior to meeting the victim and over five years after, has shown no signs of violence, instability, or rage.
It’s true that most women who murder do not rob, rape, or torture their victims, and most are domestic violence homicides. It is also true that most women who murder do so in either self-defense, out of fear, or to protect children. Many times in self-defense, the murder is disproportional to the attack (overkill). This is most often because the woman is reacting to prior acts of violence committed against her, or due to the woman’s smaller size and inexperience at committing violence and in processing the inevitable adrenaline rush.

We will continue to update the list of the executed as Arizona cranks up their execution machine in the months to come.  Will Arizona become more like California, which has rarely used it’s execution powers and now faces a proposition on the ballot to eliminate executions? Maybe Arizona will remain like Texas, Alabama and Ohio, where it’s full steam ahead on executions. Only time will tell.

Sources: http://www.azcentral.com  www.murderpedia.org

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/pending_death_penalty_cases_weigh_against_maricopa_county/

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/CCTF/FinalRpt092007.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/jan-brewer-arizona-execution_n_1610924.html

 

 

An Open Letter to Wendy Murphy

An Open letter to Wendy Murphy

horses ass

Yes, you guessed it. I’m a wee bit disappointed with her.

On May 28, 2013, an attorney named Wendy Murphy, who was appearing on CNN’s notorius HeadLine News Network HLN, Wrote an article called:

“PORN DEFENSE AND SEXIST MANIPULATION STRATEGY

WORKED FOR NOW, BUT JODI “HANNIBAL LECTER” ARIAS MIGHT NOT GET A SIMILARLY NAÏVE JURY THE NEXT TIME.”

http://wendymurphylaw.com/jodi-hannibal-lecter-arias/

wendy murphy 2This article kind of jumped out at me, and I just had to read and analyze it. Obviously, Wendy Murphy was just another in a long line of useless idiots riding the wave of the Jodi Arias trial. She is always trying to sell one book or another, like most people who came on HLN and walked all over Jodi Arias and the facts to hawk their latest book. She is some kind of a law professor at some or another college somewhere.

Wendy Murphy is supposed to be a Victim’s Rights Advocate. She is supposed to be a Civil Trial lawyer. You know, the ones who go after the deep pockets money and have a much lower burden of proof than in a criminal trial. According to her Website, she has recommendations from such celebrities as Geraldo Rivera (Who was the only one I know of to publicly condemn Nancy Grace for her twisted reporting on Arias and the trial),  Judge Andrew Napolitano, the jovial bloviator with the hair that seemingly grows out of his forehead, also put in a word for Wendy Murphy.

Geraldo-Rivera-Fox-news-OBama-e1339163421529

judge andrew napolitanoThese two people just happen to both appear on FOX News Network, where Wendy also appears from time to time. The next recommendation comes from Dominick Dunne, who congratulates her for her work on the 1996 Jon Benet Ramsey case. Wendy!  You must be older than I thought! A fourth “celebrity” who recommends Wendy Murphy is Rita Cosby, yet another FOX Friend, and possibly a drinking buddy of Ms. Murphy when she’s in town.

jonbenetdominick dunnerita cosby

Wendy Murphy is looking for Victims to represent in civil court.  Apparently this line of work is not enough to sustain her, so she writes books and appears on FOX NEWS or she tries to con her way onto CNN or MSNBC as they all do.

wendy murphy 4Apparently, she was too busy to reply to my letter which I E-mailed to her in early June. When I took exception to her “Porn Defense” article. I saw this as just a blatant attempt to garner Civil Trial clients and book deals by being the next opportunist to throw rocks at Jodi Arias.  Rita Cosby probably told her to never respond unless it’s a business opportunity.

Now, rape on Ivy League campuses is her next big thing. Maybe Wendy discovered where the real lucrative civil suits can be found. Wendy Murphy is happy to share her new-found expertise on campus rape, if you buy her new E-Book for $8.00. Of course, she’s plugging another in a long, long line of books entitled “……. the book they don’t want you to read” or “things……they don’t want you to know”. Oh, it’s the old reverse psychology, forbidden information, ploy.

wendy murphy 3Wendy is another in a long line of middle aged “personality wannabees”. She got herself a facelift, wrote a couple of books, and speaks out on a couple of different news outlets. Her latest article is “An Open Letter to Juan Martinez, where she decides she must warn Juan of Jodi’s dirty tricks and give advice to Juan Martinez about the finer points of law.

