Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey step in a big steaming pile of wet Monkey-Poo.
Past and Present Female Murderers
Fact-based reporting by
Okay, so there is a little more to say about Jodi Arias, and there are 3 more articles on the way. One is an article about Jodi’s Support. Are there any supporters left and if there are, who are they? There will be one article in particular about one ardent supporter named Kareem “Lefty” Williams and his high-jinx and adventures with ‘the Joadster’. There will be one article about a new theory I have come up with called the 6-6-6 theory of Jodi Arias.
There is not going to be much more to say about Jodi Arias for a while, so here at Spotlight On Law, we are going to move onto other things. What we will be moving on to will be called Jodi Arias Wannabees Past and Present.
The sub-title will be “Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey step into a big steaming pile of wet Monkey Poo”.
Can you identify any of the above by either first or last name (both is even better)?
No cheating, now (No Googling or looking for articles allowed).
The thing about the fairer sex, the life givers and nurturers, being involved in murders is that it’s much more rare and it’s usually very varied as to motive and circumstance. Instead of patterns of criminal activity and violence, there seems to be more of a pattern of relationships and mental illness or mental breakdown.
Are any of these women just plain evil and born as a demon? We will take a deeper look at the facts, the crimes, and the circumstances to find out.
We will look at some older cases, some famous cases, but mostly recent cases either in court or recently committed murders. What are the known facts, what are the disputed facts, what evidence is there, and who will the witnesses be?
Did the defendant have good representation? How were the Prosecutors? Was it a fair trial? Was it a fair sentence or a just outcome? Any chance they are not guilty as charged?
As a warm up, no cheating now, can you name at least six of these accused / suspects / defendants? Can you name at least 6? For bonus points, can you name at least one victim each? Can you name more than 5 off the top of your head?
Use the comment Section to give your answers.
What happened to each of these women that possibly made them flip their burgers and kill a human being? Do they regret their activities after they realized that they had stepped in a big pile of fresh poo?
Okay, so we’ll be coming back at you with a new article on Jodi Arias, then one of these Jodi Wannabees of the past, and then we will bring you a present day Jodi Wannabee. We’ll take it from there and see what other cases we can find. Hopefully some lesser known cases as well as the more interesting of the well known cases.
Okay, have a happy! But, don’t make a rash decision then step in some Crappy.
In the first “Tables Have Turned” article, we looked at six out of seven of the most salient pieces of circumstantial evidence of a long premeditation of murder by Jodi Arias. Keep in mind that even if none of these 7 could be proved, it’s still possible to prove a short premeditation. To do that, we need to show that Jodi Arias was not under duress, she thought about it, had sufficient time to reflect upon her act (even if it was only a minute or less) then she went ahead and killed Travis Alexander. A significant amount of ‘cool reflection’ is all that is needed for premeditation.
This last major piece of circumstantial evidence is the biggest and it ties everything together.
7) The use of three gas cans in the trunk of the rental car, enabling Arias to cruise through Arizona without having to stop for anything and leave a trace.
Many Jodi Supporters as well as Jodi herself try to ignore or minimize or attempt to explain away this evidence, but they are not being honest with themselves. All the other circumstantial evidence can be explained away quite easily compared to this. The gas can evidence is a very serious problem for Arias defenders and any defense team that takes this case on will find the gas can evidence as difficult to surmount as Mount Everest.
When you tie in all the other circumstantial evidence with the gas cans, the defense has a major problem. Jodi Arias claims she borrowed two, 5 gallon gas cans, form her ex- boyfriend, Darryl Brewer. For some reason, Arias buys a third gas can at a Walmart in Salinas, CA. Darryl was in Monterey, CA and after meeting with him, Arias drives directly about 20 miles to Salinas where she buys the third gas can. Yet, Arias and her Supporters claim she immediately turned around, went back into the store, and returned the gas can.
>>>>>>>>>Question: Why does Arias even buy the 3rd gas can in the first place? This is a question Jodi Arias Supporters do not want you to ask, because there is no reasonable, innocent answer. They also want to pretend that a prosecutor in a possible future new trial will not ask the jury that question.<<<<<<<<<<<
Jodi Arias needed to stop for gas by the time she got to Monterey / Salinas. Remember that she drove her 2004 Infiniti G35 to Redding where her brother Karl and his wife lived to pick up the rental car at the Redding Airport. She drove the white Ford Focus rental car to her brother’s place for a rest. Then she got on the road heading to Santa Cruz near where her ex-boyfriend, Matt McCartney, lived. Redding, CA to Monterey, CA is 318 miles and Redding, CA to Salinas, CA is 338 miles. Somewhere in there, probably after visiting Darryl in Monterey, Jodi Arias needed to gas up.
If she was reasonably smart, she could look up the miles from Pasadena through Mesa to Las Vegas on MapQuest, and this is the amount of miles she needs to travel while maintaining her alibi of going directly to Utah. She could have checked her mileage since leaving the Redding Airport rental agency with a full tank, checked her miles, added gas until the gas pump clicked off, then divided the miles by the gallons she just put in the tank to get her actual MPG (Miles Per Gallon).
Jodi Arias even testified that the Ford Focus was not getting the mileage she expected, compared to her Infiniti. But that’s not right, a 2004 Infiniti G35 has a gas tank capacity of 20 gallons, but gets closer to 20 mpg (20 g x 20 mpg = about 400 miles) . The Ford Focus has a gas tank capacity of 13.5 gallons, and gets better than 30 mpg (13.5 g x 30 mpg = about 405 miles. So, they are fairly even in range which goes to show Jodi was well aware of what her gas mileage was. She expected the Ford Focus to go further on a tank of gas than her Infiniti. She knew how far she could go comfortably on so many gallons of gas. Jodi probably did not expect the smaller gas tank.
She needs to fill up every 300 to 350 miles. Again, it’s about 338 miles from Redding to Santa Cruz. She needs to fill up once before she goes on to Pasadena. This has to be where Jodi Arias checked her miles per gallon and realized it was going to be awful close, even with 2 gas cans. She had better get a third can.
It’s a major coincidence that Jodi Arias is needing to fill up right around the time she makes the decision to buy the 3rd gas can. Was Jodi Arias thinking about such things as her mileage and range in her Ford Focus Rental?
The rental car was a 2008 or 2009 Ford Focus with a gas tank capacity of 13.5 gallons. How do we know that it was a 2008 or 2009? The car was brand new and only had about 1,500 miles on it. A low estimate of 30 mpg for the Focus yields a range per tank of gas at 13.5 g x 30 mpg = 405 miles of range. If you estimate that 4.5 gallons goes comfortably in a 5 gallon can, then you have another 4.5 g + 4.5 g = 9 x 30 mpg = 270 miles (or 300 miles if you assume each gas can had closer to a full 5 gallons of gas in it). Add that to the 405 miles of range from the gas tank for a total of 675 to 705 miles of range that Jodi Arias has with the 2 cans she borrowed from Darryl. With the 2 cans she has an extra 270 miles or an extra 4 hours of driving time at 60 mph. wouldn’t that be enough range to find a gas station in that area of the U.S. under almost any circumstance?
2 cans = 270 to 300 miles of Extra range.
2 cans + the tank = 675 to 705 miles of Total range.
Now, let’s take the prosecution’s theory that the gas cans were for the purpose of getting Arias in and out of Arizona without stopping anywhere. This is the path that Arias took to Mesa, AZ and on to West Jordan, Utah.
Since Arias’ staging area seemed to be Pasadena, CA, and since Interstate 15 begins near Pasadena and goes to Las Vegas, we can see that there is a high probability, assuming malfeasance, that Arias wanted to leave a trail suggesting she went from Pasadena directly to Las Vegas, and then from there to West Jordan, Utah. So it is very reasonable to assume that she wanted her trip to appear to look like this:
Jodi Arias claimed she wanted the gas cans for two reasons 1) She was worried about running out of gas and getting stuck in the desert and dying of exposure or being vulnerable to anyone who came by. 2) She planned on filling up in Utah or Nevada on the way home, where gas prices were cheaper than in her home state of California, to save money on the way home. Notice how this only works on the way home. If you fill up the cans in California to drive in Nevada and Utah, you are not saving money, you’re losing money. If you fill up the cans in Nevada and Utah only to do more driving in Nevada and Utah, you save nothing.
