I just saw this new blog by a person who goes by the name “Lana Blue” on facebook. Seems she wrote a WordPress Blog slandering me. I have included her posts with my answers. “Lana Blue” has just recently been outed as the infamous cyber Stalker and troll who’s real name is Christine White of South Salem, New York.
Who is this cyber stalker trolling from the UK 24/7?
I don’t stalk, I don’t troll, I have an article on my blog about stopping Cyber – Bullying. I’m not from the UK, I’m from Destin, FL and White Plains, NY, and I am not on the Internet 24/7. I recently provided a scan of my Paralegal certificate from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Meet Rob Roman which is a fake name & his imaginary friend Amanda Chen. The fraud in the UK pretending to live in White Plains, NY. Their fact-less blog which did not do well when it came to reality. Why would it when it is rife with non-reality? none of their creepy personalities followed the case.
My name is not fake and in fact, I just recently scanned my passport to facebook proving who I am and where I’m from. My blog, SpotLightOnLaw, contains all fact-based articles. In fact, no one had been able to refute the facts listed in my blog. Amanda Chen is a real person, an artist and a grad student who recently attended an American University for 2 years. She was my neighbor in China, where I lived for 3 years.
Let’s examine their troll behavior to suck in unsuspecting TA supporters to keep an eye on them. This particular rat started at least 3 fb pages, where they prove to be quite fanatical and god forbid you prove them wrong which is so easy. They freak out and harass you.
You really need to research what a “troll” is and what “trolling is”. These definitions fit you. A person who forms their own group(s) and invites people from all viewpoints to join those groups is not a troll. You have yet to prove me wrong about anything, Christine.
As of late I watched the “rat” expose themselves as a liar & and all around creeper who wouldn’t know the law here in the US to save their life. If you put them on ignore, they really get upset. Why? This rat spends at least 18 hrs a day (starting on uk time) to spy on just about everyone while pretending to be their friend. They pretend to be all these people such as Robert Knox which we found as a friend on the rat Roman fb page, they since deleted it.
Please show proof that I do not know New York or U.S. law. I spy on no one. “Robert Knox” is a person who gave a really long response to an article I did on my blog, so I asked him to write a guest article for me. He is a Jodi Arias Supporter and he’s close to Simon Johansson and the JAII inner circle. I do not know his real name.
Jodi Arias has a great many friends, as much as you do not want to hear this. How would you know who Jodi Arias interacts with? You wouldn’t. I did not pretend to be Robert Knox, I explained very clearly who Robert Knox is and that this is a pseudonym.
Read the comments and the rat’s true personality comes out while proving to not know one thing about this case & their true disdain for the victim & his family come out.
Robert Knox speaks for himself. As for my comments, I have no disdain for the victim or his family I have honored Travis Alexander more than once.
The same death threat making lunatic in the UK. They also exposed themselves again today by posting idiotic bday wishes for a killer who is not online & onlock down @tingmingjie.
I have made no “death threats”, you lunatic. Yes, I posted Birthday wishes for Jodi Arias. She’s a human being and she deserves a little dignity. If you don’t like that, too bad.
Dirk says “hi” since you stalked & harassed him too. Keep spewing as I copy all and send to Scott Land Yard. We see you’re still stalking the wrong person, piggy. She’s pretty & it’s obvious you are a jealous loser who whores himself out daily for a killer. You’ll never get it hater.
Dirk Hartog is a person who stalks and harasses, the same as you. He is not a person who gets stalked or harassed, and neither are you. You are sending something to Scotland yard? Do you have information on who “Jack the Ripper” really is? LOL. I am stalking the wrong person? Who am I stalking?
Oh that hater video was copied before you tube took it down multiple times.
Hater video? What are you even talking about?
Your stalking & harassment of Paul Sanders were copied.
Paul Sanders is a person who thinks women should be killed. He is really no different than Jodi Arias. He shouldn’t advocate for the killing of women, as he is one. Showing your disdain for a person on your own blog or Facebook page is NOT stalking nor is it harassment. Look it up. Paul Sanders is an exploiter of this trial and other trials who feeds on hate. If Pauly has a problem, he can contact me or comment on my blog.