I believe what she did to Jodi Arias is reprehensible, and no different than what Geraldo condemned Nancy Grace for doing.

wendy murphy 6http://wendymurphylaw.com/

The following is my updated response to her article:

Dear Ms. Murphy,
In reference to the State of Arizona vs. Jodi Ann Arias, I understand your sentiments. I watched you on CNN’s HeadLine News (HLN) and I respect your position and your ideas. I read your article entitled “PORN DEFENSE AND SEXIST MANIPULATION STRATEGY…”
 I really have to tell you that I respectfully disagree with much of what you opined.
I believe that it more likely than not that Jodi Arias doesn’t remember the stabbings and that she was under extreme duress. I believe there is a real question as to the order of injuries, and that makes a huge difference in this case. It is abundantly clear to me that the gunshot was first, and that changes the death penalty calculus dramatically.
Your idea that she “shot him in the face for fun” is just not believable given all the facts of the case. For instance, the trajectory of the gunshot wound is nearly impossible to achieve if Travis was lying on the floor of the bathroom. Why would Travis Alexander, being under attack from Arias with a knife, be able to go to the bathroom mirror and turn his back on his attacker? It’s much more likely that Travis Alexander went to the mirror unchallenged because he was shot in the face and he needed to find out what had happened to him.
That there seems to be some malfeasance in the Medical Examiner’s report is a devious and real possibility which creates a genuine issue for appeal.
You expressed your shock and distress that Jodi Arias could go on the stand and “lie with a straight face about whether and why she stabbed a man 29 times, tried to slice off his head, and then shot him in the face for fun.”
There’s no legal basis for any of these claims. Alexander was stabbed 16 times according to the official autopsy report. He had 13 incised wounds for a total of 29 knife wounds which includes the throat wound. There is a scientific basis to claim that the “cluster of 9 stab wounds” to Alexander’s back are actually “chopping wounds” which are often defensive blows on the part of the assailant. “Chopping wounds” are defined as having the characteristics of both sharp force trauma and blunt force trauma. The official autopsy report states that among the “cluster of 9 wounds” only, “all wounds display “blunt and sharply incised ends”. These wounds could have been made by the assailant from beneath the victim defensively or face to face with the victim, defensively*. This means it is reasonable to infer that Alexander was stabbed 7 times.
None other than prosecutor Juan Martinez, using court reporter Mike Babicky as “the victim”, demonstrated at trial that the knife blows could have been delivered from a variety of positions. There is no basis for your claim that Jodi “tried to slice off his head”. Alexander’s throat was slit and the process of decomposition served to expand the size and depth of the wounds. In the famously shocking autopsy photo, Alexander’s head is tilted far backwards to fully expose and open the wound.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERATravis was not stabbed 29 times. This is the media running wild with speculation as do you. This assumes facts not in evidence, Ms. Murphy. I believe that there are real questions about what happened that day and that the defense team demonstrated that there are multiple avenues for reasonable doubt.

I believe they showed that there are legitimate questions regarding the prosecution’s and the media’s narrative about what actually happened.