Here’s the part of the trip, assuming malfeasance, that’s Jodi Arias is not supposed to be on:
This area where Jodi Arias is not supposed to be has a distance of approximately 700 miles. Her range with the 2 gas cans is 675 to 705 miles. She can just about achieve her alleged goals with 2 gas cans. Jodi Arias really didn’t need the 3rd gas can. She especially didn’t need the 3rd gas can if she filled up at Desert Center. (Some people theorized that she wanted the extra can to take Alexander’s body out into the desert and burn it). Be that as it may, this is too close for comfort. If her calculations are off, Jodi Arias will run out of gas before getting out of Arizona.
Range with the tank and 2 cans = 675 to 705 miles
Distance to cover = 701 miles
It’s too close for comfort with 2 cans. Is this why Jodi Arias stopped at Salinas, only 20 miles after leaving Darryl’s house, and bought the 3rd gas can?
This is most likely her plan, from the prosecution’s perspective, to make it appear as if she went direct from Pasadena to West Jordan, near Salt Lake City, Utah via Las Vegas, Nevada. If so, this is all interstate highway driving and there’s little chance of getting stuck without gas. The only part of her drive that could involve desert driving may be in Utah or Nevada on her way home. Jodi Arias can still say she had other plans involving some desert driving after Pasadena until she decided at the last moment to go visit Alexander. In, fact, she did just that, claiming she intended a trip to Death Valley, CA. Then what she did after the killing, getting OUT of Arizona undetected, can be attributed to fear and shame from being forced to kill Travis Alexander.
But for a trip to Death Valley, is needing the cans reasonable? She didn’t tell Darryl that was her plan and she really just casually mentions it at trial. Here is a question and answer about Death Valley from 2007:
for Death Valley Junction, Death Valley National Park
1. Re: Gas stations around Death Valley Jul 23, 2007, 3:18 PM “There are stations all along Hwy 395. Lone Pine is the last substantial town before the park. Panamint Springs resort in the western part of the park, about 50 mi/80 km farther past Lone Pine, has gas. But it is incredibly expensive; I’ve seen it up to $.50-.75 more per gallon than other stations in the area. Stove Pipe Wells and Furnace Creek, the main resorts in the park, have gas. Stove Pipe Wells typically has lower prices. It’s another 25 mi/45 km or so to Furnace Creek.
If you want to go to Scotty’s Castle, there is no gas there now but you can make a round trip from either SPW or FC without filling up. There are several routes to Las Vegas from Furnace Creek. Depending on the one you take, you’ll find stations in the towns of Beatty, Amargosa Valley, and Pahrump NV and in Shoshone CA.
On the stand Jodi Arias claims she went from Pasadena, CA to Mesa, AZ, but she stopped for gas at Desert Center, CA and at Buckeye, AZ.
Problem: It’s only 174 miles from Pasadena to Desert Center or 5.8 gallons of gas. Jodi Arias claims to also stop at Buckeye Arizona which is only 170 miles from Desert Center or 5.7 gallons. If she made a mistake, and only stopped at Buckeye, AZ, this is 344 miles or about 11.5 gallons, a little too far to go according to Jodi’s habit of not letting the gas gauge get in the red.”
Jodi Arias didn’t stop at Desert Center, CA or Buckeye, CA this time, though she was familiar with those two stops from previous trips to Arizona.
What is Jodi Arias doing? What she always does:
1) She gives explicit detail when there’s a problem with a part of her story.
2) For the rest, she leaves it as open as possible, so she has some wiggle room later.
3) She throws bright, shiny distractions out there and interesting diversions.
4) She tries to muddy the waters.
Jodi Arias gives some really unbelievable testimony about stopping for gas twice between Pasadena, CA and Mesa, Arizona.
Why did Jodi Arias throw in those extra gas stations during her testimony? She knows it’s too far to get to Mesa, Arizona from Pasadena, CA on a single tank of gas (400 miles or 13.3 gallons). She probably emptied two cans of gas into her tank before getting to Mesa. She knows she dumped two cans of gas in her tank, so she mistakenly adds two gas stops to compensate. But 2 cans, or 10 gallons, would be one gas stop. These two stops are too close together and really make no sense. In short, Jodi Arias lied on the stand, again.
Trial day 24, Jodi Arias testifies about the gas cans.
Other Jodi Supporters will put a lot of emphasis on the amount of gas Jodi Arias put into the cans and the tank prior to going to Mesa, Arizona. What does that prove? Arias filled her tank and filled all three gas cans in the trunk in Pasadena prior to heading off to Mesa, Arizona. Arias did not stop for gas in the State of Arizona or after passing Interstate 15 near Pasadena. Arias filled up her tank from the cans somewhere in Arizona. She testified to this. Three gas cans gives Arias (13.5 gallons x 30mpg) + ((4.5g +4.5g + 4.5g) * 30 mpg) = 405 + 405 = 810 or 405 + ((5g+5g+5g) * 30 mpg) for up to 855 miles of range.
There is no practical reason whatever to need an extra 405 to 450 miles of range for this trip. Two cans give an extra 270 miles or 4.5 hours of extra driving time at 60 mph.
Three cans give her an extra 405 miles of range or an extra 6.7 hours of driving time at 60 mph.
The defense could then say that Jodi Arias is a woman who is not really into cars and maps and math and she’s not really a physics or math expert. She is deathly afraid of getting stuck in the desert sun where she will bake with no AC. So, she overcompensates by getting 3 gas cans. She’s going into Nevada and Utah and she wants to be prepared.
So far, so good, but now we have another problem. Jodi Arias claims she bought the 3rd gas can, but then she turns around and returns it before leaving the store parking lot. Some Jodi Supporters say she definitely returned the gas can, and Walmart just cannot locate the records. But, Jodi Arias had the original receipt for the purchase of the third gas can, which was blue (kerosene) instead of red (gasoline). A Walmart employee found the copy of that original receipt.
Jodi Arias’ original receipt has no markings or signature on it, as would be expected if one item on the receipt is returned. Jodi Arias had no extra receipt, with just the new can return on it, which is also Walmart standard operating procedure. Walmart could not find a copy of this return, or any records of any gas can returned at all in that store, until 2 weeks later.
Also on that receipt was a twin pack of suntan lotion.
Some Jodi Supporters will now start talking about Amanda Webb and how she was mistaken or lying or her search for the records was incomplete. Records were moved because that Walmart later became a Walmart Auto supply and repair store only, while a new Walmart store opened up down the road, taking the old store’s number.
Now they are both Superstores.
This is true but not really relevant. All this speculation that the Walmart employee was incompetent in locating the records is just a load of nonsense. The record of Jodi Arias’ original purchase WAS found. A record of a gas can return 2 weeks after June 3rd WAS found, indicating that there was no “mix up” with records. The idea that some of the records for some of the cash registers are in one location while other records from other cash registers that were moved to the new store are in a different location is just absurd. The records for THAT DAY, June 3, 2008, when there was only ONE store, are all in the same place. The record for that gas can return will never be found by anyone – because it does not exist.
So there is zero evidence (other than Jodi Arias’ word), that the can was returned, and all available evidence indicates that Arias did not return the can (No marked original receipt, no new receipt showing the return, and no record of the return found by Walmart). But then on top of that, we have this:
In West Jordan, Utah, Arias buys:
Tesoro, 1699 W North Temple, SCL, Utah 84116,
10.672 gallons of gas (3:57 AM Mastercard 3.859 per gallon $41.18) 5.091 gallons of gas (4:01 AM Mastercard $19.65) 9.583 gallons of gas (4:05 AM At Register $36.98)
= 25. 36 gallons of gas Total (Total price = $97.81)
13.5 gallons = Capacity of Ford Focus gas tank 4.5 to 5.0 gallons = Capacity of gas can #1 4.5 to 5.0 gallons = Capacity of gas can #2
22.5 to 23.5 gallons = Capacity of the tank and 2 cans
The comfortable capacity of the gas tank and 2 cans is 13.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 22.5 gallons. Even if you want, you can assume that 5 gallons will fit in the 5 gallon can, and you can then add it up like this 13.5 + 5 + 5 = 23.5 gallons. This capacity of the tank and 2 cans is assuming the gas tank and the cans are all completely empty.
We still have roughly 1.85 gallons that cannot fit into the tank and 2 cans. Add that to Arias’ statement on the stand that she tries to never let the gas gauge get in the danger zone, as is also the habit of many people.
Jodi Arias testified that
1) She usually doesn’t let the gas gauge get in the danger zone.
2) She ran out of gas in the night to early morning of June 5th, 2008
3) She almost ran out of gas in Nevada.