Here, copy it again :p
Your threats against the Alexanders are copied.
Never made a threat against the Alexanders, in fact, I have advocated for treating the Alexanders with compassion, respect, and sympathy.
Here is the US that’s against the law. I would think they have that law in the UK as well, huh? more on that to come.
Here in the US, slander is against the law. As you have slandered me, prepare to be sued. My fellow New Yorker.
The rat exposes their sick self day after day while playing their net friends for a fool
Most know the “rat” posts with differently personalities. 9 x out of ten they can’t keep up with the lies they tell which is pretty funny. The rat has an answer for all their lies though. Like when they had a school in California in their bio. They actually claimed they’ve never been to Cali. When they were questioned further on that. They said “their friend went there”. huh? They have since put in a online school. They never took any classes as they are not in the US.
My personality is the same all the time. The school in California was the school my friend Amanda went to, not me. I have never been to California. You do not have to be from the U.S. to go to a U.S. school, don’t you know that?
Let’s not get started on their many fake professions while they never see the light of day ever. Short list “a paralegal, an EMS technician, a writer, a psychologist..etc. Even their young age is a lie. It was more fun when they would pretend to be Amanda Chen and when you’d ask for a simple fact. They’d pretend not to speak English.
I never said I was an EMS technician or a psychologist. I am a paralegal, I am a writer, and I did work in the mental health field. I’m not young, but I’m not old, either. Again, Amanda Chen is a real person and her English is better than yours, Christine.
They seem to get really upset when you let them know that Amanda Chen is just some poor artist in China the Rat stole her name from.
Amanda in fact lives and works in China and her family still lives in the apartment building right next to the one I lived in. Let’s move on to the foul company they keep & their motivation behind their online scam.
The Rat hangs with a criminal named Jason Weber (convicted felon) & his cohort Elizabeth Schilling. They are two scammers Jodi no longer wanted anything to do with.
I know Jason and Elizabeth. I do not “hang out with them”. They are not scammers and they still interact with Jodi Arias.
The rat dared to say these two were on the up & up. The rat went on to spew more bs about Jason who in fact is jobless, his bio is totally made up & he lives with his mother in Michigan. He’s got more alias than the Rat does.
Jason Webber and Elizabeth Schilling are on the up and up. Jason has no aliases and neither do I. Neither does Elizabeth. In fact, Jason Webber’s involvement with Jodi Arias is almost nill, and Elizabeth has moved on from Jodi Arias to other interests.
The Rat also defended another fraud name Richard Speights who is supposed to be in the US. As of late it is the Rat pretending to be him and a few other well known Jodi cult members. This impostor Speights spent a really long time harassing Deborah Maran who exposed them for what they are.
Richard Speights has a business in Montana and is no fraud. That’s his real name and his on-line arguments with Deborah Maran have nothing to do with me. It takes two to tango. Deborah Maran did not expose Richard Speights and she has said nothing about me as far as I know.
A total fraud & pathological liar. The impostor screwed up by letting us know they are not in the US with threats of a bogus lawsuit “they contacted their high sheriff”. Ummm, that’s a UK thing as we have lawyers who deal with lawsuits.
No idea what you are talking about.
I would love to see how I exposed myself as not being from NY (I am), not being in the US (I am), and not on vacation for the 4th of July (I was). Do I delete the truth? What?
Now on yet another page the have, no truth is allowed either while they are pretending to be against Simon & JAII. Yet they troll with the scum from there. Gee, why is that?
I am not pretending to be against SJ and JAII. I am against SJ and JAII.
There’s that “zealot” word again. Boring! Oh, but they do expose themselves as a real cyber stalker who was obsessed with some guy Dirk, now it’s on to a Christine. While proving what a lunatic they are. They exposed themselves as “Pandora” who posing as some real potty mouthed pig in Greece.
Zealot – “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant” = you = Lana Blue = Christine White.
I am not “Pandora”. Pandora is Pandora Paik, who is a real person named Olga Paikopolous, and she does live in Greece. You know that. I never said anything about Dirk Hartog although I am aware of who this stalker is. Christine White is you, Lana Blue. But I guess you are also “Olga”, “Arizona Sky” “Pinky Mane” and now “Xavier” and “Tanya”. Who will you be tomorrow? I will still be Rob Roman.