The prosecution’s case which forms the entire basis of the case for first degree premeditated murder AND the reason why the death penalty is warranted amounts to this mathematical formula:
Circumstantial Evidence + Lies + Speculation + Autopsy Photos + Seasoned Manipulative Persuasion = Guilt.
In fact, there is proof of and justification for neither a first degree murder charge nor the death penalty in this case.
You wrote that “This case was always ONLY about the death penalty, as evidenced by the fact that Arias’ lawyers played their hand during trial as if the only thing they cared about was persuading a single male juror to resist voting for death.” Although the defense strategy always had the aim of avoiding the death penalty, the main thrust of the case was to present facts and evidence which all point towards reasonable doubt.
The defense team was not experienced with crime scene evidence, blood spatter, and forensic analysis. The prosecution offered little crime scene forensic evidence of its own. These factors, when analyzed, tell a much different tale than what was presented at trial.
According to you, Wendy Murphy, the Arias defense attorneys were not interested in preventing a 1st degree murder conviction or the finding of the single prong of the “Especially Heinous, Cruel, or Depraved” aggravator which opens the door to the death penalty in Arizona. Instead, you opine that Arias’ defense attorneys maintained a laser focus solely on the task of preventing a death sentence.
Their “Porn Defense”, in your words, targeted a few male jurors or even a single male juror by attempting to get a male so hot and bothered by a frank discussion of sex, that they could never put Jodi to death. I have no idea if all the 4 “life jurors” were male or were vulnerable to such a “Porn Defense”, and, frankly, neither do you.
Here’s an interesting death penalty case from Arizona:
stephen reeves 2May 17, 2011
“A Maricopa County Superior Court jury on Monday brought back a death sentence verdict against Stephen Reeves, who murdered a young woman working in a west Phoenix insurance office in 2007.
It was the second trial for Reeves, 56, who was caught on surveillance video on June 2, 2007, as he beat 18-year-old Norma Gabriella Contreras with a brick, then choked her with a stick and finally slit her throat with a box cutter. Reeves was later found covered in blood in Contreras’ car.
On Dec. 10, the first jury pronounced Reeves guilty of first-degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and auto theft. A week later, the jury found aggravating factors that would qualify Reeves for the death penalty.
But despite the surveillance video, the jury could not reach agreement on life or death, forcing a retrial.”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20110516phoenix-insurance-office-killing-verdict-brk16-ON.html
stephen reevesThis jury actually saw the crime on video. The video was so horrific that jurors were given trauma counseling referrals prior to viewing the video. There were 3 Aggravating Circumstances found to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet, these jurors were unable to present a unanimous verdict for a death sentence. Did these jurors have a “porn defense” to make them “forget” all about the brutal killing?
In furtherance of your theory, you state that the “phone sex tape” was the centerpiece of the “porn defense”. I would say that I am at least your age and probably older. What you call “porn”, I call rather pedestrian and basically common and normal behavior between consenting adults
That is except for the things that are not common and normal about their sex life or the sex tape:
  • Evidence that Travis Alexander preferred anal sex almost exclusively and used religious doctrine to justify this to Jodi Arias.
  • The dismissive and callous way Travis treated Jodi in that tape and the things he didn’t say on the tape that are normally said by a person who cares about his sex partner. It reveals something more like a John being serviced by a prostitute than a girl and a guy engaging in some playful sex talk.
  • The sex evidence is absolutely necessary to explain why this is a dominant / submissive relationship and why it was abusive to Arias. It gives us an insight into what this relationship and the victim were really all about.
  • Travis got what he wanted without having to give anything. Jodi wanted love. The incredible extremes people will endure simply to be loved know no bounds.
You stated that “guys like to protect girls in danger, especially when they dress up like 12 year-old librarians, even if that danger is an appropriate legal judgment of death by lethal injection”.
I don’t remember any “12 year-old librarian” at the Jodi Arias trial. If they were really going for sex appeal, why didn’t the defense dress Jodi up like a model for the trial? They could have made her up like a young Hannah Montana or an older Miley Cyrus. I never felt sexually attracted to Jodi Arias. I was more impressed by the sexual exploitation and the psychological and emotional abuse by Travis Alexander towards Jodi Arias which is objectively evident in all aspects of their relationship:

