In this article, we go over the last words spoken in the final arguments of the 2nd penalty trial. We also go over the last words spoken between Travis and Jodi before her fateful trip to Mesa, Arizona. This is Nurmi’s 2nd or rebuttal, closing argument, the last thing the jurors heard before going into deliberations and taking control of the case.
“Now, Andy did you hear about this one?
Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby
Are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon
Man on the moon
If you believe there’s nothing up his sleeve
Then nothing is cool ” – R.E.M.
It’s all in the hands of the twelve jurors now. We await their decision expected sometime between Monday and Thursday.
Like before, we cobbled this together from Tweets mostly from Jen Wood at The Trial Diaries. Here is the final argument by L. Kirk Nurmi:
Kirk Nurmi has on a bright pink tie today and he’s getting all ready. Juan has arrived in a black suit and yellow tie. The Courtroom is very full today. Jodi Arias has come in wearing a grey blouse, her hair is down. Jodi is smiling and laughing with Jennifer Willmott.
Nurmi starts with a “Good morning!”
Juan objected and we have a sidebar.
(Okay, I was joking about that)
Nurmi is talking about what the State has just presented … he’s calling it snipits.
Juan objected and we have a sidebar
(for real, this time)
Nurmi is going over the cross of Dr. Fonseca and how Jodi’s said “F*ck You, Bill” to her Dad after he slapped her, and Juan Martinez took issue with that.
Nurmi says Juan never took issue with a father slapping his daughter, but he takes issue with the daughter’s response. (Jen Wood never mentioned that in her tweets yesterday) Nurmi is a lot more aggressive today.
Now he’s bringing up the “total bitch” comment by the cousin.
Nurmi makes an excuse saying Jodi experienced trauma as a child by being physically and sexually abused.
Nurmi is saying Juan putting up a picture of TA’s neck cut open and asking if it was a smile was disgusting. (another thing Jen neglected to mention when it happened).
Kirk is telling a story about a lost key. Now he is telling the jury to look for that key and ask yourselves if you will kill this girl…he show’s a photo of Jodi Arias.
Nurmi says Martinez’ story about dead men on the moon is a distraction from the State. Martinez telling the jury about men left on the moon isn’t real. Now is real.Nurmi points to Jodi and says “Will you kill this woman?!!”
Kirk says the state claims the defense thinks Travis was a bad man. Nurmi says that never has happened. He reads the e-mail from Sky Hughes to Travis telling him he’s been affected by his up-bringing. He repeats that they don’t think Travis was a bad guy, but he wasn’t always good to Jodi.
“Martinez distracts again by telling you our experts relied on the laws of attraction”. Nurmi says Dr. Geffner relied on tests and the records. Geffner and Fonseca relied on state’s evidence also, the e-mails from Sky and text messages.
Nurmi says the state now tells you Geffner thinks Mormons lie…he never said that. Geffner stated they may have a difficult time discussing sex. “This is another distraction from the state”.
Nurmi is telling the jury Deanna Reid lied to them and she’s lying for Travis. Bishop Vernon Parker was another one who has lied for Travis. Nurmi wants the jury to listen to the sex tape.
Nurmi starts going over Witness #1’s testimony, saying Travis confessed to him about being sexually abused. Nurmi is bringing up the 12 year old comment about the orgasm….he’s addressing the women of the jury and if their men would ever say….
Nurmi says “distraction, distraction, distraction” He asks if Travis talking about this is appropriate and if their men would find that appropriate….
Objection!!….sustained, and the jury is asked to disregard the remark.
Kirk is saying Travis has an issue with porn and “it would be normal if not for his faith…well some of it”. He brings up a video of a teacher having sex with a student that was found on Travis’ computer.
‘Remember how I was cross-examining Dr. DeMarte, and I said Good Morning and she didn’t respond? That shows her bias. Nurmi continues with his theme that the state was “distracting from the facts of the case”.
Nurmi’s talking about Borderline Pesonality Disorder and how Jodi was suicidal at a young age and it’s not just one thing…it’s many things.
He advises the jury to read Jodi’s journals. The State says why would she not tell about negative things in her private journal, but Travis ripped out pages in it. The state is telling you there must be some rules to journal writing and all negative things are required to be in there.
‘What if she did write she was beaten and she caught Travis masturbating and he found that…he read it?! What then?” “Please read the e-mail from Chris Hughes to Travis, that e-mail shows concerns about Travis’ behavior toward women.”
Nurmi is addressing the ‘how do we know if Travis invited Jodi Arias into his house the day of the murder’ question. He says if Jodi wasn’t invited then nude photos of her vagina wouldn’t have been taken. Nude photos of Travis wouldn’t have been taken.
Kirk is saying that the letter to Abe was sent to Travis because he had tension with Abe and Jodi sent it to Travis because he wanted a copy. Travis was pissed off about Abe. It’s the power and control. Travis Alexander was a “jealous man”.
Nurmi is saying the state is distracting them over the “photo-shoot” text the state claims didn’t come from Travis Alexander’s phone.
Photo-shoot text message:
May 02, 2008:
“Remember this. That photo-shoot is gonna be one of the best experiances [sic] of your life and mine. I haven’t stopped thinking about it, the pics ill [sic] take, the progressiveness of it, from very clean to very very dirty and everything in between.
It will tell quite a story and be a lot of fun and not a day has gone by that I haven’t dreamt about driving my shaft long and hard into you. When I am all by [sic] lonesome I have no desire to think of anyone else in my scandilous [sic] fantasies because from my own experience nothing is even enjoyable compared to you.
Because of that I spend a lot more time getting myself off. What you do and let me do to you puts me on another planet. You are the ultimate slut in bed. No wonder I blow enormous loads every time. I want to send one down your throat and another on your face and want to taste you as you ride my face.
I want to throughly [sic] work my tongue along every hole of your body. You are going to get taken like you have never been taken before. When its done the intensity will make your body feel like youve been raped but you will have enjoyed every delightful moment of it.
You’ll rejoice in being a whore thats sole purpose in life is to be mine to have animalistic sex with and to please me in any way I desire.”
Nurmi says no evidence this isn’t a text from Travis and the Helio phones were different back then. He’s saying the language in this text fits it coming from Travis Alexander. Nurmi is comparing the text to the sex call and how the language is similar. He says the reality of this is the text came from Travis…. “a highly sexual man”.
Kirk says Dr. Fonseca didn’t totally rely on this…it was just one piece to a puzzle. It’s not a “distraction”. He says the father of the 9 year-old girl was concerned that Travis had his daughter’s name and this is another piece to the puzzle…how did he get that?
Nurmi is pointing to Jodi as he reads about mitigating factors…these aren’t excuses. “Jodi up until this point lived a life that doesn’t deserve to be taken away now”.
“The State says she killed Travis Alexander, now kill her.”
“Don’t be distracted about what the task is before you.”
”Jodi worked hard and lived a law abiding life. She supported herself and sometimes her boyfriends. “Jodi did all this while mentally ill.”
Nurmi says Ms. Arias not getting validated created a mental illness. Now on to the physical/emotional abuse on the list of mitigating factors …Kirk says the state doesn’t want you to believe the victims.
Jodi Arias is looking intently at the photos of Darryl, his son, and her on a trip to a state park. Nurmi says the relationship with Travis was different because of the emotional stress and the fact the relationship was tumultuous.
“How do we go from a sexual encounter to a murder on the same day…..?.”
Nurmi explains to the jury that Dr.Geffner wasn’t a hired gun. He’s an honest man who did testing to verify the PTSD. He says Dr, DeMarte works for the State part time and has even raised her rates to testify…she’s the biased one.
“Jodi didn’t have secondary gain during the interviews with Detective Flores.”
“Jodi just didn’t want to expose Travis just like Deanna Reid didn’t want to expose him.”
Kirk is going over previous trial testimony, going over how Jodi told the jury what she did was horrific and she couldn’t imagine doing that to another human being.
Nurmi – “Her history doesn’t show she was violent…only kicking at walls.”
February 14, 2007 letter:
Feb 14, 2007 16:58– Arias email to TA:
“I’m sorry that the last few days have bee so frustrating for you. I wish I could have offered you more consolation over the phone. I guess I was just at a little bit of a loss for words. And perhaps, a little bit intimidated, not necessarily because of how angry you were, but because I wasn’t sure how you would react to me trying to comfort you.
I compare it to my own experiences, and I know that sometimes, I don’t want to hear it, I just want to yell and scream and vent (yes, I do on very rare occasions), and go through the motions until the situation plays itself out. Other times, I need comforting and to be told that everything is okay. I wasn’t sure exactly what you were needing, so I just listened, and as the conversation evolved, my heart filled with compassion for you.
However, you already know the Secret. I don’t need to remind you. But you are so powerful, and you can turn this situation around at anytime. I found out, much to my regret, that my anger is very destructive. I’ve never beaten up anybody over it, but I’ve kicked holes in walls, kicked down doors, smashed windows, broken things. It hurts people and it hurts me. It lowers my vibration and attracts unwanted lower-vibrational situations and people into my life.
So I strive every day to “be the bigger person” and be a living example and Choose the right and see everything through a filter of love. But it doesn’t always work that way! I mess up. Sometimes I forget who I am. But I will never stop striving to be Christ-like as much as I possibly can.
This morning, I woke up feeling awful. I called Darryl (only because I had to give him the phone number to our mortgage lender) and he said, “hey, I was just going to call you. Any change in your situation?” And that’s all he had to say. I lost it.
There’s the foreclosure of the house, which is quickly spreading like cancer throughout other areas of my finances, and probably his, too. And I don’t want to focus on that, therefore, I haven’t wanted to talk to Darryl lately. Maybe you don’t need to know any of this, but I guess I’m telling you so you know it hasn’t been a great day for me either.
But there is one cool part to that story. After we hung up, I continued to cry for a few minutes. I was still in bed, still in my pajamas, feeling miserable and hopeless. And then suddenly a thought of you popped into my mind. It took me a second (really, only 1 second), and I ceased to cry, and I began to feel wonderful! I think I probably smiled! I remembered talking to you last night. I remembered your stirring voice. I remembered how freakin’ lucky I am that you are in my life!
I think that those thoughts are literally what motivated me to get out of bed this morning and face the day. And although it hasn’t been the best day that I’ve had this week, it can only mean that it gets better from here! I’ve still got 4 more days left this week, and so do you!
If I had a magic wand and could change anything about today right now, I would use it to make your day brighter and 300% better. But just know that your problems and trials are making you better and stronger by the minute. It may be hard to imagine that (only because you are already so incredible!), but I can see it and I can envision it. Just keep breathing and keep stepping.
We are human, we all falter, But everything is still prefect. Heavenly Father doesn’t make mistakes. This world is our classroom, and we are the students. The people and situations we bring into our experiences are like our teachers. Today’s lesson has been difficult and was not fun! But the general idea is that once we learn the lessons inherent in the situation, we don’t have to repeat them anymore! When you can find it in yourself to give thanks for the lessons, do it.
OK, I’m going to go now before you start calling me Esther Hicks. I might otherwise take it as a compliment, but coming from you, I know it wouldn’t be. (smiley face)
And I hope this makes you feel better: Just remember that no matter how ugly it gets, I’m only a phone call away. I am ALWAYS here for you. YOU MEAN THE WORLD TO ME!!! AND YOU ALWAYS WILL!
Happy Valentine’s Day, Baby
Nurmi explains that the Helio phone would have been turned over right away if Jodi Arias had it. “She thought it was stolen and it’s in her journal.”
Kirk goes over the jury instruction and he’s hammering away at the individual decision of each juror on choosing life or death.”This is a moral assessment”
Kirk puts up a photo of Jodi with a black dog.
“Will you kill Jodi?”
Nurmi puts up a photo of Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias in the woods and says “This is tragic that two people may die….”
Juan objects and we have a sidebar
The state wants you to throw away all the expert testimony and you do have that right.
Nurmi puts up an excerpt from Travis’s blog about his grandfather and reads it to jury
Here is the excerpt:
During this time I could think of two fond memories of my childhood. The first was Sesame Street. My Sisters and I watched it everyday and it took our minds to Sesame Street where kids were happy and learning. It took our minds away from Allwood Drive, where we got the Hell beat out of us.
The other was visiting the home of my Great-Grandfather Vic. My Mother didn’t have very much family and even less that she got along with, but she adored my Grandfather. He only lived about an hour away from our family in southern California, but it was rare that she was in any condition that she’d let Vic see her in. About twice a year my Mother would fix herself and us up enough for a visit with my Grandfather. For the most part our visits would be stereotypical. He’d take us out for pizza, to walk his dogs, play checkers and with other toys he kept for us, and taught me how to write the alphabet.
However there was one thing that was out of the ordinary about our visits. Every time before my Mother, siblings and I would leave I would go to hug my Grandfather goodbye. Without exception before I received my coveted hug the cheery casual countenance of my Grandfather would change to something very serious. He would then grab me by my shoulders and shake me, then would follow those words, those words that alter every aspect of my life, “Travis, you need to know that you are special, that there is not anything that you can’t do. There is something great inside you. You’re special Travis, don’t you ever forget it.” That was quickly followed by a rigid hug that would squeeze the breath out of me.
Now there is an easy explanation for why my life has been in my opinion, amazing. It is the same reason I have had success financially and otherwise. It is the same reason I feel that every facet of my life has been blessed and continues to be more and more everyday. The reason is that the words my Grandfather said were spoken with such conviction that I believed him. You see what I wasn’t aware of then, that I have since figured out was my Grandfather was savvy to the way Mother was raising her children.
She would often make remarks while coming down from drugs about how miserable we all were, that we ruined her life, that we were worthless. Although those words hurt very deeply as you could imagine; every time she would scream those words I would hear his words instead, every time I would feel her fist sink into my back, I could feel my Grandfather’s hands on my shoulders, and I knew she couldn’t reach what was great inside of me. And again I’d hear the words “You’re special Travis, don’t ever forget it.”
Then in my mind I would think, “This woman has no idea what she is talking about, she doesn’t know that I am special.” No matter how loud she’d yell those colorful words, she could never top the conviction of my Great-Grandfather Vic. Since then I have come to realize two things. First my Great-Grandfather was right, I am special.
I took his advice; I never forgot it and I never will. Second I have learned I am no better than anyone else. So as you read this book I hope that you will let these pages grab you by the shoulders and shake you and tell you that you are special. That there is something great inside you. I pray that you will allow the words you read stare deep into your eyes and instill into you that there isn’t anything that you can not do. My desire is that this book will do for you what Grandpa Vic did for me. Help me believe what is already true.
Jodi Arias – “Two nights ago I called to say goodnight and he made it clear to me he didn’t mean all those harsh words and he felt really badly.”
The Journal says she promised Travis she wouldn’t write things down in her journal that were negative.
Nurmi points to Jodi Arias and tells the jury that her life is in their hands. She feels remorse for the pain she has caused.
Nurmi tells the jury “You heard how Travis Alexander would fill a room up with love……..you have an opportunity to render a life verdict. This is a verdict of love & compassion.”
Lots of friends and family are now crying for Travis Alexander.
That was it as the case went to the jury to make their momentous decision. Here are some items of evidence and Jodi and Travis’ last words that we know about before Travis’ tragic demise.
Letter sent to Lisa Andrews by unknown in August 2007:
“You are a shameful whore. Your Heavenly Father must be deeply ashamed of the whoredoms you’ve committed with that insidious man. If you let him stay in your bed one more time or even sleep under the same roof as him, you will be giving the appearance of evil. You are driving away the Holy Ghost, and you are wasting your time.
You are also compromising your salvation and breaking your baptismal covenants. Of all the commandments to break, committing acts of whoredom is one of the most displeasing in the eyes of the Lord. You cannot be ashamed enough of yourself. You are filthy, and you need to repent and become clean in the eyes of God.
Think about your future husband, and how you disrespect not only yourself, but him, as well as the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Is that what you want for yourself? Your future, your salvation, and your posterity is resting on your choices and actions.
You are a daughter of God, and you have been a shameful example. Be thou clean, sin no more. Heavenly Father loves you and wants you to make the right choices. I know you are strong enough to choose the right. Your Father in Heaven is pulling for you. Don’t ignore the prompting you receive, because they are vital to your spiritual well-being.”
April 2008 – After Arias moved from Mesa, Arizona back to Yreka, California. Jodi sent a text to Travis which she claimed was meant for Steve Carol. Travis wants Jodi to admit that this person doesn’t exist.
May 2, 2008 – The “photo-shoot”” text is sent.
May 8, 2008 – The phone sex tape.
May 26, 2008 – Text from Travis to Jodi:
“Do not call me. And do not text me anything. The next text I want is this Michelle K. that is friends with Elena, that nobody knows, but knows details about my life. Not one other thing ever. Until you have that information. It would only take 15 minutes to get that info, but you won’t because it’s a f*cking lie.
So either text that you are ready to tell the truth or give me your imaginary friend with the worst BS story you have ever told or leave me alone. It’s a lie like no other.
It’s freaking foolish. There is no way out of it. You have screwed up your story so bad, you can’t mend it. You are caught, when will you realize that?
I do not know. You have until tomorrow, to give me this person’s information before I tell all the Hughes, Leslie Udy, the Freemans, your parents, and anyone else that matters about all the crazy you have done. So either fess up or feel the wrath. No matter how bad the truth is, I promise you the punishment will be better than the lie.
This is worse than your magical e-mail that a mysterious man you’ve never seen before wrote to you. You insult me by thinking I’ll believe such crap, nothing else from you til the truth. I already know your lying so why continue? After tomorrow, it’s gonna get real bad for you. Time to spit it out.”
From Arias’ testimony:
“I said the only thing that I’m going to be spitting out is the fact that you’re a pedophile with a past. – something like that. And I was saying… I don’t know. At the time I categorized what I saw as child pornography. I realize it wasn’t child pornography. It was just a picture of a young boy.”
May 26 texts. Major fight:
“You couldn’t get off your lazy butt to read it could you? That’s the sociopath I know so well, it freakin figures.”
“I don’t want your apology I want you to understand what I think of you. I want you to understand how evil I think you are. You are the worst thing that ever happened to me.”
“You are a sociopath. You only cry for yourself. You have never cared about me and you have betrayed me worse than any example I could conjure. You are sick and you have scammed me.”
What a freaking whore.
Are you going on to the next dick?
Your words are worthless.
I hate you.
You’ve caused me more pain than the death of my father.
You’re a rotten lunatic.
I have never dealt with a more solid form of evil.
You’re nothing but a liar.
You live a life identical to Satan.
You’re a three-holed wonder.
You ought to get tips for giving BJ’s.
You never loved me.
You’ve got a slut’s job.
You are sh*t.
Who freaking cares about you? You’re worthless. You’re a bitch.
You’re lies make your life worthless.
You’re taking up people’s air.
You don’t care. You don’t know what horror you’ve caused me.
You’re a laughing stock.
You don’t care about anything but Jodi.
You’ve caused so much pain in my life.
I’m nothing more to you than a dildo with a heartbeat..
There’s a question here that many people believe they have the answer to, but some people are still wrestling with. Was this just Travis finally having enough of Jodi Arias and wanting her out of his life forever? Or did he sometimes treat her this way the whole time, and worse, behind closed doors?
This is the central core of this whole case, because Jodi Arias has been very consistent about her claims of abuse. Most people have discounted any possibility that Arias was physically abused. They see this as Travis finally venting his anger at all the tricks and lies Jodi Arias subjected him to.
Most people see these texts as the logical conclusion of Arias’ manipulations and frustrated attempts to get back with and to control Travis Alexander. They see it as a motive for pre-meditated murder. Two days later, there was the burglary of Jodi’s grandfather’s home, and the theft of the .25 caliber gun. Jodi was on the phone asking Darryl Brewer about borrowing gas cans and she was putting together a trip to Utah.
But a few people look at this, they look at the late night phone sex calls, the texting and sexting with multiple women, the e-mails from the Hughes’, the sudden and sometimes explosive temper of Travis Alexander, and some of his inappropriate and bizarre behavior, and they ask “What if…..?”
“Let’s play Twister, let’s play Risk, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
I’ll see you in heaven if you make the list, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah” – R.E.M.
These are the dramatic closing arguments from the second penalty phase re-trial. We cobbled this together from various tweeters concentrating on Jen from the Trial Diaries. There are a few opinions and observations we give at the end. Kirk Nurmi’s 2nd final argument will be a separate article.
Okay, we’re gonna jump ahead to Monday and Tuesday’s action in the courtroom, the closing arguments. We’ll have to get back to the surrebuttal later.
It started out on Monday morning. Angela and Sandy Arias, Jodi’s sister and mom, were in their usual seats. The lawyers and the Judge just got up and disappeared into the Judge’s chambers. The Alexander family is getting seated on the other side. There are no witnesses waiting and the lawyers all have jury instructions in their hands. Jen Wood knows there’s something unusual going on.
The lawyers eventually come back into the court room. There’s more unusual action going on. Michael Kiefer reports that he just saw a juror in the hallway leaving in tears. There are rumors that closings will be on Tuesday. The lawyers are up with the Judge. Mike the court reporter yells that he can only type one person talking at a time. Juror #5, a female, is gone. They find out juror #12, an older male, is also gone. The woman had a family emergency, and the man was removed from the jury for having some kind of prejudice in the case. Jen reports that he’s a headphone wearing loner. That leaves 12 jurors and 2 alternates, nine women and five men. BAM.
There’s a sidebar and they are going over jury instructions. That’s it, no more witnesses. This is the final countdown. By accident the sidebar banter can be overheard by people in the media room and the overflow room. Mics were not turned off? They find out that Jodi wants to allocute, but she wants the press and public removed. There’s lots of arguing going on up there. Court administration and security are called up to the bench. Nurmi is demanding a sidebar. There’s general chaos in the courtroom. The reporters can feel it’s something weighty and serious. The most experienced reporters have never seen anything quite like this. What’s going on?
The jury files in. Nurmi got his sidebar, and Jennifer Willmott is setting up some evidence. She will read to the jury a letter from Jodi’s aunt, Sue Allen- Halterman. Sue explained in the letter that she found Jodi’s cell phone in a car and she turned it in to Jodi’s lawyer. There’s another note from the mother of victim #1. She writes that she knew Bishop Vernon Parker and Travis and she was there when Travis was living there. She even sat directly across from the dinner table when Travis was there. She claimed that Deanna Reid was there with Travis.
The reason for these letters? This establishes that Jodi’s phone was actually lost, as she said it had been, and there was no attempt to hide the phone or resistance to turning it in as Juan Martinez alleged. The letter from the mother of witness #1 shows that her son, witness #1, did in fact know who Travis was and could identify him, that Travis and Deanna were there at the time witness #1 was there, that the computer did crash as witness #1 stated, but Bishop Parker denied. The note even said that many of Witness #1’s engagement pictures were lost inside the damaged computer. This upset the mother and they ended up having to delay the wedding for three weeks, which is why they remembered the event so well.
The defense rests.
There’s a problem with Jodi. The Judge tells Jodi “The defense said you don’t want to allocute”. Jodi says “That’s not correct”. Here we go. Jodi says she will only allocute in a sealed proceeding. The Judge explains to Jodi that this is her chance to appeal directly to the jurors, to show remorse, and to explain what happened. Judge Stephens explains to Jodi that she is barred from allocating in a sealed courtroom.
The judge does offer to clear the courtroom and send everyone to the overflow room and the media room, but she will not seal the courtroom. Jodi is arguing that the Court of Appeals ruling covers testimony but not allocution. The judge says no. Jodi says she won’t allocute, then. The Judge explains she won’t be cross-examined but Jodi says that doesn’t change her mind. She asks Jodi if she’s on any medications? This is to check her competency to make that decision. Apparently, this same conversation happened in chambers and they just needed to put it on the record. What could her reason be?
The jury is told to return on Tuesday for jury instructions and closing arguments. Tick tick tick.
Some of the Alexanders are crying as they leave.
The next morning, Jen spots Deanna Reid up front on the left side of the gallery, with the family. Jen sees Jennifer Willmott ambling in with her Starbuck’s coffee. Jodi Arias is wearing a gray sweater. The latest ruling on prosecutorial misconduct is given out to the media peeps.
Judge Sherry Stephens has approved the media’s request to broadcast the Jodi Arias verdict live. It’s standing room only, the overflow room is packed and a lottery is going on for seats in the gallery. The Judge reads the instructions to the jury. The judge explains what 1st degree premeditated murder is by definition, and what the aggravating circumstance of cruelty means, in terms of pain and suffering.
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ
This is an individual choice for a juror when it comes to life or death #jodiarias
Jen is right. That’s what it boils down to.
Kirk Nurmi says good morning to the jury and puts a picture of Jodi with Travis Alexander in the woods from their trip to NY (Niagra falls). He tells them this is a trial of infinite sadness. “Travis was killed by the woman he loved, now will you kill her?
He goes over the allocutions from the Alexanders. Nurmi tells the jury they don’t have to find for the death penalty just because of the earlier verdicts from the original trial and jury. It’s a momentous decision and an individual moral judgment. Kirk Nurmi is saying Jodi played a “big sister role” to Darryl’s son as he was divorcing his wife…this could be enough for a life sentence, Kirk says.
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ “you write the ending to this….don’t make it where both these people in the picture die” #jodiarias
Nurmi puts up the list of mitigating circumstances.
He reiterates that Jodi has no prior record. He says she did smoke marijuana and her mother also smoked it when she was pregnant with Jodi.
These factors about Jodi’s parents, the pot and cocaine, will really make no difference at all at any time in the future. Kudos to her parents, Bill and Sandy, though, for apparently being willing to take a few bullets for the life of their child, I say.
Next is Jodi’s age at the time of the offense, which was 27. Nurmi said she was immature for her age and easily manipulated, and taken advantage of. The cards were stacked against her from birth. Jodi was born with a genetic vulnerability to a Personality Disorder. There was nothing she could do. “A light was flipped. A light was switched in Jodi’s brain, and she suffered from abuse”. Jodi wasn’t validated as a child and she was sexually abused at 2 years-old and attacked with a knife at the age of 12.
Now, he puts up a photo of Jodi and her brother as little children. Kirk talks about her mental illness and personality disorder. He puts up a photo of Jodi and her early boyfriend,
Bobby Juarez. Nurmi tells the jury that Jodi’s life is in their hands. He says she went from an abusive childhood into an abusive relationship with Bobby Juarez. From there she moved on to Matt McCartney, who cheated on her. She went to see the other woman, Bianca, to find out what was going on with the relationship. Matt and Jodi parted but remained friends.
Then Nurmi shows a picture of her with Darryl Brewer and his son at a birthday party. There was no abuse in this relationship, but her Borderline Personality still manifested itself. Jodi molded herself to be what she thought Darryl wanted her to be.
He points at Jodi Arias and says she is not just the person you see sitting over at the defense table. Now, she meets Travis Alexander. Travis has no idea he had just introduced himself to a mentally ill woman.
Nurmi talks about how people from abusive homes usually seek out abusive relationships, because that strangely feels normal and comfortable to them. Travis was also coming from an abusive childhood and had his own issues and demons. Each thought the other was the normal one, at first. Jodi was at a crossroads with Darryl. He was not looking for marriage and she wanted to marry and have children. Travis was wrestling with his religious beliefs while pushing them on Jodi.
Travis was rising fast in the PPL business. He had a sexual relationship for about a year with Deanna Reid, that he was not supposed to have, according to the LDS tenets. He was struggling with pornography and perhaps inappropriate thoughts about young children. He had confessed things to witness #1.
Kirk said Bishop Parker blamed someone else for the damaged computer and the sex pop-ups (Jake the snake), but it was Travis who lived there at the time. Kirk tells the jury that Travis confessed his troubles to witness #1. Nurmi reminds the jury that Chris and Sky Hughes told Travis that he “Gutted women”, and had treated some young women badly.
This is the beginning of a tragic bond, according to Nurmi. Dr. Fonseca talked about Travis inviting Jodi to motel rooms, on trips, and to his friend’s home away from Mesa. Travis threw money at Arias.
Jodi was mentally ill. She saw that others thought the world of Travis. She couldn’t say anything to others about the way she was being treated. She couldn’t trust her own emotions. Nurmi puts up the baptism pic and talks about how Travis convinced Jodi to join the LDS church. Jodi molded herself to be what Travis wanted. Travis had a sexual life and Jodi molded herself to be his dirty little secret.
He shows a picture of Travis and Jodi at Havasupai Falls. At this time, Travis was seeing Lisa Andrews. He was having late night rendez-vous with Jodi behind Lisa’s back. Travis didn’t have to press Lisa Andrews for sex, because he had Jodi for that.
He had this whole secret life. Kirk Nurmi starts talking about the verbal abuse. He called her “a skank”, a “sociopath”, “soulless”, a “whore”, “sh*t”, and “a three-holed wonder”. Kirk tells the jury to look at all the texts and it’s easy to see the abuse. One day he’s saying he loves her and the next he’s telling her ‘don’t ever talk to me again!’
He says, when it comes to abuse, Dr. Janeen DeMArte is out of her league. DeMarte is taking an archaic approach that if you can’t see the abuse, it doesn’t exist. Everyone liked Travis, so if Jodi came forward, who would believe her? Nurmi reminds the jury of the football player who secretly knocked out his fiancée in a closed elevator. The first video came out and no one thought it was any big thing. Then the video from inside the elevator came out and everyone saw what a ferocious slug it really was.
DeMArte, with one year’s experience at the time of giving the test, wants to say she knows more than Geffner and Fonseca, each with 30 years of experience. It’s like having a strange disease and seeing a brand new Doctor, as opposed to a seasoned Specialist.
All her past relationships ended peacefully but this one didn’t because this one was different and Travis treated her differently. Travis kept his dark lifestyle a secret and when caught, he told others Jodi was stalking him and harassing him. He would tell them that Jodi was coming over unannounced and uninvited. He marginalized Jodi Arias and derided and demonized her to his friends. He did this just in case she decided to tell the truth about what was really going on. Nurmi shows the texting and sexting graph that Dr. Geffner made.
He was involved with a number of women while denying and defaming Jodi to them. He wasn’t fearful of Arias, because when was telling Regan Housely how scared he was, it was right after having a sexual encounter with Jodi. You may ask what does the computer and the porn have to do with the killing? But these were the circumstances surrounding the killing. Travis was looking at porn and acting it out on Jodi while wooing other, more eligible women. By becoming what Travis wanted, Jodi found herself in a position that Travis could never truly love her and would never marry her. He even told this to a friend.
Travis Alexander had problems with his computer again. He accumulated some viruses and malware on his lapop, so he downloaded Spybot and other “scrubbers”. He needed to use scrubbers to clean up his activities. Nurmi suggested his computer troubles started way before June 1, 2008 (when the Youporn videos were downloaded and viewed).
Listen to the sex call and what Travis said. He wanted to do a porn shoot with Jodi and he was talking about cream pies. This shows he was watching porn and possibly addicted to porn. Travis had Jodi wear braids while engaging in sex, and the Youporn video shows a teen in braids having sex. The mental illness, the disownment of Jodi by Travis, the abuse, the sex addiction, and Jodi’s childhood issues all come into play before the murder.
Travis had childhood issues of his own and he had trouble committing in relationships. Three doctors, each with around 30 years experience, had diagnosed Jodi with PTSD. Dr. DeMarte, with her one year’s experience, did not find PTSD. Nurmi says the jury should trust Dr. Geffner over Dr. DeMArte. Jodi’s journals show how she was suffering from PTSD. No man ever treated Jodi like Travis did. Jodi never experienced this kind of turmoil in a relationship before.
We have a pattern of Jodi’s entire life, her crime-free life. Look at the text messages this mentally ill girl was being sent. Nurmi now uses Jodi’s prior testimony to show her remorse, since she stopped testifying and refused to allocute. It took a long time to admit to herself what she did. “I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that I did that.”