If she never lets it get below 3/4 ’s of a tank, then she will usually be putting 3/4 * (13.5) = 10.125 gallons plus or minus a gallon in the car. If that’s true, this would mean that she would normally buy 10.125 + 4.5 +4.5) = 19.125 or (10.125 + 5 + 5) = 20.125 gallons of gas (if you believe she filled the cans closer to 5 gallons each instead of a more comfortable 4.5 gallons).
9 gallons to 11 gallons: Total of a normal tank filling for Jodi Arias
15.350 gallons: The smallest amount Jodi Arias had to have put in the 13.5 gallon tank.
Here, even if she filled the 2 cans to capacity, this means she put 15.350 gallons of gas into a tank that only holds 13.5 gallons dry. You are straining a reasonable person’s ability to believe this to the maximum possible extent (Another Jodi Arias trait).
Jodi Arias is about 4 to 5 gallons over her habitual filling pattern. Hmmmmm, what a coincidence.
In West Jordan, near Salt Lake City, Utah, after visiting Ryan Burns, laughing and joking, and even falling asleep in his arms, she buys 25.346 gallons, which is more than 5 gallons over what she can comfortably fit into the tank and two cans.
Now remember what her actual purchase was: 10.672 gallons + 5.091 gallons + 9.583 gallons = 25.346 gallons
She’s about 1/2 a gallon over my rough estimate of 10.125 gallons, if the 10.672 gallons were put in the tank, and about 1/2 gallons below my rough estimate if the 9.583 gallons were put in the tank.
Some Jodi Supporters are suggesting that Arias fit an extra 1 or 2 gallons into the 13.5 gallon capacity tank, which would mean she let it run completely out of gas. Alternatively, they want to tell you that Jodi Arias paid for someone else’s gas or that the store clerk charged some other item off as gas, etc.
If she paid for someone elses’ gas, etc., why didn’t she say so in 18 days of testimony?
The gas pump was calibrated badly? No, i don’t think that’s an explanation that will work.
1) So, there are no markings/ initials on the original Walmart receipt,which is Walmart “standard operating procedure”.
2) There is no additional receipt for the returned fuel can
3) Arias expects the jury to believe that she paid for the can by card but received cash back, that’s not Walmart “standard operating procedure”.
4) A Walmart employee did a search and she found the original purchase receipt, but no record of a return for that can or any other fuel can at that store until 2 weeks later.
5) This means that she WAS looking at the right records, George Barwood.
6) It is impossible, by common sense, by math and by the laws of physics, for Jodi Arias to have fit 25.346 gallons of gas into a tank and two cans which can hold 23.5 gallons.
7) Even if the impossible were possible, Jodi Arias testified that she doesn’t let the gas gauge get in the red AND she testified that she ran out of gas the night before. The odds she would let that happen twice in two days is exceedingly, crushingly, staggeringly high.
Now, in order for Jodi Arias not to be guilty of premeditated 1st degree murder, besides EVERYTHING ELSE we have discussed, you must also believe that Jodi Arias returned that 3rd gas can despite all 7 items above. The odds of that are simply Trillions to one.
Well, a Walmart employee wanted the gas can for himself or herself, so they gave Jodi Arias cash and took the can for their own?
No. Because employees get a discount and they could not walk out of the store with a gas can and no receipt for it. Nice try, though.
Okay, so having 2 or even 3 gas cans shows a plan to do SOMETHING, but does not prove premeditated murder, you say?
Maybe not, but we look at each item in isolation. We can come up with reasonable and alternative explanations for each item. We may even be able to surmount Mt. Everest which is the 3 gas cans and show how that was really something else entirely, even if Jodi Arias never claimed it was, in 18 days of testimony. What you cannot get away from is what happens when you add everything together in totality. Two things immediately happen:
1) You cannot make excuses or reasonable alternative explanations for all these really crushing pieces of circumstantial evidence that a reasonable jury of 12 will reasonably believe, without wallowing out into the land of absurdity.
2) Each one of these pieces of circumstantial evidence reinforces the other and they are entwined together and they fit together in a way that just cannot happen and would not happen in isolation, or by happenstance, or by chance.
As if this were not enough, it’s a proven and indisputable fact that Jodi Arias lied about a good number of things on the stand. There are maybe 10 things Jodi Arias stated that are beyond a doubt not true. There are so many more things we cannot prove, so if she lied about these things for sure, what else did she lie about? Her testimony is useless, and would be useless in any future trial, because she made the fatal mistake of lying on the stand. This is something she absolutely could not afford to do, because of all her lies in the past.
Who, me? Jodi Arias talks about the gun theft as if she heard about it 3rd or 4th hand. According to Jodi, the fight was over the same day it started and She and Travis engaged in phone sex after the big fight. Not likely.
What if there were 3 cans in West Jordan (Salt Lake City), Utah?
10.672 gallons fills up the Ford Focus gas tank,
5.091 gallons fills one gas can, and
9.583 gallons (about 4.8 gallons in each can) is put into the remaining 2 cans.
Or (less probably, in my opinion):
9.583 gallons fills up the Ford Focus gas tank,
5.091 gallons fills one gas can, and
10.672 gallons (about 5.33 gallons in each can) is put into the remaining 2 cans.
Let’s compare that to what Jodi put in the car in Pasadena:
June 3rd 20:46
8.301 gallons of gas (8:42 PM Cash 4.169 per gallon $34.61)
9.590 gallons of gas (8:46 PM Mastercard $39.98)
2.770 gallons of gas (8:53 PM Cash $11.55)
Total = 20.661 gallons. Total = $86.14
Some people claim that Jodi Arias returned the can in Salinas and she had only two cans in Pasadena. She put 8.301 gallons in her car, then filled the two 5 gallon cans, then she topped off her tank with the 2.77 gallons.
If you have 2 gas cans in your garage, like Darryl had, what are the chances they will both be empty? Kind of low, no? It seems that Jodi Arias actually filled the partially full gas can she got from Darryl with the 2.77 gallons.
The distance from Pasadena, California to Mesa, Arizona to Mesquite , Nevada, where Arias filled up next, is 781 miles. In Mesquite, Arias makes a purchase sufficient to buy about 11 gallons of gas.
781 miles = distance from Pasadena to Mesa to Mesquite 675 to 705 miles = Range with the tank and 2 cans 810 to 855 miles = range with the tank and 3 cans
So, Arias cannot make it to Mesquite, Nevada from Pasadena California on a tank and 2 cans of gas. On top of that, Arias testified that she became lost in the desert between Arizona and Nevada, so the distance is even farther (IF she was telling the truth).
You can do any amount of double checking through estimates and nothing adds up to a tank and 2 cans. This is so, no matter how far you are willing to stretch it.
In Mesquite, Nevada, Jodi Arias made a purchase sufficient to buy 11 gallons of gas. This means she used roughly 24.5 to 26 gallons of gas to get there from Pasadena, if she used 3 gas cans, which is a distance of 781 miles.
24.5 gallons x 30 mpg = 735 miles
26.0 gallons x 30 mpg = 780 miles
That would give Arias a range of 735 to 780 miles which fits very well with the distance from Pasadena to Mesquite, NV. Remember that the estimate of 30 mpg is low, especially if you are driving all highway miles. Seems like maybe Jodi Arias didn’t get lost, either. 🙂
In Pasadena, Jodi Arias bought 8.301 gallons to top off the tank + 9.59 gallons in two cans ( look how close that is to the 9.583 gallons she bought in West Jordan) + 2.77 gallons in the third can.
It appears as if Jodi Arias usually fills the car tank first, then fills the gas cans. Why does she say she doesn’t know in what order she filled the gas? She’s muddying the waters.
The tank and two cans would hold 22.5 to 23.5 gallons of gas.
Remember that in Pasadena, Jodi Arias bought 20.661 gallons, meaning if she only had the two cans as supporters want to claim, she bought just 1.84 gallons less than what would be needed if the tank and 2 gas cans were all completely empty, which Jodi Arias testified that she usually does not let happen.
Anyway you want to do the math, it does not work out comfortably with 2 cans and in most cases, it doesn’t work at all.
Inescapable Conclusion: Jodi Arias had 3 gas cans in Pasadena, CA and in West Jordan, UT. She did not return the can to the Walmart in Salinas or anywhere else. Jodi Arias lied on the stand about returning the 3rd gas can. Why would she do that?
Here’s the reason: Why on earth would Jodi Arias buy that 3rd gas can in Salinas, CA in the first place? There is no Innocent reason, justifiable reason or even a mistaken reason for doing so. Whether she did or didn’t return the 3rd gas can, there still is no reason for her filling those gas cans in Pasadena if Pasadena to Las Vegas, via Interstate 15, was her intended route.