travis penis

Photos of Travis’ genitals he sent to Jodi Arias

jodi ass new

This is the photo Travis Alexander took of Jodi

travis shower

This is the photo Jodi Arias took of Travis

A cunning narcissist who demands compliments and needs to quell his anger with sex. A religious hypocrite who uses a passive and vulnerable woman for his wish-list of fantastical sex acts while simultaneously despising her, ridiculing her to his friends, blaming her for his own behaviors and withholding even a hint of love.
You wrote about all the supposed “red herrings” in the defense case. Yet I saw more red herrings on the prosecution side. No real blood spatter evidence or other crime scene evidence was introduced to buttress the prosecution’s theory of events. It was only proved that a killing had occurred and that Jodi Arias committed it. It was merely proven that Jodi Arias premeditated a road trip. We knew all this at the very start of the trial.
The ample evidence of abuse on the part of Alexander was glossed over by attacking the defense witnesses. Do you honestly believe that there is no room for reasonable doubt in all of Kurt Nurmi’s final argument? There is plenty of room beginning with the ridiculous motive proffered by the prosecution (murdered over a trip to Cancun!), to all sorts of questions about absence of blood evidence, crime scene evidence, medical and ballistic evidence that should reinforce the prosecution narrative of events, but  in reality contradicts it.
gall.death.rowIt is just as likely an explanation that Arias did in fact want the death penalty and did try to sabotage her mitigation case after the guilty verdict. Faced with a choice of life in an Arizona prison or death, who among us could say for certain that we would choose life?
This is, in fact, further proof of Jodi’s veracity. So you are saying that the whole case was about avoiding the death penalty, and yet the defense at the last minute took away the mitigation witnesses which were clearly her best shot at avoiding a death sentence? That is absurd on its face.
jodi allocutionYou stated that Arias’ allocution was “full of hokey acts of benevolence”. You wrote that Jodi had never engaged in benevolent acts before she was in jail. How would you know this? She was only 27 at the time. You are not as able to perform acts of benevolence when you are struggling economically, although you may always have planned on giving to others, and hoped to do it someday.
You stated that “Arias admitted in subsequent interviews that she intentionally came up with project ideas in order to manipulate jurors by appealing to their specific interests.”
That a man is hard of hearing in no way supposes that he knows or appreciates sign language. How could you name a list of planned benevolence without stating a common interest of any 12 people? Some people would say that Arias’ boldness in asserting that she was a “survivor” of domestic abuse was proof that her story is true. Who would dare do this in the face of death, when the cost of making that claim may well be death? This is the act of someone who is either psychotic OR someone who is telling the truth.
You stated “she blamed the prosecutor’s refusal to give her a sentence she did not deserve for why she smeared Travis Alexander’s reputation during trial”.
randy-brazeal-1Did you know that in Arizona, a man went to a 4th of July event where he spied the younger sister of a girl he knew camping overnight at the event. He lured this 13 year-old girl and her 13 year-old companion out into the desert with his accomplice. He savagely beat, choked and raped the girl on the hood of his car. He then strangled her to death and stomped on her body with all his weight. Then he threw her naked and lifeless body down a mine shaft and burned her clothes.
brazealIt was his plan, his DNA, his car, his foot impressions on the victim, and the victim’s impressions in the hood of his car.
This man was charged with 2nd degree murder in Arizona and is free today. He made a deal with the prosecutor. Is this the sentence that he “deserved”?
Jodi was willing to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder but was refused. It couldn’t be because Jodi lied, because both these defendants lied about what happened when they were caught.
Let’s look at what you had to say, Wendy Murphy:
“Arias doesn’t deserve a deal because a deal would only reward her bad behavior and manipulation strategies, and indulge all the shady antics of her lawyers who shamelessly hustled the male jurors by exploiting sex and other gender-biased irrelevancies for tactical gain.
 
Indeed, allowing Arias to testify falsely under oath for eighteen days may have amounted to legal malpractice otherwise.  But they knew that having a cute female defendant talk about oral and anal sex for weeks, and describe how she “bent over” for Travis Alexander, followed by the playing of a recording of Arias engaging in phone sex with the guy until orgasm, would surely, um, stimulate the male jurors to think about all sorts of things OTHER than the near decapitation of an innocent murder victim.”
 