At this point, members of the Alexander family got up and left, en masse.
Do you kill this girl who lived under these horrific events? He tells the jury they will be killing this girl if they mark death on their jury forms. He puts up a photo of Jodi Arias as a child. “You are choosing to kill Jodi, I urge you not to do it”.
The Alexanders came back in the courtroom. Juan is getting ready. He reads a letter about the men who landed on the moon and will be mourned by the nation. The letter says “These men will remain in our hearts and when we look at the moon we will think of them”. Juan says the letter is really heart wrenching AND it’s not true. In the same way, the letter that Jodi wrote to the Alexanders just wasn’t true. “It’s just like the story that Jodi told you about Travis masturbating to photos of young boys – it just wasn’t true”.
The letter was a letter written by the President just in case the men didn’t return from the moon. Jodi had everything to gain by being less than truthful. Juan displays the photo of Travis with his throat slit wide open. There are 3 photos taken at different angles.
The story they gave you is he looked at porn and he deserved this. This isn’t a story about love, it’s not about porn. This is about a case of 1st degree, premeditated, murder. You must accept this – she did this. She held and used the knife that did this. The aggravator of cruelty was proven. She knew that this was going to be cruel.
Nurmi calls for a sidebar.
Especially cruel had been proven and you are all duty bound to accept it. The little girl you saw in the picture should have known that Travis was going to suffer. Arias told you the story about wanting to commit suicide and nicking herself with a razor. She couldn’t go through with it because it hurt too much. “Wow, that really hurt, I don’t want to do this anymore.” Well she cut up Travis 27 times and he experienced a ton of pain.
Juan says experts can be wrong and you don’t have to believe a hired gun. “This person over there that is so remorseful, made up a story about TA masturbating to a child’s picture – how shocking of a story that is”. Juan tells the jury about how Jodi claimed Travis beat her and broke her finger and the next day, she’s writing in her journal that there’s nothing noteworthy to report!
The defense wants to tell you that all the alleged DV is silent and Arias didn’t even mention it in her private journals – her private thoughts. They want you to believe that she didn’t have any secondary gain from all this and they want you to look behind her words. Jodi Arias loved Travis Alexander so much she took a knife and jammed it all the way into his heart.
Nurmi objects and approaches the bench.
Juan tells the jury how, soon after Jodi was just baptized into the LDS Church, she’s telling Abe Abdelhadi that she’s “dabbling in Mormonism”. Right after Arias claims she was abused by Travis, she’s writing in her journal that he gave her three soft kisses. Kissing is the physical abuse here, according to her journal.
Nurmi talks about Geffner and how he took jabs at Dr. DeMArte. “He called her ‘asinine’ and it must be some sort of psychological term that only an experienced expert knows how to use”. Geffner appears to have done none of his own work.
Apparently, he didn’t even read the transcripts of what Jodi had said regarding the choking incident she alleged happened.
Jodi says she thought of clawing Travis’ face while being choked. Dr. DeMArte said you wouldn’t be calm and thinking of not hurting someone while being choked. Look at the person involved here. She’s the person who’s saying these things and she’s the only one who’s saying these things. The only source is her word. The defense talks about the letter Jodi wrote on Valentine’s Day….
Nurmi objects and there’s a sidebar.
Juan says nothing is corroborated when it comes to Jodi Arias and her allegations. This is the one who lied about sending the letter to Abe, and she wants you to believe horrible things about Travis. What she was really doing with that fake letter was trying to light a fire under Travis after her manipulations with Sky and Chris Hughes didn’t work.
“Consider this when you go back there, Is this true love?” What Dan Freeman testified to (about the fight before the Havasupai trip, etc.) sure was different than what Jodi wrote in her journal.
Jodi Arias found out about Travis’ relationship with Lisa Andrews. Arias wasn’t in a committed relationship with Travis Alexander at that time. So Travis wasn’t cheating on Jodi. Jodi was cheating on Travis and Lisa Andrews. Why are they darkening Travis’character without looking into the mirror themselves?
No, they turn a blind eye to it all. Look at how Jodi lied on the PDS test about the trauma. She was diagnosed as having PTSD on an event that didn’t even happen. If you look at those tests yourselves without them slanting it for you, you will see it. Consider all the lies that Jodi has told.
Juan puts an alleged text message from Travis to Jodi up on the screen. Juan says Lonnie Dworkin stated this was not a text that was found in Travis’ phone. Martinez holds up a large bundle of papers. This was never found in all these texts. He defies anybody to find any proof that TA sent that text. Martinez shows the coded message Jodi Arias wrote in the magazines and tried to have smuggled out of the Estrella jail. Juan puts up a photo of Jodi as a child and says “This is the person who writes these things – lies.”
“The experts just want you to listen to what they say with their 30 years of experience, but they don’t want you to look at any of the things she’s done.” “They want you to become experts in the laws of attraction.”
Fonseca wants to take a spam business e-mail, mistakenly sent to a 9 year-old girl, and tell you it’s the grooming action of a pedophile. There was nothing sexual about this – like they tried to get you to believe. They are painting Travis as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and they are assassinating his character. They are trying to distract you from what Arias did to Travis.
You need to look at the defendant’s record, her character, her history.
Juan brings up something from the Court of Appeals and how Geffner was described as a “hired gun”. When Geffner is challenged, he calls people names. He stoops to personal attacks when he can’t answer for his opinions. Dr. DeMArte said there was no domestic violence in this case.
Geffner is welcome to dispute it, but he resorts to name-calling and that shows his weakness. “Geffner didn’t want to interview Sky or Lisa because Mormons lie….but Witness #1 is a Mormon and he interviewed him.” Geffner tells you the answers don’t matter on the DAPS tests.
If the answers hurt, don’t consider them. If they help, use them. Martinez is going over Jodi’s mitigating factors. After she murdered Travis Alexander she sent him a text message, wrote him an e-mail, and she left him a voice message.
There was no abuse. It never happened. The relationship wasn’t abusive. You heard the sex tape, she gave and she took. There was no abusive nature to their relationship. If there is no Domestic Violence, then there isn’t any PTSD.
These DV events never occurred.
Her age is no mitigating factor. She was well over the age of responsibility and accountability. She was tested as having high intelligence. That means she understands. Jodi doesn’t have a criminal record. Okay, but isn’t that the minimum that society expects of us. Does she get a gold star?
Jodi is a manipulative person – to Travis, to the Hughes’, to the experts testing her. Having Borderline Personality Disorder doesn’t give her an excuse.
Nurmi objects strongly and says this misstates the law.
A sidebar is called.
BPD doesn’t indicate she doesn’t know right from wrong and it’s not an excuse. BPD talks about a personality trait, it doesn’t give a person an excuse to murder someone. It’s just a descriptive term for how she acts.
Nurmi objects again to Martinez’ words as misrepresenting the law.
Jodi is talking to her mitigation specialist, Maria De La Rosa, during the sidebar.
Martinez tells the jury that PTSD isn’t a mitigating factor in this case. It doesn’t have anything to do with her murdering Travis Alexander.
Jodi Arias drove all the way from Yreka, California to Mesa, Arizona to see Travis, after all these allegations she made against him.
She made a sex tape, they engaged in sex acts and they both enjoyed it.
As for Jodi’s childhood, the records show she was a spoiled child, you can decide if she was an abused child.
Jodi was caught cutting class and she got in a huff and moved out and she moved in with this guy, Bobby Juarez. Jodi isn’t remorseful. She’s remorseful about none of it.
Uh Oh. It’s deja vous all over again, as a phone goes off in the courtroom.
Jen’s Trial Diaries @TrialDiariesJ People were “about to get a pat-down, when all of a sudden, the bailiff realized that it was his”. – Jen Wood
Juan puts up a picture of Jodi Arias as a child and next to it, he puts up a picture of Travis Alexander on the autopsy table.
Travis’ Alexander’s family spoke to you and they told you that they longed to hear his voice, but instead all they could see were horrific visions of his ravaged body and his severed throat.
Juan tells the jury “If you agree there is no mitigation, you shall return a verdict of death.”
Juan puts up all the photos of Jodi Arias that Kirk did, then he puts up lots of crime scene and autopsy photos.
One Alexander sister runs out crying.
More of the family are crying.
“I’m asking you apply these jury instructions and do your duty.”
You can see that many Jodi supporters will agree with Kirk Nurmi and the defense. His arguments make sense and are compelling. Juan Martinez’ arguments sound equally compelling, and prosecution supporters will agree.
Which side is telling the truth, or does the truth lie somewhere between these two extremes?
One thing is that Nurmi was able to put a coherent story together for this jury, tying together everything presented. He stressed that this was a monumental decision and it was their moral choice to make.
Juan is equally correct to point out that if you see that the aggravator of especially cruel outweighs any and all mitigators (assuming you find any in the first place), then you have a duty and legal obligation to vote for death.
Juan was clever in making the argument that if you don’t believe the defense or Jodi Arias, you should come back with a death sentence. If you believe the defense demonized Travis and dragged him through the mud, you should return a death sentence.
Kirk implored the jurors to not make that monumental choice.
UPDATE: Eight women and four men now make up the jury. They are a younger group, with the average age being around thirty something. Jurors #2 and #13, a man and a woman, are the alternates.
After finishing with Dr, Geffner as the final mitigation witness, the penalty re-trial transitioned to the rebuttal portion. Here the prosecution tries to refute certain facs or ideas that were presented by the defense in mitigation. The prosecution called Abe Abdelhadi, a former co-worker and date of Jodi Arias.
Next they called Deanna Reid, a long term girlfriend of Travis Alexander. After that came Bishop Vernon Parker of Riverside, California. The Bishop was the higher up in the LDS church for Deanna, Travis, Witness #1, and others. Finally, the defense called on Dr. Janeen DeMarte to refute certain ideas and views of both Dr. Geffner and Dr. Fonseca.
This update comes from cobbling together various court room tweets, mostly Michael Kiefer and Jen Wood. Most everything here is what was tweeted about what was said and what happened in the courtroom. This is not my opinion. There area a few sentences that are my opinion, and I let you know when it’s me talking.
We’re going with a deep sea theme this time, as we feel this penalty phase retrial has drifted way out to sea. You never know what you will come across out in the deep: A beautiful sunset, a gentle, cool breeze, or a sighting of a magnificent whale. You may also meet up with a sudden storm, gigantic rolling waves, a capsized ship, and a pack of sharks or deadly octopi.
The defense team, having just been told at the last minute that Abe Abdelhadi would be taking the stand, asked for permission to interview him, and the Judge allowed it. Kirk Nurmi fought to have Abe precluded as a witness due to not having been given any notice by the prosecution that he would be testifying.
Nurmi tells the Judge that Mesa Police Detective Smith was also going to be put on the stand with no prior notice from the prosecution. Judge Sherry Stephens suggests that Kirk Nurmi should interview Smith after the days of trial testimony commences. Nurmi says he needs time to consult with his experts first.
The waves are climbing and a single flash of lightning threatens.
Funny that ambushing the defense is a tactic in a search for the truth. – Michael Kiefer
Prior to starting the trial with Abe Abdelhadi, Judge Stephens wants to know what the relevance is of Jodi Arias asking Abe to lie to Travis? Martinez replies that Arias’ credibility is always an issue. Martinez describes how Abdelhadi and Arias made out at a California mall garage and Arias made a joke about there being magic in her panties.
Abe takes the stand, with Prosecutor Juan Martinez on direct examination.
The main thing is after Christmas 2006, Abe and Jodi got together in Pasadena for dinner. Abe had drinks but Jodi didn’t drink, JA told Abe she “dabbled in Mormonism and later they made out in a parking garage. Abe claims he got his hand in her panties, which was kept from the jury. Apparently, in a joke alluding to Mormon magic underwear, JA said there was magic in her underwear.
This is my commentary – Notice how if you look at the interviews of Abe, he didn’t get his hand in her panties. Jodi Arias made a joke not about panties, but about mgic Mormon underwear. The joke has no meaning if she used the word “panties”.
The whole point of this is it puts Arias as the sexual aggressor and the one who’s chasing men, that any man would do, that she would change her LDS interest for a different guy, that she was not following the laws of chastity or the tenets of the church, that she denied her faith, that she wasn’t faithful to one man. Now we see why the prosecution wanted to put Abe on the stand. They are using a brief event to tear down a lot of the way the defense sees and wants to portray Jodi Arias.
Jodi called a few days later and told Abe they shouldn’t be seeing each other any longer. Abe then gave advice to Jodi about Travis. Arias told Alexander about the date and he was upset. Arias told Travis she would send him a letter to tell Abe they couldn’t see each other anymore. She showed Travis the letter. Also Abe said the letter Arias supposedly sent to Abe was never received by him.
Judge Sherry Stephens gave Abe a long list of things that Abe cannot talk about.
Second chair Defense Attorney Jennifer Willmott, on cross examination goes into all Abe’s interviews on TV and in the mainstream media. Arias told Abe she was dating Travis on the DL (down-low), but it was going to become official soon.
Willmott states that many of calls from Arias to Abe were for business advice. Abe was part of the same team as Jodi Arias, which was Team Freedom? Gus Searcy and Abe Abdelhadi were on Jodi Arias’ “Up-line”. Travis was an Executive Director from Team Renu?, and Chris Hughes was his “Up=line”.
JM on redirect shows the e-mail to Abe from Jodi Arias had no address, implying that the letter was never sent. This further implies that the whole episode with Abe Abdelhadi was a manipulation by Jodi Arias to get Travis to commit to and/or stay with Travis.
So, was Travis being jealous and controlling, or was Jodi Arias using Abe to get Travis to commit? That’s the issue here.
It was very short questioning and Abe was quickly off the stand.
Former Travis Alexander girlfriend, Deanna Reid, takes the stand for the prosecution.
She relates that from June 2000 to November 2001, she was on an LDS mission in Costa Rica. They had dated for just a couple of months before Reid left on her mission. During the mission, you are only allowed to stay in touch with people by writing letters. Mission workers can call their parents maybe once or twice.
Towards the end of her mission, in the summer of 2001, Travis wrote Deanna a letter saying he wanted to see other people. At that time, Travis was living at the Bishop’s home in Riverside California. Travis had set his eye on the illustrious Linda Ballard. When Deanna returned, Travis was no longer living at the Bishop’s house.
By that time, Linda had dumped Travis and moved away. Travis and Deanna eventually started talking again in November, 2001 and by February 2002, they were dating again.
Reid says she knows witness #1, but she never met him and his story involving her and Travis never happened.
Fins are circling the boat. Are they dolphin fins, or are they sharks?
Jennifer Willmott starts cross-examination. Willmott tells her “You have been misleading and the only person who has been misleading is you”. Deanna Reid denies being misleading, answers questions not asked. “Miss Reid, did I ask you a question?” She’s giving the prosecution’s side a taste of Juan Martinez’ medicine. Deanna Reid is admonished by the judge to answer only questions that are asked of her.
Willmott says she has the transcript and a recording where Deanna Reid is being misleading. Reid wants to hear the recording, rather than relying on the Defenses’ transcript and is trying to stall.
Reid started having sex with Alexander in 2003. There’s some talk about “temple recommends”. This is the permission slip or hall pass that allows the faithful to go to the temple, which is separate from the meeting houses. Willmott brings up that Deanna, when asked by the original Arias defense attorney, Victoria Washington, if she knew of anyone else Travis was having sex with besides Jodi. Deanna had told her “No, no one”. Deanna told Victoria Washington that she had no knowledge of Travis having sex with anyone else. Deanna explains that “she wasn’t asking about me”. Deanna states that she did explain her sexual relationship with Travis, and she testified to that in the original trial.
There were arguments over marriage in 2005 when she realized that Travis was not going to ask her to marry him, but nothing physical.
I would have answered the same way, as it seemed that Victoria Washington was asking about the time frame that Travis was involved with Jodi Arias. We are getting into a what the meaning of IS is type argument, the way I see it.
But Deanna did testify that there was no real thoughts or talk about marriage until 2005. Is this true. Take a look at the clip:
The sky clears and it’s smooth sailing.
Juan Martinez gets up on re-direct.
Deanna confessed having pre-marital sex with TA to her Bishop in Phoenix and she lost her temple recommend. Deanna claims that both she and Travis lost their temple recommends for about a year. She claims she was answering the exact questions asked and they were not about her. Deanna claimed in deposition with Victoria Washington that she never had an interview about a temple recommend. Deanna explained it was a confession, not an interview.
That to me is a bit misleading.
Juan made sure once again to have Deanna put in that little dig about Deanna getting custody of Travis’ dog Napoleon after his death. “Who has Travis’ dog now?” I have Travis’ dog now”. And Deanna is off the stand.
One thing that wasn’t made clear: Travis was his own customer of Pre-Paid Legal services. As such, one of his benefits was a will-writing which I believe was done prior to his meeting Arias. So, Travis left Naps to Deanna in his will, and that’s how Napoleon came to be living with Deanna today.
The other thing is that I strongly suspect that Deanna forced Travis to go to his Bishop in Mesa and confess, as I doubt he would have done this on his own. This means that another violation in the future would bring a more serious punishment. Certainly what happened between Travis and Jodi Arias would have gotten him a temporary excommunication, which Travis definitely did not want to happen. His business and his personal social life would be badly affected.
Next up is Vernon Parker, the Mormon Bishop from Riverside, CA. He claimed that Travis moved out sometime in 2001, and a guy named Jake (the snake) moved in. Bishop Parker and his family claim they never saw Travis use the computer in the Bishop’s living room. Parker knew witness #1 in 1999. Witness #1 had an online relationship with a woman over the internet. That woman lived at Vernon Parker’s home.
Witness #1 visited the woman at Bishop Parker’s home and he used the computer. Travis was not living there at the time. Parker states again he never saw TA use the computer. Witness #1 told the Bishop there were pop-ups of scantily clad women on the computer. The Bishop took the computer to a shop to remove any unwanted malware and viruses. No child porn was found, according to Bishop Parker. The Bishop recalls blaming Jake the snake for being the porn-hound who messed up the computer
The Bishop also doesn’t believe the computer crashed as witness #1 said. He just thought it was acting funny. Witness #1 was good with computers. Witness #1 claimed he didn’t go to the Bishop about the child porn he claims he saw on the computer, because he was just about to get married and he didn’t want complications. Bishop Parker said that witness #1 could have come directly to him and there would be no punishment if witness #1 reported that he found child porn.
There are varying winds deep at sea. The sailboat is cruising gracefully. The sails require adjustment as the winds change this way and that.
Kirk Numi is cross-examining Bishop Vernon Parker the next week on a Monday. Your duty is to safeguard the integrity of the church. Discipline is mandatory when a parishioner is known to be a predator. The Bishop agrees. Why did you bring your own attorney?
Parker brought his own attorney with him. He said the LDS church recommended he do that and they supplied the attorney when they found out he would be called as a witness in the Jodi Arias case. Parker’s attorney is sitting with the prosecution team and he participates in the sidebars.
Vernon Parker knew Travis since 1999. He lived with the Bishop after returning from his mission in Colorado in June to Aug, 2000. Kirk Nurmi lists all the sex acts that are transgressions. The Bishop agrees. Kissing is OK, though. One gets the feeling that Kirk Nurmi very much enjoys embarrassing the Bishop and young Mormon ladies with graphic sexual talk.
“Can a sinner baptize people? Can they have anal intercourse and then baptize?” – Nurmi asks the Bishop. “Was it 6 to 9 months or just 2 months that Travis lived there? You told us both.” – Nurmi asks. In a deposition, the Bishop said everyone in the house used the computer. “Everyone that wanted to”, he replies.
If Jake (the snake) Thompson was married in 1999 and Bishop Parker was a witness, how could he be a single man living at the Bishop’s home in 2000?
Parker says Jake confided in him, Nurmi asks him if he is waving his priest- penitent privilege. Parker says it was not a confession. The Bishop agrees that Travis came to talk to him about marrying two women, first Deanna Reid, and then Linda Ballard. Linda Ballard is the one Travis dumped Deanna for in the summer of 2001.
This is significant because it shows that there was some thinking about marriage prior to Deanna’s mission, even after dating only a few months. Deanna testified there were no serious thoughts or conversation about marriage until 2005. Hmmmm.
Nurmi seems to be in his element – Which is more of a transgression, anal sex or oral sex or vaginal sex? They are all forbidden, for unmarried couples. The Bishop is close to Deanna and her family and he only found out during the original trial that she had a sexual transgression with Travis.
What about tying a woman to a tree to sodomize her, bragging about masturbation, and the 12 year-old and the orgasm? Travis could have been expelled for his behavior, the Bishop admits.
Nurmi is done, Martinez gets up for re-direct.
Secret witness #1’s bride moved in after Travis Alexander moved out. Juan points out that Jodi Arias is just as guilty as Travis in everything they did.
The waves are rising and the sky becomes ominously cloudy. The boat rises and falls suddenly.
Now, there’s an argument between the prosecution and the defense. The defense claims the Prosecution failed to disclose their expert Psychologist, Dr. DeMarte’s report in a timely manner. Juan claims it was just a few pages of notes. Martinez claims he was not aware that Dr. DeMarte had notes until just last Friday.
Willmott claims interviews were conducted in December and the State never advised the defense that the notes existed. “There is no reason not to disclose it other than the state not wanting to disclose it”, she said. The defense also wants to preclude Perry Smith as a witness for the exact same reason.
Judge Stephens says the defense can interview Dr. Janeen DeMarte before their cross-examination. The motion to preclude Mesa Police Detective Perry Smith’s testimony will be addressed at a later date. The State has also failed to disclose notes from Smith.
Always trying to be fair and square, while never addressing the root of the problems, is Judge “Timid Timmy” Sherry Stephen’s modus operandi.
Dr. DeMarte is now on the stand on direct
This is the darling of prosecution supporters, they literally swoon over their Dr. Dee.
She had been a Licensed Psychologist since 2010. Her experience comes mostly from pre-Ph.D internships. She met with Jodi Arias 4 times for a total of 17 hours. Dr. D. gave Jodi a brief reading test. An intellect test revealed high intelligence. DeMarte refers to her untimely disclosed notes, and there’s an objection by Nurmi – overruled.
During her PTSD screening, a PDS test question shows Arias said she was non-sexually attacked by a stranger. Dr. DeMArte states that Arias lied, thus invalidating the entire test. Now DD is claiming that Arias also has adjustment disorder due to being in jail. She has an inability to cope with life changes.
Dr. D. also discounts Geffner’s DAPS tests because Geffner suggested to Jodi what the trauma was for each test. Juan Martinez asks if Dr. D, talked to the defendant about an alleged choking incident?
Geffner has to make clear what the time frame for each test is, otherwise, the validity could be questioned.
Gail force winds come howling from the North. The waves are high and foamy. The sailboat lurches suddenly, creaking and cracking.
DeMArte relates that Arias said the choking incident was after a fight about sexual partners because Jodi was afraid of contacting an STD. Nurmi objects that the Dr. is fantasizing and that Dr. D. doesn’t have the expertise to make these statements. Dr. D. cautions Martinez not to show the actual test questions, the same thing Dr. Geffner warned about. Martinez shows that Jodi Arias stated on a test that she was never forced to have sex
But Arias claimed she was forced to have sex in a test done by Alyce LaViolette. Nurmi objects to “irrelevant and prejudicial evidence”. Judge Stephens sends the Jury out. DeMarte goes to talk with Juan. Nurmi wants DeMarte out.
The Judge reads case law supplied by Nurmi. She reads a paragraph that says irrelevant and prejudicial evidence should be precluded in the rebuttal of a mitigation phase. DeMarte comes back in the courtroom and Judge Stephens asks her to leave again. Martinez says that it is not unduly prejudicial given the amount of time that Dr. Fonseca and Dr. Geffner spent saying Jodi Arias was passive. Stephens overrules the objection. Nurmi says DeMarte is relying on name-calling. Martinez repeats a quote that Jodi was “snide and a total bitch at family reunions.”
Nurmi repeats the clause warning about relentless assault on the defendant’s character during mitigation rebuttal. Her grandparents also said that Jodi Arias corrected everyone else’s grammar. DeMarte reads the grandparents’ remarks that Arias was always mean to her mother. Nurmi asks for a sidebar as Martinez looks for more remarks made by Jodi’s grandparents. The snide and total bitch remarks from a relative are allowed in. DeMarte reads them to the jury. Dr. D. wants to talk about Jodi’s behavior at the Purple Plum restaurant, Nurmi wants to approach.
DeMArte charges that those examples of her behavior at the Purple Plum would be classified as aggressive and overbearing. Dr. D. starts talking about Jodi, on her way home from Travis Alexander’s memorial service, giving her phone number to a guy on the plane. Another remark says Arias once pretended to know nothing about Yreka and asked a guy to show her around.
DeMarte reads notes from an interview with a co-worker from the Purple Plum. Jodi Arias, as a waitress, went straight to the men and ignored the women. Martinez says Fonseca and Geffner said Arias lacked self-esteem. “Do the remarks refute that evaluation?” – he asks DeMarte – “Yes”. Dr. D. says she’s surprised that having written so much in her journals, that Jodi Arias never mentions Domestic Violence – physical abuse.
The waters are churning, the boat is floundering.
Her remarks about wanting to have sex like a dirty little schoolgirl show Arias as the dominant person and also her assertiveness and high self-esteem. DeMarte reads a message from Arias offering a “bj” and asking for a “facial” in return. DeMarte explains that she was asserting her wants and needs. On top of that, Arias said she “was a goddess, smelled like a goddess, looked like a goddess. She was all over the men” DeMarte reads another remark from the Purple Plum friends about Arias being all over the young men.
DeMarte and Martinez are discussing inconsistencies in Arias’ statements to the Psychologists.
It’s apparent to me that this was all fed to her by Juan Martinez. Dr. DeMarte is acting as a conduit for the prosecution, even as Dr. Geffner acted as a conduit for the defense.
Now we are at the interactions between Jodi and Travis and Lisa Andrews. From DeMarte’s interview with Lisa Andrews, Andrews said Jodi Arias once snuck into Alexander’s house while she was there. Andrews told DeMarte that Alexander never abused her physically. Lisa Andrews also talked at the interview with Dr. D. about her discomfort at being touched in public and how Travis criticized her for wanting to become a teacher.
Deanna Reid also wanted to be a teacher, and she’s a teacher today.
This is how I know this is all coming from Juan Martinez – he’s including things he anticipates the defense will bring up in order to defuse these items. This isn’t coming from Dr. DeMarte. The other thing is that Jodi Arias did not “sneak in” to Travis’ house when Lisa was there with Travis. She walked in, as she usually did, she saw Lisa was there, and she turned around and walked out.
Now Dr. D. relates that Arias confided to Sky Hughes that she didn’t like how Alexander only called late at night. DeMarte interviewed Sky Hughes. Martinez asks what did she say? Nurmi objects. Sidebar. The question was about Jodi Arias getting upset about a supposed joke by Alexander calling her a skank. She complained to Sky Hughes. Sky Hughes is sitting in the gallery today. Nurmi cut it off with an objection. Sidebar.
Stephens just asked Martinez if he intended to call Detective Smith. Nurmi: “I believe the non-report is convenient for the state.” Nurmi starts discussing what he characterizes as ongoing misconduct in withholding information. He thinks the state doesn’t want to show him the Mesa PD report.
Juan Martinez says that Mesa Detective Smith has not started his written report on forensic analysis. Willmott says there’s no point for Smith to submit a written report after he testifies. Martinez says the law does not require one. Stephens agrees. Judge Stephens grants the Arias defense team another interview with Smith. Martinez details how Smith will refute the testimony by Neumeister and “John Smith.” Stephens then cuts off Nurmi to discuss it the next day.
Jodi Arias, the lawyers and the Judge need to meet with a juror in chambers.
Dr. DeMarte is back on the stand. Martinez asks if she believes there was physical domestic violence between Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander. DeMarte says she does not think there was domestic violence because the accounts are inconsistent. For example, Arias told DeMarte that the abuse was over Alexander borrowing money but told the female psychologist it was about losing a job. DeMarte says she sees no patterns of abuse, though occasionally Travis may “cross the line.” Juan- What is crossing the line?
DeMarte- Name calling, threatening to harm.
Why can’t it be both losing a job and needing to lend money?
Martinez asks DeMarte about whether Jodi Arias mentioned drug abuse by her parents, and physical abuse as a child. DeMarte is Dr. No to all of it. – Michael Kiefer
Alexander was upset because Arias was “intrusive and crossing boundaries” and had lied to him, DeMarte says.
DeMarte explains her diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder for Jodi Arias. DeMarte: Borderlines have general instability in their life, their identity, their behavior
Martinez asks DeMarte if Alexander was officially dating anyone while he was texting 12 women at once. She says he was not. Martinez: Is it manipulative to be corresponding with 12 women at once? DeMarte says no.
Dr. D. reads from an interview with Jodi Arias’ sister Julie, who says she was very secretive…and that she knew very little about her personal life.
Martinez says Geffner placed significance on Alexander not telling the Bishop about sex. Nurmi objects that he misstates testimony. Sidebar. Martinez: Is there a psychological significance to keeping a sexual relationship secret? DeMarte: No, it’s normal.
But there is a psychological significance to keeping all other aspects of the relationship secret.
Martinez shows a note from Dr. Samuels quoting Jodi Arias as saying her parents never physically or sexually abused her.
Jodi called at inappropriate times, asked advice, and Jodi would just always let herself in the house, according to a former Alexander roommate, Zachary Billings, who Dr. D. interviewed. Zach knew they had issues and argued about Jodi showing up in his house and had arguments about her moving back to Mesa.
Of course, Zach is not available to be cross-examined, because Zach also said that Jodi was over there all the time and there were never any other problems between them that he knew of. But we don’t get to see that testimony.
DeMarte repeats the story of Travis Alexander being home with Lisa Andrews when he notices a light go out. When he checks, it’s Jodi Arias. DeMarte calls it continuous pursuit. DeMarte concludes that it comes out of Arias’ fear of abandonment. A text from Alexander says he doesn’t know if Jodi Arias slashed his tires but she watched him make out twice. Martinez shows DeMarte a text between Alexander and Michelle Laury talking about Arias spying on Alexander. DeMarte says Jodi Arias “got caught,” Nurmi jumps up and asks for another sidebar.
There was nothing I ever saw suggesting that there was more than one peeping incident. Also, the story of Lisa and Travis and Jodi and the light was not the story I heard. The story was that Travis and Lisa were at her home when an alarm zone went off. When they checked it, No One was there.
DeMArte reads a text between Alexander and Arias referencing a stolen diamond ring. Nurmi objects. Stephens says to disregard the remark. DeMarte says Jodi took it without his consent. Nurmi objects loudly. Sidebar. Martinez: has DeMarte read the text from Alexander asking where the ring is? Arias replies that she has it, don’t worry. Travis says he’s not mad about it.
Nurmi stands and says “She made a false assertion against my client.” Stephens again tells the jury to disregard.
We have never heard from the defense concerning the ring. Was it found among Arias’ possessions when she was arrested or not? Why was it never entered into evidence? If it was too prejudicial to enter into evidence, then why is DeMArte allowed to talk about it at both trials?
Monica Lindstrom @monicalindstrom · Feb 4
JM is able to get evid in about things #JodiArias did in the relationship by having DD testify re JAs condition and the actions rsymptoms
BINGO! Monica gets it. Dr. DeMarte is being used to get in Martinez’ evidence.
The clouds break open and the thunder booms above.