Going instead to Mesa, Arizona still gives no reason for filling those cans as that route, also, is all interstate driving. Jodi Arias called Darryl Brewer a number of times about those gas cans. She wanted to be sure she had those cans before she left on her trip, so there must have been a very important reason for needing those gas cans. At no time did she tell Darryl Brewer she was going to Death Valley. At trial, she only states casually she may have gone to Death Valley, but AFTER going to West Jordan.
You can say that Jodi Arias planned on doing something artistic, etc. in the desert before she changed her mind to go to Mesa, yet she never mentioned anything about that, in 18 days on the stand, except for a casual mention of Death Valley.
Jodi Arias lied on the stand about the gas can because that 3rd gas can is such damning evidence, while in her mind, 2 cans could be explained away. Now, we have to wonder what else did she lie about on the stand? Because of Jodi Arias’ previous lies:
– directly after the killing,
– during the investigation,
– in the interrogations,
– in her Manifesto
– to her Attorneys
– in her letter to the Alexander family and
– in her TV interviews,
it was critically important that she did not lie even once on the stand.
Jodi Arias should have told the truth about the gas cans, as since she had 2 cans already, she may as well have 3 cans, but she decided it was a problem for her, and it is, but it was much more of a problem for her to lie about returning the 3rd can and to get caught doing it.
If there is a new trial, Jodi Arias must come clean about the gas cans and admit that she did not return that can. Much has been made of the idea that filling the cans at West Jordan proves that Jodi Arias had an innocent reason for having those gas cans. But actually, if she had a malicious reason for having those gas cans, she would be certain to fill them up again as this would help cover her story and reason for needing those cans.
On top of that, we know Jodi Arias did fill those gas cans in West Jordan, Utah. This means that they were empty and she did use them. Well, you could say she was forced to kill Travis when he attacked her relentlessly in the bathroom, so that’s why she used the gas in the cans. But, then again, you have to ask what is the reason for needing an extra range of 405 miles and an extra 6 ¾ hours driving time, when with 18 days on the stand, we heard all about pop rocks and tootsie pops, but we never heard the big plan needing the gas cans.? That’s because the big plan was murder.
All the other circumstantial evidence that is difficult to explain, is still explainable within reason, but the gas cans tips the scales and makes the pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, with all the other evidence and the gas cans, the combination of all this becomes exponentially more difficult to explain away within reason. It just overwhelms a person who is trying to remain fair, objective, and reasonable. It propels a person into the twilight zone, where magical or other-worldly influence will be needed for a sane person to buy this story.
You must believe that you can walk on water in order to believe Jodi Arias’ story. That’s the truth that Jodi’s “fans” refuse to look at or see. There is no way around it.
Remember: This is a Jodi Arias supporter saying this.
So let’s double-check the method. In Pasadena, If Jodi Arias had 3 cans with 4.5 gallons in each can, she would have 27 gallons of gas or 810 miles of range. If she had 5 gallons in each can, she would have an additional 1.5 gallons or 28.5 gallons which is 855 miles of range. An average of the two would be 27.75 gallons and 832.5 miles of range. By coincidence, and purely by happenstance, the distance between Pasadena and the first recorded place after that, where Jodi Arias stopped for gas, is 795 miles. This is way above the maximum 705 miles of range that Jodi Arias would have with 2 cans of gas in the trunk, although it may have been enough to get to Las Vegas (713 miles).
Well, she bought gas before that and paid cash, so there’s no record? Sorry, but the math for that idea just doesn’t work.
No way did she have only 2 cans in that trunk. It’s impossible.
I challenge and dare anyone to debate the gas cans.
Still not convinced, Jodi Supporter? Now one of Jodi’s plans for the gas cans, we never really heard about, but the other one, we did. Jodi Arias will fill the cans and her tank with cheap Nevada gas to use in California, thus saving money.
Problem: Here’s the map from Reno, Nevada to Yreka, CA.
It’s only 255 miles back to Yreka. You could make that 355 miles, because Jodi Arias went back to Yreka first, then she drove the 100 miles back to the Redding Airport. So, that’s about a tank of gas or about 3 gas cans worth of gas. So, Jodi could use the tank of gas to save money bringing the rental car back, but she still has to fill the tank with California priced gas when she returns the car.
For a tank of gas, here’s how much Jodi would save with her plan:
GAS $3.86 per gallon x 11 gallons = $42.46
Gas $4.17 per gallon x 11 gallons = $45.87
Total savings = $3.41
Even if she fills the tank and the 3 cans and figures out a way to use it all in California, this would still be 13.5 gallons + (3 x 5 gallons) = 13.5 g + 15 g = 28.5 gallons.
Gas $3.86 per gallon x 28.5 gallons = $110.01
Gas $4.17 per gallon x 28.5 gallons =$118.85
Total savings = $8.84
Look at those whopper savings? Who is she trying to kid?
Now, let’s predict how much gas Jodi Arias will need when she gets to West Jordan from Mesquite, Nevada. We know she drove to the PPL meeting and lunch and back to Ryan Burn’s home, so we can make an estimate on that.
The distance from Mesquite, NV to West Jordan, Utah is 331 miles. Jodi arias may have driven an additional 30 miles, so let’s guestimate 361 miles.
That’s about 12 gallons of gas at 30 miles per gallon.
Jodi Arias purchased 10.672 gallons in West Jordan, which is enough to drive 320.16 miles. That’s pretty close considering that 30 mpg is a low estimate and this was all highway miles (Interstate 15).
331 miles = Distance from Mesquite, NV to West Jordan, UT 361 miles = guestimate of Joidi Arias’ gas usage prior to Tesoro fill up. 320.16 miles = range calculated using the gas Jodi put in the main tank at Tesoro x 30 mpg. This would be equal to the amount of gas she used between Mesquite and West Jordan.
That’s awful close, so the math appears to be sound.
So, we are stuck with the 3 gas cans. Jodi Arias bought them and filled them so as not to leave a trail in Arizona, and she used them. And she lied about the number of cans. There is no innocent or alternative explanation for the gas can evidence.
>>>>>If there were such an explanation or argument, trust me, I would be making it.<<<<<<
Anyone making an innocent or reasonable argument for the gas cans is either
– badly mistaken,
– not giving you all the facts
– or deliberately lying.
Then why does Jennifer Willmott say this should have been a 2nd degree murder case? My guess is because she only handled certain parts of the case and she never had the time or the inclination to sit down with all these facts, calculate them out and process them in her mind in totality.
Plus, she’s the defense attorney, what did you expect her to say?
Slick words from Jodi Arias or her Supporters can never make this evidence go away.
Now, with the gas cans, which by the way, conclusively proves premeditation in and of itself, all the other evidence follows this right over the cliff.
1) The rental car – Still, no proof of anything, in my opinion.
2) The License Plates – The odds of having both your license plated messed with, yet not stolen? Long, long, long. No one is going to take your license plate off in the front and turn the back one upside-down. They will either steal the plate or toss them away
So, half way through California, she turns her license upside-down? Isn’t that too risky? Why does Jodi Arias give that answer? Because she knows she didn’t stop anywhere after that, all the way to Mesa. Why did this happen after going into Starbuck’s in Pasadena for a few minutes? It has to be after she filled the tank, or else she probably would have noticed the rear license plate. Jodi Arias is basically admitting she did not buy gas after Pasadena.
All the times she went into the trunk and she never noticed the license plate was upside-down? Come on!
3) Hair colored dark brown on the 3rd – Inconclusive as to premeditation. She could have been just trying to improve her appearance for Travis and/or Ryan Burns. But, do note that Jodi Arias denied dying her hair under direct examination. She got caught in this lie, due to the selfies she took in the rental car.
Jodi Arias forgets all about getting her hair colored, until her memory is jarred by the selfies she took in the Ford Focus on June 3rd, 2008.
Oh, yeah, THAT dye job. Uh……I forgot.
4) The Major Argument – Just 2 days before the theft of the gun. As soon as Arias completes the work week, she’s off to Mesa and one week later Alexander is dead.
5) The phone was turned off before entering Arizona, stayed off at Alexander’s home and continued to be off until Arias is almost out of Arizona – Not reasonably explainable in light of other evidence.