“I believe this is Dirk Hartog aka “George Beerwood” aka “Heather Sober”. If you look at “Loonier than Hodi” facebook page … he is on the attack against S. Webber. He even played her dangerous games by posting Webber’s full address on his page. I have done some research and it is definitely Webber’s address. I have been on many pages tonight and I am reading all over the place that people are getting messages from “this” person. Be careful of him …. he is a dangerous man. Here is the page for those that want to see his madness Notice the address he posted on one of his photos. https://www.facebook.com/MadwomanOnMacomber?fref=ts”
This is the true face of the Rat Roman. https://twitter.com/TingMingJie <<a true fanatic using multiple twitter accounts to harass TA supporters, real writers and people who can spell better than this troll could.
I am @TingmingJie on Twitter. There is not one instance you can find of my harassing or stalking anyone at all. Always be aware of people who make accusations with out any specific examples, without any proof.
This is also another one of their troll accts. https://twitter.com/ColdNoLove <rat cyber stalker made some dopey “exposing the haters” video that keeps getting taken down by you tube. Their troll nic on you tube is King Cold. Their disquis accts are James Dean, Mr. Howie (which they stole) and a few others. Speights & Mr. Howie show up at the same UK time. What are the odds?
No idea what you are referring to. I’m pretty sure “James Dean” is also you, Christine. There was some video of who the real names of State Supporters are, but I don’t know who made that or what’s become of it.
This attention whore is a true danger to society like the rest of the Jodi ilk. They are luring in TA supporters by pretending to be some writer in NY who’s a moody guy. Nothing of the sort. They are are a psychopath using the info you put out there on the Super Duper page. Don’t you ever wonder why this “rat” stares at that page all day? or Why they get soo upset when you block their behind? This foreign creep is stalking everyone.
LOL. The person who runs the Super Duper page is a friend of mine. I get heat from both Jodi Supporters and State Supporters for being a member of that page, which is virtually harmless.
I don’t get upset when someone blocks me, I get annoyed because I’m not getting the full conversation. I block no one. Well, almost no one, until yesterday.
More on the Rat to follow as they revealed their true identity.
Can’t wait, Christine. When and if you get your Twitter and Facebook accounts back, we will be looking forward to more stalking and trolling from my neighbor in New York :p .
Perhaps, we could all learn a lesson from sole Life juror #17 and from disgruntled former Jodi supporters.
First, a little about Juror #17.
Before that, I just wanted to note that Christine Beswick and her pal, “Juan’s Tie” just wrote a really reckless and fact-less article about accounts leading from Marie De La Rosa to SJ at JAII. Christine’s articles have improved a lot in the past months, but I’m afraid she’s reverted to making it all up again.
I should remind her that if there is a secret source, such as Juan’s Tie, there still needs to be details, of which there are almost none. It’s gossip only, and no facts to back it up whatsoever, We will get back to that later. Really a big disappointment. I was also surprised to learn that prosecution supporters in the know do not trust either Christine Beswick or Juan’s Tie, and for good reason.
Now we are a not for profit blog, so we are basically untouchable no matter what we do. Nevertheless, we are careful about the facts and what we say because we have personal ethics. Not true with the Examiner.com. This is a for-profit site and Christine Beswick is responsible for what she reports. She is subject to lawsuits for her journalistic lapses. She better watch out when she makes it all up, or she depends on bad sources. I suggest a retraction and apologies, but that’s just me :).
OK, we’re a little late on this one, but they can investigate the jurors until the end of time, and people can be sore losers all they want, cause they didn’t secure the Death Penalty for little Honey Boo Boo.
Juror #17 deliberated and tried to convince the other jurors to do the right thing, but the 11 hold-outs refused to budge. The 11 hold-outs are now under investigation for possible coercion charges in attempting to secure a misguided Justice4Travis. Juror #17 is also under investigation.
None of this will go anywhere, however. We maintain, as we have all along, that Life is a better outcome for everyone involved including the victim’s family. They will come to appreciate this in due time, I do believe.