More intrusive behavior with Matt McCartney: He moved to Crater Lake to get away from Jodi Arias, DeMarte says. A transcript of Arias ex-boyfriend Matt McCartney: Matt moved because he needed space from Jodi Arias. Nurmi reads the next document, then asks to approach. DeMarte is reading a document that indicates that Arias was clinging and needy with ex-boyfriend Daryl Brewer. He was pulling away.
DeMarte is listing “unwanted behaviors” on the part of Arias towards Travis Alexander. DeMarte says Jodi Arias would wait outside a bedroom door while Alexander was inside talking on the phone and would follow him around the house. Travis said he didn’t want to see Jodi anymore and Jodi was very upset by this.
Where is this information coming from? We haven’t seen any of this before.
DeMarte says these are more examples of intrusive behaviors. Travis told Regan Housley that he dated Jodi for a few months. Jodi hacked into his facebook, emails, and was in his home uninvited. Regan asks Travis if Arias is still stalking him. Travis says, “Yes.” He said she cried louder & more intense over him than anything. TA says he’s afraid JA will kill herself.
Travis tells Regan that #JodiArias hacked into his IM’s. Juan puts up the Valentines Day letter from Jodi telling TA her anger is very destructive. Borderlines can keep emotions inside and then explode violently, DeMarte says. DeMarte gave Arias a test to evaluate personality traits.
Here we go with the windows and doors letter. Wasn’t that a confession that Arias got violent once as a teen? Now it’s back again being used to suggest that Jodi Arias was a violent person as an adult. Zero evidence of that. Now, it’s even being presented as a possible threat towards Travis!
DeMarte says the “likes” on Jodi Arias’ My Space page were identical to those on Alexander’s. DeMarte says that Jodi Arias’ friends called her a chameleon, and Arias would change personality depending who she was with. DeMarte: borderlines tend to have very fast attachments to other people. They idealize them — but can turn and devalue them just as quickly.
Who are the friends that said that? Be specific. Travis started writing journals and taking an interest in photography. Was he a chameleon too?
Juan is bringing up a transcript of Jodi’s testimony from 2/14 regarding suicide
Arias said she bought Advil to thin out her blood in jail and was going to slit her wrists with a razor. Arias said in testimony being read by DeMarte, that she covered herself with blankets to keep the blood from dripping onto her cellmate in the bunk below. She nicked herself with a razor blade and it stung.
But Arias said she didn’t admit her suicide plans because “they would have thrown me in a padded cell.” DeMarte reads Arias’ testimony when she said she made the “no jury will convict me” remark because she had planned to commit suicide in 2008.
Martinez is done. Stephens calls on defense to start cross. Nurmi asks to approach.
The sailboat is climbing the waves, then getting tossed down in the troughs. Things are falling off the edges of the boat, and the sharks are circling.
Kirk Nurmi begins his cross of Dr. DeMarte by saying “Good morning,” and when she doesn’t answer, he says, “I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.” DeMarte grudgingly says good morning. Then Nurmi asks her to produce her resume, which he is going through now.
DeMarte is in private practice for therapy and evaluations services. Travis Alexander’s friend Chris Hughes is in the gallery. DeMarte says that Arias does not meet the criteria for PTSD because she had no trauma and no flashbacks or intrusive thoughts.
Nurmi says violent relationships would have a pattern. “Not necessarily,” DeMarte answers. The back and forth is very curt. – Michael Kiefer
DeMarte charges $300 an hour. “You work part-time as a sort of Dr. Death,” Nurmi says to DeMarte. He asks how many hours she worked on this case, she answers, “several.” Nurmi asks about two other death penalty cases DeMarte worked on. She says no. When he presses she says she testified on them. Then she says 3 altogether.
Nurmi is telling DeMarte she did not diagnose Jodi Arias as having adjustment disorder. He asks her to look at the last page of her report. DeMarte says she prefers “psychological disorder” to “mental illness.” Nurmi says, “You understand, I don’t care about your preferences…” – Michael Kiefer
Personality disorders are enduring and begin early in life, DeMarte says. Nurmi has DeMarte describing & defining “physical” & “emotional abuse”. Nurmi lingers over definitions of Borderline Personality Disorder in his questions for DeMarte. DeMarte says it usually needs a trigger. Nurmi asks to take the morning break.
Nurmi asks DeMarte to explain a researcher’s theory on the origin of borderline personality– born with certain sensitivities and to unable to control emotions.
DeMarte agrees with Nurmi that borderline personality is a serious mental illness.
Nurmi is as aggressive today as Juan Martinez usually is during cross examination. Nurmi and DeMarte quibble over whether her writing that “showing symptoms of adjustment disorder” is a diagnosis? Nurmi asks DeMarte about Arias’ relationship with Darryl Brewer, re: idealization.
DeMarte starts talking about Jodi Arias changing her hair and getting a boob job possibly as a way to change identity to please the people around her. DeMarte: “They have a dire fear they will be abandoned and so they glom on.”
Or not: Maybe it was always something she wanted to do, to get a boob job. Lots of women get that surgery and lots of women color their hair. It’s ridiculous to opine that she took these actions due to a mental illness
DeMarte and Nurmi use the phrase “invalidating environment.” DeMarte says that BPD could develop in those who are genetically predisposed if the person’s feelings are continuously invalidated. DeMarte brings up “Evocative gene environment coordination” = you pick up the cute, happy baby, not the ugly whiny one. And when parents don’t understand why the child is upset and say “stop it,” it perpetuates the environment.
That sounds right on the mark.
Jodi told DeMarte she was sexually attacked by a family member when she was 5 or 6 years old. Nurmi asks DeMarte for examples of an invalidating environment in Arias’ background. DeMarte says Arias and her parents did not agree.
DeMarte says Jodi breaking up with Darryl and going with Travis right away is Borderline Personality given her pattern. Nurmi: Jodi Arias immersed herself with Alexander in PPL and the LDS and as a sexual outlet to please him. “She is becoming what TA wants her to be.” Nurmi argues that Jodi Arias remained cordial with many of her ex-boyfriends.
To DeMarte: “I understand you’re not aware of much, but…” – Michael Kiefer.
Yesterday DeMarte said that Brewer wanted distance from Jodi Arias. “Brewer told me that she left him after she joined the LDS.” During an interview with Brewer near the end of the first trial, it was clear he didn’t know Arias was already with Alexander when she left him. Nurmi asks DeMarte if it’s true that Arias broke up with Daryl Brewer. She couldn’t recall.
DD is a cool cucumber. Perfect witness, so to speak. Calm, even toned, not combative. – Jen Wood
The mast is cracking from the force of the wind, the sharks are bumping into the hull. The captain starts calling ship to shore for help.
Nurmi- Can someone with Borderline Personality Disorder also have PTSD? DeMarte- Yes it can happen. Now Nurmi starts to question her assertion that Arias does not suffer from PTSD. Nurmi asks DeMarte how to interpret Jodi Arias talking about “facials.” What is the intent? She says she takes it at face value. With all the talk about taking things at face value, Nurmi says, that would mean Alexander knows about a 12-yr-old girl’s orgasms, etc.
Nurmi: “How far does this go back (work experience)? Do you count your experience in high school?” Nurmi repeats: Is it proper to say her work as a student counts as experience in evaluation? She says the license is a test after gaining experience. Nurmi now starts asking about her research in domestic violence since she became licensed. She has none. Nurmi asks if her work as a student counts. DeMarte wants to argue an interpretation.
Nurmi, in an impatient voice: “Doctor, do you understand you are here to answer my questions?”
Nurmi just called DeMarte “you, a psychologist of one year’s experience” when she started an answer. Nurmi is reminding DeMarte that she has not published or presented at conferences for years, in contrast to the long career of Psychologist #1.
Nurmi just asked if she was evaluating Travis Alexander as well. Nurmi says Alexander was exposed to DV as child which would have an effect on the relationship. Nurrmi: Why was he still having sex with her? DeMarte I think he enjoyed having sex with her.
Now DeMarte says that shows Alexander’s ambivalence for Arias. “I think those two experiences co-existed.” Nurmi: What about Alexander telling women that Jodi Arias is stalking him and he wants her gone, then calls her for phone sex and invites her for real sex. Nurmi says that Alexander calling, texting, having phone sex, real sex with Arias is not consistent with not wanting her in his life. DeMarte repeats that Alexander liked the sex with Jodi, but not the intrusive behavior. DeMarte: “I think he liked other aspects of her. Sex, yes, and other aspects of her.” She thinks Alexander loved Jodi earlier.
Nurmi asks if DeMarte ever testified that a woman DID have battered woman syndrome. The answer is never. DeMarte says she never used the DAPS test. Nurmi: How can you say a Psychologist with 30 yrs experience did it wrong? “He absolutely did it wrong”, she replies.
Nurmi asks DeMarte if Geffner’s 30 years experience in domestic violence amounts to anything. DeMarte did not review full testimony of the other Alexander girlfriends who took the stand. DeMarte claims not to know details of Alexander’s sexual relations with other women or whether he actually had sex with them.
Nurmi is now going through Alexander’s correspondence with Jodi Arias and others. Right now, they discuss the assertion that he was a 30-year-old virgin.
The winds calm down and the waves have receeded, the sailboat has passed by the sharks. The sun peaks out momentarily.
Flores, Martinez and the Alexander sisters come out of chambers first. Then Nurmi, Willmott and Maria De la Rosa. No Judge, no Jodi.
Stephens takes the bench. Nurmi gives her a case law cite.
Stephens leaves the bench. We are sitting in the courtroom wondering if we will see anything else today. DeMarte finishes off a can of soda as she crosses the courtroom, drops it in the wastebasket and pushes through the door. – Michael Kiefer
Stephens says no trial tomorrow. She is now going to call jurors in one at a time for questioning. Judge Stephens calls the lawyers to the bench. Will there be another witness today?
Nurmi gets DeMarte to acknowledge Jodi Arias had no prior criminal record. Nurmi got DeMarte to say Arias would have had borderline personality disorder at the time she met Travis Alexander. That’s it for cross examination
Martinez gets up and gets DeMarte to repeat that mental illness and psychological disorder mean pretty much the same thing. DeMarte: Borderline personality disorder is not a “mental illness” but a “disorder.” Will jurors care about this distinction? – Michael Kiefer.
Makes me wonder what kind of disorder Dr. DeMarte. has to go into the highest ranks of a profession that is all about helping and protecting the mentally ill. I have to say that as a fellow professional in the field, she has my contempt as well as the contempt of a great many. I think she’s very bright and a great witness, so I hope she had a come-to-Jesus type moment about what she is doing in her work for the State.
The jury is asking multiple questions about DeMarte’s experience. Jury question asks DeMarte about her experience treating domestic violence and sexual abuse. She goes back to her training.
Questions for DeMarte.
Question: How does she know Geffner made mistakes on tests? She said it is obvious but she doesn’t answer the question.
Question: If Arias and Alexander traded passwords willingly, how is it intrusive? DeMarte says when it became unwanted.
Question: Did Alexander’s various women know about Jodi Arias? DeMarte thinks they did not know the extent of it sexually.
The sky is brighter now, the wind is mild and from only one direction, the sailboat is cruising smoothly now. Sunset is at hand.
Martinez follows up. DeMarte says Arias answered differently in two versions of the same test.
I don’t think so. They were two tests from two different perspectives, so of course some answers will tend to be different.
Martinez has DeMarte look at a Jodi Arias journal entry written a month after the murder. Nurmi asks to approach. The journal entry: “people are dropping my name as possibly having something to do with Travis’ death.” Payback for immorality? she asks.
Jodi Arias journal entry: “There is nothing he could have possibly done to deserve what happened to him.” Can DeMarte take that at face value? But oddly, doesn’t this time – Michael Kiefer
Doesn’t Jodi Arias’ journal entry make her seem more unhinged and less of a candidate for the death penalty? – Michael Kiefer
Now Juan Martinez is showing an email from Arias to Travis Alexander — after she killed him. DeMarte reads the bogus e-mail Arias wrote to Alexander after she killed him, describing her next visit as if she had not been there recently.
Martinez: Jodi Arias showed up unannounced, peeked in his windows. DeMarte: yes.
Martinez: Isn’t it true that Jodi Arias was under Alexander’s Christmas tree? Yes. He starts the next question, but Nurmi asks for a sidebar
In this text Travis is talking to Julie about finding him a wife and saying that Sarah is too young. Juan points out no sexual texting was going on and Julie was on the chart Geff had for sexting.
But it wasn’t a chart just for sexting.
Martinez: If any prison inmate had trouble adjusting, would that mean they all suffer mental illness? DeMarte says yes. Martinez: Did Jodi Arias have a strong attachment to men? Nurmi asks for a sidebar.
Martinez shows a sentence saying that #jodiarias was sometimes snide. Martinez says it’s from DeMarte’s report about adjustment disorder. Martinez asks how many times DeMarte used the phrase “mental illness” in her report. She thinks 2-3 times. She counts 3.
Page 27 in DeMarte’s report says: Arias has BPD and anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorder.
What the defense missed: Dr. DeMarte added on depression and anxiety plus the adjustment disorder, because her initial diagnosis of BPD only, did not account for all the peaks and valleys from the raw data in Arias’ test results.
Nurmi asks to approach. Jodi Arias says her mom and other family members have a history of depression and no one has been treated for their mental illness. Martinez asks DeMarte if “jerk” is a psychological term. – not sure what that was about.
Martinez “Does borderline personality disorder mean the defendant doesn’t know right from wrong?” DeMarte: “She knows right from wrong.”
Martinez leads with a question to DeMarte about what her ethical obligations are re tests. DeMarte: “My ethical obligation is that the tests don’t get replicated.”
It’s a brilliant deep red sunset. The clouds are light in the sky.
The jury is sent out
The lawyers are at the bench. Will the Judge make an announcement?
Stephens did not say how long the recess would be. Martinez is with the family in the victim room. The defense team is in conference.
The jury files in.
Stephens: “We are at recess.
The jury files out, again.
The sun has set. The stars are many and bright in the sky. The sharks are back in force.
Nurmi starts the new day by asking Dr. DeMArte the meaning of sexual addiction.
And Nurmi just repeated the line of DeMarte keeping her “job as a part-time Dr. Death.” Martinez asks for a sidebar. Nurmi asks why she doesn’t consider Alexander’s remarks about 12-year-old girls as objective data that he liked children. “Are you having trouble understanding my questions this morning, doctor?” Nurmi is channeling Martinez this morning. – Michael Kiefer.
Now Nurmi accuses DeMarte of relying on Jodi Arias’ self-reports when they are favorable to the state and otherwise discounting them as lies.
DeMarte just said that Jodi Arias not writing in her journal about the TA masturbation incident implies it didn’t happen. Nurmi now asks DeMarte what journals she reads to stay abreast of theory on domestic violence. DeMarte denies saying that Arias journaled on everything but not on domestic violence. Nurmi asks if she took a course in journaling.
Nurmi to DeMarte: “I know you want to tell me how much Ms. Arias lies. That wasn’t my question.” DeMarte asks to see an exhibit Nurmi is asking about and Nurmi responds “so when you don’t want to answer a question you need an exhibit….”
Nurmi now badgering DeMarte when she doesn’t understand his questions.
The best exchange ever, DeMarte, “What’s your question?” Nurmi, “Fine, you don’t understand, we’ll move on.” – Michal Kiefer
Nurmi to DeMarte: “When did you become this guru of psychological certitude…?”
Martinez asks for a sidebar.
Nurmi produces the rules and asks how she can show the test questions to Martinez. DeMarte does not answer. Martinez objects vigorously. DeMarte asks what rule?
The boat, too stressed from earlier, is starting to come undone. Water is leaking in, and the sharks are stirring about.
DeMarte reads her notes of a meeting with Juan Martinez and Nurmi asks if there is an exception to rules that allows her to show him the test questions. DeMarte does not answer. Martinez objects vigorously.
She says she can show Martinez the questions and she believes it’s at her discretion. Nurmi and DeMarte quibble over whether she showed Martinez the questions or just explained their content to him and what the difference is. Nurmi: “You shared copyrighted material and violated your professional ethics, right?” DeMarte: “That’s not right.”
Nurmi to DeMarte: “Do you believe your obligation to Mr. Martinez surpasses your obligation as a psychologist?” DeMArte: “It’s my responsibility as a psychologist to explain it to him.”
Nurmi says, “OK, Dr., we’ll have it your way.” Martinez objects, Judge Stephens tells the jury to disregard the remark.
Bob Geffner wrote a letter to DeMarte to “teach” her not to expose questions on copyrighted diagnostic tests. Nurmi says she has a history.
And that ends the rebuttal phase. Surrebuttal is ongoing, and who knows if there’s finally light the end of tunnel in this over-extended trial.
The sailboat shudders its way through the cold, starry night.
In this re-trial performance art, the part of Psychologist Robert Geffner will be portrayed by a hapless, knobby-kneed zebra. The part of prosecutor Juan Martinez will be portrayed by an athletic pack of hungry leopards.
The part of 2nd chair defense attorney Jennifer Wilmott will be portrayed by a bandage toting animal field medic.
Here we are in 2015, still watching the Jodi Arias penalty retrial finally wind down, and what’s changed in this case? We know there’s an overwhelming majority on one side and a small but dedicated following on Jodi’s side.
Trial by tweet is like listening to the World Series on an AM radio. You just don’t get a good feel for the tempo, the intensity, or the action. It’s so hard to get a sense of what the jury is actually experiencing. Then the story can be very different depending on who’s tweeting about it. Which courtroom tweeter can you trust?
We think the best are Monica Lindstrom (but she’s not there all the time), Michael Kiefer (some trial watchers see Michael as being against the prosecution), and Jen Wood from the Trial Diaries. The rest generally suck eggs, in our opinion. What do You think?
If we were to have a poll today of all interested trial watchers, the votes for Life would most likely easily win by a great majority. It’s only that those who want death are far more vocal. The percentages on social media can make it appear as if it’s 10 to 1 prosecution supporters, because Jodi Arias supporters are very present and vocal, but in fact the percentage of Prosecution supporters is easily 100 to 1.
The problems that Jodi supporters like to point out is that some facts are ignored, speculations are presented as fact, and non-facts are believed to be true. Interesting observations on the defense side in favor of Jodi Arias are often dismissed. Some important facts are not considered at all, and some prejudices that can distort the true facts inevitably leak in.
For prosecution supporters, Dr. Geffner is a slimy hired gun, who will say or do almost anything to prevent a mentally ill woman from being executed. He will cheat on tests and lie to the jury with a straight face. Plus, he’s a Dinosaur.
Geffner’s a sentimental relic of outdated psychology theory that people keep around out of nostalgia. He’s a liberal twerp who should be banned from Arizona.
Jodi Arias supporters see Dr. Geffner as another in a succession of experts trying to give the full story of precisely what went on in Arias’ head and in this relationship that lead to the grizzly killing .
I relied mostly on tweets from Michael Kiefer from the Arizona Republic and Jennifer Wood from the Trial Diaries to try and get a balanced idea of what transpired in the courtroom. Jennifer Wood blocked me on Twitter for tweeting that I thought she was biased. That really wasn’t fair, after looking at more of her tweets. One thing, I think, that gave me the wrong impression about Jen Wood is that people were re-tweeting her tweets, but then they added their own comment at the end of the tweet.
I mistakenly took this as ALL a tweet from Jen Wood. I was wrong about that, and
I apologize to her. Jen Wood’s tweets are actually the most complete and accurate that I’ve seen. I don’t think her reporting is biased at all, after taking a closer look. She even tweets the jury questions in exact quotes. Great job, Jen!
In our last retrial update https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/jodi-arias-and-her-defense-add-insult-to-injury/, we were finishing up with Dr. Robert Geffner’s testimony. Juan Martinez was finishing his re-cross. They are discussing the PTSD testing and Martinez indelicately tries to ram in the coded messages written near the spine of a couple of magazines, supposedly intended for Matt McCartney. Jodi Arias allegedly tried to smuggle them out to Matt McCartney from the Estrella Women’s Jail in Phoenix via a reporter.
The prosecution side is cheering Mr. Juanderful for sticking another knife in Arias’ case for mitigation. Some Jodi supporters were claiming that those magazine messages were written by another defendant in another case, and Arias was blamed for it. Our take is this:
The magazine messages were in fact written by Jodi Arias and they were intended for Matt McCartney. Gray Hughes even pointed out on a FB page that the handwriting matched that of Jodi Arias. She was probably desperate to get some corroborating testimony from Matt. It is a legitimate fact to bring up, but we’re just saying that the foundation had not been laid down properly. This has no relation to the line of questioning. It’s just thrown in there while discussing the PTSD testing, Geffner keys right in on this, too. What does this have to do with the PTSD testing, he asks? He has never seen this before and he wants to know the context. They started arguing and talking over each other, and Judge Stephens had to admonish them. Geffner has no idea about the coded message in the magazines.
Geffner: What does this have to do with PTSD?
Martinez: Tries to ask more about the magazines and the hidden message.
Stephens: Stop talking over and interrupting each other!
The poor court reporter is probably working up a good case off carpal-tunnel syndrome right around now.
Juan is attacking, demanding Yes or No answers. He demands to see Geffner’s notes. He’s getting all up in Geff’s grill. Juan’s always wanting to see the notes. Geffner is claiming he can’t answer these questions with a simple Yes or No. Kirk Nurmi objects to Martinez’ questioning as badgering and argumentative. Judge Stephens overrules the objection. Rumble in the jungle – it’s on.
Judge Stephens seems to have a very simple formula for objections. On direct and cross she sustains most objections. On re-cross and re-direct, she simply overrules most objections. Sidebars abound. The main point Juan wants to make is that Jodi Arias, still clinging to the ridiculous Ninja-intruder story, claimed a non-sexual attack by a stranger as the trauma giving rise to PTSD. The prosecution claims this invalidates the entire test, the defense claims it does not, that the trauma was actually a non-sexual attack by a known person, and all the other answers are valid. Jodi Arias suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress.
Martinez’ wingman, Detective Esteban Flores, whose teenage son recently died in a tragic accident, is noticeably missing from the proceedings.
It’s the old Lions and Tigers and Bears argument made famous by a juror in the original trial. Who cares if it was a Lion or a Tiger, or even a Bear? The attack is the same. Martinez puts the PTSD or PDS test up on the big screens. Geffner complains that the test questions are copyrighted and should not be shown to the public. Juan calls Dr. Geffner combative. Geffner actually has to appeal directly to Judge Stephens and tells her “Your Honor, this is getting real borderline”. Micheal Kiefer calls the questioning “snarly and contentious”.
The hungry leopards hang onto the hapless zebra and commence tearing flesh. The zebra is trying to shake them off.
Geffner tries to say that Martinez is mixing up two different tests. The back and forth is described as ‘going in circles’. Geffner reads verbatim from the test to show that Juan Martinez is paraphrasing and mischaracterizing what was said on the test. Juan transitions out of this and he questions Dr. Geffner’s certification to testify in Arizona. Dr. Geffner says there’s no such thing as a certification to testify. He’s licensed in California to practice, but not Arizona. Juan’s finished and Jennifer Willmott gets up for re-direct.
Juan Martinez is licensed to pounce. For now he’s returned to his chair and is crouching, scanning.
Willmott explains that practicing in Arizona requires a license, testifying does not. This is where my theory about Juan Martinez comes in. Once in a while, Martinez will just throw things in that seem to be trivial, not related, to make no sense. Remember that Martinez didn’t want any co-prosecutors on this case. He has had co-prosecutors in the past. He wants to take care of this himself and he’s gonna handle every detail himself.
My theory is that he has a set way of handling witnesses. Juan has a list of testimony he wants to elicit, and points he wants to make. But he doesn’t want the defense to figure out how he prepares and how he picks the points he wants to cover, so he throws a couple curve balls in there. He brings up things which are irrelevant or not really important, just to keep the defense from discovering his system, which is pretty straightforward. I’ve noticed this a few times, and the not-being-licensed-to-practice-in Arizona is something he knows is not even an issue.
Other trial watchers have pointed out that it is an issue, and that out of state Psychologist enlisted as trial witnesses who aren’t licensed to practice in Arizona have gotten into trouble for things they testified to.
Here’s a strange occurrence in the trial. Willmott and Geffner are both saying that Juan Martinez did not tell the whole story about the porn found on the Bishop’s computer. This is the Friday before the Super Bowl football championship between the New England Patriots and the Seattle Seahawks, also going on in Phoenix. Judge Sherry Stephens sends the jury out.
The story of the porn at the Bishop’s residence is that the computer either crashed or was not working well. Witness # 1 sees pop-ups of sexy scantily-clad women. Witness #1 knows about computers and investigates the malfunctioning computer. He traces this back to a file or folder with Travis Alexander’s name on it. He claims he found some child porn. Witness #1’s affidavit continues the story with Travis and the witness going out to his car and they have a heart to heart conversation about the porn. Witness #1 says, “Travis, you are not who you’re supposed to be”. Then Travis breaks down and explains he was sexually abused at age 12.
Then Martinez and Willmott have an argument over whether or not Travis confessed to being the one responsible for the porn. At this point, Judge Stephens tells the gallery “You are not to respond verbally to anything that’s about to be said.” That was quite unusual. The judge calls the two to the stand. They return. Geffner continues. “Travis, you are not the person you’re supposed to be. You would be homeless if I told the Bishop.” Juan objects – another sidebar. Geffner interviewed the witness with associates. Willmott asks if Geffner believed that Travis confessed to the porn? Martinez objects, and it’s overruled. Geffner answers that was his understanding.
Jennifer Willmott then goes on to show that Travis Alexander had another issue with porn pop-ups in 2007. From testimony we know that Alexander was again having a computer problem from a virus or malware on the day of June 4th, 2008. So, she’s making a connection between Travis Alexander, computers, and an ongoing problem with masking his apparent porn addiction.
Willmott gets Geffner to explain that the date witness #1 gave as the date that Travis grabbed Deanna Reid, his girlfriend at the time, and pushed her down on the couch, was off at first, but he was sure about the incident. This was when Travis supposedly said “Get it through your f*cking head, I’m not going to marry you!” the jury is brought back in. Jenn moves on to Jodi Arias and elicits testimony relating to the months after she killed Alexander. Geffner explains to the jury that Jodi was hazy about what happened. She was not able to come to terms with what she did, so, she made up some stories.
She knew these stories made no sense, but she held onto them anyways. Wilmott asks Geffner if Jodi Arias disavowed the Ninja story and finally confessed. Geffner says that she did. Willmott asks Geffner why she made up the story. There’s an objection and another sidebar and Willmott drops the question. Then she moves on to the masturbation to the photos of young boys allegation about Travis Alexander. Why was there confusion between whether the photos were paper photos or images on his laptop? Geffner explains that all versions and all notes about that story talk about paper pictures, except Alyce LaViolette’s. She had apparently assumed it was images on a computer.
Now Willmott moves on to July 29, 2007, when Arias says she broke up with Alexander after finding intimate communications with several different women on Alexander’s phone. Next she wants to explore what the difference is between the two “going steady” or “officially going out” and being broken up. Geffner explains there was little difference, because they were still seeing each other, still having lots of sex and still hiding the relationship. During that summer, there were text messages of Travis Alexander jealously accusing Lisa Andrews of seeing her ex-boyfriend, while at the same time, he’s wooing Jodi Arias and another woman.
Now it’s time to review the idea about Travis keeping the relationship secret and what that means. Martinez likes to point out that most people do not talk about their sexual experiences and that Jodi Arias also kept it a secret. Keeping things secret, especially in a Mormon environment, is normal and has no application to abusive behavior or any other alleged malfeasance on the part of Travis Alexander.
But that’s really not the point, is it? It wasn’t just the sex, but Travis kept everything else secret from his friends, his co-workers, and his community, too. He didn’t go to dinner with her, or a movie, or a walk. He didn’t participate in any social activities with her, and he made sure she stayed on a different team at Pre-Paid Legal Services. As far as her friends, cohorts and community knew, Jodi hardly existed. That’s what the defense is talking about when they are alluding to abuse.
Beyond that, text messages between Travis and Lisa show a cycle of love-lust and anger-jealousy directed at Lisa Andrews by Travis. Next, Geffner and Willmott discuss the times Travis talks about marrying several women. The implication here is that in Travis’ world of the LDS church you promise marriage in order to get sex from single Mormon women.
And this is one part of this penalty re-trial and the original trial where the two sides of supporters dramatically diverge. Prosecution supporters seem to discount the whole of Alyce LaViolette’s testimony, when she was giving this same type of evidence. There were multiple women with whom Travis was exchanging risqué messages of love and lust. They were talking about encounters they had in the past and planning more of them. There was lots of sexually graphic talk, including talk about making babies, pubic hair and sexy underwear and clothes. There was talk of boobs, too.
Geffner had to make a graphic chart of the women, there were so many. Jodi Arias supporters believed this testimony and they understood it was objective testimony straight from Alexander’s phone. It didn’t come from Jodi.
Prosecution supporters felt it was just talk and didn’t mean much. They figured that the relationship with Jodi was casual anyways, and that it’s natural for a single man to pursue a number of women. Arias supporters saw this as a betrayal, a web of lies and secret trysts that were most likely also happening in real life with a number of these women, at the same time, Travis was claiming love and monogamy with Jodi, consistent with the Mormon precepts and tenets.
Prosecution supporters saw this simply as Travis playing the field, but Jodi supporters saw it as sexual and emotional abuse, especially when you add in Travis’ jealousy whenever Arias talked about her plans to see other men.
Prosecution supporters see this as manipulation on the part of Arias, trying to keep him and draw him in by the prospect of eligible rivals in the mist.
The implication on the defense side was that this game was going on long before Travis met Jodi and continued unabated the whole time they knew each other. At the least, there’s a misunderstanding as to the nature of the relationship. There’s also a psychological component, as Arias lost out on the affections of her father when her younger sister, Angela, was born.
From a psychological point of view, Jodi Arias may have then drifted from one overbearing or controlling boyfriend to another, doing anything to gain his affections. When she was finally rejected, even as a friend, and cast aside for a younger girl, she may have lost control. Travis may have paid for the sins of the father, in addition to anything he may have done.
The defense fleshes out this line of thinking further with testimony from Dr. Geffner. Travis Alexander and a woman named Chaitanya Lay are seen on texts discussing a tryst they had while at the same time, Alexander is texting and sexting with other women. Geffner and Willmott then go into the early 2007 Chris and Sky Hughes e-mails, where Sky is talking about various ways Alexander supposedly toyed with and abused other women.
Geffner explains about copyrighted Psych. Tests, relating how Juan had put the actual questions up on the big screen, and answers he got from Dr,DeMarte out onto the public record. It’s a serious issue. The questioning moves to witness #1 and the porn on the Bishop’s computer and Travis’ alleged admission he had been abused as a child. Juan objects, asking what’s the relationship between the admission to childhood abuse and porn on the computer? Geffner replies that it was Travis and witness #1 that made that connection, not him.
Geffner amplifies the subject about witness #1 seeing Travis grabbing Deanna Reid by the wrists, pushing her down on the couch and yelling at her at the Bishop’s residence. Could it have been someone else he saw? Geffner relates that witness #1 knows exactly who Travis and Deanna are and he knows he saw them, although he may have been mistaken on exactly what month and day he saw the altercation.
Geffner explains that it was only one report from “Psychologist #1”, who everyone believes was Alyce LaViolette (although LaViolette is not a psychologist), that described Travis as being on his knees when Arias alleges she caught him masturbating to pictures of young children. I still cannot figure out why this would be an issue. I suppose Juan Martinez is skeptical about Alexander’s positioning? There were a number of things LaViolette seems to have misunderstood. Next time, she should get a tape recorder and document when she makes an error in her notes.