6) The stolen .25 caliber gun – To ignore that the stolen gun was used in the killing, you have to believe Travis also had a .25 caliber gun,
conveniently located right near the bathroom, AND it was loaded and cocked. You have to believe it was sitting there with no extra ammo or accessories of any kind (accept for the holster and/or the box that Arias said was there but wasn’t there). You have to believe that Jodi Arias climbed up on the shelves in the closet in a fight for her life and got hold of the gun without disturbing anything in the closet.
Don’t try to tell me Jodi Arias ever went back into this closet after the killing. White carpet and not a mark? Look at the bench. Do you really think that would have not been disturbed in a life and death struggle and a chase through the closet?
You have to believe that Travis Alexander, naked and wet, ran and chased her around his closet and master bathroom, and that Jodi Arias aimed at and hit a moving target under extreme duress having hardly ever operated a gun before. You have to believe that Jodi took Travis’ gun out of the house even though there was no need for her to take it, if it was his, and even though it seems she took nothing else of Travis’ that she didn’t absolutely have to take, out of the house.
Additionally, Jodi Arias also had to state that her shooting Travis was an accident and the gun just “went off”. If, as she testified, Jodi Arias was thrown down on the tile floor, then chased after by Travis, she had every right to fire that gun. Why didn’t she just say I shot him to stop him after he attacked meand he was still coming at me? She refuses to say it was anything other than an accidental firing. So now, on top of the tiny possibility that Jodi Arias could hit a moving target in a life and death situation , and hit him above the right eyebrow, you also must now believe the gun went off by accident.
The fight, the gun, the gas, the phone and the plates = premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt when you put it all together. It’s way too much of a coincidence for all these things to happen by happenstance and independent of each other…..
….I really think Jodi Arias laughs at the people who actually buy her explanations. I think Juan Martinez might be correct about the plates. I’m not so sure she would risk turning a license plate upside-down and driving like that half way through California and all the way to Mesa (387 miles or over 5.5 hours at 60 mph). Nor do I think a teen vandal flipped her license plate.
On top of that, the hair dye evasion looks very suspicious, so I’m being real charitable in not including it in my analysis.
I think she may have changed that plate inside Alexander’s garage in the dark or in the driveway in a big hurry after the killing, just as Martinez theorized. She may have changed it in Pasadena as she said, but that’s very risky, considering she does not want to be noticed on her way to Mesa. It’s also worse for her case if it happened the way Jodi Arias claims, rather than if she changed the plates at Travis’ home.
‘But even if her story is partially true and Arias did drive from Pasadena to Mesa with the flipped license plate, that’s even worse’? Why do you say that, Rob?
The probable route Jodi Arias wanted people to believe she took.
And the places she was not supposed to be at or leave any trace?
Note the gas stops Jodi Arias mentions at Desert Center, CA and Buckeye, AZ, also Jodi and Travis’ former meeting place at Ehrenberg, AZ on the border.
Pasadena: Jodi Arias buys gas and fills the gas cans starting at 8:42 PM. It’s getting to be 9:00 PM. It just so happens, just by coincidence and happenstance, to be the dark of night at this point.
Watch this video carefully. If there any doubt about Jodi’s Pasadena planning?
Pasadena was the staging ground for premeditated murder.
Do Ewe concur? Are Ewe Kidding me? Let me know in the comments, please.
The Jodi Arias Murder Trial: A Juanderful Closing Argument
(SpolightOnLaw The Jodi Arias Murder Trial: The OTHER side of the story)
Fact based reporting by
Rob Roman and Amanda Chen
In this photo, Travis Alexander is wearing the costume and carrying the wig of “Eddie Snell from Alabama”, his crude and violent alter-ego.
In the all-important closing argument, Maricopa, Arizona prosecutor, Juan Martinez, promised to “shine the light of truth” on the defendant. He explained that Jodi Arias is guilty of first degree murder because:
Jodi called her sister “stupid” (Important)
She had conflicts with her parents
She got in big trouble and lied about it
Jodi “adjusted” Ryan Burns
A Mormon couple, modeling their “magic underwear”.
She “committed perjury”. Everything she said is nothing but lies.
Jodi is a liar and manipulator because she testified that Ryan Burns was “full of crap”…
…after Ryan testified that he thought she said “she worked at Margaritaville” and he “touched her vaginal area”.
“A field of lies sprouted every time she took the witness stand”.
After earthly life, the next step for Mormons is to become celestial rulers and live with God on Earth’s sister planet Kolob, which is closer to the throne of God, because Earth was relocated away from Kolob to it’s present position in our solar system.
She is a waitress / manipulator who flirts with customers for tips.
The defense experts and defense team are all liars.
If Jodi told the truth about Travis having a gun and she did not premeditate the murder, she’s still a thief because she stole Travis’ gun and she’s still a murderer in the first degree because the prosecution, with the approval of the judge, legally manipulated the law with the felony murder charge.
Jodi Ann Arias is ” a chameleon who will adjust to the situation and make herself go further to manipulate. ” – prosecutor Juan Martinez
She stomped around like a wildebeest migration and left behind incriminating evidence.
She was focused and deliberate, removed incriminating evidence and she did not leave a trail of bloody footprints while exiting the home.
A real Wildebeest standing, not “hovering”, in a real field.
Jodi is a liar because she has a good memory for buying a Strawberry Frappuccino but can’t remember the details of a horrific, traumatic killing.
The only victimization or trauma Jodi ever experienced in her life was this: Jodi is “a victim of the trauma of lying”.
Jodi implicated herself on the stand and violated the spirit of the law by stealing a license plate that she was not absolutely sure belonged to her rental car.
Jodi was criminally careless and negligent in possibly depriving a citizen of their lawfully obtained California license plate.
Jodi “has created a fantasy world”. Yet, even in her fantasy world, Juan reaches in and catches her several times violating the law.
Scene from Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
She decorates her lies with ornamentations to make them more believable.
Jodi is a lying liar. She even lied to Travis by faking an orgasm.
Jodi is a story-teller and sociopath who will defy the laws of common decency, bend the law to suit her purposes, lie, manipulate and even break the law in order to achieve her goals.
Jodi is strong-willed.
Scene from the “Wildebeest Stampede” in Disney’s The Lion King
“She’s not a reasonable person, she’s a liar and a murderer.”
She is physically strong enough to take Travis and she “Adjusted Ryan” (Important)
After killing Travis the “chameleon” proceeds to Utah where “that thing” kisses Ryan Burns, straddles and “adjusts him”, and “rubs genitalia”.
Jodi exaggerates and is dramatic.
“Has a dumb, stupid sister”
“Is not nice to her mother”
“Is not a very nice person”
“will lie and manipulate at every turn”
“targeted a good Mormon boy”
Because she “decided she needed to breed”
Good Mormon boy whose halo is a CTR (Cherish The Right) Ring reminding him never to defile his future bride by engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct prior to marriage.
For prosecutor Juan Martinez, this is key evidence in the Jodi Arias trial. Jodi called her sister stupid one time while communicating with Travis Alexander. This was one of the first questions he put to Arias on cross-examination. Juan made certain to bring up this major piece of evidence in his closing argument.
Allegations that Arias also once stuck her tongue out at her sister, Angela, and called her a “poopy face” were not allowed into evidence.
Judge Sherri Stephens absolutely controlled the courtroom because earlier in the trial she made sure the spectators remained silent and did not interrupt the prosecutor in an hour back and forth examination about crucial testimony concerning Snow White, the role of the Prince, the ages of the Seven Dwarfs, and whether their home was a “shack” or a “cute cottage”.
If Judge Stephens had the temerity to simply ask Juan “Where are you going with this?” she may have risked a mistrial or a successful appeal. It was a grand fishing expedition, but Juan got nary a nibble.
According to Juan Martinez, Jodi Arias should allow Travis Alexander to berate her father and her grandfather (people he never met) because Jodi called her own sister “stupid”. These are the footprints of murder.
Arias, like many young people, had a strained relationship with her mother. This is evidence of either abuse or Jodi’s mental and emotional problems stemming from her childhood and mental illness. This is an issue which supports the defense, not the prosecution.
Martinez stated that Arias’ behavior and acts from her birth to her late teens were irrelevant to the crime or it’s mitigation. Yet, he brought them up again and again in this capital murder case.
Juan Martinez is fond of saying “You can’t have it both ways”.
This is a man whose imagination is confined to the world of Disney, where the whole world is invited to participate in the reduction of great works of literature and psychologically profound fables about passages into adulthood, into simplistic and pleasing tales and colorful, lilting rides.
That’s why author E.L. Doctorow, in his historical work, The Book of Daniel, called Disney World rides, themed after simplistic Disney stories loosely based on the true literary works of art, “a sentimental compression of something that is itself already a lie”.