That’s quite a barrage of unsubstantiated allegations for an attorney such as you, Ms. Murphy. What makes you think anyone, under any circumstances, could possibly forget those horrible crime scene photos and shocking autopsy photos?
How do you suppose that a self-defense homicide case can go forward without bringing up negative evidence against the victim? It seems to me that this was an abusive and volatile relationship. Travis Alexander was more than happy to use the LDS Church for business contacts, for customers, for social contacts, and for a bevy of young women who would not tell about their sins.
travis 12Yet, though he was an ordained Church Elder who taught bible study and baptized children into the LDSChurch, he did not feel he needed to follow the sacred tenets of a very serious and strict, family oriented religion. In light of his religious upbringing, the way Alexander treated Jodi Arias is particularly sickening. To goad a woman into anal sex on the day of her baptism into the faith on the pretext that vaginal sex was a violation of their chastity vows?
jodi bobbyIt is obvious to me that Travis Alexander’s preference for anal sex had nothing to do with vows and plenty to do with his freely stated excitement about little girls and sex. It is also clear that his abusive childhood and absentee parents could easily have become a catalyst for abuse, both sexual and physical. This is no fault of the victim’s.
Did you see the disgustingly crude picture he took of her anus on June 4th? How can you honestly say that Travis was the innocent victim and that Jodi is a Psycho-demon? Hannibal Lecter, you called her. You liken Jodi Arias to a fictional serial killer who consumes the victims? Is that in any way fair-minded and rational?
r-DANIEL-FREEMAN-large570At the trial we heard objective evidence about Travis’ hot headed outbursts in front of two pious Mormon friends on relaxing vacations, no less.
At trial we were shown objective evidence by text messages of a 3 hour marathon of seething and violent anger from Travis Alexander. Do you honestly have doubts that Travis could have been sexually and physically abusive towards Jodi? Can you blame that all on Arias, or did Travis have to finally deal with the truth and the inevitable exposure of his lies and hypocrisy? Do you really have absolute certainty that Travis didn’t attack Jodi on June 4th?
You wrote that “Arias had “no mitigating factors” but then the defense attorney refused to call her family members to testify as mitigation witnesses, while helping her create a slideshow demonstrating all the “mitigating” things they could think of.”
Actually, Arias was telling the truth. She didn’t have any of the usual statutory mitigating factors, (extreme child abuse, abandonment, mental retardation, insanity, severe drug and alcohol abuse and child sexual abuse) and that as many of the miscellaneous mitigating factors as possible needed to be found and employed.
WendyMurphy-1How do you know that the slideshow wasn’t prepared long before as a review during her allocution after the proposed witnesses testified?
How do you know that Arias didn’t try to sabotage her own mitigation case? How do you know the mitigation specialist didn’t scramble to find a way to put her factors into a slideshow so that she could present them without her witnesses?
You stated that “Arias’ lawyers hedged their bets, knowing that even if Jodi’s entire family and all her childhood friends took the stand and begged for her life, the jury would still vote for death simply because no amount of mitigation evidence would make a dent in the mountain of reasons that justify imposition of the ultimate punishment”.
What is your mountain of reasons for justifying the death penalty? There is no one on death row in America today for a murder with extreme cruelty or any other murder without one of the following factors: (Murder with Prior violent convictions, murder for money. murder by conspiracy, murder with kidnapping, rape, or torture, multiple murders, murder of a uniformed law officer, murder of children).
Please let me know if you find one without at least one of these factors. Scott Peterson? He killed his helpless pregnant while she was 8 months pregnant with his own child. Unlike Arias, we have clear and convincing proof of his bad character and bad intentions prior to the murder.
jodi 2You wrote that “As judgment day on the ultimate issue grew closer, Arias’ lawyers were near frantic in their efforts to derail court proceedings, no doubt worried that the little mitigation evidence they had to offer was nowhere near substantial enough to justify life rather than death.”
  • No prior record is not substantial?
  • 4 relationships lasting years, not months, 3 of which ended against Arias’will and amicably are not substantial?
  • A history of mental illness is not substantial?
  • No history of violence or rage both years before meeting Alexander and years after the killing is not substantial?
  • Proven emotional and psychological abuse (which are the precursors to sexual and physical abuse) are not substantial?