Dr. Geffner tried to explain why Jodi Arias made up the Ninja intruder story. According to Jodi, it was to find a way to halt further questioning without revealing or facing up to what she had done. The questioning turns to the January 22, 2008 finger-breaking incident, where Jodi claims Travis threw her to the floor, kicked her in the ribs, and broke her finger while she was trying to protect her side. They discuss a possible hidden meaning in her journal entry at the end of that weekend: “Nothing noteworthy to report”.
Then they discuss the Secret and the Law of Attraction (The philosophy that negative thoughts will bring negative events into a person’s life) as a reason why Jodi rarely mentions negative issues involving Travis. Geffner says Jodi adheres to the law of attraction consistently in her journal entries.
Dr. Geffner relates that Jodi was experiencing anxiety and depression early in her relationship with Travis. Juan Martinez suggests that perhaps Jodi was feeling these things because of financial problems and losing her house to foreclosure. Geffner said it wasn’t money or foreclosure because her journals only speak of Travis in relation to feeling anxious and depressed.
As a counter to charges that Travis was manipulating Jodi while seeing other women behind her back, Juan charges that Jodi was being manipulative with Travis in May and June, 2008, as she was seeing Travis while also courting Ryan Burns.
Jen from The Trial Diaries reported that Jodi Arias has had the same blank stare all day long in court with no visible emotions.
Geffner states that there had been no aggression in Jodi Arias’ history since the teen years and there was low aggression found in her testing. Dr. Geffner stated that Dr. Janeen DeMarte’s report discussed aggression between Jodi Arias and her rival for Matt McCartney, a woman named Bianca. Geffner stated this was not true at all as the encounter was casual and amicable. He stated that Dr, D. had based some of her conclusions on this misrepresentation of facts. Geffner stated that Jodi Arias had often stated that she always wanted the best for Travis, even when they were no longer an item.
Prosecution supporters see this as more manipulation from Jodi Arias. The hungry pack of leopards is poised under shade trees on the periphery, ready to spring.
He stressed that the Havasupai trip was devastating for Jodi, as a nice vacation was soured by a bitter argument with a chilling aftermath. Juan Martinez registered lots of objections here, which were all overruled. There were contentions about a letter Jodi Arias wrote to Abe Abdelhadi, a fellow team member in her PPL group, in December of 2006. In the letter, she was saying she could no longer see him. The idea was that Travis forced her to write the letter. Juan argued that she did it on her own, possibly as a manipulation of Travis to get him to commit to her, and that she never actually sent the letter.
Here’s a video of Abe Adelhadi talking about most of the stuff he discussed on the stand as a prosecution witness:
Geffner also reported that there was no proof that Jodi wrote the coded messages in the magazines purportedly intended for a potential witness, her ex-boyfriend, Matt McCartney.
They move on to the jury questions:
Question: Do norms testing for the PTSD tests include incarcerated people?
Geffner – No.
Question: Since JA tested years after the incident, how accurate was the test?
Geffner – I’m looking for consistency.
Question: Could depression, anxiety and PTSD come from murdering someone and being in jail?
Geffner – Yes but we talked to other people who knew her at the time to establish it was not the result of being incarcerated.
Question: Can Jodi fake non-aggression on a test?
Geffner – It’s very hard to do.
Question: Why does JA continue to have sex with Travis after being abused?
Geffner – That’s the cycle.
Question: Why does JA call Travis the T-Dogg?
Geffner – That was Travis’ macho side.
Question: Who was the recipient of the coded messages?
Geffner – I don’t know.
Question: Is there any supportive documentation of DV?
Geffner – No, just Jodi’s word.
Question: In your review of records and expert opinion did physical abuse take place?
Question: Why was the DV not powerful enough to write about it?
Geffner – JA was going by the Law of Attraction but some of it still sank into her journals.
Question: Did verbal abuse really happen?
Geffner – Yes.
Question: Can a person be attracted to young girls AND young boys?
Geffner – Yes and also to adults as well. This would be a non exclusive type of pedophile.
Question: Aren’t you surprised as an expert that JA continued having sex with TA after she caught him?
Geffner – I’m not surprised anymore. JA felt bad for TA.
Question: How long did JA talk with Psychologist #1?
Geffner – Alyce LaViolette talked to JA for two days and had type written notes.
Question: How can Jodi Arias function normally and go to work, etc., after the homicide?
Geffner – Jodi blocked it out.
Question: A question about giving JA the same test twice?
Geffner – She was given 2 tests with 100 questions each. One was done from the perspective of now and one we asked her to go back in time to the months following the crime in 2008.
Jennifer Willmott goes back on direct after the jury questions:
Birds can be heard whooping and cawing, twigs are snapping, and snakes are heard slithering in the jungle.
Willmott elicits testimony from Dr. Geffner showing it’s nearly impossible to fake aggression on the test. Geffner says 2 tests were given over a span of 2 years and the results were too consistent to be faking.
Geffner states he looked very closely at Jodi’s ring finger and it’s broken, not sliced.
Geffner says the sex tape of referencing a 12 year-old while masturbating corroborates JA’s story of the incident when she caught Travis with the photos of young children.
The hungry pack of leopards leap out of the brush.
Juan crosses and states that he thinks JA learned a lot about PTSD while she’s been in jail as well while she’s been absorbing the proceedings at her trial. He shows there’s no other evidence about the photo incident except Jodi’s word. He asks Geffner if he believes there was Domestic Violence? Geffner answers that it’s not his belief, but his opinion. Juan asks where is there any reference to physical harm in her journals? It’s all based on Jodi Arias’s word, Geffner agrees.
Someone asked a juror what time it was? The juror said they can’t talk to the person. Kirk Nurmi jumps on this and wants a chamber conference.
Kirk Nurmi says Juan Martinez will now call the Mormon Bishop and Abe Abdelhadi. Nurmi wants Abe precluded from testifying.
The jungle is temporarily closed.
This ended the questioning of Doctor Robert Geffner in mitigation testimony. Did Geffner offer any solid mitigators as to why Jodi Arias should receive a sentence of Life in prison rather than Death? Did Geffner, along with Dr, Miccio- Fonseca and Alyce LaViolette finally explain why this was an abusive relationship that destabilized Jodi Arias? Or, are they all just hired guns attempting to rationalize and minimize what Jodi did in order to protect her?
Is there any solid evidence that Travis was sexually and emotionally abusive towards Jodi Arias? Is there any credibility to what witness #1 alleges? What exactly transpired after the relationship soured and Jodi and Travis fell apart? These are the questions many trial watchers are asking, answering, and continuing to ask.
Our next trial update will go into the testimony of PPL co-worker Abe Abdelhadi, Bishop Verno Parker, and Psychologist Dr. Janeen DeMarte.
We received a response to our article from Robert Knox, a close friend and confidant of Jodi Arias. I liked his response a lot, so I asked his permission to post it verbatim as a guest article. He agreed, and we are happy to post it here:
IN DEFENSE OF JODI
by Robert Knox
February 10, 2015
As I believe Rob is wrong about a number of things in his “Insult to Injury” post, I offer, at his invitation, a rebuttal. I’ll cover four main issues: Jodi’s letter; her sense of guilt or innocence; her defense team and supporter groups; and her personality.
1. Jodi’s letter to the Alexander family. Rob thinks that only an evil or seriously mentally ill person could write the long letter that Jodi wrote on 7/28/08. In reality, Jodi wrote this letter after intense and repeated pressure from police detectives Flores and Blaney to do exactly what she did. So, if Jodi is evil or ill, so are they. Here are just a few quotes from Flores and Blaney on the interview tapes. (Thanks to JAII poster Canada Carol for the excerpts and transcription.)
2:40 – Tell me, tell them, tell Travis’s family what it was that pushed you to your limit. I’m just trying to fill in the holes there.
7:52 – How about Travis’s family?
Jodi – I care very much about Travis’s family, and I can’t help what they think of me. They’ll hate me regardless.
7:57 – It’s true that their feelings are probably always going to be negative about you. You know you took their son’s life. They can never get over that.
23:38 – You owe that at least to Travis’s family. Give them some closure. Because I know from working with all these families that have lost loved ones, that they’re not struggling with who did it, but they’re struggling with why,
24:15 – I know that Travis’s family is struggling with why and that would be the one thing that would give them closure. They may never like you, but I think they would be appreciative of why their son’s life was taken. You can’t give them their son back, but you can at least give them the peace of mind as to why.
25:10 – I know if it was my child, that’s what I would want. And I know that you’re not a mother, but all women have those mothering instincts within them, and I think that you can understand that what I’m saying – and that’s why you’re hanging your head right now.
Jodi — Can’t imagine what it would be like.
26:22 – Wouldn’t you want to know why you lost one of your brothers?
Jodi – Yeah. (so quietly)
26:32 – I’ve never met them – I can’t speak for them, but I would bet my paycheck that that’s what they’re wondering right now. And you can at least show that you have a soul, that you have a heart, that you understand that need in them and do something for somebody else besides yourself. That’s the least that you can do for them right now is give them an answer. Tell them why – that’s how you can control something that is happening in your life right now, because you have all the power there. It’s a gift that you can give that family. Tell them why – use me as the voice to tell them why.
(Jodi whispers something inaudible)
29:30 – Either way, those detectives in AZ have their case made, but the least you can do for that family is give them an answer. I’m not saying to portray Travis as this ugly horrible person, because I don’t think that that’s the right thing to do either, but at least let them know that it was a two-way street and that it wasn’t all your fault.
Here are a few more excerpts, from video #8, with questions by female detective Blaney:
18:14 – 18:43 … If you see your situation as so hopeless, why wouldn’t you at least give the family some closure and some peace of mind as to what happened, or why?
19:15 – If you have any feelings – any emotions within you – if you have any goodness in your heart, I don’t know why you wouldn’t do that. Because if you don’t and you don’t give them the information that they seek for the closure, that means you’re a very selfish person.
23:53 – This is your chance to make at least something right. Even if it’s on a small scale. This is a big deal to his folks.
24:23 – Just because you’re in custody doesn’t give them the closure.
25:48 – If your fate is inevitable in your mind, why wouldn’t you give the family closure?
Jodi – I don’t think …. (inaudible) I don’t know if I could give them what they want.
26:13 – Wouldn’t you want to at least try and let them make that decision? If it were my son, I would want all the information I could so that I could make some sense of it. There’s something so horrific in your mind that you don’t want to think that you could be capable of such a thing? See, that’s the person I was talking about, the person that is scared, and remorseful and didn’t want any of this to happen. So I don’t think I was wrong, Jodi. (27:47)
28:00 – This is your opportunity to make right some of your selfishness and let the family decide how they’re going to deal with that information and how they’re going to use it.
28:35 – Jodi puts her head down on the desk
28: 42 – Why should they have more suffering than they’ve already had? In your religion and, forgive me for my ignorance about it, ….
20:35 – You are the only person that has the information that the family seeks. They don’t seek crime scene information – they will already have that. They seek something that is at a much deeper level, it’s an emotional level and you are the only person that can help them with that.
In sum, over and over on the tapes, Flores and Blaney push Jodi to explain Travis’s death to the Alexander family. And in the 29:30 quote from video 7 above, Flores specifically suggests that Jodi include ways Travis was at fault. So, when she grants the demand of powerful police detectives, that would not be surprising even if Jodi were not by nature a “people pleaser,” as one of her experts called her. And, having undertaken to write the letter, she naturally must repeat the same intruder story that she had already told Flores.
I have myself spoken with Jodi about this letter.
She says that she did not realize at the time how “immature” and “insensitive” it is, and it is one of the things she did in 2008 that now make her “want to vomit.”
So: Jodi wrote the letter, with strong police encouragement, about eight weeks after Travis’s death, while she was confused, terrified, and suicidal, with her life in ruins, and she is now disgusted by it. Doesn’t that adequately answer Rob’s concerns?
2. Self-defense and Jodi’s sense of guilt. Rob believes that Jodi is guilty of some awful crime and that she admits as much in a letter. Here’s the Jodi quote, which Rob included in his next post:
“Let me say that your belief in my guilt is not a deal-breaker. However, the group is intended for people who support me 100%, more specifically those who believe I’ve been wrongfully convicted and am innocent of what I was charged with and was overcharged to begin with. These are the things everyone in my group has in common.”
I do not read this as an admission of guilt. Jodi is just stating the beliefs common to members of her Facebook group. She recognizes the huge diversity of belief even among her declared supporters. What she is saying is: if you don’t believe at least these three things, you may not belong in the group. That rules out, for example, those who believe that she is guilty as charged, but does not deserve death. Some people with that viewpoint caused trouble in an earlier, more comprehensive group, so Jodi is probably trying to avoid this in the new one. In any case, I don’t read her here as stating her own beliefs about her guilt or innocence — just the typical beliefs of members of a FB group.
On the contrary: as far as I am aware, for over four years Jodi has never deviated from her self-defense story, nor ever admitted guilt of any homicide crime. If her trial testimony is true, she is not guilty of any such crime. Rather, by that testimony, what happened to Travis Alexander was his fault from beginning to end. Some people, including Rob, say that even if Jodi acted in self-defense, she used excessive force.
I do not understand this view. In a genuine self-defense fight, as long as one is threatened with serious physical injury, one has every moral and legal right to use all force necessary to stop the attack. Some people see excessive force in the 29 knife wounds (not, as so often misdescribed, 29 “stab” wounds,” since many of them are superficial). Well, how many knife wounds should it take for a 120-lb woman to stop a lethal attack by a nearly 200-lb man, who is a trained wrestler and kickboxer, has a heavy bag in his apartment, boasts online of his 16 1/2–inch biceps and triathlon work, and is fresh from months in the gym? Two? Seven?
Facing a similar imbalance of size, strength, and training, if someone came at me screaming that that he would “fucking kill” me, I would fly into a frenzy and fight savagely with every weapon I could lay my hands on, in the desperate hope of incapacitating him. The only arguable evidence of “overkill” is the deep neck wound. But Richard Speights has described a natural way for that to occur in a knife fight. Also, several people have argued that it was inflicted after death, by persons unknown.
Jodi has said many times that she deeply regrets Travis’s death, is very sorry for the Alexanders’ loss, and wishes more than anything that she could redo 6/4/08 by never visiting Travis again. She also says that she feels guilty about emotional pain that she caused to others after Travis’s death; the letter Rob discusses is one case of that. But she has never said that she was at fault in Travis’s death. Nor was she, if her trial testimony is true.
While her tale is bizarre, there is nothing impossible about it, and it fits the forensic evidence very well. By contrast, the prosecution story contains at least two absurdities and one impossibility. So, if we must choose between the stories, only Jodi’s is credible. That is besides the fact that we now know the state’s case to be a carnival of suppressed evidence (Jodi’s camera’s memory card with photos of her out of town on the day of the Yreka burglary; all the cellphone SIM cards); destroyed evidence (the porn history deleted from Travis’s computer while it was in state custody); and flagrant lies by some combination of Martinez, Flores, Melendez, and Horn.
3. Jodi, her defense team, and her supporters. Rob thinks that the defense team (DT) is doing a poor job, perhaps under influence of the “JAII crew” or of Jodi herself. As far as I know, no supporters influence the DT’s strategy, though some have sent useful suggestions or links on issues of detail. As for Jodi, far from running the DT, she had continual conflicts with Nurmi over strategy for both trials, as she stated in a post-conviction interview and in a pre-retrial letter asking to dump him.
When she did briefly seize control of strategy while acting pro se, she blew the case wide open by sending Neumeister to examine TA’s computer. The only reason the state’s rank misconduct regarding Travis’s porn history ever came to light is that Jodi herself made it happen. So it was while she was “driving the train,” as Rob puts it, that what may be the single best appellate issue was discovered.
As for the “JAII crew,” (JodiAriasIsInnocent.com) there is no such thing, only several dozen people who post there regularly. It is SJ’s website, so of course he controls it. But Ben Ernst (whom Rob mentions) has no involvement in JAII and does not even post there. Most conflicts among Jodi’s supporters are rooted in a bitter dispute over fundraising. At no time has SJ, Ben, or anyone outside the Arias family ever controlled any money donated to Jodi’s official appellate fund, www.justice4jodi.com. This fund is in the hands of its unpaid trustee, Jodi’s mother’s twin sister Sue Allen Halterman.
All important information about the fund and the appeals process is clearly explained in the FAQ section on that website. By contrast, Jason Weber and others purport to collect money for Jodi’s appeals at www.justice4jodiarias.com. But no such money has ever been transferred to Arias-family control, and there is no reason to expect any ever will be. That is why Jodi and her family have repeatedly denounced these efforts. Jodi has done so by a phone call to Lisa Schilling, by a three-page letter to supporters, and by many individual letters asking people to leave the Weber FB group.
Her mother and father have done likewise by a video on the true site, www.justice4jodi.com. To see the dishonesty of Weber’s group, note that, months and months after they were publicly denounced by the Arias family as frauds, their site www.justice4jodiarias.com continues to call itself “the official Jodi Arias website.” That is a bald-faced lie. And that is the only thing anyone needs to know about conflicts between the Weber group and Jodi’s other supporters.
Regarding the DT, in my opinion, they have done a fine job so far in the retrial. They have found powerful experts whose status dwarfs that of the state experts: Geffner and Miccio-Fonseca vs. DeMarte on psychology, Neumeister and John Smith vs. Perry Smith on computers. And they have been patiently building a long record of dismissal motions which document appellate issues. As to specifics, the introduction of Marc McGee’s affidavit was not the “disaster” that Rob said it was.
Shortly afterward, Jennifer showed that Deanna is not, as Rob thought, “a very honest witness, highly credible and reliable.” Rather, she was confronted with her lie in a recorded interview, when she was asked if she knew whether TA was having sex with other women besides Jodi (not other women besides Deanna), and she said she didn’t know. Moreover, in court she refused to admit this lie, defiantly saying that she wasn’t asked about herself. False: she was asked about other women besides Jodi, and she is another woman besides Jodi, whom she certainly knew to be having sex with TA.
Nurmi’s cross-examination of the bishop also put his credibility in doubt. And why should Marc McGee not have trouble remembering the date of an over-10-year-old incident? I couldn’t be sure of the date when something happened even two years ago, let alone 10 or 15.
4. Jodi’s personality. Unlike Rob, I do not believe Jodi suffers from any “mental illness,” or even significant mental disorder. Time and again, throughout the last two years, she has acted more sanely and sensibly than many of her supporters, despite living under psychologically brutal conditions of extreme deprivation. And to suggest that Jodi may be a “psychopath” shows total ignorance of this diagnostic category, as a glance at Wikipedia shows.
Such a diagnosis is disproved three different ways. First, by Jodi’s psychological test results: as summarized by Geffner, a past APA division president, they consistently show high scores for anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and PTSD, and low scores on self-esteem and dominance. None of this is consistent with psychopathy; for example, psychopaths are noted for their strange lack of anxiety.
Second, look at Jodi’s reading list at www.jodispage.com. A large proportion of her books are in the areas of religion, spirituality, and inspiration and personal development. She is highly religious and has an overactive conscience, not a lack of one. Third, listen to Darryl Brewer’s description in his TV interview
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okbAekjQVdA) of Jodi’s personality and her position in the community, in the years she lived with him — a description again inconsistent with psychopathy. And do not say that Jodi became a psychopath after meeting TA!
Psychopathy is a deep mental disorder that begins in earliest childhood. You can no more change into a psychopath at age 26 than you can change into a pelican or a sea-turtle. On all this evidence, not to mention the experience of many people who have gotten to know Jodi during her imprisonment, she is essentially the opposite of a psychopath.
To know Jodi is to know a remarkably friendly, cheerful woman who is also very intelligent, articulate, well-informed, reliable, and energetic. Her generosity, despite her appalling living conditions, is legendary. Here are two examples. A young man wrote to Jodi that he was considering suicide. She used part of her precious one hour of daily freedom (and limited phone time) to call and ask how he was doing. This was a wholly private act of kindness, never publicly revealed; I know of it only because the man told the story in a secret FB group.
More recently, Jodi was put on restriction (no hour of freedom) for over a week for sharing her snack food with a hungry prisoner. Read about this incident at Jodi’s blog on http://www.jodiarias.com. Then look at her other entries for a sense of her personality. I’m sorry that Rob and Amanda have reached such a negative view of Jodi; perhaps they have had little direct contact with her. To those of us who know her, she is a courageous and inspiring woman and a wonderful friend.
I have given my response to Robert Knox’s post below.
We hope you might also respond to this post by leaving a few words in our comment section and let’s continue the conversation.
Update: The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Jodi Arias cannot testify in secet in a cleared courtroom.
In the original article, I was really asking for an explanation for the letter, because I couldn’t think of one besides Jodi being evil, which I do not believe, and being severely mentally ill which I can believe. Especially thinking she may have still been in a dissociated state in the months after the killing. I believe Robert’s explanation sheds more light on Jodi’s reasoning and motivation for writing the letter.
If you remove the Ninja story, which, as Robert explains, Jodi was almost compelled to include, what you see is a story of events both good and bad, in Jodi’s relationship with Travis. As Robert states, she was advised by both the Detectives, to tell something personal and true, regardless of how it reflected on Travis. Robert Knox is correct that she did exactly what they advised her to do. She wrote it on Travis’ Birthday, as on this day she may have been thinking of Travis and his family and that may have inspired her to take the advice and send the letter.
Also, contrary to claims that Jodi Arias gave a list of ‘countless’ acts of violence at the hands of Travis Alexander to psychologist Dr. Karp (prior to changing attorneys from Victoria Washington to Kirk Nurmi), her story of only a handful of incidents has remained consistent from even before she contemplated her defense of self-defense. They are detailed in the letter to Travis’ family.
Self-Defense and Jodi’s sense of guilt.
I am assuming from this that Jodi claims full justification for the events of June 4th, 2008, due to self-defense. I had previously believed that self-defense was a reasonable possibility, but may have been more of a defense strategy than a reflection of what actually happened.
I take this to mean that Jodi stands 100% behind her testimony that she did not premeditate a murder, but was instead suddenly attacked in a violent argument quickly escalating into a critical situation: She was forced to fight for her life and defend herself.
I now recognize that Jodi, in her letter, was merely repeating the minimum requirements for being in her closest group of supporters, and not giving her personal beliefs about her guilt. We had similar problems when trying to decide whether people who believed Jodi was guilty of M1, guilty of M2, or not involved in any way at all, could belong to a close group of her supporters.
Believing Jodi was not guilty of premeditated murder was the minimum requirement that we came up with, so I understand the need to have such a requirement, as it is very difficult to unite a group of people with many varying beliefs and ideas about this case. As a small minority, one would want and need to be as inclusive as possible.
I do agree that if you have a reasonable belief that your life had been threatened, you have every right to defend yourself with any force available. You do not have to have serious injuries by law, only a belief that you face imminent serious injury or death.
At Spotlight on Law, we have also stated, as Robert Knox has, that Jodi’s story fits the forensic evidence very well, while the prosecution’s theory simply does not.
Jodi, her defense team, and her supporters
I do believe Jason Weber and Lisa Schilling to be sincere in their desire and efforts to start an additional platform to tell Jodi’s story, but I acknowledge that JAII, the fundraising and Art sites are the official sites endorsed by Jodi Arias and her family.
In the supporter arena, like Robert Knox, I’m also an independet. I’m always eager to communicate with supporters from any group, and I like to know what everyone is thinking and doing. I also enjoy communicating with prosecution supporters of good will, to get their perspectives and to test my views and beliefs. I like to try and give them something to think about, when possible.
As for Jodi’s defense team doing a poor job, I said this in relation to that particular week, and the affidavits from the witnesses. Not bringing live witnesses in, and pitting a piece of paper against two live witnesses, one a Mormon Bishop of sound repute, and the other Travis’ long-term former girlfriend, seemed foolish to me. Deanna Reid appeared very credible in the first trial and was well-received by jurors and trial-watchers alike.
Why cause a well-received credible witness to come to the stand again? We wrote the article after the direct exam of Dr. Geffner, but before the remaining cross in the trial on Monday. As it turned out, there did appear to be some question as to a few previous statements by Deanna Reid. She did appear to be somewhat equivocating and defensive on the stand.
As for the defense team, I thought Jennifer Willmott has done a fine job throughout. She did make a few blunders, such as asking questions she did not know the answer to, etc. Her closing set of arguments in the last penalty phase were stunning This was one of the most dramatic moments I’ve ever seen in a trial. This could have been what saved Jodi’s life. Kirk Nurmi, I believe is very under-rated and has done an impressive job throughout this very complicated trial.
I have repeatedly stressed that Jodi Arias is not a Sociopath and certainly not a Psychopath. I didn’t mean to give that impression. Dr. DeMarte diagnosed Marissa DeVault as a Psychopath, but she did not make that finding for Jodi Arias, so that’s your proof right there. She does not fit the category.
We keep seeing more and more piling on of new diagnoses, however. Now we have adjustment disorder and there’s more and more talk now about bipolar disorder.
As for Robert Knox’s quote:
“Time and again, throughout the last two years, she has acted more sanely and sensibly than many of her supporters, despite living under psychologically brutal conditions of extreme deprivation”,
I can personally attest to that. Jodi Arias continues to be unusually bright, cheerful, and engaging. Her letters show a warmth, a caring, and an originality that is very endearing to her supporters. She has returned letters to everyone who has written her at least once, to my knowledge. I also know she has managed to perform unpublicized acts of kindness and generosity. All this while being in 23- hour lockdown solitary isolation, which could utterly envelope and destroy many mentally strong people.
She also has a great sense of humor.
Jodi’s performance in 18 days of intense examination amazed and impressed me, especially knowing that she needs to get up before 4:00 AM for court, didn’t return to her cell sometimes until 7:00 PM, and was doing this on 2 paltry meals a day, having breakfast as early as 5:00 AM.
I was a witness once in a Federal case for what seemed like 3 hours, and I found the experience extremely stressful and mentally challenging. But I ate 3 quality squares and slept in a comfy bed in a nice hotel room. So while I maintain that Arias has a potentially severe and untreated mental illness, I do acknowledge she has remained extremely mentally tough and resilient and she appears absolutely normal to me in many of her writings and actions.
“To know Jodi is to know a remarkably friendly, cheerful woman who is also very intelligent, articulate, well-informed, reliable, and energetic. Her generosity, despite her appalling living conditions, is legendary.” – Robert Knox
I heartily agree with this statement, and this is a big reason why Jodi’s supporters are so loyal to her and why they believe in her and her story. Her generosity is genuine, it’s not a show or a put-on, as far as I can tell.
Robert Knox wanted to set the record straight. We were happy to receive and post his response. Our article was critical of the recent defense strategy: using the affidavits instead of live witnesses, not finishing up with Jodi’s testimony, and not seating the remaining witnesses to offer a full and complete case for mitigation.
Our article was not intended to be a repudiation of the Defense team’s performance generally or of Jodi Arias in particular. We questioned the wisdom of introducing the affidavit from witness #1, Marc McGee, and we wondered if this was done by Jodi Arias and against the wishes of the Defense Team?
We believe that the defense is playing a dangerous game by leaving the case for life so incomplete. The remainder might have to come from Jodi in her allocution. The trial has always been a roller-coaster experience for me, with abrupt highs and sweeping lows. The Insult to Injury article was a reflection of that roller-coaster ride.
We are always inviting reader participation for that reason. I really want to know what others think about all the many facets of this case.
We also want to present the OTHER side of the story: Facts, issues and perspectives that most prosecution supporters and mainstream trial watchers may not be aware of or may not have occasion to learn about elsewhere. The positive personal experiences many people have had getting to know Jodi Arias directly is part of that story.
Posting Robert Knox’s response is part of our desire to make the other side of the story available to you.
We extend that invitation to any reasonable person of any perspective. Prosecution supporters are welcome. Send us a detailed comment and we may post it verbatim as an article on our site.
We wish to Thank Robert Knox for posting his response to our article here on Spotlight On Law. We are grateful for his views.
What’s Your view?
Comments from all perspectives are welcome. You can also comment on our FB page:
The Jodi Arias murder trial, the OTHER side of the story.
fact based reporting by
Rob Roman & Amanda Chen
Urban Dictionary: One who is religiously devoted to an ideal, cause, object, person, or culture. Typically to an extreme.
Zealots are also found in the modern day world. For instance, there are Linux users, anime fanatics, High School band teachers, Vegetarians, and Amway salsepeople.
The recipe for a Zealot is as follows:
– Take a me or a you.
– Wrap in ignorance, boil in anger, stew in narcissism.
– Then simmer in obstinance.
1) a servile dependent, follower, or underling
2) a subordinate or petty official
The recipe for minions is as follows:
Take 2 bowls of lackeys, add 1 Seargent Schultz, combine with 1 donkey cart full of Plebeian Warriors, garnish with assorted friuts and nuts.
Urban Dictionary: A Decepticon is the opposite of a nerdfighter. Decpeticons are “full of suck”.
The recipe for a Decepticon is as follows:
We made some changes to this article after reflecting on who we are and what we want to present. That’s part of trying not to be a Zealot a minion, or a Decepticon ourselves. It’s called the ability to reflect, to reconsider, and to evolve. Our views have evolved a great deal over the course of this trial. Whatever side youré on, if your views have not evolved considerably over the course of this trial, you might be a Zealot, a minion, or a Decepticon.
Plus, Amanda Demanded I change the article, and we’re a team. Oh, yeah – she’s right, too.
There are plenty of Zealots, minions and Decepticons in the Jodi Arias case. The important thing to remember is that they’re on both sides of this case. I’m not interested in fighting with bizarre people. But I do like a good laugh. I’m not going to name a particular Zealot in this case, but I want to talk about it Zealotry in general.
What makes someone a Zealot? What are the requirements? Let’s start by saying who is not a Zealot:
a prosecution supporter is officially off my list. Chritine Beswick is officially no longer a Decepticon in my view. She has written some very good articles, she communicates, and she responds to criticism. We disagree with her in substance, but she’s entitled to her views. I think she wants Arias to be sentenced to Death, so I’m not happy about that. She states she does not personally hate Jodi Arias or her defenders, and I accept that.
a prosecution supporter, is not a Zealot. Deborah Maran does not want Arias to be sentenced to Death. She has some very informative articles and she is open to people who wish to question her views and opinions.
So, generally what makes a trial watcher a Zealot?
Making comparisons between Adolf Hitler and a stranger who committed a domestic homicide.
Adolf Hitler was responsible for the organized murder of millions of people in World War 2. Likening this most notorious of figures to a defendant in a Capital murder trial is going way over the line and deep into the territory of Zealotry. This is the trump card of all trump cards, and when someone pulls that card out so quickly, they have to have a lack of perspective. It’s highly prejudicial and emotionally charged to pull that trump card. Someone who does that is a definite Zealot and has lost touch with reality.
Using this comparison on the Defense side, such as to describe the actions of the State or a prosecutor is equally wrong. It’s right in the Zealotry zone.
Making comparisons between Serial killers and a stranger who committed a domestic homicide.
Jodi Arias has been compared to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson and Hannibal Lecter. That’s over the top Zealotry. The idea that Jodi Arias is a serial killer who was caught early has little evidence to serve as a basis for that claim. She was not found to be a sociopath or a psychopath, and she has no precursors or childhood traumas normally associated with serial killers.
Making comparison between Nazi propaganda and Arias supporter sites.
It’s true that the Nazis perfected the fine art of propaganda, especially telling the people what they want to hear and telling only one side of a story. Leaving out information and distorting or misrepresenting information are the hallmarks of such machinations.These tactics have been followed by countless dictatorships and military juntas such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, El Salvadore, and on and on.
Fast forward to today. In the Jodi Aria case, there’s a situation where one side considers itself all heroes in a land of rainbows, unicorns, lovely garden gnomes, butterflies, bright sunshine, and Channel #9. The other side is seen as Lepers swimming in excrement, vomit, the stench and decay of dead flesh and swamp gas.