I was being facetious about the 11 hold-outs, but there has been a lot of flack about Juror #17, and whether she’s a plant, a stealth juror, or had any kind of agenda. Let me make it easy for you – She didn’t. Just because the other 11 jurors and many people who were praying for state sponsored murder didn’t get the result they wanted, this in no way implies that somebody did something wrong.
This was not a guilt verdict, this was a life or death verdict. That’s a different story, a very different story. The jurors were not trying hard to get a unanimous guilt verdict. They were not deciding between the subtleties of 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, or the complicated differences between manslaughter and acquittal. They were deciding between A) Life or B) Death. There are no subtle differences there.
So if juror #17 made up her mind fairly early in the deliberation process, why is that unusual? Juror #17 was free to make her own personal, moral choice and she was free to hold onto that choice without having to explain it to anyone. People who do not understand that have something to learn. Those are the rules in Arizona.
I was under the impression that jurors were supposed to weigh the single aggravator of cruelty against any of the 9 enumerated mitigators plus any other mitigators a juror could come up with. I thought the jurors were supposed to simply see if the mitigators outweighed the aggravator. I was mistaken. Apparently the Arizona jury instructions imply that individual jurors are supposed to weigh the single aggravator and all that entails (the details of the crime) against any possible mitigators they found to be more true than not true.
But even that explanation is not really accurate. If you read the Arizona jury instructions very closely, you will see that what the instructions really say is you can choose Life or Death, for any reason or non-reason you want.
So, if you want to blame anyone for there not being a unanimous sentence of Death, feel free to blame the State of Arizona. They wrote the juror instructions which were actually intended to help increase the probability of achieving a Death sentence, just as many strange Arizona statutes pertaining to the DP are designed specifically to facilitate death sentences.
I suppose that’s a great thing when the defendant is a serial killer or a serial child rapist/torturer/murderer who was caught red-handed. But, when it’s much more iffy than that, these statutes and instructions become downright frightening.
The juror instructions actually say that you can decide whatever you want for any reason you want, so there is zero legal recourse for juror #17 (or the 11 hold-outs).
Especially if you are a Justice4Travis supporter, please please please listen to this video. hang in there and watch the whole thing. Don’t say “I’m not interested and I don’t want to hear anything that Willmott has to say”. You really need to see this edited video to better understand why there was absolutely nothing wrong with juror #17’s decision.
This will also show you why, if Nurmi had Jennifer Willmott do at least one of the closing arguments, that it’s a near certainty there would have been more than one Life juror at the end of deliberations.
Naturally, as soon as news of the single Life juror surfaced, her name and a map to her home were all over Twitter in minutes. Simon Johannson (SJ) at JodiAriasIsInnocent.com released the full names of the 11 Death jurors. The deathies wanted to have a unanimous vote so they could get Justice4Travis. Some people who wanted the jurors to vote for Death for Jodi Arias issued death threats against juror #17.
Tanisha Sorenson, a younger sister of homicide victim Travis Alexander, showed her true feelings outside the court house when she made this quote:
Someone in social media actually said this:
– “Juror # 17 ‘brought this internet wrath on herself'”.
Are you sure about that?
I found it highly amusing when the 11 jurors were being interviewed on the day of the 2nd penalty phase mistrial, they talked about how juror #17 didn’t deliberate, while at the same time describing exactly how juror #17 DID deliberate. Investigate ’till the cows come home, there’s nothing to be found.
Life is a wonderful choice. It’s almost always a good choice and rarely a bad choice. If McVeigh were still alive and holed up in a Super-Max somewhere, that would suit me just fine. First of all, most reasonable non-Jodi supporters, who know the facts of the case well, did NOT want a death sentence for Jodi Arias.
Deathies willl find no solace, but they need to hear this important fact:
The defense team doubled down on their strategy of attacking the victim and adding insult to injury. This was cited by jurors as one main reason why they selected the Death Penalty. Jodi Arias did Not complete her testimony. She did not offer up ANY personal mitigation witnesses, She did NOT show remorse (that doesn’t mean she has no remorse, just that she didn’t show it), She refused to allocute.