  • A GED graduate who is more articulate and poised than many college graduates is not a reason to show leniency?
  • A prisoner with no prospects for happiness or freedom using her time and talents to reach out to victims of abuse is not a reason to show mercy?
jodi-arias-300A major part of the strategy seemed to be to put Arias on the stand, not for sexual stimulation, but to bond with the jury in either an empathetic way or in a Stockholm Syndrome type of way. Your Victorian views on sex and your outdated views on the priorities and the lack of a capacity for empathy in males cannot change the wisdom of such a strategy.
Since that effect can hardly be achieved in the second penalty phase, why do you think “the defense is at an advantage the second time around”? Why does Arias and the defense have an advantage the longer the distance is between the 1st and 2nd penalty phase? The same review of the facts has to take place. The same aggravating and mitigating factors have to be presented. The same media and social media hounds will rise up again. So, where’s the advantage of time? Arias must spend more time behind bars because she must wait to file most of her appeals until after the inevitable sentencing.
You wrote about how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is reversing death penalty convictions based on “ineffective assistance of counsel” because the defense attorneys refused to present mitigation witnesses.
Since you are an attorney, would you care to cite some cases in support of your position? Did you notice that in Arizona, Capital defendants are required to have a mitigation specialist? Defense attorneys have no justification for failure to present mitigation evidence or witnesses in Arizona. That is unless they are threatened and intimidated into not testifying as seen in State v. Jodi Ann Arias.
patty womackThe way you put it, Arias’ defense “ploy” to not present mitigation witnesses would only work if Arias were in fact sentenced to death. You can’t appeal a death sentence in the 9th Circuit if you don’t get sentenced to death. So then, why were Jennifer Willmott’s final arguments so visceral, heartfelt and heroic? Why was Kirk Nurmi’s closing argument so full of valid and substantial reasons to be doubtful of the prosecution’s theory?
3EBB5B3F-F5E1-4C2E-9E6EFC266421528BThe defense can’t refuse to call mitigation witnesses the next time and you have already stated that no amount of mitigation could help Arias. So how is your imaginary strategy supposed to work? Did you forget that Arias presented no mitigation witnesses, yet there was no unanimous decision for a death sentence?
I believe your analysis is full of holes, full of speculation, and full of …. contradictions. It flies in the face of all we know about Arias’ life years before the incident all the way up the month and day of the tragic event on June 4th, 2008.
Also, there are the 5 years since that day, where Arias has been a model, compliant prisoner. It flies in the face of what you must concede we know about Travis Alexander, the lying, the manipulation and the abuse. The idea that she has “no conscience” is easily debatable. I feel that she has shown remorse all through this trial. It is really asking a little much for a mentally ill woman to show contrition to Travis Alexander’s estranged family and Mormon community as they fervently seek revenge and will stop at nothing short of execution. This woman is clearly mentally ill and clearly unable or unwilling to show emotions in the way that we would like.
arias sandyYou say her slideshow was “offensive”. Given her situation, what would you expect her to present? I found it pitiable. I found her allocution a singular exercise in bravery and sincerity.
What is she supposed to say and do? I think the subject of remorse is also a red herring. What could she possibly do to show remorse in the face of this killing while fighting for her life? Your answer is that she should confess to what “really happened” that day in the bathroom. As an attorney, you should know how stressful a trial like this is and how stressful 18 days on the stand can be, even given the best conditions.
Many people have very good reason to believe that this is not as it seems and that Arias did tell the truth to the best of her ability. Even though she has lied in the past, there is reason to believe that the objective and physical evidence can prove that the prosecution’s narrative is false.
s c justicesEven if we take all the verdicts to be absolutely correct, it should still be abundantly clear to thinking and feeling human beings that the facts of this case do not merit the death penalty and Arias herself does not warrant execution.
us supreme courtInstead, I believe that this case will be successfully appealed and a new and fair trial may yield vastly different results. Then perhaps the family of crime victims will learn to their benefit that such things as “closure” and “forgiveness” should not and do not depend on the actions or the fate of the accused or the convicted.
justice swordThank-You for your time.
Sincerely,
Rob Roman
Related articles