Such black and white, one-sided situations rarely materialize in history, although they are not unheard of. In this case, by media and by social media, a one-sided story emerged. No one wanted to be on the losing side. As the trial progressed, the defense side was given less and less of a voice. Murder trials have become big business, and everyone wants be part of the winning team.
Yes, I’m offended, as are many, by injecting references of Nazi propaganda and evoking Adolf Hitler in a discussion about one particular person who commited a domestic homicide. It indicates Zealotry, a prejudice, and an unfair and combative posture towards people in opposition to one’s ideas and beliefs. It’s like putting on a suit of armor wielding a sword to go to a business meeting.
Prosecution supporters have their reasons for anger at some Jodi supporters that go far beyong mere support for Jodi Arias, I’m finding this out at a very late date. According to some prosecution supporters, the enmity between supporters from both camps has to do with tactics (going after fb people in real life, going after witnesses, the families and the victim, posting shocking and offensive memes in order to threaten, intimidate or taunt).
It’s high time to move on from the heat of the guilt phase of the trial and judge people on what they do and how they act today – not yesterday.
There came a point where almost anything and everything said on behalf of the prosecution was accepted and proclaimed as fact and truth, no matter how improbable and flimsy the basis of the information was. Anything even the least little bit positive or favorable to the defendant or the defense in any way, caused the messenger to be attacked with a storm of Facebook and Twitter hate.
Naturally, because this is the USA, a few people rose up from all over to defend the underdog, the voiceless and the powerless. I was one of those people. We started telling the OTHER side of the story.
We assumed that everyone was getting one side of the story, so there was little need to present that side again. But we stayed faithful to the facts, even those unfavorable to the defense side, precisely because of a desire to avoid misleading propaganda. I will be the first to admit that some Jodi supporter sites present only certain facts favorable to the defense and ignore vital facts. Some sites also misrepresent facts and even present things which are known to be false.
This happens on both sides, though, and it takes work to sort through what’s accurate fom what’s not.
Making abusive comments, denigrating the victim, the defendant, their families, witnesses or anyone participating in the trial.
This is the action of minions and Zealots. Someone made the accusation that I make snide remarks and abusive comments on FB pages, and she posted screenshots to try and prove it. What a crock. She shows the last comment I made, but she neglects to show the preceding comments where one member who doesn’t know me very well was engaged in trolling behavior in violation of the rules of the group.
I gave warnings and told the commenter I knew her game, THEN I made the comment. This person making the accusation also interpreted some comments I’ve made as snide. That’s her interpretation filtered through her own prejudice, and she’s wrong.
But if you want a snide comment, here’s one for you. Hey You! I’ll make any comment I want, snide or otherwise, in a blog or in a civil discussion group with rules and Admins. If you don’t like it, SHOVE IT! If the Admins. don’t like it, THEY will deal with it, not YOU. You do not control me, Zealot.
1st Amendment – check into it.
What’s really hypocritical is a Zealot who accuses me of making “snide comments”, whatever that means, and then stands by and condones another commenter calling me all sorts of names 100 times worse. You saw what this person said and you allowed it. Why? Because that person is on YOUR side. You wouldn’t allow someone on the opposing side to make those comments, would you?
That is something I would never allow anyone from any perspective to do in a discussion or on this blog. If you did something about it, then congratulations, you may be on your way to not being a Zealot.
Another thing, I voluntarily go on prosecution supporter civil discussion pages because I want to debate and discuss the case, NOT because I want to attack or be rude to people. I don’t see YOU there, Zealot. In those groups, Jodi Arias supporters are outnumbered 99 to 1. So, how am I going to attack anyone? If anyone is attacking anyone, common sense says I’m the one being attacked.
Sometimes in these situations, you have to be assertive, and I make no apologies for that.
Richard Speights is a Conservative, a proud gun owner, and an author of articles in support of Jodi Arias from Montana, USA. Richard first appeared on the Jodi Arias scene with a very interesting essay about hand to hand combat and knife-fighting and how a person with a knife could be facing off in self-defense against an unarmed aggressor. Richard has personal experience as a military medic and he’s trained in knife combat. Many Arias supporters cite this article as key in understanding the defense case:
“Innocence: An Argument for Jodi Arias by Richard Speights
Can A Woman Defensively Stab A Man In The Back While Standing Face-To-Face With Him?”
Richard was harassed by prosecution supporters while discussing his theory. Prosecution supporters accused him of attacking them.
Here are some things Richard Speights said:
“Let me be clear–I believe in the death penalty. But my strong stance on that issue demands I also believe in fair trials. If we can’t afford the defendant, any defendant a fair trial, the system becomes tyrannical and we all lose.”
“I have no dog in this fight, although those railing against Arias would tell you different; because they see anyone not one-of-them as the enemy. I don’t know Jodi, and if she lives or dies, it will have no bearing on my life. However…”
“If our legal system becomes corrupt, then it endangers me. And what I saw on television was not right. Education is not always the best indicator of a person’s willingness to tell the truth. Sometimes people who are in positions provided by their education will go along with the crowd to keep their jobs.”
“There are a lot of people saying a lot of things (many are wrong on both sides). That’s the problem with something that has grown as large as this Arias thing. It gets a little out-of-hand.”
Now which is more likely? Richard Speights voluntarily goes to a discussion Yuku where people are known for messing with people. He is eager to talk about his theory and debate and discuss it. It’s one person against all the regulars on the prosecution side.
Which is more likely? That he single-handedly started a fight with all the regulars or that they attacked him? I know which is more likely to me. Then I see screen shots of Richard arguing with someone. We only see his comments, no one else’s. Patient and generous people who want to share their work don’t just get frustrated and start fighting with people for no reason.
Richard gets upset because he’s from Montana and a Zealot’s friend calls him the Una- Bomber. But that’s ok according to Zealot’s friend because the friend didn’t say he was the Una Bomber, she only said he was like the Una-Bomber. Big difference there! There might be more to that story, don’t you think?
That’s Zealotry at its finest. Why is Richard getting upset just because he wants to discuss his theory and someone calls him a Una-Bomber? Why should he not be happy about that?
By the way, since 95 % of the people are on the prosecution side, that’s also 95% of the crazy and mean people, too. You think all the crazy people are on the Jodi side and all of the 5% Jodi Supporters are crazy and/or mean? Think again, Zealot.
Claiming that you are the victim when you outnumber the other side by 99 to 1. That’s a Zealot tactic, and it’s really ridiculous, at this stage in the trial, to claim that your side, which overwhelmingly outnumbers the other side, is constantly in danger and under threat of attack.
There’s a claim out there by some Zealot that Jodi supporters want to prevent people from proving that Jodi Arias is guilty. How laughable. She’s already been found guilty. 95% of the public agree, and few people I know are saying she’s innocent. They just disagree with the charge.
Relying on illogical arguments that appear to be logical. Usually when you see unsound arguments they come in two forms, a logical and factual premise leading to illogical and non-related conclusions, and an illogical premise from which logical conclusions are drawn.
Here are examples:
Example 1) Logical, factual premise:
Cows are animals Cows have four legs. Cows graze in fields.
Tom saw a four legged animal in a field, therefore Tom saw a cow.
Maybe Tom did see a cow and maybe he didn’t. There’s not enough information to know for sure (missing information).
Example 2) Illogical non- factual premise:
All the bicycles in the world are blue (inaccurate information)
Mary has a bicycle, therefore Mary has a blue bicycle.
If you know how to look for and find these two types of situations, you have gone a long way towards discovering unsound arguments. Arguments of these types can be found on both sides.
People can be fooled by these arguments because the flaws are buried in the research or information. The more information given, the easier it is for the flaws to be hidden. The argument appears sound, because look at all that research and information presented to you.
Going too far, going overboard, overkill
Zealots will go too far. They will insist that they are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong and that’s the end of it. They usually don’t communicate with people of opposing views and they don’t accept criticism of their own theories and ideas,
One person posted a screenshot of a conversation she had with George Barwood to prove that she communicates with the opposition. What she doesn’t tell you is that prosecution supporters far outnumber Jodi Arias supporters on most of George’s pages. George is civil and respectful and easy to have a pleasant conversation with, so talking with George in no way proves a person is not a Zealot.
Talking with or listening to Decepticons doesn’t prove you are not a Zealot, either.
There is a small group of people who feel strongly that unethical things happened in this trial that violated this person’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. They feel that this is far from a typical Death Penalty case and should never have been one. They do not want to see any more killing in this matter. They feel terrible for the victim’s family, but they can’t help the victim now. They are trying to help the one they can help. Some feel this person is severely mentally ill or unable to defend herself properly.
Let’s get it straight, sites on both sides omit important facts, misrepresent facts, and present the facts most favorable to their side. Those on one side will often be blinded by some omissions, misrepresentations, and favoritisms. This is where discussion and debate come in handy. We can detect the flaws in our own arguments and those on the other side.
Another example of going too far is attacking and abusing people like George Barwood or Amanda Chen or reasonable prosecution supporters who are very open to discussion and are harmless. Amanda got attacked for practicing her English on discussion pages, and now she’s reluctant to come on Facebook at all. Racial and sexual comments were made. Hey you! If the day ever comes that you are fluent in 5 languages and have an advanced degree, then you can attack someone who has achieved these things for communicating in her 4th language, fool.
Hey Jackass! Amanda’s vocabulary is better than mine and her English is much better than yours. So shove it, minion.
Interpreting mundane words and actions in a crazy, conspiracy-like manner.
I just heard from a prosecution supporter-blogger who actually thinks that my intention is to stop people from speaking out about Jodi Arias’ guilt, to attack anyone who says something bad about “my Jodi”, and to prevent people from knowing the truth, Sorry, but that is the craziest statement I’ve heard in a long time. I’m still laughing about it. That crazy idea is just jam-packed with Zealotry. This case, for good or ill, is just an endless source of entertainment.
You have to worry about the mental health of somebody who says something like that. This woman feels she’s on a sort of mission from God to prove Jodi guilty with her blog. Maybe she didn’t realize that Jodi Arias has already been found guilty in a court of law and 95% of people agree with the verdict. Nobody needs you to prove anything and nobody could stop you from doing whatever you’re doing. The idea that somehow, you are helping to prove Jodi guilty is being out of touch with reality in a big way.
Jodi Arias is not “my Jodi”. People can say and have said whatever they want about her. I go to Twitter or the State page and laugh at the remarks and the memes. Some are very original and some are humorous. I get compliments and criticism from both sides. I lost some likes from Jodi supporters for whatever reason, and gained a few likes from prosecution supporters I had to ban a Jodi supporter from my comment page for spamming, So, you can’t tell me I’m not fair. I do not communicate with Jodi Arias, take orders from Jodi Arias or listen to Jodi Arias. I say and do what I want.
No where on this blog do we state that Jodi Arias is innocent. Even Jodi Arias doesn’t say that. She says she’s innocent of the charge, and that she was over-charged. Looking at some recent cases in Arizona, I can see why she feels that way. Recently, three people bashed a man’s head in with a baseball bat, stabbed him AND strangled him to death, and none of the three were charged with 1st degree murder. There are many cases like that in Arizona.
Tendency to be a dictator or control freak, use of censorship, deleting people’s comments and excessive blocking. That’s a sure sign of Zealotry. The funniest thing is people who block everyone who don’t agree with them. What a perfect way to never have your ideas challenged. When you want to control what people say and what their comments are, how can you be interested in a search for the truth, minion?
People like this are living in their own bubble of reality. They don’t want anyone to come in there and possibly burst that bubble by allowing free speech, and listening to opposing views.
The Zealot does not consider the opposing view and does not really communicate much with anyone outside their bubble. The Zealot speaks in absolutes. This person is definitely _____. Absolutely and without question _______ happened. The Zealot does not accept criticism or opposing views. The Zealot is combative and unpleasant. The Zealot is beyond reproach and is always right. The Zealot never changes and clings for their very life to their inflexible opinions.
I believe ALL of us, as human beings, stand with the Alexander family and feel deeply for their terrible loss. We are all Travis supporters. That’s why we call the opposing side prosecution supporters. We make a very sharp distinction between the few supporters on both sides who are Zealots, Decepticons and minions, and the many supporters who are caring thoughtful people who have come to their conclusions sincerely. They have every right to their beliefs, and to express them as they see fit.
Zealots have a false sense of importance.
No Zealot, minion or Decepticon, from any perspective on this case is going to tell me what I am or how I act. They are not going to tell me what to think or believe about this case. No screenshot king or queen can create reality or decide events with their hysteria. Wendy Murphy, the attorney, has been called the “Hag of the Hoax”. No blogging Hag or website Whacko is going to decide things for me or dictate my views.
You and I can decide for ourselves. No control freak dictator, blogging Zealot-hag, spammer, troll, or groupie decides it for us or tells us what things are like or how things are going to be.
We discuss, we debate, we read what responsible people from all perspectives have to say, and we decide for ourselves.
The Twitter Twits speaking about Jodi Arias and her supporters:
– “Most of them are criminals, con artists, and manipulators …birds of a feather”
– “How do you forgive someone who shows no remorse and continues to lie, and the DP is not murder it is justice”
Execution for liars? The politicians and the PayPal Psychics are in trouble.
– “*snicker* You Jodi Arias supporters wouldn’t like what most of us normal people have to say”
– “Can’t reason w/idiots, poke them w/ a stick &move on they support Jodi Arias, what u expect?”
Here we go with the we are Normal (tweeting on Twitter all day), and the you all ain’t. We don’t have to bother explaining or being specific because all y’all Jodites are imbeciles.
– “I don’t go to church. HLN sucks ass. I DO swear @ u freaks but that’s like speaking to a pet in a silly voice.”
We deserve it because we are freaks. Gotcha.
– “When you got nothing you go for anything desperate people Jodi Arias fans!”
Real original: Taunting and grammatically obtuse, but it’s Twitter so this must be another ‘it doesn’t matter’ kind of shout out.
– “Why does it matter if Jodi Arias trial is on TV, if hung jury again judge decides, can’t taint future jury pool because there won’t be one.”
Clever, clever. This one thinks ahead.
– “The Arias supporters say killing Arias doesn’t equal justice yet out the other side of their mouths say (killing) the “pedo abuser” should!”
– “Agree. She & followers both believe she’ll one day walk with conviction overturned. Smh. Never happen”
More of this nonsense about Travis deserving to be killed because he was abusive and there were allegations of inapproriate sexual thoughts.
Here’s an Arias Supporter:
– “Murdering her will not bring “closure”; love & forgiveness trump hate & revenge”.
I agree with that one whole-heartedly.
– “Wow I think some #JodiArias supporters are sicker than her.”
Heard that one before. Borrrrrrrrrring.
– “I have no doubt they know exactly what their plan is- unlike the #jodiarias mistfits and inbreds, they don’t need to announce it”
Uh huh, yup.
– “That’s unfair. I’m sure many #JodiArias supporters are alcoholics and/or heroin addicts”
Hold on a minute now, I gotta go slam down some shots and shoot up.
– “Why is it that most women #jodiarias supporters look like crack heads & give the duck lips?”
Whaaa? Never heard that one before and not really sure what that means.
– “The supporters want her out Bc they think she is innocent. Meanwhile Jodi is planning on killing Brewer next.”
How did he find out about our super-secret plan? We mut have a mole in our double-covert Facebook Jodi Lair!
“My mom taught me not to tease the mentally handicapped but sorry I just cant leave the #jodiarias supporters alone. Am I going to hell?”
Uh, yes, …… in the express lane.
“PU!? Some people have not heard of soap and deodorant. Man if you stink so bad you can clear the court DON’T COME back b4 u wash”
Was that a live courtroom tweet?
– “Ok supporters, tell me why, come out with why_why is she innocent, why no DP?, …just why, what have you heard that we have not?”
Read the blog, bub, read the blog.
– “She must be making an effort to be so repulsive. I don’t think someone could inadvertently be that disgusting. #JodiArias”
Okey Dokey, Pokey.
Wild About Trial @WildAboutTrial 33m33 minutes ago
“I guess I don’t need to visit a haunted house this year. Sitting 30 feet away from #JodiArias is enough.”
This shows what a bunch of juvenile clowns the Wild at Trial bunch are, always making a joke or a middle school prank out of a Capital case where a human being could lose her life. They’re playing to their lowest common denominator audience and cow-towing to the masses.
Minions are as minions do, and every day they’re out there, spewing their spew. If you want to be a simpletonic fool, you can join them, too. Now we move on to my personal favorite, the Decepticon. The Decepticon is worse than the Zealot, I think, because they don’t even try to be right, they are simply out for themselves and what they can get. Talk about manipulation? My God in Havana.
I have wanted to do this one for some time. You may have noticed that at the end of each article at Spotlight on Law, we usually say something like:
“We warmly welcome any comments from anyone with any opinion.ALL comments are accepted and will be posted.”
This is directly due to my troubling experiences with Dr. Kristina Randle’s blog. The good Doctor refused to accept or post any of my comments, even though they were politely worded and respectful. That made me mad.
Dr. Randle doesn’t allow any opposing views in her comment section, and she refuses to listen to or read anything from someone who disagrees with her about the Jodi Arias case, which is very telling of her own personal psychology.
“Kristina Randle, Ph.D., LCSW is a licensed psychotherapist and Assistant Professor of Social Work and Forensics with extensive experience in the field of mental health. She works in private practice with adults, adolescents and families.
She is particularly interested in assisting adolescent girls and women struggling with eating disorders, eating-disordered thinking, body image issues, self-injury, low self-esteem, emotional instability, negative thinking and matters relating to schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses.”
Code Alert: Dr. Randle may be yet another man-hater
Kristina utilizes cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic, humanistic-existential and strengths-based perspective, according to her blog.
About: “I am avidly interested in both mental health and criminology topics. I am particularly interested in the intersection of these two topics, especially when it comes to criminal cases. As of late my focus has been on the Jodi Arias case, and other high-profile criminal cases.
“Jodi ‘supporters’ might appropriately be renamed Jodi ‘truthers.’ Their view of reality is just as skewed as the man who believes that the Newtown shootings were a hoax.” – Dr. Kristina Randle
Actually, at Spotlight on Law and American Culture Shock, we presented a 4-part article on the Sandy Hook shootings, written by a former Newtown resident who actually was a student at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Far from a hoax, we reported how the unprecedented secrecy and censorship of the tragedy is primarily what fueled the hoaxers. We also presented an article refuting each and every major assertion the hoaxers made.
“I have been writing about the Jodi Arias case since her trial last year. As someone who studies extreme abnormality and mental illness she is a fascinating subject. Her ego and desire to be heard are truly remarkable.”
What’s so remarkable about Jodi wanting to be heard when almost no one, in this free society of ours dared to tell her side of the story?
“It’s hard to fathom how an individual who nearly decapitated someone and who has been adjudicated as guilty of first-degree, premeditated murder continues to feel so entitled. It is no surprise that despite being incarcerated she still has a voice. She does this all through her supporters.”
Here we go with the nearly decapitated, again. The slit throat was a fatal and gruesome wound, but it’s a far cry from nearly decapitated. Here in the free world, there’s something called the right of free speech.
“Psychopaths are particularly skilled at conning people into doing things for them. This can include obtaining money for them or standing up for them when it is perceived that others are trying to expose them. It’s not a coincidence that Jodi has attracted individuals to fulfill these functions on her behalf.”
“I don’t think she does it purposefully to anger people. Every move she makes happens to anger people but I don’t think that’s why she does what she does. I think she does it because she thinks she has a right to do it. She might also do it because she believes she’s so talented that she feels she must share that talent with the world [extreme narcissism]. I’m sure she doesn’t see what she’s doing as a problem or potential hindrance to her. It’s her perception that she is talented artistically. Keep in mind that Hitler painted as well.”
Nothing in that passage makes any sort of sense. When I see references to Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for millions of deaths, in terms of a person who committed a domestic homicide, I need to question the psychology of the person who writes such slop. When I see someone pulling out that trump card of trump cards so quickly, I got to get in there. I got to get in there and look for more problems and errors in what this Decepticon is spewing.
Now, who else might be engaged in this very same tactic, I wonder?
“I think she does it because she has a right to do it” – Apparantly, she does have the right to do it, cause nobody’s stopping her. Maybe she does it because no one has given her a voice in this case, and the media has tried to steamroll her, mostly as a reaction to the acquittal in the Casey Anthony case.
The 1st amendment does apply to those accused and convicted of a crime, and that’s why Sheriff Joe Arpaio allowed Arias those post conviction and post trial interviews. Booyah!
Jodi Arias has communicated with people who have spoken out on her behalf, but Jodi Arias didn’t initiate any of this. These were people who sprang up in her defense because they perceived an injustice and they believe in a very American principle that we should give a voice to the minority opinion and the powerless and look objectively at all sides to a story. People who have stood up for Jodi do not like the mainstream media or even the social media telling us what to think, as HLN and others tried to do in the Jodi Arias case.
To this day, reporters still feel they need to give caveats and disclaimers whenever they say anything even the least positive about Jodi Arias or her defense for fear they will receive them some “Facebook Hate”, lots of negative comments or tweets, or, worse yet, lose traffic to their websites and spree-casts
“Jodi Arias has her supporters. You’ve probably read their comments and seen their AVATARS. Often the avatars are pictures of Travis Alexander with his throat cut or in a body bag. Often the pictures will include a tagline that says ‘pedophile’.”
That’s really a lie, isn’t it, Kristina? Do you have any examples? No, I didn’t think you did. I have been all over social media related to the Jodi Arias case. I have NEVER, EVER, seen an avatar that is a picture of Travis with his throat cut or in a body bag. I have seen a few Jodi Supporters refer to Travis as a pedophile and that’s wrong, as it was an allegation only.
JAII (jodiariasisinnocent.com) did publish a body bag photo of Travis, but that was in the heat of the battle during the original trial and people felt Jodi Arias was justified by way of self-defense. We have reported that there were allegations of pedophilia, which is factual.
“The question is why do they support Jodi and why do they feel the need to attack and trash Travis?”
There’s a difference between attacking and trashing the victim, and looking at the facts and allegations surrounding Travis Alexander in the context of a self-defense claim.
“The evidence was sufficient for the jury to unanimously agree that Jodi was a liar and a murderer. She had to be a liar because her version of the story, if believed by the jury, would make her innocent. They found her guilty and thus believed she was lying.”
By that same incredible logic, OJ Simpson is not guilty because that’s what the jury found, and the prosecution must have lied about nearly everything, because the jury did not believe them. By that same logic, James Robison, Robert Charles Cruz, David Wayne Grannis, Christopher McCrimmon, Lemuel Prion, Ray Krone, and Debra Milke are all liars and their defense attorneys lied also. All these people were convicted and on the way to be executed in Arizona until they were later exonerated and finally set free.
That’s not to say Jodi Arias is totally innocent of all charges. Guess what? Jodi Arias stated as recently as January 5th, 2015 that she is innocent of the charge of 1st degree premeditated murder and she was over-charged. This is much different than saying she’s totally innocent in the killing of Travis Alexander.
“The Jodi Arias supporters, continue to support her. The evidence that swayed the jury makes no difference to them. Not only do they support Jodi, they vilify Travis and believe he deserved to die. Read their stuff. They not only imply it, they come right out and say it. They say he was a pedophile. They say he was an abuser. They say he deserved to die.”
Only a very few people have said that, and saying that’s just plain wrong. If Travis did in fact attack Jodi Arias in the way that she described, then the killing would be justified, but she went too far, in my opinion. The jury did not believe the self-defense claim. If Travis Alexander has a problem with sexual thoughts about underage minors, these were thoughts only and were never acted upon. Still that has no bearing on the killing, other than this issue and arguments about it may have caused an escalation into physical violence.
“So now we’re dealing with two important issues concerning her supporters. One, they support her even in light of the evidence that was sufficient for the jury to find her guilty of the most severe murder charge possible. Two, they despise and vilify Travis. Though they may exist, I have yet to find a Jodi supporter who did not despise and vilify Travis.”
Her writing is the quality of a high school junior. How did she ever get that Ph.D?
Well, I know Jodi Arias supporters, and very few of them despise or vilify Travis. Most of them do believe Jodi’s testimony, though, and they’re entitled to their opinion and to the right to voice their opinion. We do feel free to look at allegations and to look at evidence from both inside and outside the trial and to discuss it.
“In light of facts one and two, mentioned above, we can come to some definite conclusions about Jodi supporters. First of all, fact and reason and evidence is not important to them when coming to their conclusion about Jodi’s innocence or guilt. The evidence in this case, is overwhelming. It would be a waste of time, yours and mine, to repeat all of that evidence in this article. We have her bloody hand print on the wall. Not only was that handprint Jodi’s blood, it was also Travis’s blood. We have the camera, which unintentionally documented Jodi’s murder of Travis. And I could go on and on.”
“We can come to some definite conclusions”? “In light of facts one and two”? Those are not facts. Now, “Dr.” Kristina Randle goes on to explain the evidence that Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander, which the defense stipulated to and was uncontested in the trial.
The trial was never about whether Arias killed Alexander. You cannot claim self-defense in a murder trial unless you have killed someone. You know?
“The evidence means nothing to Jodi supporters. They claim, sure she killed him but he deserved it because he is a pedophile and an abuser of women. What evidence do they have for their claim? None. There is no evidence. There is only the word of a well documented liar. They choose to believe an admitted liar.”
It doesn’t matter if she lied. All that really matters is – “Is it reasonably possible?”
There is nothing to justify Alexander’s killing save killing in self-defense, which the jury did not believe. Very few Jodi supporters said that Travis deserved to die because he was a pedophile. None that I know of say that, with the exception of SJ (Simon Johannsen AKA Simon Hill). Even if the allegations were true, Travis only had thoughts, he had not acted upon them yet. So even if you believe the allegations, there’s no way that someone deserves to be murdered because he has inappropriate thoughts. That makes zero sense. How many of us would be left alive then?
“They also choose to believe that yeah, she lied before but she’s not lying now. What would make them think that? She lied before, admitted it, and did so because it was better for her. Just over the course of the murder and the investigation, she has lied for years. There is no rational, reasonable explanation for their belief in her truthfulness.”
As far as the trial goes, you have no right to assume the defendant lied on the stand under oath. You would have to specify what she said that you feel is untrue, and say why. Most people confronted with murder accusations lie about it at first. The jury had the right to disregard her testimony if they felt it was untruthful. The fact that she has lied in the past makes it even more crucial that she would tell the truth on the stand.
Even if you disregard the whole of her testimony, there is still evidence of verbal and emotional abuse, sound reasons to believe that Travis Alexander may have become suddenly and violently enraged at Jodi Arias. Strange facts indicated that Travis Alexander had a dark side and serious mental and emotional issues.
Jodi told of Travis suddenly becoming enraged. This was corroborated at trial by Travis’ friends. Jodi Arias said that Travis first had sex with Deanna Reid. This was corroborated by Deanna Reid at trial. Jodi Arias said that Travis had issues requiring counseling in 2008. This was corroborated by Travis’ best friends, who said the same thing in early 2007. Jodi Arias stated that Travis Alexander cheated on her and others and ran multiple women at the same time. This has been corroborated at trial. Jodi Aria stated that Travis became angry because his computer was having problems on June 4th, 2008. This has been corroborated by the evidence.
So then people say that Jodi Arias is a “master manipulator” who weaves fibers of the truth into her elaborate lies. That may be so, but it might not be.
As a “psychologist”, Dr. Randle should know that a childhood such as Travis Alexander’s frequently leads to a variety of problems later in life. At least five of the seven Alexander siblings have had some problems in later life. There is also compelling evidence of overcharging and malfeasance within the prosecutor’s office in regard to this case. All of this is completely independent of Jodi Arias’ guilt or innocence or veracity.
But wait – Dr. Randle never said she was a psychologist. She’s a social worker and psychotherapist. Hmmmmm.
“So now we know that whatever motivates them to believe in Jodi Arias has nothing to do with evidence or her long history of lying. We also know, that without a shred of evidence, they believe that Travis was a PEDOPHILE, abused Jodi and deserved to die. They actually gloat about his being butchered. Read their stuff.”
Randle with the PhD, keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over. Nowhere in her article is there any evidence of her keen observational and assessment powers. Round and round in a cricle she goes.
Here would be a good place to put an example or a quote, which people like Randle never do. How many 30 year-old men would have a phone conversation with a female sexual partner where they talk about a 12 year-old girl having her first orgasm or deflowering a 12 year-old girl while masturbating? Wouldn’t that be a mood-killer for most women?
There are foul things that some Jodi supporters say about Travis, etc. But that is not all Jodi supporters and not the majority. I could take lots of quotes from the “State page” (“The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial) https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis.
The fact is that many thoughtful and caring prosecution supporters renounce the hate on that page and refuse to participate. In the same way, many Jodi supporters renounce hatred spewed from a few select fellow supporters and they refuse to associate with them.
A great many Jodi supporters do not say anything at all on social media. They stay perched in their secret groups, giving positive support to Jodi Arias and they only mention the Alexander family in their prayers, if at all.
“Their great pleasure in his death cannot possibly, to a sane, rational human being, be explained by the “mean” words we know Travis spoke, on a few occasions, to Jodi. We also know of the horrendous things Jodi did to Travis before she ultimately murdered him. She stalked him, very likely slashed his tires, contacted his current girlfriends pretending to be Travis, hacked into his e-mail and social media. On a few occasions, he reacted with harsh words. Based on that, the Jodi supporters celebrate his butchery.”
Now, as is so often the case, Randle is attempting to build a logical argument on top of her unsound, illogical premise. That doesn’t work in the logical or legal realms. Maybe that works in humanistic-existential therapy, though. Further, there is much more of a basis for psychological and emotional abuse than a few harsh words from Travis Alexander. There is evidence of such treatment throughout the relationship – from beginning to end. There was no actual evidence of stalking by the legal definition of stalking. Stalking means that the stalker intends harm or intends to instill fear in her target.
Stalking is behavior that the stalked needs to know is happening. Jodi Arias peeping in a window one time was a result of her usual habit of going over to Travis’ home at night unannounced for sexual liaisons. This time the door was locked, and being welcome in the home, she went around to the side to see if anyone was home. She just happened to see Travis making out with a woman on the couch.
If you read the Flores report, you’ll see that even when Alexander’s friends discovered his body, his roommate was home, yet the friends knocked on the door and received no answer. Knowing Alexander had an open door, ‘let yourself in’ policy towards guests, the friends called someone who knew his garage code, and in they went.
Sending a message back to another woman from Travis’ phone saying “I’m here with Jodi” is a catty thing to do, but hardly stalking. There’s no evidence that Jodi Arias was the person who slashed tires, and both Travis and Lisa Andrews-Daidone had jealous ex’s. Did Arias slash the tires? Maybe she did, but maybe she didn’t.
By her own admission and no other evidence, Jodi did access Travis’ e-mail and Facebook accounts, but Travis had given her his password. No evidence was presented at trial of any acts of manipulating Travis’ e-mails or social media sites. Could Jodi Arias have been monitoring Travis’ social media accounts and e-mail to see what he was doing and who he was talking with? Sure, but then again, maybe not. We had the trial. Where was the evidence?
Actually, Travis could be a hot-head who reacted angrily on many occasions throughout the relationship. This may have been just because Jodi drove him bonkers, but then why stay involved with her for over a year and a half?
Few Jodi supporters “celebrate his butchery”. It’s the rare exception rather than the rule. Far, far more Prosecution supporters revel and rejoice in wishes and prayers that Jodi Arias will suffer endless torment and humiliation in prison before being finally executed by the state. How does that make them any different than the person they believe Jodi Arias to be?