In short, Jodi Arias remained true to her word that if she ‘hurt Travis, she would beg for the Death penalty’. Jodi Arias offered up the Death penalty on a silver platter to the prosecution and their supporters. Still the jurors could not come back with a unanimous decision for Death. Too late now, friend. Case closed.
So, enough with all the hot air about how she should have gotten the Death penalty. This tells me that Life was the correct sentence for this particular case.
My personal theory, both at the time of the original penalty phase of the trial and at this 2nd penalty retrial, is that Juan Martinez took his foot off the gas in both closings. I believe he did this because he secretly personally didn’t want Jodi Arias to get the death penalty. There’s no question in my mind that a Death Penalty would have been reversed and remanded in this case.
Hey listen, Perryville Prison is a barren blast furnace with just about zero mercy. It’s a living hell. It’s not like Life in prison is some kind of big break or special treat for Jodi Arias. You’ll see.
Note: Please, do not be afraid of videos. Youtube Videos from SpotlightOnLaw cannot harm your computer or device. Youtube Videos from SpotLightOnLaw are usually clips or edited versions from other listed sources and they do not profit anyone if you click on them.
Youtube videos from SpotlightOnLaw are very integral to the article and greatly enhance the understanding of the subject matter. Please take the time to watch the video. Here’s a clip from Saving Private Ryan. You will understand this section much better if you view the video.
Saving Private Ryan – “Earn it!”
So what next in this Jodi Arias case Grand Fiasco?
We have said a lot of things about other people and principles surrounding this case. Now it’s time to say something about Jodi Ann Arias. Jodi Arias’ support doesn’t come from SJ or Jade or Pandora or Ben, no matter how much they may believe that. They are just bizarre people with no real accountability or values.
Jodi Arias’ support actually comes from and will continue to come from reasonable, fair-minded people who understand the prosecution side of the case and the intense pain of the Alexander family, yet still believe the state and media tried to run Jodi Arias down like a freight train. That simply cannot be allowed to stand. Guilty or Innocent or anywhere in between, it doesn’t much matter at this point.
These are the people who will rise up to support Jodi in prison and see that she finally gets the fair trial that every citizen is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
But they will want something in return, and it’s not a Jodi band, a Jodi chain, a signed painting, a blog byline, a seat on Jason’s Board or a seat in SJ’s secret war room. They will want honesty, facts, and humanity from Jodi Arias. The will want a person who knows how to earn her support. I’m not giving my support for free, and neither should anyone else.
I’m not going to listen to Jodi Arias or do what she says. I’m not going to answer to her pals or follow her commands – ever. Why should I or anyone follow her advice? Look where she has ended up. Life in an Arizona prison? Who in their right mind would follow her advice? LOL.
If Jodi Arias wants any help from me whatever, she had better learn how to EARN it.
Why are you saying this, Rob? (My God, I think I just pulled a Martinez).
In Saving Private Ryan, a small group of soldiers volunteers to go onto the European battlefield to find Private Ryan and return him safely to the USA. Ryan is a Private, the introductory and lowest rank of the U.S. Army.
Ryan is nobody special, but circumsances have made him special. His other 3 brothers have all been killed in combat on various battlefields in WWII. The Army decides it’s a mater of Justice (and PR value), that Ryan is returned home safely.
A group of volunteers under Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) set out from the beaches of Normandy, through France towards Germany to find and save Private James Ryan (Matt Damon). Along the way, many in the group are wounded or killed, trying to save this one soldier of lowest rank.
When the group finally catches up to Ryan, it’s not really about him anymore. The group of volunteer soldiers have formed a common bond. They have fought with and for each other, and they suffered setbacks and losses together. Their mission brought them closely together and bonded them, but it was now way more than Private Ryan or their mission holding them together.
Private Ryan feels the same way about the men he had been fighting with, and rather than escape in security and safety he fights to protect his new war “brothers”, including the team sent to rescue him. Captain Miller is fatally wounded in that final battle just before completing their mission to save Ryan. Captain Miller grabs Private Ryan and with his dying breath tells Ryan to “Earn it!”.