“If it’s not written in the journal, it didn’t happen” – Juan Martinez
That’s the Jodi Arias trial in a nutshell, ladies and gentleman, after the actual, and complicated truth was corrupted and bastardized into a simplistic good versus evil morality play by the “Bulldog” of Maricopa County.
Your opinion is valuable. All comments are welcome and appreciated
All Rights Reserved –
(Please do not reproduce this article in whole or in part without permission)
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.
In 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.
Some 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.
“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. Lawyers 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.)
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.
Traditionally 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”?
Deanna 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
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
With 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
The 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.
If 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
The 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 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!
Now, why would a blog in support of Jodi Arias say something like this?
We are saying it for one little, insignificant reason, because it’s true.
There are many people helping Jodi Arias as we speak. They send her supportive cards and letters, they go to visit her at Estrella Jail, they communicate with each other and share important news about the case. These Jodi-helpers write letters and sign petitions, write blogs and comment on websites, purchase her art and raise money for her appeal, organize gift-packs, and keep in communication with her family members.
Still others may feel that Jodi Arias may be guilty but they do not believe it was a fair trial or they do not believe in the death penalty. All these people support Jodi in some way. They yearn to be able to do something more to help. They might not believe that best way to do this is to join in objectives that are not about Jodi Arias.
Help to End Executions in the USA
Help to End State Executions
in Arizona and the other states that use it.
There are two basic categories of the death penalty in America. The first category is the death penalty statutes in the individual States. These can be repealed by acts of the individual state legislatures. This can depend on who is in power in the legislature and who the Governor is at the moment. There will be an election in Arizona in 2014, and Jan Brewer cannot be re-elected. Governor Brewer has already tried to get the legislature to change the rules so that she can serve an extra four years. Here is a good place to start.
This is the new abolition movement in America. Most of us will never be accused of murder and most of us will not be imprisoned on death row. But we know that many people on death row have been wrongly convicted and some have been executed. We know that the death penalty creates numerous injustices, even for the victims of violent crimes as well as the free citizens of death penalty states,
Some states such as Texas, Ohio, and Arizona have the death penalty and use it frequently. It’s a hot political issue and many people in these states think it is the right thing to do and it’s the will of God. These states may one day decide that the amount of money spent on capital cases could be put to better use. The victim’s family and friends are not satisfied with a guilty verdict, but suffer through decades of appeals and wait 20 years to finally “get closure”. Most of the time, the execution is of little solace to the family and friends.
Each State is Different
Some states have repealed the death penalty and no longer execute convicted criminals or sentence them to death. Many states have found that the death penalty violates their individual state constitutions. In these states it’s significantly more difficult to return to executing convicted murderers.
Still other states put moratoriums on the use of executions, but the moratoriums can be lifted. The states that do not use the death penalty but have not found it unconstitutional may bring it back into use. There has been talk of this in several states. Other states still have the death penalty, but use it rarely. These states are the most likely to one day create a moratorium or repeal the death penalty statutes.
People living in the states that have a moratorium can argue against bringing the death penalty back. They can get involved in efforts to end the death penalty in states that still use it. People in other states and outside the U.S. can also write letters and articles supporting the abolition of the death penalty in the states that use it regularly.
If you want to help Jodi Arias, or even if you don’t, you can make an effort to end the death penalty in the state of Arizona. You will have done everyone residing in Arizona and humanity a favor, and indirectly, you will be helping Jodi Arias. Then, we would not have to see similar spectacles from Arizona, such as more exonerations of death row prisoners like Debra Milke, and the Jodi Arias trial, embarrassing Arizona and the U.S. in the eyes of the world.
Help end federal executions by the United States Government
The second category is executions practiced by the U.S. Federal Government. The federal government reinstituted the death penalty in 1998. There are 59 people currently on Federal death row. Fifty people have been sentenced to death from 2000 to 2012.
Since 1998, three people have been executed by the United States government. Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for the bombing of a U.S. Federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. This act was primarily why the Federal government brought back the death penalty in 1998.
Also in 2001, the U.S. executed Juan Raul Garza, a drug dealer and murderer from Texas. In 2003, Luis Jones Jr. was executed for the 1995 kidnapping, rape and murder of a young Army recruit in Texas. Both McVeigh and Jones were military veterans who fought in foreign wars.
Should mass murderers and terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, be executed? Timothy McVeigh is long gone. Wouldn’t it be better if he was still in prison having to face the consequences of his act?
If you want to talk about injustice, how just is it to make the innocent children, siblings, and parents of Condemned prisoners face the death of their loved ones by the government? How just is it that many other countries will refuse to extradite criminals to the U.S. Government or to states that use the death penalty?
As long as the Federal Government executes people, the states will also want to have that right for themselves. If the Federal Government ends the use of executions, this could set the stage for abolition of the death penalty in individual states. This can also indirectly help Jodi Arias.
Help restore the “presumption of innocence”
for suspects and defendants.
The power of public opinion is so pervasive it infuses court proceedings and can influence juries, judges, people in high places, and even governments.
There are many reasons to believe that Bruno Richard Hauptman was guilty of the kidnapping and murder of the Linbergh baby (Charles Lindbergh was famous for making the world’s first trans-Atlantic flight in 1927).
The prosecutor in his trial exhorted the jury to look at Hauptmann’s “predatory eyes” as proof of the certainty of his guilt. We should all be outraged by such tactics, as they are entirely subjective, appeal to the emotions rather than logic, and obscure the facts. Yet, in the case of Jodi Arias, there was much talk on the media about Jodi’s “dead shark eyes”.
Yet even today, emotional persuasion, speculation, and a presumption of guilt have been utilized in the place of or to supplement facts and evidence that should be the sole determinant of guilt or innocence in a trial.
Here are some quotes about the presumption of innocence for suspects and defendants:
So the people will pay the penalty for their King’s presumption, who, by devising evil, turn justice from her path with tortuous speech –Hesiod, 700 BC
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. –William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1767
Innocence is its own defense. –Benjamin Franklin, 1733
To vice, innocence must always seem only a superior kind of chicanery.-Ouida, Two Little Wooden Shoes, 1874
“Always the innocent are the first victims…. So it has been for ages past, so it is now.” -J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, 2001
Innocence is the weakest defense. Innocence has a single voice that can only say over and over again, “I didn’t do it.” Guilt has a thousand voices, all of them lies. –Leonard F. Peltier, Prison Writings, 1999
“Anybody who understands the justice system knows innocent people are convicted every day.” –Florida Supreme Court Justice, Gerald Kogun (Ret.)
“The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail”. –Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes (Fox News), Aug. 24, 2001
“In this country the presumption of innocence is dead, dead, dead.” –John Grisham
Which of these quotes does not seem to go with the others? Which of these quotes just doesn’t belong?
“What was the quesion…..?” –Vinnie Poitan, Headline News, 2013
The media is a major culprit in the erosion of the presumption of innocence for the accused and defendants in a trial.
“The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.”
“Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognized in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.”
“The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.”
“This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies, and republics many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions.”
“Trial by Media” and the huge public interest in murder trials has been an ever-growing factor in the erosion of the presumption of innocence. The public is exposed to speculation and selective facts as well as evidence not allowed in at trial. Murders and murder trials, crime and punishment have a huge entertainment value, which is exploited by media outlets for profit.
Most trials are over 90% boring and there is a constant temptation for the media to spice things up with speculation, unsupported evidence, and outright lies. This creates an assault on the presumption of innocence because once people make up their minds, they will ignore or reject facts which challenge their opinion.
According to Wikipedia, “Trial by media is a phrase used to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt before, or even after, a verdict in a court of law.”
“During high-publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.
The counter-argument is that the mob mentality exists independently of the media which merely voices the opinions which the public already has.”
For the accused and defendants of less means, who have public defenders, the negative impact of trial-by-media is far greater. They often have no representative or proxy to give their side of the story and to counter untruths. This is why HLN and other media handled the recent Brett Seacat murder trial (A police officer with a private attorney) and the Dr. Martin MacNeil murder trial (An M.D. with a private attorney) with kid gloves compared to the way they absolutely crucified Jodi Arias.
This is especially true of CNN’s HLN, who took a public interest and right to know concept of televising trials, and twisted it to the point where they seem to believe they actually own these trials and can control public opinion.
Yes, HLN was voicing the opinions of the public in the Jodi Arias trial, but they super-charged it and raised the hatred to epic proportions. They told documented untruths, rumors reported as facts, and they told pure lies every week during the Jodi Arias trial. In addition we have instant communication to the masses by means of the social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram which allow facts, rumors and falsities alike to travel at light speed.