Yesterday morning on Twitter I saw a tweet where the tweeter prayed to God that Jodi Arias would be executed. How repulsive, I couldn’t believe it. But I just shrug it off, these days. I look at that and say ‘wow, that Jethro be messed up’, then I move on my merry way.
“To find out the answer as to why her supporters would think the way they do and behave the way they do, we must look into their personal lives. The psychological facts of their existence. Just as a criminal profiler, can form a profile from the evidence at hand, without meeting with a criminal, we can form a profile of a Jodi supporter.”
Uh, Oh, here we go ………
This is verboten in psychology, to make a remote diagnosis and apply it to an entire group of people. Dr. Randle doesn’t state what her Ph.D is in, maybe it’s in existential humanistical therapization, or whatever. One can readily see that her knowledge of psychology is rather limited.
“It is not Travis that they hate but someone from their personal history, who has the characteristics of Travis. Those characteristics may simply be limited to the fact Travis was male. Some man abused them in the past. Travis is a man. Their male abuser deserved to die. Travis deserved to die. This may be a female thinking about a past or present abusive boyfriend. Hating themselves for not being able to end their abuse and they now celebrate the fact that a woman did ‘justly’ do what they were unable to achieve. Jodi’s victory is now their victory.”
Dr. Randle is in a feel-good type of profession that handsomely rewards the most dedicated and crafty of total bullsh*t artists.
Jodi Arias supporters: Ladies, do you agree or disagree with “Dr.” Randle’s analysis of you? Travis Alexander’s killing represents the punishment and the vanquishing by proxy of female Arias supporter’s abusive male tormentors? Yeah – Right!
“The Jodi supporter does not have to be a female. She has male supporters. They too, celebrate the death of Travis. Why? Perhaps because they watched their father abuse their mother, couldn’t stop the abuse and now celebrate Jodi’s achieving what they could not. Or perhaps because they themselves have abused, feel guilt, they justify the punishment of abusers.”
Man, I’m late for our weekly Travis-Trashing and Butchery Celebration. Have you been to one yet? They’re just smashing. We each take turns stabbing a mannequin made up to look like Travis, then we drink wine and pretend it’s his blood!
Jodi Arias supporters: Guys, you celebrate Travis’ butchering because you are an abuser and you believe you should be punished. Right? Or, for the male ‘demonizers of Travis’, Arias helps you to fulfill your childhood mommy-abuser Oeidipal complex? – Gotcha!
“What we can say, without fear of contradiction, is there is no logical explanation for the behavior or thinking of Jodi supporters. By definition, when you believe something to be true in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, you are mentally ill. You can think of that statement as a layman’s definition of psychosis. There is no mental illness more severe than psychosis.”
Therefore, according to the good Doc., all Jodi supporters are Psychotic. Anyone who believes this was not a fair trial, thinks that this should never have been a death penalty case, or disagrees with the verdict(s) are psychotic, according to Dr. Kristina Randle.
Why are they Psychotic, Dr. Randle? Because, they believe in what Dr. Randle says they believe in, rather in what they actually believe.
“There is far more to a diagnosis of psychosis but the beginning is a belief in things to be true when clear evidence says they are not true.”
Wrong again, Doc. Lots of people with or without neuroses and personality disorders, believe in things when clear evidence says they are not true.
“Abraham Maslow, whose theory of self-actualization and his hierarchy of needs, is foundational to modern psychology, psychiatry and medicine. Every physician, social worker, psychiatrist, psychologist, and nurse will be familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Of course I’m not going to explain all of that here. I just wanted to let you know that if you are not familiar with the name Abraham Maslow, he is foundational to modern psychological thought and beyond.”
And your point is? This is a technique Dr. Randle is using where she uses some basic psychological knowledge to perch herself above her audience as “the expert”. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has absolutely zero relevance to this discussion. I first learned about Maslow’s pyramid in a high school psychology class.
“Abraham Maslow says, that self-actualizing people are very healthy people. He says that most people are not self-actualizing people and thus are not healthy people. He says that there is one hallmark characteristic of self-actualizing people that makes them healthy mentally. This hallmark characteristic is missing in those that are not mentally healthy. That characteristic is: the ability to see reality more clearly. This simply means the ability to discern the truth in the world around us.”
Wrong. Self-actualized people are a rarity, and it seems Dr. Randle humbly includes herself in this very small minority. So, non self-actualized people are unable to discern reality? That’s not the definition of self-actualization, Doc.
Is Ivory Tower sitter Dr. Kristina Randle saying that juries and people discussing legal cases should be limited to only self-actualized persons, because the “average Joe” cannot discern the truth?
“Healthy people look for the truth and reject the false. Jodi Arias supporters not only fail to look for the truth, they accept the false. The venom and hate that they express towards Travis Alexander is very telling. It is telling us of their own personal psychological issues.”
Therefore, according to Dr. Dipstick, prosecution supporters are wonderful, self-actualized people and Jodi Arias supporters are psychotics and mentally ill.
According to Dr. Randle, Jodi Arias supporters are insane and irrational. They are psychopaths, woman- beaters, helpless males who witnessed their moms being beaten, and females who were attacked by males who now look to Travis’ butchery for a cathartic victory over their oppressors.
“PS. I plan to do a more in depth ANALYSIS of those supporters in the book. Please let me know if you are interested.”
Your next analysis will be your first analysis, Doc.
Conclusion: Dr. Randle is a poorly educated Bullsh*t Artist who uses the Jodi Arias case to draw attention to herself and her dubious services. She seems incapable of making a logical deduction and does not seem to understand logical or legal arguments. Has Dr. Randle projected her irrational and seething hatred of Jodi Arias onto her supporters supposed feelings towards Travis Alexander?
Dr. Randle doesn’t seem to know very much about psychology at all. Dr. Randle has publicly stated that she does not read or listen to what people who support Jodi Arias have to say, yet at the same time, she claims to know who they are and what they’re all about with enough expertise to write a book about it.
Kristina Randle was in a doldrums, a slump in her career. She hooked up to the Jodi Arias trial like you would hook jumper cables up to your car to recharge a dead battery. The proof of this is that she hasn’t been around much for the penalty re-trial. Why not? She doesn’t have to be. She boosted her name recognition, presence, and marketability by throwing large rocks at a helpless, mentally ill woman. Now she’s doing just fine. Don’t forget to say thank-you to Jodi Arias, Doc.
Now, someone made a statement that I named Wendy Murphy and Kristina Randle as Decepticons because I e-mailed a letter to Murphy and she didn’t respond and Dr. Ranchor wouldn’t post my comments. Wrong again, as usual. I fully expected Murphy to be her idiotic self and not respond. Murphy’s record as a “Hag of the Hoax” is well documented. Randle is a self-absorbed dipstick of litle note or importance. Trying to be a Murphy or Randle apologist after seeing what thye have written is the task of a Zealot.
The fact that these are both women is just a coincidence. A majority of trial watchers are women.
Dr. Randle refused to post several polite but opposing comments I made about an article of hers. There was not one opposing viewpoint in any of her articles. Why should there be? Anyone who opposes Dr. Randle’s viewpoint is a psychotic and insane, anyways. Why should she listen to any of “those people”.
Need we say more? We needn’t
So what’s the point of all this?
The point is that starting with the O.J. Simpson murder case, high-profile murder cases are more than reality TV and entertainment for millions, they’re BIG BUSINESS. People want to hitch their wagons to a star defendant, for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are Ego aggrandizement, personal enrichment and attention, name recognition, and to segue an audience away from the star attraction to an individual’s personal agenda.
The wise position is not always the popular position. This trend of people using high-profile murder cases to promote their own agendas and stroke their own personal egos will continue and even increase geometrically with the ever growing social media. So we need to be very careful and very skeptical about what these people are saying and what their true motivations are.
Watch out for humorless and ‘full of suck’ Decepticons, or frigid egomaniacal Zealots. The minions who eagerly follow them, eating up every post they make and hanging on every word they utter, should also be met with a certain degree of healthy skepticism.
Just because you are a D-list celebrity does not make what you say right. Just because you have a lot of traffic on your blog does not mean you have personal access to the gospel truth. Making the most comments or having the most re-tweets doesn’t mean you have it all figured out.
In a very complex case, it’s crucial to be very careful about what the relevant issues are, what the salient legal issues are, and what the facts are. We need to constantly check and double-check, verify and re-verify everything we think we know about this case.
Once you decide you know it all and there’s nothing more to question, then all your thoughts, ideas and opinions about the case will be colored and altered by that confirmation bias. It will be difficult to understand how anyone can see it differently than you do and still be a sane, normal, moral human being.
Listen to what Mark Fuhrman, the Detective whose career was destroyed by the O.J. Simpson case, had to say about high-profile murder trials:
Detective Mark Fuhrman from the OJ Simpsom case discusses with Oprah how murder trials have now become Big Business.
We wish to extend our deepest sympathies to the Flores family on the tragic loss of their 15 year-old son.
We intended to post an article all about Travis Alexander, but recent events in the penalty retrial have caused us to change our course. Additionally, I told a very good friend of mine, a prosecution supporter, about my intention to post an article about Travis Alexander, and she asked me why not do an article about Jodi Arias instead? She’s right, so here it is.
Having recently reported that this retrial was not the nightmare many believe it is, I have to backpedal a little after the events of last week. No question, it was a really dark week for the defense.
Two things in particular happened last week, and there are just no two sides about it. The first is an affidavit by a former acquaintance of Travis Alexander named Marc McGee, now of New Zealand. The second is the release into evidence of an 18 page letter Jodi Arias wrote to Travis Alexander’s family on July 28th, 2008. Before we delve into all that, let’s have a review of the rest of what happened last week (Jan. 19 – 22).
Dr. Robert Geffner is still on the stand and Jennifer Willmott was finishing up on direct examination of this defense mitigation expert witness. We should keep in mind that this is not all mitigation. The prosecution summed up their version of all the major events covered in the guilt phase of the trial. The defense, in part, is responding to the prosecution’s version of events. Many prosecution supporters have remarked they have seen no mitigation yet in this penalty retrial. Not so, because the two defense expert witnesses have in fact covered much of the defenses’ enumerated mitigators.
We have to assume that the mitigators relating to Jodi Arias being a good friend and having artistic talents were removed due to possible difficulties in making a good case for those assertions. Why would that be, do you think? Even so, it’s foreseeable some artwork will be featured in some way during the penalty retrial. Mitigators can come from anywhere in the testimony and evidence and are not limited to those enumerated by the defense.
Here are the new enumerated mitigators:
1. Ms. Arias has no prior criminal history.
2. Ms. Arias was just 27 years old when she committed her
3. Ms. Arias is remorseful for her conduct.
4. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse as a
5. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse during
her relationship with Mr. Alexander.
6. The abusive nature of the relationship caused Ms. Arias to
suffer extreme emotional stress at the time of the incident.
7. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress
8. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality
9. Ms. Arias’ psychological makeup impaired her ability to cope
with the tumultuous relationship she had with Mr. Alexander.
Numbers 1 and 2 do not take very much testimony to establish. Number 3 should come from Jodi Arias’ own testimony or allocution, and that’s all on hold now pending the appeal of the ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court that she cannot be allowed to testify in a closed courtroom. Numbers 4 through 8 have all been substantially covered by the expert witnesses.
Jennifer Willmott finished up her questioning of Dr. Geffner by introducing messages and texts suggesting that Travis Alexander was having intimate and sexual conversations with a number of women, including a request for sexually provocative photos, while he was involved with Jodi Arias and Lisa Andrews.
Geffner stated that sexual exploitation was a form of domestic abuse and that Travis Alexander was engaged in such conduct with Jodi Arias. The defense also explored how Travis’ overriding emphasis on sex made Lisa Andrews uncomfortable in several different ways.
Geffner described an “on-again, off-again” pattern in Alexander’s relationships and a history of unstable relationships for Arias. Some of the conversations between Alexander and a number of young ladies happened in the weeks leading up to Arias’ move back to northern California in April, 2008.
References to a “cycle of abuse” and Arias being constantly drawn back into the sexual relationship were made by Dr. Geffner. It was stated that there is no physical evidence of physical abuse and no mention of it in Arias’ journals. Dr. Geffner said this was not unusual. Certain incidents of alleged physical abuse were then discussed.
Dr. Geffner talked about Arias’ diagnosis of PTSD and said the psych. tests he ran on Arias showed the same results as earlier tests.
Testimony then turned to a reported drastic change in Arias’ personality in late 2006, about the time Arias became involved with the Mormon Church, Pre-Paid Legal Services (PPL), and Travis Alexander. Dr. Geffner reported that no one has reported any aggression by Jodi Arias in years and years prior to June, 2008.
Then the defense decided to introduce affidavits from defense witnesses who were supposedly refusing to testify. They introduced them via Dr. Geffner’s testimony. Prosecutor Juan Martinez, who previously argued that the court should not be allowed to be cleared for a witness, because witnesses who wanted their identity kept secret could testify by way of affidavit, was now objecting to the introduction of witness affidavits. This is the same prosecutor who famously declared that Jodi Arias and the defense “cannot have it both ways”.
Nurmi is up. Says the last time we talked mitigation Martinez said bring your affidavits. We brought them, now he says no. #JodiArias
To be fair, his objection could have been based on whether the affidavits were sworn statements or not.
At this point, there was a “sidebar” at least an hour and fifteen minutes long to discuss the introduction of witness affidavits. Then Judge Sherry Stephens went to her chambers either to consult with other judges or to research case law. Then she returned for more sidebars.
law : A written report which is signed by a person who promises that the information is true.
: A sworn statement in writing made especially under oath or on affirmation before an authorized magistrate or officer.
An affidavit was introduced through Dr. Geffner from a former co-worker of Arias’ in Palm Springs, California attesting to a drastic change in her personality towards the end of 2006. Previously, in the guilt phase, Arias’ former boyfriend, Darryl Brewer, had testified to just such a change.
Now we can get to the dark parts for the defense.
An affidavit was introduced by Dr. Geffner, signed by one of the defense mitigation witnesses who we now know to be former Alexander acquaintance Marc McGee of New Zealand. We know this because Marc McGee has been vocal in social media, and many trial watchers, reporters and bloggers knew this information was coming from him. The other reason we know this is because Juan Martinez decided to say the name of the author of the affidavit several times in open court, even though it was agreed upon not to divulge the names of the authors/witnesses. At this point what do you think happened? That’s right – Kirk Nurmi motioned for a mistrial. Motion denied, but the Judge admonished Martinez for naming the secret witness more than once. Martinez came out again, blurted out the witness’ name AGAIN, and then he said “Crap!”
The next day, Nurmi took another shot:
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · 17h 17 hours ago
Nurmi brings up that he asked that Martinez be held in contempt for stating secret witness’ name yesterday after being admonished by judge.
The two main points in the affidavit of “witness #1” are these:
A January 2001 incident at the Bishop’s residnce in Riverside, California where the witness claims to have witnessed Alexander forcibly grabbing and pushing his girlfriend, Deanna Reid, down on a couch and saying “Get it through your f*cking head, I’m not going to marry you.” The witness says his fiancée then provided some first aid to Deanna Reid’s wrists.
The same witness also recalled that while looking at files on the Bishop’s computer, as the witness lived at the Bishop’s residence at that time, a file popped up containing photos of child porn. The witness said it came from a user account or folder belonging to Travis Alexander. The affidavit then states that he had a private conversation about the porn with Travis Alexander in a car outside the Bishop’s home. The witness stated Alexander admitted he downloaded the porn, he had an addiction, and that he was sexually abused at age eight.
Jennifer Willmott then drew comparisons to an event where Alexander allegedly grabbed Arias and refused to let her leave his bedroom.
Later, on cross-examination, prosecutor Juan Martinez made the point that since the witness saw the child porn, the witness broke the law and was also guilty of viewing child porn. The child porn allegation includes no evidence or other witnesses, and it’s doubtful that Alexander would make such a damning confession to a mere acquaintance. Also, social media comments from the witness during and after the guilt phase of the trial mention porn in relation to Alexander, but not child porn. Further, the witness, from previous statements on Twitter etc., revealed that he is entirely in the defenses’ corner, seems to crave the limelight and attention, and seems to have an axe to grind with Travis Alexander over some previous incident.
As for the claim about Alexander forcefully pushing Deanna Reid down on a couch in late 2001, there are problems with that, too. First, the witnesses initially gave a date the alleged incident occurred, but it was at a time when Deanna Reid was away on an LDS mission in Costa Rica. The witness then corrected the date to December, 2001, but another problem cropped up.
First, Deanna Reid seemed like a very honest witness, highly credible and reliable. She testified that Alexander NEVER put his hands on her in anger NOR raised his voice to her EVER. Second, Deanna Reid testified that she was not even contemplating marriage to Travis Alexander until 2005, when she broke up with him because he was dragging his feet on the issue. In addition, in December 2001, Deanna and Travis were just getting reacquainted, seeing each other at church and meetings occasionally, and talking about dating steadily again. This makes it doubtful that Reid and Alexander, who had actually dated for only a couple months by the end of 2001, could have had an argument over the subject of marriage, much less an argument that turned physical or violent over marriage.
(Excerpt from CroakerQueen123 video. For the full video, please click on this link: CroakerQueen123
Deanna Reid, a prosecution witness, talks about her relationship with Travis Alexander.
So, Witness #1, Marc McGee, is giving testimony via affidavit on two major points and both allegations end up being highly questionable and problematic. No doubt Deanna Reid will appear in person on the witness stand to answer those allegations. This brings up a good question – What is the defense team doing? They brought in a critical witness but they did not properly vet his statements. Meanwhile, trial watchers were saying on the very same date the Tweets flew out of the courtroom that there was trouble with these allegations. Trial watchers picked right up on the problems with these statements, but the defense didn’t?
Another question is: Did the defense know this was a bad idea to use this witness and that his allegations were highly questionable and used him anyways? If so, the culprit might be Jodi Arias herself. Did Jodi Arias, possibly with the help of Simon Johannson, Ben Ernst, or others from the JodiAriasIsInnocent.com crew demand that this witness be introduced? Did they insist on bringing in Marc McGee despite the damage his poor testimony could cause?
This also brings up serious questions about why witnesses refused to testify unless the courtroom was cleared. Why would a man living in New Zealand, who had no trouble spouting off on social media about this case before, now be afraid to testify in a public trial? Prosecution Supporters were upset about this weeks ago. I just thought there must be some rational reason for the secrecy, but now I can no longer defend that position. I see no reason at all why Mark McGee should refuse to testify in open court.
It’s not really his life that’s at stake here, is it? If a witness cannot get up on the stand and stand up for Jodi Arias, then why come forward in the first place? The prosecution is going to present live witnesses in rebuttal to all this, and that’s much more powerful than paper statements from witnesses who don’t want to risk anything.
It’s either really bad work by the defense, or they allowed Jodi Arias (and crew?) to drive the train and introduce this witness, knowing the harm it could cause. Either way, it’s a stunning defeat for the defense. There’s just no way to rationalize it or to describe it any other way. One really bad affidavit now casts a shadow on any subsequent affidavits from any other witnesses. It was an absolute disaster.
Beyond that, how is this mitigation? People are asking this question, but this evidence was given to back up enumerated mitgator #5: “Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse during her relationship with Mr. Alexander”. It does apply to mitigation, because if it can be shown that Alexander physically abused another girlfriend, then it could be more likely he physically abused Arias. If there are other connections with child porn, Arias’ statements become more believable. The defense needs to prove these mitigators true by a preponderance of the evidence and they’re critical to saving Jodi Arias’ life. The defense cannot afford to introduce any more evidence that can heavily damage any of the enumerated mitigators.
Well, they just did exactly that, and it’s not going to get better, it’s probably going to get worse.
Sparks flew when direct examination of Dr. Geffner ended and cross began. Juan Martinez sprang up out of his chair ready to pounce. There were a lot of ‘Yes or No’s? and a lot of ‘Did I ask youthat’s?’
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Willmott is done. Martinez jumps up to cross examine. Already with the “yes or no” please. Willmott objects. Time elapsed: about 20 seconds.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Martinez goes to the affidavit about the child porn at the bishop’s house in Riverside.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Says witness #1 gave a different story about the photographs on the computer. Martinez asks for yes/no. Geffner says he doesn’t understand
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
“Yes or no?” “Yes or no, what?” Did Alexander “own” those photos?” “I don’t know if the word ‘owner’ came up.”
Prosecutor Juan Martinez continued to attack Dr. Geffner in a flurry of questions, perhaps hoping Geffner would lose control of his water again. There were questions about the affidavit. Did Alexander admit it was his porn at the Bishop’s residence in Riverside, California? Why did Witness #1 have to change the date of the Deanna Reid pushing-down-on-the-couch incident? Why was witness #1 mixed up on the dates to the point he needed to change the date to December, 2001?
At some point, Martinez reaches into his arsenal of bombs and missiles, and threatens to pull out the cat story, not admitted into the guilt phase of the trial, where Jodi Arias supposedly squeezes a cat “too hard”. Martinez is now claiming that she ‘squeezed the cat to near unconsciousness’. Juan wants this in bad. He knows people know that many of the most dangerous serial killers started out by torturing and killing small animals. Martinez also knows that this is highly prejudicial, and would be very effective in a jury of many younger women. Somehow, evidence that was not allowed to be admitted in the guilt phase of the trial is now being allowed in.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Martinez asks complex questions and asks for yes/no, he talks fast, cuts off answers to get witness off balance. Very effective technique.
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
“Turn it over, there’s something else on it…”
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Martinez hands an exhibit to Geffner. “Why don’t you take a look it it…Take a look at it..Look at all of it…Look at the next page…”
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Martinez hammers the question about whether Travis Alexander denied the porn was his, and when Geffner answers, he shouts, “yes or no?”
Michael Kiefer @michaelbkiefer · Jan 21
Martinez berating Geffner, “Don’t tell me, I’m asking you to put your eyes to it.”
Martinez refers to Alyce LaViolette as “Psychologist #1”, furthering the misunderstanding that LaViolette is a psychologist. She’s not. She’s an MSW (Masters in Social Work), a Domestic Violence expert and a Psychotherapist. Martinez brings up the time when LaViolette wrote in her notes that Jodi Arias caught Travis Alexander masturbating to pictures of young boys on the computer. Geffener says that was LaViolette’s misunderstanding and mistake, not Jodi Arias’. Martinez accuses Dr. Geffener of being a speculating ‘Hired Gun’.
Martinez delves into Geffner’s history of testifying in trials. How much money he made, whether he thinks his opinion is “the best”, and some controversial testimony in other trials. Martinez asks if Geffner is qualified to testify about the brain because he’s not a Medical Doctor. Geffner replies he’s a neuropsychologist, so he is qualified to testify about the brain.
Martinez then questions Dr. Geffner’s associations on boards with Dr. Miccio Fonseca, who testified earlier in the retrial. He also questions the presence of both Dr. Geffner and Jennifer Willmott at the same speaking engagement. He then brings up the peeping incident at Alexander’s home, when Arias saw Alexander through the window with another woman in August, 2007, after “breaking up” with Alexander at the end of July.
This journal entry is just days after the peeping incident:
Dr. Geffner’s notes and timeline do not include the peeping incident. Here again, and for the umpteenth time, the defense shoots themselves in the foot by not supplying their witnesses with negative information so they can be prepared to answer difficult questions on cross. Witness preparation has always been sorely lacking on the defense side. They move on to questions about what defines “dating, seeing each other, and being in a relationship”.
Martinez then moves on to Witness #3 who stated that Jodi Arias was cheerful, never sexual, normal, and fun in Palm Desert, California in 2006. Then she changed drastically. Martinez asks if this may have been because Jodi Arias was in financial trouble and losing her home? But Jodi Arias changed before all that, according to Darryl Brewer.
Then they talked about the January 21st kick-in-the-ribs incident. Martinez states that Arias had sex with Alexander on the same day she claims she caught him in his bedroom with pictures of young children. What’s up with that? Then there’s a discussion about the fight Arias and Alexander had shortly before leaving on a vacation trip to Havasupai Falls. They discuss how Arias writes in her journal that Alexander apologized and Arias reported “it was 99% his fault”.
This Journal entry is written just days after the alleged rib-kicking, finger-breaking incident:
Martinez believes that the Havasupai Falls Fight and the Peeping incidents are key incidents that say a lot about the bad behavior of Jodi Arias. The peeping incident because Arias and Alexander were broken up and Arias invades his privacy, stalks Alexander, spies on him, and confronts him with the information the next day. The Havasupai argument incident is key for Martinez because Arias blames Alexander for something that was not his fault at all – the unpacking of the contents of her backpack onto the kitchen table. Dan Freeman initiated that, because it was way too heavy to hike with. He was trying to help Jodi Arias, and Alexander was just there.
The questioning continues to Jodi Arias’ journal entry registering surprise when she’s told early June 10th that Alexander was found dead in his bathroom. Geffner states she knew he was dead, but he doesn’t know her “level of disassociation”. Martinez remarks how Jodi Arias omits details in her journal that are unfavorable to her, especially about the Havasupai Fight. Geffner replies that people omit all kinds of details in diaries, both favorable and unfavorable. Geffner also says Arias omitted negative things because she was following the Law of Attraction, where efforts to think of only good thoughts will supposedly attract only good things to your life.
This journal entry is written the day after Alexander’s body was found:
Questioning then moved to Alexander’s position on the bed when Arias allegedly caught him masturbating to children’s pictures. He was reportedly kneeling, which Martinez is skeptical about. Martinez asks Geffner why he described Alexander as manipulative, and Geffner responded that he described certain behaviors as manipulative, not the person. Martinez likes to switch subjects suddenly and skip around the timeline to throw witnesses off. He switches to questions about the forensic computer expert “John Smith” and a teen sex website link found on Alexander’s computer.
Next, Juan projects questions from psychological tests on the wall, and Geffner protests that these are copyrighted tests, and they’ll be invalidated by broadcasting the questions to the general public. The inevitable sidebar is called. Judge Stephens orders court cameras turned off and they proceed. Next are questions about the PTSD test that Dr. Samuels gave, after Arias changed her story about what trauma she experienced.
Finally, Juan brings in the famous 18-page letter Jodi Arias wrote to the Alexander family on July 28, 2008, Travis’ Birthday. This letter was not allowed into evidence in the guilt trial for being too prejudicial to Jodi Arias. This is the second serious defeat for the defense. We have wondered exactly what was in that letter, and now we know:
The first thing that stands out with this letter is that Arias knows this letter will be seen by the police and could be used for evidence. She even says so in the letter. Jodi Arias later stated after being arrested for murder, that she did not want to admit to killing Travis because she did not want to get into the specifics of the relationship which would be embarrassing and reflect badly on both Travis and herself.
Yet, she talks about how the couple had to avoid Deanna Reid because she gets very jealous, about everything being part of God’s plan, and about how she discovered sexual text messages with multiple women in Travis’ phone in July, 2007.
She writes about how she broke up with him and how he begged her to move to Mesa, how he cheated on Her and Lisa Andrews, about having a confession session with Travis where he admitted he had been dating Lisa Andrews, about how Travis became enraged when Jodi talked about her love interests and dates, and about Travis being cruel to her and abusing her.
Remember that this letter was sent to Travis’ devastated family, his grandmother and his 7 siblings.
She writes about how Travis was begging her to come over for late night romps, how he ‘guilted her’ if she refused. She wrote about how Travis beat her and how she covered up the bruises, about her leaving Mesa and moving back to Yreka, about how Travis was extremely angry, and how she pitied him and felt sorry for him for the way he got angry and abused her.
She talks of how upon telling him of new love interests and dates, he branded her “a whore”, and about how she was helping him to court Mimi Hall.
She writes about how Travis planned to travel up to her area to see 3 more of the 1,000 Places to See Before You Die * ( Crater Lake, The Oregon Coast, and the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, Oregon), how Travis later guilted her into diverting to Mesa, Arizona from her planned trip to lower California and Utah on June 2-6, 2008.
* If you listen closely to the phone sex conversation, you will notice that every time Jodi Arias mentions getting together or Travis coming up to Yreka to travel in Oregon, he stops talking or changes the subject. You will notice that happens several times. Then he finally agrees, but his plans are very vague.
Then she starts giving a very detailed account of the killing on June 4th, 2008. This is the Ninja story where she is taking photos of Travis in the shower when she hears a loud “pop”. Travis is shot by one of two intruders. He is on his hands and knees and screaming. Jodi charges the female intruder and knocks her over. She grabs Travis and tries to escort him out of the bathroom. Travis says he can’t make it and he can’t feel his legs.
The female intruder says we didn’t come here to kill Jodi Arias and the male threatens her family if she tells. The male and female intruder have an argument. The male intruder then changes his mind and points the gun at Jodi’s temple and fires, but the gun doesn’t go off. She brushes by the two intruders and out of the bathroom leaving Travis behind. She peels out of the driveway.
Jodi Arias even supplies details such as she backed out of the driveway keeping an eye on the front door, backing up without even looking at what was in the street. She even supplies witnesses, two blonde girls, a 9 year-old and a 14 year-old, who saw her as she cruised out of Travis’ neighborhood.
Then she talks about Travis’ kindness and generosity and how much she misses him. She makes the remark that some souvenirs Travis had in his home from their trips together, which are probably in their possession now, were bought by her. She writes again about how they both planned to conquer the 1,000 Places To See Before You Die. She gives more references to God’s will and adds some scripture, and explains why she smiled for her mug shot. She writes about how God is just and fair, how they will find and punish whoever did this someday, and about how Travis is close by and living in Heaven.
She goes on to say that Travis had retaliated against her physically on two occasions, but that he did nothing to deserve his horrific murder. She says she wasn’t jealous at all about not being asked to go to Cancun with Travis. She says she harbors no hostility towards Travis and knowing him was one of the great blessings of her life. She’s forgiven Travis for being unfaithful to her, and his family is in her thoughts and prayers.
Then she lets the family of the victim know that she will not spend a single day in prison for a heinous crime in which she had no part.
She mentions physical abuse in this letter, written just 7 weeks after the killing which goes against both the Law of Attraction and her stated goal of not edifying Travis in a negative way.
On the other hand, her claims of physical abuse are very consistent.
To get the full effect of the letter, you really need to imagine your son, grandson, or brother was just found in his bathroom in the state Travis Alexander was found in, then imagine you were told by the Mesa Police they were 100% sure that Jodi Arias did this. You are then told she has been indicted, charged, and arrested for your relative’s murder, then you receive this letter about 7 weeks after the body is found.
Read it several times. There are really only two conclusions a reasonable person could come to:
Jodi Arias is selfish, cruel and inhuman, with absolutely no concept of other people’s feelings or pain.
Jodi Arias is severely and seriously mentally ill.
Any way you look at this letter, even in the light most favorable to the defendant, there can only be these two possibilities. These people just lost their family member, and she is talking about souvenirs from trips, about Travis’ cruelty and abuse, about herself mostly, and about Travis’ anger and rage. There is just no way any reasonable person could be that callous and insensitive to write the things she writes to a family that just lost their loved one in a brutal killing. There’s just no way she could have not really meant it that way. There is no possible interpretation of this letter that’s favorable to Jodi Arias.
Others would offer a third possibility
Jodi was justified in committing this crime or did not commit the crime at all.
Now try to clear your mind of everything, and put yourself in the shoes of someone who was there and did commit the killing, but completely blacked out, and only remembers small bits and pieces, but she knows she was attacked and she was defending herself. Now read the letter again. Does it make more sense now?
Now put yourself in the shoes of a very confused person who does not remember what really happened, but she knows she did not commit the killing. Now read the letter from this perspective. Does the letter make any more sense now?
“Dryson Bennington” believes that Travis’ roommate, Enrique Cortez, witnessed Travis having that conference call he was scheduled to have on June 4, 2008 at around 6:30 PM. The obvious problem with this is that his fellow PPL’ers stated Travis missed that conference call. No one has come forward to say they were on a conference call with Travis at around 6:30 PM on June 4, 2008.