Here in the same way, volunteers supporting and helping Jodi have taken a lot of flack in her name. They’ve been fired at, sniped at, bombed, banished, attacked and pelted relentlessly.
George Barwood had his own daughter harassed at her college. He has been insulted, attacked, pilloried and ridiculed mercilessly, all for trying to save a life.
Jason Weber, another “Jodite”, had his Facebook page, like many, shut down due to false claims of “porn”. His Occupy FB site was just attacked non-stop. His mugshot and DUI convictions were posted in an attempt to humiliate him. He was insulted, harassed and bombarded by a succession of crusading “Travesites”.
Lisa Schilling was made out to be some kind of modern day Ma Barker, willing to run roughshod over common decency and break each and every law and defraud everyone because all she cares about is lies and making money.
She was so villified, that people in a FB group yesterday refused to allow her to even comment in her own defense.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but some Facebook and twitter people have been told these lies about Lisa so many times, they refuse to even be in the same group with her. It’s really crazy, trust me.
Pascal Van Daele was accused of being of course, a foreigner, probably up to no good, and a crook only out to get people’s money.
Sandra Webber got attacked, but she would turn around and hit them back twice as hard, making her by far the most hated of the bunch. How dare she not just sit there and take it? How dare she have the nerve to hit back, hard?
Notice how all these people are using their real names and we all know or can easily find out where they live. And Jodi supporters are outnumbered anywhere from 95% to 99%. That means out of every 100 people, there is one Jodi supporter. But somehow, we are the big threat to them? Yeah, right.
Name one prominent Prosecution supporter who uses their real name? Almost none of them. Why would that be when they are supposedly in the right and they outnumber Jodi supporters 100 to 1?
Anyways, of all these Jodi supporters above, the worst attacks didn’t come from a few isolated and crazed prosecution supporters. The worst attacks came from other Jodi supporters, specifically SJ the criminal exiled foreigner and his band of useless idiots at JAII. They attacked the reputations of these people.
George Barwood is a gentleman from England with a Cambridge education who supports Jodi Arias. Say what you want about George, most people on all sides of this issue like him. I gave him a hard time too, myself. He is a very humane, polite, and responsible person who put a lot of his own time and money into helping Jodi Arias’ case.
George saw very early that SJ was a really bad character reference for Jodi Arias. Here’s an example of just this: What was SJ doing today? Answer: He was commenting on a Facebook page called “F*ck the Travitard Hypocrites”. That will gain lots of new supporters ans help Jodi Arias, right?
George tried early on to get Jodi Arias and her family to disassociate from SJ and JAII. He saw that what SJ was saying and doing was chasing away current and potential supporters for Arias.
It was very easy for SJ and pals to convince Jodi that George and Jason, two people who had never been about the money, were now suddenly all about the money. But people who know, always knew there was never much money to even begin talking about it. SJ, the person convincing Jodi Arias that Jason and George were out to scam for money, was the only one who had ever scammed people. He’s been run out of the UK for scamming people. So what did George get for his trouble? A letter from Jodi Arias basically telling him to f*ck off and basically calling him an asshat. In spite of this, George Barwood is still hard at work in Jodi’s corner.
Jason Weber has a great deal of experience as a Web designer. An Ivy league graduate, Jason helps companies and individuals set up their own web sites. Jason owns his own multiple servers , and runs a number of websites.
This case just happened to coincide with a major interest of Jason’s, which is wrongful convictions, aggressive and media driven prosecutions, and his abhorrence of the Death Penalty. Jason has plenty of ways of making money without any help from Jodi Arias.
To be fair and to give equal time, I wanted to include this criticism of Jason Weber and Elizabeth Schilling and their website Justice4JodiArias.com. This criticism is from a woman I will call “DC Ritz”.
“I think it’s a sophomoric attempt, at best. The website is super slow and most of the information is bad and/or spun with extra rinse.
Either Elizabeth (Lisa Schilling) has been around JW (Jason Weber) too long, or JW is doing the writing. I think it will fail like most of JW’s other ventures.