Why Jodi Arias Will Get a Whole New Trial

Why Jodi Arias must have, and will get, a New Trial

Factual Reporting by

Amanda Chen and Rob Roman

WARNING: Graphic Crime Scene and Autopsy Photos!

may be disturbing to some people!

sherry stephens 1
joe and jan
juan and horshack
arias jurors
Jodi Arias must and will get a new trial. No matter if you think she is guilty or innocent or anywhere between the two. Jodi Arias, no different than you or I, has a constitutional right to a fair trial. This should not stand and the higher courts or the U.S. Supreme Court should reverse the conviction and remand the case back to court for a new trial. Her are the reasons why this was not a fair trial.
  1. Doctor Horn was called to the stand 3 different times and on all 3 occasions he answered the persistent questioning of prosecutor Juan Martinez about the order of injuries. It is very unusual and curious to be called to the stand at different times to testify about the same thing.
  1. Doctor Horn stated over and over again that the gunshot was last and probably post mortem.
  1. The reasons he gave were
               a)      No blood was found at the wound entrance (the blood had been washed off of the victim).
               b)      There was no blood found in the wound tract in the brain. Horn also testified that no wound tract was found in the brain. (How can you testify to what is or is not in a wound tract that you did not find?)
               c)      The bullet entered the skull and must have gone through the brain because the brain butts up against the skull. (This is not true. Travis Alexander was shot right above the orbital cavity and through the nasal cavity, it is very possible for a .25 bullet to not enter the brain at all.)
               d)     The shock wave caused by the hot gasses from the gunshot would cause immediate incapacitation. (Not if the wound tract doesn’t enter the brain. Even if the wound tract did enter the brain, the tract would be mere fractions of an inch.)
               e)      According to Dr. Horn, the medical report meant to say that the outer membrane of the brain was penetrated. But, he said there was a typographical error and the report said it was not penetrated. (There just happens to be a “typo” right at the point where the report is discussing whether or not the brain was penetrated.  What a coincidence!) Also when any M.E. reports penetration of the outer membrane of the brain, the report then goes on to describe this penetration, the size the direction, etc. This lends credence to the accusation that the “typo” is no typo at all.
               f)       There was no blood found in the wound tract (The wound tract goes straight through the nasal cavity. In the shower crime scene photo, there is clearly a large accumulation of blood below the victim’s nostrils.
ta nose light

A large amount of blood under the nose

not much blood coming out the mouth.

4. Dr. Horn tried to remain truthful while giving deceptive testimony, but he has clearly lied. It’s evident that by asking about the order of injuries so many times, that Juan Martinez clearly coordinated this effort with Dr. Horn to sway the jury with false testimony. (For more information, please see Spolight on Dr. Kevin Horn, Spotlight on Juan Martinez, Spotlight on the Jodi Arias Trial)
5. Detective Flores testified that the order of injuries changed from gun first to gun last when prosecutor Juan Martinez asked Detective Flores to meet with Dr. Horn to discuss possible aggravating circumstances for the death penalty.
6. Travis Alexander was left in the shower with his left side facing out. If the victim was shot last, it must have been as he was lying motionless on the bathroom floor. So why is the shot such a badly placed shot? Also in order for a shot to be made at this angle, the barrel of the gun needs to be around 8 to 12 inches off the floor. This is not a reasonable or natural position.
7. If Alexander went to the sink after suffering the deep incised wounds to his left hand, blood would be pouring out from his left hand and the sink would be covered with blood on the left side. There is none of this on the left side of the sink. This contradicts the prosecution theory that Travis Alexander was stabbed in the shower. This reinforces the defense theory and casts doubt on premeditation.
ta left hand 3 lightFrom the official autopsy report:
“A deep 1 ½ inch incised wound across the left thenar eminence (palmar with extension onto the dorsal left hand) with deep penetration and partial severing of the musculature and tendons of the thumb base.”
 “A 1 ¾ inch incised wound of the palmar webbing between the left thumb and index finger, with an adjacent separate ¾ inch linear incised wound.”
 “A 1 inch incised wound across the dorsal surface of the distal inter-philangeal joint of the left thumb.”