I agree that the two roommates, Zach and Enrique, could not remember exactly when they saw Travis last, when they did their laundry last, and why they didn’t think it strange that Travis’ CTR ring (‘Choose the Right’), keys and wallet sat on the kitchen counter for 5 days when they thought he was in Cancun. It’s a little strange, but they were cleared in this matter, and it doesn’t seem like a promising lead to me. Dryson Bennington, a fellow Jodi-supporter, blocked me on Facebook shortly after this, when I was questioning his statements.
Jen from The Trial Diaries, a prosecution supporter, blocked me on Twitter, for whatever reason. I questioned something she said. I guess if someone disagrees with you, just block them and you never have to justify your statements or question your own ideas and assumptions. 🙂
But please be objective. Setting aside all other evidence, from which perspective does the letter make the most sense?
She planned it, she did it, and she knows she did it.
She did it, but she was attacked first and she defended herself, but remembers little.
She remembers little, she was there but she did not have any part in it.
This letter does serious damage to a case for Life for Jodi Arias. Presumably it will be in the jury room for the jury to read. Juan Martinez will be sure to see that they all read it. Many people think this letter is subtly, stealthily and deliberately heartless and cruel. Others believe it’s totally blatant and not really hidden at all. Few people see how this could just be an effort to ingratiate herself with the Alexander family and try to rationalize and divert blame and responsibility for the murder onto someone else. Fewer people still, believe that this letter can be explained and rationalized if the person committed the killing, but blacked out and doesn”t remember most of what happened, or was not involved at all.
I see it as more evidence that Jodi Arias has a severe and serious mental illness. I don’t see this as wholly deliberate, but beyond her ability to control it, or to fully realize the magnitude of what she is doing and what she has done.
When you couple this letter together with the affidavit of witness #1, the defense has taken a very serious blow this week. Some trial watchers have reported that this week changed their minds from wanting Life for Arias to wanting Death for her. Many trial watchers have reported that they feel that a sentence of Death is now far more likely than a Life sentence just on account of the events of last week.
Juan Martinez has many, many more missiles and bombs in his arsenal to rain down on Jodi Arias, some of these may even be nuclear. The defense cannot afford to stumble again like they did last week. They need to find a way to counter these severe blows and others like them that surely will follow.
This thing with Marc McGee has been a disaster so far, and they need to fix it. It just makes a person wonder who will be the next star witness? Were these mitigation witnesses selected by the defense team or were these witnesses Jodi Arias insisted on including regardless of the defense team’s advice? Are Marc McGee and other possible witnesses the product of Jodi Arias listening to and believing in Simon Johannson, Benjamin Ernst and others from the crew at Jodi Arias Is Innocent.com?
Entering that letter into evidence was no fault of the defense, but the letter contradicts other statements Jodi Arias made. The Affidavit evidence needs to be as unassailable as possible. It does no good to enter into evidence things that will do far more harm than good for your case.
Whoever is behind this is steering her down the road to the execution chamber. I’m saying this as a Jodi Arias supporter: As of last week, the worm has turned and a unanimous sentence for Death has become a real and glaring possibility.
Do You Concur?
Comments from all perspectives are welcome. You can also comment on our FB page:
The jury questions and the back and forth by the prosecution and defense completed computer expert witness “John Smith”s testimony today. Former Mesa Detective Steve Flores was called back to the stand to testify a little more about what happened with Travis Alexander’s lap-top computer. The two sides have finally gotten to the bottom of what happened with the computer and who did what.
The court had been grappling with two giant crater issues in the Jodi Arias Penalty Phase Re-trial. The first was Judge Sherry Stephen’s decision to clear the court room for the testimony of Jodi Arias. This decision must have everyone stumped. Be aware that that decision ONLY pertains to Jodi Arias, and not any other mitigation witnesses.
Giant Crater #1
Can Jodi Arias continue to testify in secret?
No. Many prosecution supporters were incensed with that ruling and have lashed out at the Judge, claiming that she is on the defense side and some have implied that she has been that way throughout the proceedings. It doesn’t seem so, yet they cite this ruling as a major example that Stephens is rooting for the defense.
Yet, the Judge must have had a reason, other than sending the decision to a higher court to take the blame for making the decision. The media was the most upset about the ruling, citing the Constitutional 1st Amendment right of the public to be present, especially in high profile and high consequence trials. They already can’t broadcast until after the trial, and they’re not about to be pushed any further. It’s difficult to think of a compelling reason for the Judge to have made that decision, but we should be fair in believing that she did have an important reason.
The only one I can think of is that Jodi Arias was going to talk about the other mitigation witnesses in her testimony and integrate them into her testimony. This means she would have to name them or otherwise expose them. The only way to keep the witnesses who did not want to be identified protected would be to also make Arias’ testimony secret.
Giant Crater #2
The Porn on the computer issue.
The second Large Crater in this penalty retrial is the issue of porn on the computer. How did it get there? Was it purposely accessed or was it automatically accessed due to malware? Did the prosecution try to hide porn found on the laptop hard drive, or was automatic actions of the computer creating that appearance? Canadian Deborah Maran has a good set of articles explaining the inner workings of computers, site-blockers, viruses, and malware, etc. It’s a good background on the issues surrounding Travis’ lap top computer.
Judge Stephens waited for Bryan Neumeister and his assistant, “John Smith”, to complete their testimony before issuing her ruling on lots of motions pertaining to the defenses’ desire that the court reverse the conviction or remove the death penalty from the proceedings. These rulings were released today. Boom!
“IT IS ORDERED denying the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Continued Misconduct filed October 1, 2014,
the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life filed September 26, 2014,
the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Continue State Misconduct Supplement #1 filed October 24, 2014,
the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss All Charges with Prejudice and/or in the Alternative to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty due to Recently Discovered Purposeful and Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct filed on November 10, 2014,
the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration: Motion to Dismiss State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Defendant’s Inability to Present a Complete Case for Life filed November 26, 2014,
and the Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss all Charges with Prejudice and/or in the Alternative to Dismiss the State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Recently Discovered Purposeful and Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct filed December 14, 2014.”
Judge Stephens ruled that nothing the defense brought up, including the computer evidence, can be construed as prosecutorial misconduct, and nothing the defense brought up justifies any sanction including the removal of the death penalty. Also the tweets by Steve Flores’ wife may or may not have been leaks from sealed meetings, however the Judge rules that the defense presented no evidence that the information tweeted came from closed meetings.
As to the hard drive evidence, it was determined that no pornographic photos were found, that much of the accessing of porn sites was the automatic workings of malware, as Deborah Maran stated in her article, and that the prosecution did nothing wrong that would change the outcome of the trial. The court also determined that differences between the different clone copies of the hard drive created on different dates were the result of waking and inspecting the original computer, and only system files were overwritten. The computer did not overwrite any registry files or porn information.
The court also determined that a porn site was accessed purposely by a user on June 3, 2008, one day before the killing.
This should put an end to the computer porn issue, and it’s doubtful that this could be deemed to be a legitimate appeal issue by a higher court. Deborah Maran also reported in her article that she felt the defense violated their “duty of candor” by purposely filing accusations and allegations they knew to be false. Juan Martinez also filed a motion to sanction the defense for the issues and allegations regarding the hard drive. That motion was also denied.
“ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the State’s Motion for Sanctions (Compaq Presario Computer) filed November 16, 2014 and the State’s Motion to Strike (Compaq Presario Computer) filed November 18, 2014.”
These two Huge Craters in this elongated penalty re-trial seem to be traversed, but there’s one huge chasm left.
The remaining Giant Chasm
The remaining giant chasm is will Jodi Arias agree to continue her testimony in open court? Will her mitigation witnesses agree or refuse to testify in open court?
The Judge has ruled that there are many options available to protect the identity of witnesses short of clearing the courtroom. This is true, and we have already seen this in action with Darryl Brewer not showing his face in the original trial, and most recently, a computer expert who was given the pseudonym of “John Smith” to protect his identity. Maybe “John Smith” was fearful of what his participation in this trial would do to his prospects of being hired by “major corporations” as a private contractor.
That’s one of many reasons Arias’ mitigation witnesses are reluctant to testify. Another is cyber-stalking by over-zealous social media followers. Witnesses from the main trial had their books disparaged in reviews by trial activists on sites such as Amazon.com. Others have found photos of their children and maps to their home, as well as phone numbers publicly displayed on Facebook. Alyce LaViolette has had her speaking engagements seriously curtailed as a result of backlash from her participation and opinions in this trial. Other participants have had their safety and their life threatened.
The media appealed Judge Stephen’s decision to close the court to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Court ruled in favor of the Media, and stayed the ruling. Arias had to stop testifying until the defense gets a chance to appeal that ruling. The Appeals Court also ordered Arias’ sealed testimony to be released to the public which happened yesterday.
Here are a few samples from Jodi Arias’ secret testimony:
(Click to enlarge)
Many people theorized that Arias wanted the testimony to be secret because she was going to make wild and outrageous new allegations of abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse and pedophilia, either by the victim, Travis Alexander or someone in her family when she was a child, or both. We have yet to see an indication of this yet.
The released transcripts reveal no real shockers, but there was some talk of drug use and more details of physical abuse by her parents when Arias was a child. The Appeals Court ruling put an abrupt end to Arias’ testimony, which covered her childhood and previous relationships all the way up to her first meeting with Travis Alexander and their initial motel rendezvous at a truck stop in Ehrenberg, Arizona, on the California border. Perhaps any anticipated shockers were yet to come? Perhaps there were not going to be any shockers at all?
The released testimony had more color and detail than in the original trial. Arias seemed to be very eloquent and comfortable and she revealed new information in terms of different friends she made and how she came to move to the different places she lived. For example, Jodi did not just cruise down to the California Coast and find the Ventana Inn job. A man named Richard Molay from Oregon worked there and she actually got a recommendation from him.
She also revealed that when living with Bobby Juarez in Montague, 6 miles outside of Yreka, Jodi owned a Samurai sword. After Bobby allegedly choked her, and then convinced her to hang up on the 911 call, she told her brother Carl that Bobby had choked her. Carl showed up with a posse at Juarez’ place to intimidate Bobby, who came sailing out the door with the Samurai sword and chased Carl and his friends away. There are interesting details like that, but no real exploding bomb shells.
Now, the big question is, will Jodi Arias continue her testimony in open court, or will she refuse to testify? Also, the Court of Appeals is under no obligation or time limit to respond to Nurmi’s appeal of their decision to stay Judge Stephen’s ruling to clear the courtroom. The Arizona Court of Appeals also said that the defense could not use their decision as a basis to put the trial on hold or to delay the trial further.
Will the defense work with the court and the prosecution to find creative ways to protect witnesses and information while still having an open court? Will Jodi Arias continue her testimony or refuse to return to the stand? If she testifies, will other mitigation witnesses refuse to testify now that the promised anonymity may not be available? Will they agree to modifications so they can testify in open court? These are the big questions coming up soon.
A witness can be given a pseudonym, a witness can ask not to be identified, a witness can testify on video or by affidavit. Another person, such as mitigation specialist Maria De La Rosa or another suitable person can testify in the place of a witness. The witness can also be subpoenaed and compelled by the defense to testify. There are many ways a witness can testify and protect their identity without going to the extreme solution of clearing the courtroom, and Judge Stephens has explained this in her ruling.
So, if witnesses make a personal decision not to testify, this most likely cannot be an appealable issue at this point, because the prosecution and the court have offered many ways for witnesses to testify without having to reveal their identity.
This is not such a simple issue, because the Judge is reluctant to force Jodi Arias or her mitigation witnesses to testify in open court, because Nurmi has appealed the ruling. Should Jodi Arias be sentenced to death, and afterwards, Nurmi’s appeal is granted, then the retrial becomes a mistrial and Jodi Arias’ sentence would possibly need to be converted to life, especially if some witnesses refuse to testify. Anything done in open court cannot be undone, so it is questionable how this trial will proceed or even if there will be a postponement of the trial pending the ruling on Nurmi’s appeal.
Some prosecution supporters believe that this “witnesses are afraid” claim is just a ruse by the defense to find an excuse not to present mitigation witnesses. This is because some death sentences have been stricken down by the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure of a defense attorney to present mitigation witnesses. They claimed that this was what Nurmi did in the first penalty trial, also.
If this is his strategy, it’s not going to work at this point. So, it will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the defendant and her mitigation witnesses testify or not?
Another notable thing that happened on Tuesday the 13th was that Jennifer Willmott finished re-direct questioning of Mesa Detective Steve Flores about the chain of custody and what he witnessed about the computer in the evidence room. Some evidence favorable to the defense was elicited from Detective Flores. Juan Martinez got up on re-cross and went after him in a fury and with as much ferocity as he has displayed with any defense witness. Fireworks in the courtroom. Juan Martinez also referred to himself as “Mr. Martinez”. “Objection to what Mr. Martinez thinks”.
Two Giant Craters have been traversed. Many prosecution supporters blamed the defense and Judge Sherry Stephens for all the delays and for throwing this crazy train retrial off the tracks, but that’s not the only perspective. The defense did not threaten and intimidate witnesses in the original trial and the defense did not put the porn on the computer. Theses two issues could not be ignored, they had to be confronted and worked out one way or another. The final Giant Chasm is what will the defense do now? Court is out until Tuesday after the Holiday, and we may or may not find out then.
What do YOU think?
Comments from all perspectives are welcome. You can also comment on our FB page:
Canadian Decepticon Christine Beswick Transforms Gossip into Gospel
Fact Based Reporting by Rob Roman
Research by Amanda Chen
Christine Beswick, a “Relationships Examiner” for Examiner.com out of Toronto, makes medical history ….. by talking out her ass.
Here we review Christine’s latest article “Jodi Arias will get a video call for Christmas, Juan Martinez fights back.” Judging from her past articles, Christine Beswick seems to have a visceral and seething hatred for the defendant. Really, she’s just another in a long line of D-list celebs who try to cash in, garner more site hits and attention for themselves by throwing rocks at Jodi Arias.
Beswick, in a Nutshell
Her so-called articles are generally devoid of fact, give few specific examples, and cite few if any other qualified sources. Beswick is just putting it out there knowing that 95 out of 100 people will tell her “Right-on”. As she goes riding by on her bicycle, triumphantly waiving to her adoring fans, we just had to try and shove a proverbial stick in her spokes, in the name of factual reporting and fairness, of course.
The quoted sections in turquoise are from Christine’s article, followed by our responses. Other sources are in purple.
“After seeing the evidence that Travis Alexander was stabbed over 25 times, shot in the head, and nearly decapitated from a severed windpipe, the 2013 jury also found that Jodi’s crime included the aggravating factor of cruelty in the murder of Travis Alexander. It was this aggravating factors stage that a jury unanimously found made Jodi Arias eligible for the death penalty.
Wrong! (Grammar Police needed)
Travis Alexander had 16 stab wounds. Try reading the autopsy report.
– 16 stab wounds – 13 incised wounds, including the slit throat. Many of these wounds were minor.
This does not seek to minimize the wounds, as some were obviously deep and two wounds were fatal all by themselves (the stab to the heart and the neck slash). The wounds were horrific, no doubt.
Everyone likes to say that Travis Alexander was “nearly decapitated” or that his throat was “slashed to the vertebrae”. Wrong!
This would be Nicole Brown Simpson, and we will not go over that again. Nearly decapitated? There is no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, the official autopsy report states that the throat wound was 2-4 inches short of being ear to ear. His windpipe was severed, yes.
Saying Travis was “nearly decapitated” is like saying in July that it’s “nearly Christmas”.
It would have been much more cruel, had Alexander been stabbed once in the heart, then left to slowly bleed to death.
As for the cruelty charge, let’s see what USA Today has to say about that:
“In the Jodi Arias case, the jury that convicted her of murder also found that she killed Travis Alexander in an especially cruel manner. The current jury will decide only if there are mitigators that outweigh the cruelty.
The aggravator is called F(6) in the statutes, “especially heinous, cruel or depraved.” In Arias’ case, the trial judge would only allow for cruelty.
All murder could be deemed cruel, but “excessive cruelty” is supposed to refer to great physical suffering or great mental anguish before death.”
This is supposed to mean a prolonged death, a purposely prolonged death, torture, a significant period of mental anguish prior to death, or a significant period of uncertainty about whether or not the victim will be murdered, such as in a rape, a kidnapping, or a hostage situation.
“But prosecutors often rely on the common meaning of the word “cruel” to get juries to believe that the murder they are judging is among the cruelest.”
This is a problem of Arizona law. It’s a serious problem.
Jodi Arias ordered a “Code Red” on Travis Alexander. Therefore, Juan Martinez, a few connected polticians, and the LDS Church get to order a “Code Red” on Jodi Arias. Right?
Fair is fair.
Supporters and Defense Think Guilt Phase Still in Progress
“…This (2nd penalty) phase has been in progress since September 2014. Supporters of Jodi Arias, and the current defense strategy of Jodi Arias, suggests (sic) that some people think right now Jodi is fighting for her innocence. She is not. She is still guilty and convicted of first degree murder, and this jury has been ordered to remember that.”
Wrong! (Grammar Police needed)
I keep hearing this idiotic idea that Jodi supporters and the defense think it’s still the guilt phase. Nobody thinks that, and the jury knows full well what they are there to decide. It’s Life vs. Death.
We have already reported that there is almost zero difference in Arizona between LWOP (Life with no possibility of parole) and 25 years to life with a possibility of parole (Life with an infinitesimally slight, but virtually no chance of parole).
What’s really interesting is that we know for a fact that many Prosecution supporters believe that Life is the correct decision. We thought the battle lines would change from Guilty vs. Not Guilty, to Life vs. Death, with many prosecution supporters coming over and joining us on the side of Life. However, most prosecution supporters are still fighting the Guilty vs. Not Guilty battle.
We wonder how many of these people are hiding the fact that they secretly hope the verdict will be Death? We wonder how many really don’t care whether she gets Life or Death?
Drag the Victim Through the Mud … blat blat blat
“In this phase of the court process Jodi Arias is required to present mitigating factors that may lead a jury to have sympathy for her and decide on life in prison, rather than the death penalty. Instead, the Jodi Arias defense team has decided to drag the victim through the mud with one abuse story after another in their efforts to paint Jodi Arias as an abuse victim, according to Christian Today earlier this week.”
That is Not what the Christian Today article said. The article did not say “drag the victim through the mud with one abuse story after another” nor did it say “their efforts to paint Jodi Arias as an abuse victim”.
To the great credit of Christian Today, their report was much more objective than that. They stated the facts, and they let the reader decide – you know, the old-fashioned way.
The only true citing from Christian Today, other than a quote by Jen Wood of the Trial Diaries, was this:
“Christian Today reports that the trial wrapped before the holidays with testimony from a Dr. Geffner.”
Chritine Beswick, these are YOUR words:
Defense Attempts and Allegations
“As we previously reported Dr. Geffner was trying to paint the picture of Jodi Arias as an abuse victim, in an attempt to use alleged “abuse” as a mitigating factor. What this means is the defense is trying to say, Travis abused Jodi and so she should get off for this killing.”
They aren’t attempting – they already did it in the first penalty phase. They aren’t alleging anything either.
Is Christine Beswick citing an article from Christian Today because they are an authority on the Jodi Arias trial? Or, is she citing the article on Christian Today merely because it has the word “Christian” in it?
‘We report, – You decide.’
Beswick citing Christian Today
That in-depth Christian Today article she cited was a whopping 333 words. Another Christian Today article about the Jodi Arias trial (354 words) was headlined under “entertainment”. This is what it said:
“Last week, the lawyers working on the case started questioning 400 possible jurors in Phoenix’s Maricopa County Superior Court. After the first cut, the number was trimmed down to 176. Wednesday’s trial resulted to further trimmings, which ended up with 26 people returning for further questioning.
The residents from the area, on the other hand, are not happy with how slow things are shaping up for the trial. A former Mesa police investigator expressed his strong opinion in an interview posted at the Arizona Central.
He said, “YES! I’m sick and tired of the Jodi Arias murder case. Murders happen almost every day in Arizona. Sadly, murder is no big deal. While most murder cases and trials are handled quietly and with the dignity of brain surgery, the Arias trial has taken on the theatrics of a well-rehearsed circus show, thanks to Maricopa County prosecutor Juan Martinez, defendant Arias and the media.”
That’s what Christian Today reported. They also reported this:
“The prolonged trial to sentence Jodi Arias is also putting a hole in the pockets of Arizona taxpayers. At this point, the defense costs already reached $2.5 million. This is not the final numbers, however, since the tab will continue to grow while the second phase for penalty hearing is still ongoing.
The amount paid for the prosecutors were undisclosed.”
“As we previously reported Dr. Geffner was trying to paint the picture of Jodi Arias as an abuse victim, in an attempt to use alleged “abuse” as a mitigating factor. What this means is the defense is trying to say, Travis abused Jodi and so she should get off for this killing.”
How is getting a sentence of Life in prison with no possibility of parole “getting off”? It’s a perfectly appropriate punishment for 1st degree murder. In fact, with no prior police record, LWOP is quite a harsh punishment.
“Due to an overwhelming lack of evidence, most court watchers aren’t buying it. They are saying, “We’re still waiting to see a mitigating factor. And evidence, please.”
The last two days of the Jodi Arias trial before the holiday season included Jodi using Dr. Geffner to tell about how often she perceived herself to be a victim in her life.”
In the last Penalty Phase trial, there were 8 mitigating factors presented by the defense
1. Ms. Arias has no prior criminal history.
2. Ms. Arias was just 27 years old when she committed her offense.
3. Ms. Arias is remorseful for her conduct,
4. Ms- Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse as a child.
5. Ms. Arias suffered both physical and emotional abuse during her relationship with Mr. Alexander.
6. The abusive nature of the relationship caused Ms. Arias to suffer extreme emotional stress at the time of the incident.
7. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
8. Ms. Arias has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.
9. Ms. Arias’ psychological makeup impaired her ability to cope with the tumultuous relationship she had with Mr. Alexander.
The evidence and testimony currently being presented is covering number 4, number 5, number 6, number 7, number 8, and number 9. It’s actually quite efficient in covering a large part of six listed mitigators. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 will be covered later.
Here is one prosecution supporter’s very humorous response to the mitigators, thought it’s full of a heapin’ helpin’ of lies. And a prosecution supporter just asked the other day “Why do they call (some of) us “Haters”? Maybe this is why:
Time Out for Comedy
I guess this commenter on Facebook is called “Ugly Stick” because he/she feels Jodi Arias got hit too many times with the ugly stick by the Creator of the Universe:
PARASITE AGE: ( if parasite is old enough to brutally, savagely murder a really good guy in cold blood in a fit of jealous creepy girl stalker rage, by stabbing him 29 times, 9 to back and head, shot to head then after OVER KILL, has the ABILITY to cut an innocent mans head off, then she is old enough to DIE by the good Doc Dr Needle Juice ).
NO CRIMINAL HISTORY: ( with exception of slashing tires, stalking, threatening TA ex-girlfriends, hacking private information in secrecy, attempted black mail, forging documents and fake letters, breaking and entering without authorization multiple times by means of a DOGGY DOOR, etc… )
PARASITE WAS A GOOD FRIEND: ( such a good friend she will stab you in the back, too much of a coward to face you, cant look you in the eye as she pounds a REAL friggen knife in you back ).
LACKED SUPPORT FROM FAMILY: ( her family financially supported her by giving her money to make her go away and shut TFU, parasite refused any other reality, but her own creepy alternate world… parents first instinct told them she did it, what does that tell you ).
SUFFERED NEGLECT AND ABUSE: ( a wooden spoon is not a knife or a gun, and having to live by rules that can not be followed is not abuse it is a selfish immature child who has to go to bed at 8 and not allowed to color on walls ).
TRIED TO MAKE THE BEST OF HER LIFE: ( dropping out of high school to be a menace to society, mooching and hopping from host to host, ( man to man ) *PARASITE* No real ambition or desire to be more than a “GOLD DIGGER* or *TROPHY WIFE* ).
TRIED TO IMPROVE SELF: ( One does not improve themselves with breast implants and hair color and becoming whatever religion her target host is ).
PARASITE IS A TALENTED ARTIST: ( images traced from various magazine does not make art, it makes you look stupid and a fraud…another criminal act. )
This is what USA Today had to say about a comparison between the Arias crime, and other murders in Maricopa County:
“On the same day Arias was convicted, Crisantos Moroyoqui-Yocupicio pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and a Maricopa County Superior Court judge sentenced him to 14 years in prison. In 2010, Moroyoqui-Yocupicio, a reputed member of a Mexican drug cartel, murdered an associate who had stolen from him, and then cut his head off.”
Cut his head OFF, – for real.
“A month later, Douglas Ray George beat and stabbed his girlfriend to death and left her naked body in the street in Tempe. He also was allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Prosecutors said it was uncertain whether the crime was premeditated.”
“A passer-by found the body of Annovedwin Begay-Barakzai, 23, on June 15 An autopsy determined she died from blunt force trauma, and authorities said she had broken ribs, a lacerated liver and numerous stab wounds to her face and chest.”
When he switched from a blunt object to a knife, that wasn’t premeditation?
See what we mean by biblical law double standard? A man in Arizona can do whatever he wants to a woman, but a woman dare not try to assault or kill a man for any reason.
“There was no plea offer for Arias; she went to trial and was convicted of first-degree murder.
The death penalty is supposed to be reserved as punishment for the worst of the worst murders, and the Arias murder was certainly horrible. But so were the murders committed by Moroyoqui-Yocupicio and George.
Who decides which murders are the worst of the worst?
“But it is almost impossible to draw a bright line between murders that should be punished by death and those that should not. So the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1976, approved a “narrowing” system using statutory “aggravating factors” to distinguish the extraordinary murders from those that are merely ordinary.
Those factors include killing children or police officers, committing multiple murders or killing for pecuniary, that is, monetary, gain. But since the 1976 ruling, the number of aggravators (in Arizona) has risen from 6 to 14, leaving defense attorneys to complain that every murder qualifies for death.
Prosecutors decide which to pursue”.
“The only narrowing function is prosecutorial discretion,” defense attorney Eric Crocker said. “You’re at the whim of the prosecutor’s office to determine which cases are capital and which are not.”
The truth is that somebody made a phone call and made sure that this was to be a death penalty case and that Juan Martinez would be the lead prosecutor.
They made sure that Jodi Arias would be given a “Code Red” Maricopa, Arizona style.
Abuse Survivors vs. Jodi Arias
“Using primarily information from Jodi’s own diary, Geffner testified repeatedly that Jodi perceived herself to be a victim against the alleged big, bad murder victim who is unable to speak for himself. Jodi Arias needs to be careful with this strategy because she has already ticked off many abuse survivors in this particular crowd of high profile trial watchers. Most abuse survivors have a funny “radar” for each other, and can spot a fake a mile away.”
This is not about abuse survival. According to her defense, Jodi Arias is a survivor of a sudden, violent conflict. This conflict was brought on by a cyclical abusive relationship. This is not a battered woman’s defense. Arias has never claimed to be a battered woman, or to have battered woman’s syndrome. Alyce LaViolette claimed that, but she meant it in that this relationship fit that pattern – type, not that Arias has any battered woman’s syndrome.
She did claim that a relationship characterized by dominance, emotional, and verbal abuse, began to turn into physical abuse by the time Jodi moved 1,000 miles away and back to Yreka, California. She claims that that violence began again in Alexander’s home in Mesa on June 4th , 2008, beginning to escalate in the afternoon and culminating with a deadly attack in the bathroom.
Out of the 8 mitigating circumstances presented by the defense in the first penalty phase, the most important mitigator, according to the 4 jury members who voted for life in the first penalty phase, was the feeling that Jodi Arias had been abused both before she met Travis Alexander and during her relationship with him.
Look at what Darryl Brewer had to say about her and what Travis Alexander had to say about her. He said she was always honest and cheerul. Do the math. It had to be either abuse or mental illness or a combination of the two.
Both are mitigators from the Death Penalty.
The entries in Jodi Arias’ diary do in fact provide evidence of abuse. This evidence was not refuted when Alyce LaViolette testified, although she was attacked personally. This is evidence as testified to by Dr. Fonseca and Dr. Geffner. They are corroborated by e-mails, messages, and texts between Travis Alexander and friends, and the testimony of friends of Travis.
This evidence cannot easily be refuted. She was abused, no doubt.
Within months of meeting her, Alexander was calling Arias a “skank” and “a pathological liar”. Yet more than a year and a half later, he is still suggesting sexual scenarios for the future and having both phone sex and in-person sex with her while still denigrating her to his friends.
No Accountability, No Remorse, Manipulator
“Again, Jodi needs to be very careful about this approach because nobody sides with the defendant who never takes accountability, never shows remorse, always manipulates, and has a long history of not telling the truth. Not only that, but juries are instructed to make decisions based on evidence.”
Evidence is being presented by the defense. It’s real and it’s evidence. Jodi Arias has taken accountability for her actions during this trial. Jodi Arias does NOT have a long history of not telling the truth. It was only after the killing that she has a such a history. No evidence to the contrary has been presented.
When Bill Arias said in the police interrogation that Jodi had not been honest with her parents since age 14 or so, what he meant was that she no longer confided in them. She was evasive as to the details of her life after moving out of the home, but this does not mean she lied to them. The fact is she didn’t tell them anything unless absolutely necessary.
Biased Expert Testimony
“Expert witness testimony does count as evidence… Most juries understand that expert witnesses are biased, for the defense and for the prosecution as well.”
I agree, but when the experts present objective evidence that can’t easily be disputed, on either side, the jury is likely to accept it.
Jury’s Perception is What Matters
“What matters at this point for Jodi Arias isn’t even what is or isn’t the truth. It’s what the jury believes. How is the jury perceiving all of this drama? If even one of them is perceiving it the same way the general public appears to be, Jodi is in trouble.”
Agree, however Juan needs 12 out of 12 jurors to get his death sentence.
Jodi is a Narcissist per DSM V
“Jodi’s been accused of being a narcissist several times. And the funny thing about narcissists is that people always see through them very quickly, but the DSM 5 tells us that they are so oblivious to that because they lack insight beyond their inflated sense of Self. Jodi thinks she’s fooling people. Her supporters are fooled. Supporters for the prosecution call that ‘drinking the Kool Aid'”.
Jodi had never been diagnosed as a Narcissist, which means that she is not a narcissist, doesn’t it?. Please give specific examples of where Jodi Arias is easy to see through. I would agree that Jodi Arias is sometimes oblivious to seeing how she is viewed by others, and she does lack insight. For example, after she gives the “Ninjas” explanation for the murder, even though Detective Flores told her that her story is impossible and unbelievable, she stuck with it and even enhanced it.
Congratulations to “Cate”
I will say that “Cate” has given many very specific incidences of Arias’ testimony and journal entries she feels should not be believed. Her arguments are persuasive, and I give her a lot of credit for her arguments. Cate knows that she must provide specific examples to make a convincing argument, how is it that Beswick, a “life and relationships advice” reporter, does not feel the need to provide an example?
Jodi has Fooled her Supporters
Jodi’s supporters are not fooled by her. They are in a better position to judge her than non-supporters because they have been communicating with her and they generally know more about her and her positive qualities, which are just flat out ignored by prosecution supporters.
“And her lack of evidence is going to strongly work against her and lead her jury into waffling territory. This is dangerous because waffling territory which plants the seeds of reasonable doubt.”
“Reasonable doubt only applies to a burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In the penalty phase, the defense only has to prove that the mitigating factors are more true than untrue. Only 51% proof is needed, and this is called a burden of proof “by the preponderance of the evidence”. There is no place for reasonable doubt here. A mitigating factor is either more true than not true, or it’s not.