His ‘style’ is unprofessional and reeks of bias. IMO” “And oh, I also find their tweets to be even more damaging to their “cause”. In fact, I believe they sent out the 60K of child porn tweet yet again just last week. (A tweet stating that 60,000 pieces of child porn was found on Travis Alexander’s computer) They will never garner donations with their existing style. Again, IMO.”
– DC Ritz March 19, 2015.
Jason got involved in this case mostly through blogging, and he also spent a lot of his own time and money helping on the case. He wanted to get an American based web site going for Jodi Arias which had a positive support framework, instead of the very negative, and combative platform the fugitive foreigner, SJ from Sweden set up.
Jason and Lisa Schilling wanted a site that was accountable and subject to U.S. laws so people would feel comfortable donating to Jodi’s cause knowing the donations would be properly accounted for and utilized.
What did Jason Weber get for his efforts? Jodi Arias basically told him to f*ck off and she allowed SJ to paint Jason and Lisa as frauds. Little does Arias know that the following for both George and Jason is booming, while following for SJ is in the basement. Most of the people following JAII are just curious non-supporter looky-loos. It’s really the same phenomenon as people who stop to stare at a terrible car crash.
Lisa Schilling, a college student from Kentucky, was a star supporter of Jodi Arias. I can tell you for a fact she has a heart of gold, and she worked tirelessly to support Jodi. She’s very smart and likable, and she wanted nothing for herself. What did she get for her efforts?
In a really sleazy situation, unfortunately highly reminiscent of the taped phone call to Travis Alexander, Lisa Schilling was set up by Jodi Arias and taped by a 3rd party without her knowledge as she answered Jodi Arias questions about Jason and her plans to have a web site and to raise funds in support of Jodi.
That single incident, where people I cared about got hurt by Jodi Arias and the sleazeballs at JAII, opened my eyes and forced me to take a second look at Jodi Arias and her behaviors.
Friends of SJ and Ben had tried to plant in Jodi Arias’ mind the idea that Jason and Lisa were out to commit fraud and take money.
Actually the only one of the three who ever may have actually scammed and defrauded people was SJ himself. Before this case he ran and still runs a Casey Anthony website CaseyAnthonyIsInnocent.com. What was his purpose for that site? No good deed ever goes unpunished, though, and it didn’t here, either, as Lisa was humiliated and made to look like some kind of criminal, when all she ever did was try to help save a life and secure a fair trial for the defendant.
Jodi Arias should go to her book club and pull out a book on cause and effect. She really needs to learn that her actions have consequences, far reaching consequences. You might think if she didn’t learn that from June 4th, 2008, then she may never learn it, but there you go.
What was done to Lisa made me absolutely livid. Jodi Arias lost my 100% support that day, and it’s been spiraling down ever since. Why is that? Well, I already knew about a guy I’ll call Fredd who was very nice to Jodi, talking on the phone and visiting her often. Then I found out from first hand sources how he was treated by her. Badly, very badly.
This was a guy who spent his own time and money selling Jodi Bands at a loss to help raise money for her families’ trial expenses. Fredd was kind of shoved aside when Ben Ernst came along and Jodi’s new adolescent-style love drama began. But there’s good old Fredd, still in her corner and working hard for Jodi, even after she told him to go take a flying leap…..
Then there is another person named Donovan Bering. Jodi Arias met Donovan Bering at the Estrella jail. Donovan Bering is a really nice person with a heart of gold. She did some arson, but hey. you are no angel, either! Donovan was released from the jail and she helped and supported Jodi Arias anyway she could from the outside. When the original trial started, Donovan spent endless hours supporting Jodi Arias every day in the courtroom. She was also one of the few if not the only person who did interviews in support of Jodi Arias and her defense.
Donovan was mercilessly attacked because of her loyalty and support to a friend.
I know for a fact that Donovan, without knowing anything about me, did a favor for me and delivered an e-mail to the defense team during the original trial even though I donated no money to Jodi Arias. In between the first trial and the penalty retrial, supporters began getting concerned that Jodi’s activities on twitter, done by proxy through Donovan Bering, would be used against her at trial and may help her to get the Death Penalty.