ta left hand 1 light

Deep incised wounds on Alexander’s left hand

jurors pus

Little blood on left side of the sink

8. Shooting someone post mortem is the infliction of “gratuitous violence”. This perfectly fits the requirements for the Heinousness and the Depravity prongs of the “especially heinous, cruel and depraved” aggravator. Incredibly, Arias was only charged with the cruelty prong of the aggravator.
9. Felony murder does not in any way apply to this case if the gun was last. If the gun was first, and Travis was wounded, prompting Arias to switch to a knife to kill Alexander to cover up her presence in the home, then this is the only way that Felony murder could possibly, technically fit this case.
10. Dr. Horn was involved in two other cases. One was a wrongful prosecution seeking the death penalty. This was a grandmother who owned a day care center where a baby died. The other was a wrongful conviction. This was a self-defense case against a Mormon retired school teacher with 7 children who was attacked on a hiking trail by a man and his two dogs. In both cases the indispensible part of the case was the testimony and the opinion of Dr. Horn. In both cases he was completely wrong.
11. Arias wasn’t charged with the heinous and depraved prongs of the aggravator and the Felony murder charge was not dropped, proving that the prosecution does not actually believe that the gun was last. It also suggests that the prosecution believes that Arias may not have been the only person involved. Yet, the prosecution argued vehemently against both of these possibilities
12. If Alexander was stabbed first in the shower, there is already water in the shower. The wounds can be seen easily. There is no need to go the bathroom sink and look in the mirror. Alexander must not have known what happened to him, and he must have wanted to find out. How could Alexander turn his back on his attacker and go to the sink in the middle of a knife attack? Even the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, proved at trial that he doesn’t believe this. Yet he persuaded the jury to believe yet another idea that he himself does not believe.
13. If you are a juror and you believe Dr. Horn, then Jodi Arias is guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder. There is no need to even present a defense or any further testimony or evidence. Therefore the testimony of Dr. Horn constitutes reversible error in the case of ArizonaState v. Jodi Ann Arias. Jodi Arias’ constitutional right to a fair trial has been violated. On top of this there are numerous other valid and cogent appealable issues.
Other appealable issues include:
  1. The State of Arizona’s cruelty prong of the “especially heinous cruel and depraved” aggravator is in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the statute along with the jury instructions are too vague and can be applied to almost any murder and used to target a particular defendant with the Death Penalty.
  1. The possibility that the jury was tainted by the omnipresent media coverage which was almost impossible to avoid. The jury should have been sequestered. Evidence exists that jurors discussed the case outside court and perhaps on social media. A juror stated that the jury was 12 – 0 for the guilty verdict at the very beginning of deliberations.
  1. The possibility that the jury did not understand jury instructions, for which direct evidence appears on video.
  1. Prosecutorial misconduct throughout the case and the trial. There is direct video evidence that Juan Martinez lied more than once during the commutation hearing of Robert Towery, in order to secure his execution. The prosecutor purposely tampered with evidence during the trial (dropped the camera). The prosecutor deliberately withheld evidence until just before the scheduled start of the trial. The prosecutor suborned perjury in the testimony of Dr. Kevin Horn.
  1. Possible evidence favorable to the defense which was not provided to the defense or allowed into trial (exculpatory)
  1. Possible evidence favorable to the prosecution which should not have been allowed into trial (more prejudicial than probative)
  1. The judge failed to control the courtroom, allowing such things as the victim’s family’s purposeful, non-verbal communication with the jury throughout the trial. This can be seen in process on many trial videos.
  1. Witness intimidation perpetrated by the family and friends of the victim. One witness was called before the trial began and threatened if he testified for the defense. The witness was called shortly after the prosecutor released a list of potential defense witnesses to the victim’s family.
There is anecdotal evidence that other witness on the list were successfully intimidated into refusing to testify. An Alexander family member was involved in threats and intimidation of Alyce LaViolette during and after her testimony. Dave Hall slandered defense mitigation witness Patty Womack on National television after she and her family were threatened and intimidated in the social media.
If the higher courts find even a single one of these factors to be true, Jodi Arias may get a new trial. We contend that all these factors are true. Even Hannibal Lecter or Charles Manson has the right to a fair trial. Whether or not she got the result you desire or whether she deserves the verdicts makes no difference.
If these verdicts are allowed to stand, we are all at risk of having our constitutional rights violated in the future. No one who watched this trial should be able to say it was a fair trial. Did you see the emotion shown by Judge Sherry Stephens at the end of the first penalty phase? This is reason for a new trial right there. The judge is clearly prejudiced towards the prosecution and a death sentence. The jury did not reach a unanimous decision, so what? What was that display of emotion for? Maybe it should be mandatory in a capital case that the defense must provide an independent autopsy and Medical Examination.

All rights eserved

Unlike many blogs, all comments are accepted and will be posted