“You will notice every lie or as Jodi likes to call them, abuse story, is more dramatic than the last. As the DSM 5 shows, that’s an elevation technique narcissists use, especially when they meet with resistance. It is the classic, “Oh ok, you didn’t buy that story? You will have to believe this one, because it’s even more terrible.” The narcissistic defense.”
Do you have any specific examples? You are a reporter, aren’t you? Or are you just telling people what you want them to believe, without providing anything to back it up?
There is NOTHING in the DSM V relating to an “elevation technique” due to “resistance” or anything else.
Zero Boundary Defense
“It’s the, “let’s toss out as many of these dramatic stories as we can and see how much we can make stick” defense. She has zero boundaries and will literally stop at nothing to avoid the death penalty. And, since she is too afraid to testify, she gets her expert witnesses to do the job for her. From Travis was a pedophile, to “oh great now I’m getting death threats” nothing is off the table in Jodi’s quest to delay the inevitable.”
If Jodi is getting death threats, as she had alleged, this will be easy to prove or disprove, as the jail has a copy on file of every postcard sent to her and a recording on file of every phone call she has made. Dr, Fonseca believes that Travis did have a sexual interest in underage children. Why would she dare say this if she didn’t really believe it given the evidence she researched?
For the millionth time, it seems, Jodi does not want to “delay the inevitable”. She cannot start her appeals process until after she’s sentenced. I’m very sure she’s eager to get to Perryville prison, where there are better food and conditions (according to the prisoners themselves), so she can begin her series of appeals.
How many boundaries would you have in trying to saveyour life?
Citing Jeff Gold About the Defense
“It was two very long days of testimony that left many still wondering where the mitigating factors were. As lawyer and expert legal analyst, Jeff Gold from the Gold Patrol tweeted,”
“#JodiArias diary ugh! These are the days of our lives. The court has allowed the defense to go way too far afield of mitigation. #justsayin.”
We have already demonstrated that Jeff Gold is an idiot, a sentiment not only of many Jodi supporters. He is desperate to connect with people under age 60, but he has no idea what these “youngsters” are interested in. He tried to do tweets about such things as a 1970’s soap opera and Britney Spears, not realizing that no has been interested in such things for decades. Just sayin’. LoL.
The reason why he is wrong is because the prosecution disputed that there was any evidence at all of abuse written in Jodi Arias’ journals. The prosecution used Arias’ journals to try and show there was no abuse. The prosecution tried to deny the evidence given by Alyce LaViolette by attacking her character and her qualifications, rather than attacking the evidence she presented.
Therefore the defense should be given lots of latitude by the court to show how the journal entries back up Ms. Arias’ claims of abuse.
Citing Jenn Wood
“The defense was hoping this would establish a pattern of abuse, but what it appeared to establish was the pattern of an obsessed girlfriend. As Jenn Wood from the Trial Diaries reported,”
“Day in out #jodiarias eats, sleeps, breathes Travis. Journaling, calling, emailing, and texting.”
I would agree with Jenn in that Jodi Arias was way too infatuated and obsessed with Travis Alexander.
Jodi Admitted to Slashing the Tires?
“In addition to stories told to make Travis look manipulative, the jury also heard that Jodi Arias did admit in her own journal that she slashed the tires of Travis Alexander at one point in 2007.
We also heard that Jodi owned a stun gun at one point, which may once again work to negate that she was in an abusive relationship.”
Wrong! Maybe Travis looks manipulative, because he was manipulative? Jodi Arias never admitted that she slashed Travis Alexnder’s tires. How, pray tell, would owning a stun gun negate an abusive relationship?
Citing Jeff Gold, Again
“As Jeff Gold tweeted,”
“#JodiArias court allows defense so far into the weeds you lose site of any view. It’s a DP mitigation case. This minutia can be abbreviated.”
I agree with Jeff here, this may be to Arias’ detriment as her too long testimony in the guilt phase worked against her.
“It came up that Jodi hadn’t bothered to mention to her diary the fact that Travis had slapped her allegedly. Geffner says this is “understandable.” Christian Today reports that one message that was read in court that was written by Jodi Arias to Travis Alexander read,”
“I’m very sorry for all the pain we’ve caused each other. Most of it is my fault. I never meant to hurt you.”
Isn’t this an exact demonstration of Arias taking responsibility for her actions that you stated earlier were non-existent?
Journals Were Doctored by Arias
“Many reports are showing suspicion around these journals and many are speculating that some of the journals shown in court were written by Jodi Arias after the crime. Jenn Wood from Trial Diaries told KPHO what she thought the defense was doing with these tactics.”
Journal entries were written in after the killing? Prove it! How in the world would she know that her journal entries would become evidence? If she really did this she could have put a lot more damning stuff into the entries.
“They are trying to get compassion for Jodi….What they are trying to do is translate this to the jury, that Jodi is a victim of Travis Alexander….”
Exactly. And isn’t that what actually happened?
Dr. Geffner Is just Dr. Fonseca 2.0
“By the end of Days 19 and 20 of the retrial of the penalty phase of the Jodi Arias trial it was clear that Dr. Geffner testimony was simply a “2.0” version of previous expert witness for the defense Dr. Fonseca. Like Dr. Fonseca he worked very hard to paint the picture of Jodi Arias as an abuse victim, and the word “manipulated” came up a lot in his testimony.”
Maybe that was the defenses intention. You can discredit a witness and attack them personally, but it’s much harder to attack two witnesses saying the same thing. Now you must attack the evidence they provided and that’s not easily done. It’s an excellent strategy if it was in fact their strategy.
Abuse Victims Don’t Kill Due To Manipulation
“What Dr. Geffner, domestic violence expert, does not want to say about Jodi Arias is that, abuse survivors don’t act like that. Even abuse victims don’t kill because they feel manipulated. They only kill when they are in true survival mode.
Jodi is trying to say she was in survival mode the entire time she was in a relationship with Travis Alexander, and there simply is no evidence to date to support that notion. This is a mentality she is trying to convey that is seriously ticking off abuse survivors. This is how the last week ended before breaking for the holidays. “
Right! Either she was in survival mode and fought for her life or she just snapped even if it was days before the killing. There are no other reasonable explanations that I can see. No one has claimed that Jodi Arias was in survival mode the entire time she was in (the) relationship. Just you’re claiming that, Beswick.
Jodi Will Go To Perryville Prison
“Regardless of what verdict is reached, when the verdict is delivered Jodi Arias will be transferred to Perryville Prison to carry out her sentence. “
Right! Who is not in agreement with that?
Kindness and Benevolence of Sheriff Joe
“We do not know if Sherriff Joe Arpaio will be hosting another talent competition this holiday season, but we do know he is allowing free video visitation as a special treat to inmates over Christmas.
KTAR reported on Dec. 23 that inmates in Maricopa County, including Jodi Arias, will be able to have a free video visit with family members over the holiday season. Generally the video visitation costs $13, but Sherriff Arpaio is providing it free to all inmates this holiday. KTAR reports that Sherriff Joe said,
“It’s very very good to be able to let the loved ones – whether it’s in Mexico or anywhere else that cannot come to the jail – to be at least able to utilize this video equipment.”
Video visitation will last 20 minutes each and must be registered for online. What do you think the chances are that a group of Jodi supporters will try and get in on this one? Will the next step for Jodi Arias be a leaked jailhouse video?”
This is all a very nice tribute to that cuddly teddy Bear or Santa of a benevolent jail keeper, Sheriff Joe. But this is the most distasteful thing in the Christine Beswick’s Examiner.com “article”. Can anyone refute that Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio is a Monster? I don’t think you can.
We urge you to take a look at some real, factual reporting:
The Video visitation scheme, actually replaces face to face visitation in Sheriff Joe’s jails, meaning that even if you can travel to the jail, you cannot have a face to face visit with a prisoner any longer, only a video visit. Keep in mind that most of the inmates have merely been charged with a crime and have not yet had their day in court.
If you are familiar with Skype and other video conferencing software, you know that this software is virtually free and only requires a computers or smartphone to enable a video chat.
The system in the Maricopa jails works well for jailers because they can record and store each and every video-chat. Prisoners are charged almost $13.00 (65 cents/minute) for a twenty minute “video visit”.
Now, for Christmas, Sheriff Joe is “allowing the privilege of a free video visit for each qualifying prisoner in his jails”. How benevolent of him! Actually it’s entirely self-serving.
Many families who have not yet done a video visit can try one for free. Then they will be much more used to the technology and all set up for future PAID video visits. Though it’s nice that people can visit from a great distance, this scheme is a giant cash cow. The Sheriff gets 20% of all monies generated from video visits as pure profit. They also save money from all the manpower and logistics required to have actual face to face visitation. You do the math.
Juan’s Wondrous Motion
“Trial Diaries has reported that a motion was filed dated Dec. 22 with the Maricopa County Superior Court on the case of the State of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias.
In that motion, prosecutor for the State Juan Martinez objects to, well, just about everything the defense has done as of late. Specifically Martinez is objecting to the recent motion filed by the defendant seeking to dismiss the death penalty. So, at the start of this case, Juan filed a motion to seek the death penalty.”
The motion to dismiss the charges or to dismiss the death penalty demands a response by the prosecution. Of course, he filed a motion in response to the defense motion. Ch – Ch – Ch Chia!
“Juan’s motion is a strenuous objection to that. He basically said in his motion, they are claiming misconduct but have failed to show evidence, as usual, thus, no misconduct. In closing he makes sure that the last thing he says about Jodi Arias before the holiday break is, she’s a liar.”
Juan’s response is always “She’s a liar”. However, you do not get sentenced to death for being a liar. Lying is not a capital offense. You need something more substantial than that. Strenuous objection? Remember how far that got Demi Moore’s character in “A Few Good men”?
“The State objects to defendant’s latest request to ‘dismiss all charges with prejudice’ or dismiss the State’s notice of intent to seek death penalty due to recently discovered prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant continues to make unsupported allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and her current request should also be denied.”
The many instances of prosecutorial misconduct are really adding up. Juan Martinez’past misconduct may be finally catching up with him. Chickens finally coming home to roost? Ch – Ch – Ch – Chia!
Jodi Supporters Drink the Kool Aid
“Meanwhile, a cursory glance around the Internet would reveal that Jodi supporters, whether they are or are not drinking “the Kool Aid” truly believe she was abused. Some also are living in a universe that has led them to believe she will need a job when she gets out of prison. Those that are not drinking “the Kool Aid” know that Jodi is a convicted murderer whose best case scenario in this lifetime is life in prison.”
Thank-You, Christine, for noting that NOT ALL Jodi supporters are drinking the Kool Aid.
Arias Best Case Scenario
Okay, this is the faction of Jodi supporters I like to call the “Rainbows, Flowers and Unicorns” division of Jodi supporters. They believe she will be set free any day now. Not gonna happen.
Judge Stephens will never dismiss the charges, she would be tarred, feathered and run out of the state if she did that. The Supreme Court of Arizona will not dismiss the charges, they will bump it up to a higher court and let them take the heat. Jodi Arias will not go free.
Jodi Arias will go to Perryville Prison.
Realistically, the best case scenario for Jodi Arias and supporters is that she be awarded a retrial. This possibility is more likely than many prosecution supporters dare to believe.
“And this group of people calls those that support Travis Alexander “delusional.” Another post about the future of Jodi Arias shows that some people still believe she is getting out of jail sometime, and soon.”
Aren’t many Travis Alexander supporters delusional? What is it they are fighting for? Justice has already been served in this case. Jodi Arias has been unanimously convicted of Murder in the first degree. She will either get life or death, and she will go to Perryville Prison. So what fight is left for them to have? For those who demand death, good luck to you, it’s highly doubtful she will be sentenced to death.
Gossip Is Not Gospel
On top of that, there is a cornucopia of evidence to suggest that facts in this case are not as advertised by Juan Martinez, Media, Minions, or a life and relationship reporter from Toronto.
Even if Christine Beswick did make medical history!
The CODE RED
Did Juan Martinez order a “CODE RED” on Jodi Arias?
Horn, Corn, and a Truck Load of Porn: Update on the Arias Penalty Retrial (Dec. 20)
by Rob Roman
Bringing you up to date on the epic battle … the interminable saga … the perpetually stalling Arias penalty retrial. If you’re anything like me, you have been sidetracked, distracted, busy, bored or befuddled by what’s going on in the Jodi Arias penalty phase re-trial, but you want to know what’s gone down and what’s likely to happen next. There’s been plenty of talk about this being a nightmare, a perpetual trial, and an interminable saga. So far, the trial is actually right on schedule and, as we predicted, it would last 3 months AND we said it would go into 2015.
The penalty phase retrial has gone 25 days so far, that’s 9 days for the prosecution and 16 days for the defense … so far. The retrial began on October 21st, and there’s no end in sight, as there are multiple issues to deal with and the defense has 14 potential witnesses.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez, ever the sit-in-the–front-row teacher’s favorite student, presented his case for why Jodi Arias should be executed with cold efficiency in just 9 days, schnip – schnap. First up was Mesa Detective Michael Melendez, the guy with the New Yawk accent who discovered the deleted photos in Travis Alexander’s camera (a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H9).
All the recovered photos were shown, and Detective Melendez explained how Jodi Arias needed to use 5 steps to delete each photo. The implication there being that Arias was not in an altered state of mind and was not in a fog with her memory seriously impaired. She calmly and coolly took hundreds of steps to delete all the photos. What was not explained is that just 5 steps can delete ALL the photos taken that day, according to the instruction manual, something an experienced photographer like Arias could do in her sleep.
1 Press (Playback) button.
2 Press MENU while display in single-image mode or in index mode.
3 Select [Delete] with v on the control button.
4 Select the desired deletion method with b/B from among [This Image],
[Multiple Images] and [All In This Folder], then press z.
Melendez, not to be confused with Mendes, you racist you, showed the jury the naked and racy photos of Arias and Alexander, the shower photos, the foot photo with a bloody Alexander, and the mystery final photo.
Next up was Detective Esteban “Steve” Flores, who inexplicably is no longer doing active investigations, but has now become a “Media Relations Officer for the Mesa Police Department”. Detective Flores was the main conduit of all the testimony related to the day Travis’ body was found, the crime scene descriptions, and the investigation of the crime up to and including the interrogation of Jodi Arias. The bloody and gruesome crime scene photos were shown to the jury.
Dr. Kevin Horn was the next witness up. Horn went over the autopsy findings, describing all the wounds, with many autopsy photos being shown. Dr. Horn again stated his opinion that the gunshot was last and probably post-mortem, in direct contradiction to Arias’ explanation of events. At one point on re-direct, prosecutor Juan Martinez suddenly approached Horn and feigned stabbing him with his pen, stating “that didn’t take long, did it?”. Apparently he wanted to demonstrate that all the stabbings could have happened in seconds. We agree.
After that was Nathan Mendes – the Former Detective, from the Siskiyou County California Sheriff’s Office, who set up surveillance on Arias in Yreka and arrested her, and he was present when the famous mug shot was taken. Detective Mendes testified that Arias asked him how her hair looked before being photographed.
You will recall that Arias asked if she could take her make-up with her when she was arrested in Yreka at her Grandparent’s home where she was living. She could not. Also she had a rental car packed for travel with 2 knives in her luggage and a 9 mm gun taped to the bottom of the seat that was not found until much later. Mendes also testified that he found receipts in the home from the California to Arizona to Utah trip. None of the receipts were from Arizona and none were from June 4th.
On cross exam, the Defense attacked both Doctor Horn and ex-Detective Flores about the change in the order of injuries as Flores was claiming the gunshot was first early on to numerous media outlets and in pre-trial hearings. Flores also stated that it was Dr. Horn who provided that information to him, but Dr. Horn denied any knowledge of having told that to Detective Flores. Nurmi also suggested it was possible that this murder was not especially cruel, the factor that opened the door to the death penalty in the first place.
The State then called Kevin Friedman, a former Yreka police officer who investigated the theft of the gun and other items taken from Arias’ grandparent’s home on May 28th, just 7 days before the killing. Walmart loss prevention specialist Amanda Webb then made her way back on the stand to testify that Arias had purchased a 5 galllon blue kerosene gas can, but there were no records found that one had been returned, as Arias claimed.
A notable feature of the cross examinations by defense lead Kirk Nurmi, besides all the weight he’s lost and his now full head of hair, is that he has been said to be imitiating Juan Martinez. Nurmi was reported to have slammed down a binder of Walmart records during the cross of Webb, and to have asked Detective Flores if he had any memory problems. We have previously reported that this is not imitation, that sincerest form of flattery, but this is tactics. This is Nurmi using different tactics because the penalty trial is a different situation, calling for a different approach.
There were 5 days of Flores on the stand altogether, going over the now famous interrogation tapes and the sex tape was played in its entirety. Topping off the prosecution case were the allocutions of Travis’ younger brother Steven Alexander, and his younger sister, Tanisha Sorenson. These were heartfelt pleas to the jury and first-person memorials about the life of Travis Alexander.
“Steven Alexander described nightmares, ulcers and constant trauma from losing his brother, including locking the doors when he showers. Tanisha Sorenson called it a “living hell.”
“When I lay down at night, all I can think about is my brother’s murder,” Steven Alexander said as other family members could be heard crying in the gallery.”
The trial ended on the 18th of December and this was the date scheduled to have been the very end of the trial. The trial is now on hold for the Holidays until January 5th. The trial began to get messy even before the defense took the helm, and it has only gotten messier.
Mess number one – The jury
After the prosecution’s concise presentation, things got messy quick. Messy, messy, messy. First of all, one juror was dismissed on the opening day of the trial for a family emergency. A second juror was dismissed on the 2nd day of trial after she sought out legal reporter Beth Karas and asked her if she was Nancy Grace. Actually, the Judge should have left her in if she couldn’t tell the difference between Beth and Nancy.
“The first was let go Tuesday because of family problems. The second was dismissed Wednesday after she asked a freelance TV journalist if she was CNN superstar Nancy Grace, who has been a vocal crusader against Arias.”
A third juror was dismissed the day after Thanksgiving, as she was stopped for DUI, then it was discovered that there was a warrant on her for passing bad checks. This leaves only 3 alternate jurors to go before the threat of a mistrial if they end up with under the statutory number of 12. Yes, the lady with the multi-colored hair and a few other jurors from the guilt phase volunteered to comeback and serve (just kidding) – although she and others have been spotted in the courtroom.
Mess number two – The family Flores and the Mitigation Specialist
Media Representative Flores’ wife and daughter have been significantly involved in the Justice 4 Travis campaign. Daughter Angela is on Youtube singing a memorial song for Travis (She has a very nice voice, too) and Mrs. Corinna Flores is said to have been on Twitter under the handle “I’m boss that way” tweeting about the case and reportedly leaking confidential information from closed meetings in the Judges’ chambers. This had been disputed. None of these things would be seen as unseemly if the trial were concluded, but as we know, the trial has not nearly concluded.
Mitigation Specialist Maria De La Rosa, whom I like and have communicated with, is reported to also have gotten too personally involved in the case. She has been tweeting about the case under the Twitter handle of “Cougarluscious”, and has been getting involved with Arias supporters. This is a little harder to discern on the basis of wrongdoing, because part of her job as mitigation specialist IS to ferret out any and all evidence in support of sparing Ms. Arias’ life and this would seemingly include communicating with supporters.
Ms. De La Rosa was also stopped at the Estrella jail, and an envelope full of legal documents Arias gave her was searched, revealing an Arias art drawing, now identified as “The Pinwheel”. Stupidly, the County Sheriff’s office, or MSCO, tried to ban Maria from the jail, which would have certainly caused an appeal issue – not allowing the mitigation specialist access to the defendant / convict. They soon thought better of that, though. This lead to our speculation that the County wants to fire Ms. De La Rosa, but must wait until the end of the trial in order to not cause an appeal issue – leaving the Defendant / convict without a mitigation specialist would be in violation of Arizona statutes for a capital trial.
Mess number three – Sheriff Joe and the false Arias motion
You may remember that between the guilt phase and the penalty retrial, a motion was made by Jodi Arias asking for a restraining order to be placed on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and crime entertainer Nancy Grace. The idea was that Sheriff Joe was supplying Grace with information about Arias’ leaking breast implant and her hepatitis C condition.
This information and the motion were found to be hoaxes filed by a convict from New Jersey. The trouble was that Sheriff Joe had a press conference where he slammed Arias for her motion, even though it was easy to see that the signature was obviously not hers and the motion was made with materials that Arias obviously had no access to. The defense brought up the fact that anything said about Arias, no matter how pernicious, will be believed because the public is so poisoned against her by the media and this does not allow for a fair trial.
Mess number four – the unsequestered jury
Famous trial lawyer, appellate attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has already sounded the alarm about how it is just about impossible for a very high profile defendant to get a fair trial with an unsequestered jury. This is because the atmosphere is just permeated with strong feelings one way or the other. Juan Martinez’ boss, District Attorney Thomas Horne, is already on record worrying that the unsequestered jury will be an appeal issue. Nevertheless, Arizona Judge Sherry Stephens did not sequester the jury because ‘we have always not sequestered the jury in the past in Arizona’. Well, Arizona bars were always equipped with spittoons, too. Why aren’t they now? Did times change?
Mess number five – The secret witness
The defense, after taking the reigns, stated that they had 3 witnesses who would refuse to testify unless the courtroom was closed to the media and the public. Judge Stephens heard the motion and affirmed it. The court was cleared and the secret witness testified. Rumors abounded that the secret witness was Jodi Arias herself. The media balked and appealed the decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. It’s insane that the Judge would affirm a motion to have a witness who had never been shy of the media, both before, during, and after the trial to suddenly now be requesting to have the public and media cleared for her testimony. Why on earth would Judge Stephens allow such a motion?
Even so, no one on the prosecution supporter side would give the Judge credit for possibly having some compelling reason for her ruling. Was it because Jodi Arias mentioned the other secret witnesses in her testimony? Wasn’t there some kind of accommodation the court could make without altogether clearing the courtroom? Prosecution supporters also do not want to blame the reason for this special request on the people who harassed, intimidated, and attacked Arias’ witnesses during the guilt phase. These are the people threatening our system.
The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the media that the public has a 1st Amendment right to know what is going on, especially in a capital trial. The Court stayed the Judge’s ruling, and the defense will appeal that ruling, probably on January 5th. Will the other three witnesses, reportedly a long term boyfriend of Arias – Darryl Brewer, A co-worker of Arias’ – unknown, and a former friend of Travis Alexander’s – possibly New Zealander Marc McGee, formerly of Riverside, California, still expect to testify in secret?
Will they refuse to testify? Also under contention is the media’s request to have the transcripts of Arias’ testimony released. Will that be granted, even though the transcripts of all the other witnesses have not been released? Also, was the secret witness actually Jodi Arias? Most people close to the case are saying so. Maybe this matter was confused, because the Judge will refer to the defense as “Arias” in motions. But, people seem to be sure it was Jodi Arias herself who testified in secret.
Mess number six – The Porn
The defense vowed to fight the stay, but continued the trial by calling up Bryan Neumeister, the private computer, audio and video expert who often testifies for the prosecution. You may remember Neumeister as the guy in the guilt phase who testified that he enlarged the reflection in Travis’ left iris from the “Calvin Klein” shower photo and found it was Jodi Arias, with no weapon. Martinez seems to have a distaste for “science-types”.
Neumeister resisted Juan Martinez’ combativeness, and he stated several times that he couldn’t understand the prosecutors’ questions because Juan had a very limited knowledge about computers. He also accused the prosecutor of lying. But the big thing is that Neumeister made a startling discovery. He said that when he checked the “clone” copy of Travis’ hard drive, he found thousands upon thousands of deleted porn files, supposedly including searches based on the word ”teens” and “tweens”. “Tween” is a word for children on the cusp of being teenagers. They aren’t quite teens, but they are no longer children in the strictest sense. They’re in be-tween. This is exactly the definition of a 12 year-old.
Neumeister also intimated that child porn was among the deleted files. This was a bombshell in the case, because Detective Melendez testified in the guilt phase that not one shred of porn was found on Travis Alexander’s computer. Juan Martinez, as he has done in other cases, immediately began blaming Neumseister for somehow contaminating the hard drive copy with porn. Alternatively, he blamed 2 former Arias defense attorneys for turning on the original computer and thereby allowing built-in antivirus programs to eliminate all the porn on the computer.
This could not be possible, because the defense attorneys were always under the watchful eye of the police when they inspected the original computer. Detective Flores was in charge of the computer. It was also reported that an anti-virus program found on Alexander’s hard drive was a program that did not exist in 2008. The implication was that the Mesa Police had tried to remove all traces of porn found on Travis’ computer. Many prosecution supporters responded by saying ‘So what, that’s normal all guys have porn on their computer’.
That’s not the point. The point is that IF someone from the police removed the porn from Alexander’s computer, what else did they remove? What other evidence, possibly exculpatory, could they have hidden? Since former Detective Flores was close to the evidence, it was suggested that Flores was the one who removed the porn. In any case, this is another issue for appeal, and it’s a serious one.
Martinez, by blaming the former defense counsel and Neumeister, was conceding that there was in fact porn on the computer, and that it was somehow ‘disappeared’.
That there was porn on Travis’ computer should surprise no one, given his references to porn and his sexual vocabulary in the sex tape, etc. which could only have come from a person exposed to porn. This issue, like many others in this case, is still awaiting further clarification and resolution, because most of the conversation about this matter was held in chambers and is not yet available to the public.
Mess number seven – Court reporters and Legal Experts
As a substitute fro HLN broadcasting the trial live and endlessly giving slanted, biased, jesting and mean-spirited views, we now have reports, blogs, “spree-casts”, and Tweets from reporters and Legal commentators inside the courtroom. Some of them, like Beth Karas, Michael Kiefer / Yihyun Jeong, and Monica Lindstrom, are reporters and/or legal experts with ethics, integrity, and a sense of objectivity. They realize this is a capital case, a serious affair where a defendant / convict may have her life taken by the State. Others, like Jeff Gold, Jen from the Trial Diaries, and Wild about Trial (a division of HLN), are playing to popularity and the lowest common denominator with little thought about ethics or fairness.
We do note that Jeff Gold stated that this case should not have been a Death Penalty case. He must have taken some heat among his listeners for that.
“The first jury hung (no not that kind of hanging although I know many of you wish so.) Many states end it there. But AZ allows a second bite of the apple.
Moreover, the DP is usually reserved for murdering kids, cops, multiple persons, a particularly heinous murder (chop body up and eat it) or murderers with long records. This is just not a clear case for DP. “
Jeffrey Evan Gold – Court Chatter TV Legal Analyst
Since then, we’ve heard only a few astute legal observations and almost nothing in any way positive said about the Defense or Arias. Often, his Tweets are rude comments, super-biased comments, comments with sexual innuendos, dumb jokes or self-promoting comments.
Gold often tweeted about “Hodi-Jodi”, with zero evidence that Arias was in any way a “Ho”. He knows his audience is 95% pro-prosecution and constantly plays to that audience with tweets about ‘how dare the defense put up a defense when their client is a sadistic, manipulative, maniacal murderer’? He also enjoys making a big joke out of the whole trial. Wild about Trial seems to be full of high school or college interns, a giggly gaggle constantly spewing corny jokes, many of them laced with 5th grade bathroom humor.
Jen, from The Trial Diaries who reportedly had or is having an affair with the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, has acted basically as a cheerleader and sounding board for prosecution supporters. Jen couldn’t be counted on to give even a sliver of objective news about the defense or Arias. Nancy Grace and former HLN talking head Vinnie Politan also tried to get in on the act inviting brownie points from trial fanatics for throwing stones at Arias and her defense.
With this bunch of block-heads, it’s really hard to get an objective picture of what exactly is going on in that courtroom. Thankfully, a few of them do have integrity.
Mess number eight – The Death Penalty on the table.
Even some prosecution supporters are wondering if it would not be better if the State goes over Judge Stephens and Juan Martinez’ head and takes the Death Penalty off the table. This would effectively end the Arias trial, and the Judge would only decide on Life in prison with no chance of parole, or twenty five years to life in prison with an almost non-existent infinitesimal chance of parole.
Along with a number of other motions to remove the death penalty awaiting a decision by the Judge, Nurmi and Willmott earlier filed their most epic motion yet, a 59 page motion to dismiss the death penalty. In it, they review all their charges of misconduct against the prosecution from the entire history of the case, in addition to new allegations from the post guilt trial and the penalty re-trial.
The motion to dismss the charges and the case also includes an alternate plea in the alternative, to remove the death penalty from the table. Here, court reporter and legal expert Monica Lindstrom explains why the death penalty realistically could be taken off the table possibly due to being under pressure from higher-ups and the people of Arizona:
In place of Alyce LaViolette and Dr. Richard Samuels, Forensic Psychologist Dr. L.C. Miccio-Fonseca, and Psychologist Dr. Robert Geffner were called to the stand by the defense to interpret the relationship between Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias and Jodi Arias’ state of mind prior to, during, and after the killing. The defense stated earlier that there was good reason to believe that Alexander was shot by Arias in the shower, as it agrees with the evidence, whereas the prosecution’s assertion that he was stabbed first and then shot does not. Nurmi possibly said this because he was not allowed to bring up Arias’ claim of self-defense, since the jury rejected that theory in the guilt phase.
Dr. Fonseca examined the sexual relationship between Alexander and Arias and the dynamics of that relationship, coming up with the same basic conclusions as Alyce LaViolette. She even stated she believes Alexander did watch child porn. On cross examination, Juan Martinez tried to discredit Dr, Fonseca and her testimony.
Dr. Geffner, who was pilloried by trial watchers in the guilt phase, for having a coughing fit, burping loudly, and spilling a large container of water, was next on the stand. His job was to interpret psychological tests and diagnoses of Arias, and to explain other aspects such as Arias’ temperament, propensities toward violence or lack thereof, and her state of mind. Juan Martinez had begun his cross of Doctor Geffner, when the trial ended for the year.
More details of what was in the text and e-mail exchanges between Arias and Alexander were revealed. One interesting detail is that Jodi Arias claimed to own a stun gun in early 2008, and she apparently offered it to Alexander as protection from the person who was slashing his tires.
Reportedly, there were no spills, no mess.
Nothing much can or will be done about the Corn going on regularly in this trial. The so-called legal reporters will continue their pandering and catering to the prosecution supporters, and acting like the entire trial is one big joke and an opportunity to try their hands at low-brow comedy and over-dramatic tweeting.
Maybe something can be done about Horn, in that he continues to be adamant that once Alexander was shot in the face, he would not be able to move or defend himself. This seems to be more and more unlikely and more and more contradictory to the evidence.
But something really needs to be done about the Porn, because police and/or prosecutors removing, hiding, or disappearing any evidence should never be tolerated by a court of law. Some remedy for this seeming violation should be offered. Appeal issues are piling up, leading me to make a remark on social media that this case has become a literal Chia Pet of ever-sprouting possible appeal issues. This holds true no matter what you believe about the verdict in the guilt phase of the trial.
More than this, the new claims of removing evidence seem to give even more credence to earlier claims about the 1st degree felony murder charge and the possible switcheroo of the order of injuries by former Detective Flores and Dr. Kevin Horn.
This may have also included prosecutor Juan Martinez, who is well known for his win-at-all-cost attitude, which then would become collusion or conspiracy. This would be very difficult to prove, but especially if Arias is sentenced to death, all these little allegations could possibly add up to one big and powerful allegation which could change the course of this seemingly never-ending case.
What’s your take? We would really like to know
All comments are welcome
Please also feel free to comment on our facebook page “Spotlight on Law” which functions as a menu of our articles.