Milk and Cookies for the “Crusher” of Candy Crush

Milk and Cookies for the

“Crusher” of Candy Crush !

Opinion by Amanda Chen and Rob Roman

candy crush

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

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

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

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

Dear JustDaTruth,

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

One major point:

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

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

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

“Jury Bias”

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

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

The Defense Attorneys “Are Not Public Defenders”

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

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

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

Death Penalty

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

cookies and milk bffsTraditionally Non-Sequestered Jury in AZ.

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

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

Judge Stephens Controlled the Court Room

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

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

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

Electronic Devices Are Not a Problem

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

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

Lisa Daidone: Stalking Evidence

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

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

LaViolette Was Not Balanced / Fair To Travis

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

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

(Please see Spotlight on Domestic Violence)

Samuels Cheated for Jodi

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

Offering Books to Prisoners

thinking man

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

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

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

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

Jodi Lied to Her Parents

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

The Defense Agreed with DeMarte

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

Martinez Destroyed Defense Witnesses

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

Defense Expert’s False Claims

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

Gas Can Evidence Proves Premeditation

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

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

Back Stabbing and George Barwood

A note about George Barwood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Felony Murder Charge

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

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

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

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

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

Sex Evidence Used for Distraction

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

(Please see An Open Letter to Wendy Murphy)

“Humiliation / Battery” of Victim’s Family

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

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

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

Oh Holy Night

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

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

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

Lisa LaSalle’s Article:

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

JustDaTruth’s Article:

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

George Barwood’s sites about the Arias case:

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

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

Why Jodi Arias Will Get a Whole New Trial

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

Factual Reporting by

Amanda Chen and Rob Roman

WARNING: Graphic Crime Scene and Autopsy Photos!

may be disturbing to some people!

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

A large amount of blood under the nose

not much blood coming out the mouth.

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

ta left hand 1 light

Deep incised wounds on Alexander’s left hand

jurors pus

Little blood on left side of the sink

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

All rights eserved

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