This has also added the challenging dimension of creating the ability to harass and intimidate participants in the trial as well as people holding unpopular, minority opinions. This phenomenon has outraced common legislation to control such harmful new capabilities.
Help reduce trial by media and restore the presumption of innocence
before and during trials
We should call HLN on its lies and incomplete facts and make them prove their allegations. Jodi killed her childhood dog, Jodi wore fake glasses, Jodi attacked another prisoner at the Estrella jail, Jodi has a bad jail record, Jodi flipped the bird at Nancy Grace, Jodi deliberately made “throat slashing” gestures, Jodi lied about wanting the death penalty rather than life in an Arizona jail – all lies told by HLN.
The camera feeds from these high profile trials are available publicly and some websites have offered links to these feeds to shut out players like HLN who try to co-opt and exploit the defendants and their trials for their own ratings and profit purposes. We need to see more of this. Let’s make the feed available to everyone publicly, so that there is less trial by media. It’s too late for Jodi Arias as far as a presumption of innocence and trial by media, but we can help the next person to get a fair trial.
Help reduce wrongful convictions
by advocating for extra funding for forensic testing and more adequate investigations.
Of course, there are always limits in manpower and materials to completely investigate each and every factor and lead in a murder investigation.
Still, grossly under-investigated crimes combine with political agendas and this leads to the pressure to indict, arrest, and convict on scant evidence. This is especially true of states like Arizona that are constantly seeking to cut spending to the bare bone. This approach is short sighted and counter productive because it ends up costing more in the long run.
States should put more money into complete and competent investigations and scientific testing in order to save money from wrongful convictions, reversals, appeals, re-trials, and lawsuits.
Incomplete and incompetent investigations and inadequate testing are two huge factors in wrongful convictions. More thorough investigation and more testing of evidence may change the tide of the Jodi Arias case in appeal and will help to prevent countless wrongful prosecutions.
Help to promote humane prison conditions.
Inhumane prison conditions cause embarrassment to us all as a nation and reduce our ability to promote improvements in other countries. Arizona is a proven culprit in creating inhumane prison conditions. There should be strict standards for the treatment and conditions of people in custody in the U.S.
This would help Jodi Arias in the short run and would benefit every citizen in the long run.
Help end the “Incarceration Nation”
and reduce extremely long prison terms for non-violent offenders
Fareed Zakaria wrote in Time magazine that the number of jailed prisoners in the United States is one of the great scandals of American life. “Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today,” writes the New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik.”
Over all, there are now more people under ‘correctional supervision’ in America – more than 6 million – than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height.”
Is this hyperbole? Here are the facts. The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. That’s not just many more than in most other developed countries but seven to 10 times as many. Japan has 63 per 100,000, Germany has 90, France has 96, South Korea has 97, and Britain – with a rate among the highest – has 153.
Even developing countries that are well known for their crime problems have a third of U.S. numbers. Mexico has 208 prisoners per 100,000 citizens, and Brazil has 242. We here in America make up 5% of the world’s population but we make up 25% of the world’s jailed prisoners.
The prison system has become a major for-profit industry in the United Sates.
This is mostly due to the “war on drugs”, but has expanded to include other non-violent crimes.
In two recent cases in Florida, a 19 year-old was sentenced to 162 years in prison with no possibility of parole for a series of unsuccessful armed robberies where no one was hurt. He shot only at a dog, but he missed. A woman who was threatened by her estranged husband in her own home was sentenced to 20 years in prison for discharging a firearm into a wall as a warning to her ex-husband.
These laws are unfairly applied to people of less means and to minorities. There are alternatives to incarceration which include GPS monitoring, rehabilitative counseling, mandatory drug and alcohol treatment, and training and education which can help turn lives around as opposed to throwing lives away.
Such concepts as mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines should be restricted because they remove the discretion of judges in individual cases and give too much power to District Attorneys.
Shining a spotlight on our embarrassing prison system will help the U.S. to look at the value of rehabilitation as opposed to warehousing people in prisons. We can try to reduce the growth industry of private prisons and replace this with more constructive and beneficial enterprises.
Help keep local and state governments honest
When government corruption, especially in law enforcement is observed it should be reported and acted upon. The Jodi Arias trial has helped to shine a spotlight on a variety of highly questionable practices in Arizona. You can get active and speak out on these practices and advocate for investigations and reforms. You do not have to be from a particular state or even from the United States to speak out on these matters.
Help to reduce bullying and domestic violence.
Domestic violence is not really growing in America, but it’s becoming more deadly, due to the proliferation of firearms and an inability to communicate and deal effectively with conflicts. Bullying in America has increased due to our competitive and aggressive culture.
High-tech has served to make one-time incidents permanent by photo or video. These incidents, accusations, and rumors can spread with lightning speed throughout an entire community. This high-tech dimension makes fleeting incidents into long lasting attacks that few people are equipped to withstand.
Worse than this, like the current epidemic of the “knockout game”, where young people go out and sneak up on an unsuspecting person and punch them in the head as hard as they can while a friend records it on video, bullying has become a dangerous and potentially deadly “game”. Some young people get a thrill out of using technology to try to destroy the life of another young person, hoping they will cause them emotional distress, or even run them out of a school or the town. They are excited at the idea of using their computers and cell phones to cause a person to take their own life.
We see this same tactic employed by adults in society at large and especially in the social media, where people can hide behind a computer or cell phone and lash out at opponents protected by anonymity and multiple profiles. Here, we are setting a dangerous and potentially deadly example for children and young adults. This leads to the next item:
Help fight for Jodi by not fighting for Jodi
There are political courses and classes that teach people to attack the opinions of others by means of personal attacks. These attacks are meant to silence people with an opposing opinion by short circuiting the issues and changing the subject. The usual response to this is to counter-attack with insults and personal attacks.
If we hold an unpopular or minority opinion, fighting with others will not change their opinion or help our cause. It’s better to present factual reasons why we believe the way we do and to respect the holders of opposing opinions. This way we can take the high road and show that our reasoning is based on facts and that we have considered our position carefully.
We can give our opponents some facts to ponder and some things to think about. This helps our cause by reducing the criticisms that the holder of a minority opinion is ignorant, unreasonable, or crazy. It also makes the attacker look bad when the holder of an unpopular opinion refuses to counterattack or ignores the attack completely.
Another thing we can do is to see if we can find common ground in any of the above issues. People who don’t hold the same opinion you do most likely agree with you on at least one of these other issues.
Helping to put an end to federal and state executions, restoring the presumption of innocence for the accused and defendants, and limiting trial by media is something we can all do to improve the criminal justice system in America.
Advocating for the Reduction of wrongful convictions through more complete testing and investigations, and improving prison conditions will help to make our system more just and will save money in the long run.
Helping to reduce our prison population, investigating and reporting corruption in government, and helping to reduce bullying and domestic violence incidents and deaths are all things we can work on to improve our society.
Setting a good example for our kids by not allowing ourselves to be reduced to the level of personal attacks on social media is another positive step we can take. Taking the high road when communicating with “Travis supporters” may get more people to rethink their ideas and opinions about the Jodi Arias trial. We can show we have a more complete knowledge of the case and we can improve our debating and communicating skills.
Each of these issues directly helps to improve our society and positively impact our culture. They make us a better country in the eyes of the world.
These are not liberal or conservative issues, but are a matter of evolution.
As a bonus, all of these issues indirectly benefit Jodi Arias. That’s one of the reasons why Jodi wants to help domestic violence victims by making sure they seek help and document their abuse. It’s to prevent many others from the same tragic circumstances Jodi is facing now.
We can help improve the system and conditions which may have failed Jodi Arias, and will certainly fail countless others if nothing is done to change the conditions .
Sometimes, the best way to help Jodi Arias is to not help Jodi Arias. I think even Jodi would agree.
For more insight into why the death penalty is unjust to crime victims and the public please see:
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:
“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.”
Less 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!
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.
These are the last 5 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
Crime: 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
Especially heinous, cruel, or depraved (all three prongs)
Moormann 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.
There 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.
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
Especially heinous, cruel or depraved (cruelty prong only)
Also 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.
At 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.
Robert 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
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
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.
He 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”.
Kemp 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”.
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)
She 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.
His 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
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)
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.
Cook’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.
Cook 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
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)
Age of victims (under 15)
After 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’.
On 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:
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
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.
The 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.
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.
Robert 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
On parole at time of offense
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.
Robert 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
Crime: June 4, 2008
Sentenced to Death:
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.
These are the 4 most recent Governors of Arizona. Each Governor has a unique way of governing and has different priorities. Their individual agendas affect how executions are carried out.
Besides the higher courts, the Governors are the last chance for a delay in carrying out the death sentence, or a commutation to a life sentence. First, a few days before the sentence is carried out, the prisoner is brought into a special cage in a hearing room for the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency.
Five citizens selected by a Governor will review the prisoner’s case, listen to prosecution and defense attorneys, listen to witnesses and hear the opinion of others who wish to speak for or against the prisoner.
If the five board members agree that the death sentence should not be executed, they make a recommendation to the Governor. Then, it’s the Governor’s decision to accept or reject the recommendation. It seems that on this board, there would be a minister, someone from law enforcement, a former judge, and people of this sort. The Arizona board is stacked with former law enforcement types, and people who have political ambitions or obligations.
This means you have to get through five people like this guy:
To get to this Governor:
(7 years in office – 8 prisoners executed)
“Symington was sworn into office on March 6, 1991. During his first term, the governor was the subject of an investigation over his involvement with Southwest Savings and Loan, a failed Phoenix thrift bank. He was later cleared, and won reelection handily in 1994.”
In November, 1995, Symington’s chest may have been swelling with pride. His own party had shut down the government over a budget battle. He may have been humored and excited at the prospect that the Federal Government was forced to close many of its functions. This self-satisfaction turned to alarm when he realized that the world-famous Grand Canyon, an Arizona tourist hotspot, had been closed. Political pressure mounted and Symington sprang into action.
Symington demanded that the Grand Canyon be opened immediately. He declared he would take the Arizona National Guard to the Park and open it personally by force, if necessary. The Pentagon contacted him and told him they would federalize the Arizona armed forces if he tried it. Symington defiantly marched to the Grand CanyonNational Park, but he only took a few unarmed soldiers. His defiance was downgraded to beating on the locked gates for the news cameras in a staged protest.
Symington was later indicted on charges of extortion and making false financial statements. In 1997, he was convicted of bank fraud. Arizona state law does not allow convicted felons to hold office, so Symington resigned his office in September, 1997.
The conviction was overturned in 1999 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There was a dispute about whether a dismissed juror who insisted on voting not guilty was refusing to deliberate or simply refusing to change his vote.
“Symington attended the prestigious Gilman School in Baltimore, then attended Harvard University, graduating in 1968 with a degree in Dutch art history. He served in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam War, stationed at Luke Air Force Base in Maricopa County, Arizona. He remained in Arizona and became involved in real estate development, founding his own company, the Symington Company, in 1976.”
Jane D. Hull
(5 years in office – 14 prisoners executed)
“Jane D. Hull entered politics in 1978 by being elected to the Arizona House of Representatives as a Republican. She served for seven terms, including two as Speaker of the House, the first female Speaker in Arizona history.”
“In 1991, while she was Speaker, the Arizona legislature experienced a major political scandal called AZSCAM, which resulted in the resignation or removal of ten members of the House and Senate. As a result, Speaker Hull instituted a number of ethics reforms to re-establish public confidence in the legislature.”
Hull was elected Arizona Secretary of State in 1994. After Governor Fife Symington was forced to resign due to his felony conviction. Hull became governor on September 5, 1997. U.S. Supreme Court Justice andra Day OConnnor, herself a former Arizona legislator, swore her into office. As Secretary of State, Hull was next in line to be Governor should anything prevent the current Governor from fulfilling hus duties. Since Arizona bars convicted felons from holding office, Jane Hull took over as Governor after Fife Symington was convicted.
“Hull won election in her own right in 1998. This was the first time in the history of the United States that all five of the top elected executive offices in one state were held by women.”
“While she was governor, Hull’s relations with home state U.S. Senator John McCain were strained. During the 2000 primary season she endorsed his opponent, Texas Governor George W. Bush, in the Arizona primary. After leaving office, she spent three months in New York City, as a public delegate from the United States to the United Nations General Assembly (2004).”
“Hull graduated from theUniversity of Kansas with a degree in education. She taught elementary school in Kansas”
(6 years in office – 1 prisoner executed)
“Janet Napolitano narrowly won the Aisona gubernatorial election of 2002 with 46 percent of the vote, succeeding Republican Jane Hull and defeating her Republican opponent. In November 2006, Napolitano won the gubernatorial election of 2006, defeating the Republican challenger, Len Munsil, by a nearly 2–1 ratio and becoming the first woman to be re-elected to that office.”
Napolitano vetoed a bill which authorized the police to detain illegal immigrants in Arizona and arrest them for “trespassing (on American soil)”. Napolitano remarked that the bill didn’t place enough responsibility on businesses which continue to hire and employ illegal immigrants and that the bill’s passage would overwhelm law enforcement.
In December, 2008, Barack Obama made Napolitano his nominee for United States Secretary of Homeland Security. In January, 2009, Napolitano became the first woman appointed Secretary in the relatively new department. Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer became the governor of Arizona, as the state does not have a lieutenant governor.
The single prisoner executed under Janet Napolitano had murdered two people and had waived his appeals.
“Napolitano graduated from Santa Clara University in California, where she won a Truman Scholarship, and was valedictorian. In 1978, she studied for a term at the London School of Economics. She then received her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Virginia School of.”
(5 years in office – 12 prisoners executed)
Governor Brewer is well on her way to beating former Governor Hull’s record of 14 executions during her terms in office. Things slowed down in 2013, due to Supreme Court and Federal court appeals for the next prisoner in line to be executed. There were also issues with the drugs used in the executions. As 2014 will be her final year as Governor due to term restrictions, look for a series of executions in the coming year.
Politically, executions in Arizona are known as “crowd pleasers”.
“Janice Kay “Jan” Brewer is the 22nd Governor of the U.S. state of Arizona, in office since 2009. A member of the Republican Party, Brewer is the fourth woman, and third consecutive woman, to serve as Governor of Arizona.”
Jan Brewer famously stuck her finger in the face of President Obama at the airport when he came for a visit. Ironically, Jan Brewer may never have been Governor of Arizona were it not for President Obama. Brewer was Secretary of State at the time Obama recruited then Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to become head of Department of Homeland Security. The next person in line is the Secretary of State. So Brewer became Governor by default.
“On April 23, 2010, Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, otherwise known as Arizona SB1070, into law, making it “a state crime for illegal immigrants to not have an alien registration document,” and requiring police “to question people about their immigration status if there is reason.””
Of course the “reason” to detain people and request documentation from citizens was reasoned to be having a Spanish surname or having a certain skin color, resulting in various class-action and Federal lawsuits.
Illegal immigrants would be encouraged to get out of Arizona by creating incentives for legal citizens to refuse to transport or hire them. No state services would be granted to illegal immigrants. The “Signing of the bill has led to massive demonstrations in Arizona, Washington, D.C. and many other cities across the United States, both for and against the legislation.”
In Arizona, justifying these divisions into first and second class citizens is a political big hit.
“In July 2009, Jan Brewer signed SB 1113, which entitles people in Arizona to carry concealed guns in bars or restaurants as long as they do not consume alcohol. Brewer also signed SB 1168, a measure that bans property owners from prohibiting the storage of firearms in locked vehicles parked on their lots.”
“She signed SB 1243, which allows a person who is threatened to announce they are armed, or display or place their hand on their firearm before the use of deadly force.In April 2010, Brewer signed SB 1108, which removes the licensure requirement for law-abiding citizens who choose to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Arizona.”
Governor Jan Brewer vetoed two bills. One set a mandate that anyone running for President must have proof of U.S. citizenship and the other being a bill which allowed guns on college campuses.Federal law already mandates that a candidate for President must be a natural born U.S. citizen. Arizona doesn’t seem quite ready to have its college campuses teaming with armed twenty year-old students.
Better luck next time. Any laws strengthening and expanding gun rights is a win-win in Arizona.
“In the face of a mounting budget crisis in Arizona, Brewer signed the 2011 legislative budget which eliminates the Arizona variant of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as KidsCare, providing health insurance to uninsured children whose families have low income.”
Other legislation was passed under Jan Brewer to further limit access of poor families and children to health care, saying “We do not have the money…. We are broke.”
“Brewer attended Glendale Community College in Glendale, Arizona, where she received a radiological technologist certificate”, proving that in this wonderful country, you too can become Secretary of State and even Governor of Arizona.
Please See (part 2) of The Executives and the Executed