Donovan tried to get Jodi to suspend her tweeting. Jodi refused. Eventually Donovan took it upon herself, due to increasing warnings from her supporters, to suspend tweeting for Jodi Arias.
These were verbatim tweets directly from Jodi and were mostly positive quotes and status updates. For this, Donovan was put on Jodi’s ever -lengthening “sh*t list”, and she supposedly never spoke to her again. In spite of this even Donovan, who is very ill now, stands ready to help Jodi still to this day.
There’s another supporter I will call “Bosco”. Bosco wrote frequently to Jodi and had many phone calls with her. Bosco gave money to Arias funds, and bought her books and acid-free paper for her artwork. At some, point, reading through her letters, Bosco developed a new unflattering view of jodi Arias. Jodi Arias was acting the way Juan Martinez said she was. She wasn’t acting the way the defense portrayed her. Jodi Arias tried to deal with Bosco, but it wasn’t working.
Jodi supporters tried to silence Bosco.
Bosco released a few excerpts from some of Jodi’s letters where Jodi could be shown to behave exactly in the way Juan Martinez portrayed. Some Jodi Supporters started attacking Bosco.
Bosco stold the attacking Jodi supporters, if they do not stop attacking her, she would release more unflattering letters from Jodi’s own hand. After a few more releases, we are at a stalemate now, I suppose.
How many supporters has Jodi Arias lost? Well, I’m literally surrounded by former prominent supporters who aren’t supporting Jodi Arias any longer. They’ve retired now! This includes many of the above and lots, lots more. You ought to go up there and tell her about all this.
Here is a comment from Pascal Van Daele of Belgium, a former prominent supporter of Jodi Arias:
“Well: Justice4Jodi was made back in time when things were still good with us and Jodi. After we got “accused” of stealing money and scamming (like some of you still do here now). we took distance as matter of protection from Jodi Arias. That’s how NCDP (National Center for Due Process) was born and made to help the ones really in need of support and deserving of such.”
“We distanced ourselfs from Jodi, NCDP nor any of us 3 (Pascal, Jason, and Lisa) has anything to do with Jodi. Jodi doesn’t want or need help. She is helping herself along with her “true supporters” who are doing great and who are putting Jodi deeper and deeper in solitary.”
– Pascal Van Daele, former Jodi Supporter.
I have another quote from someone I’ll call Beverly Rubock Gray, from New York State:
“I’d write to Charlie (Manson) in a heartbeat. I know from my good friend Nancy that he passes the letters to his friend so it’s not worth it but I grew up in the 60s and remember what happened well. I find him a fascinating person. He had to have had a great deal of charisma to get anyone to do his bidding like he did.
He was a cult leader. I don’t LOVE Charlie but love to figure out how he did what he did.
Somehow, and I don’t say this is right, Jodi is detestable, someone you (or I) dislike immensely. Her narcissism and personality disorder make her someone I wouldn’t want to know. That does not apply to all murderers. It’s just the way it is.
If she shut her mouth about 90% of the time, if she stopped goading her culties to do things, if she stopped f*cking with the rules and trying to run a private little cult from jail and sucking money out of people who don’t have it, maybe I’d feel differently, like I do about Charlie and other killers, but alas, she does all these sh*tty things and she creates extreme dislike from the majority.”
– Beverly Rubock Gray, former Jodi supporter.
But Rob, how are you so sure these are actual facts and not rumors? How do you know Donovan was on Jodi’s sh*t list? These are all rock-solid and incontrovertible facts. We have the proof either from Jodi Arias or 1st hand directly from the person involved with her. Like it or not, it is what it is. The only love anyone should be giving to Jodi Arias anymore is Tough-Love.
While those JAII peeps keep cheering about who is the first one of the day to write a comment, real supporters will be expecting some gratitude for what’s already been done on Jodi’s behalf.
Real supporters might even be expecting explanations / apologies for all the supporters so far who have been thrown under the bus by Jodi Arias and her mental midget super-fans at JAII.
Let’s take a look at verified people burned by Jodi Arias beyond the question of a doubt:
– Bill Arias (physical abuse, emotional abuse, drugs)
– Sandy Arias (physical abuse, neglect, drugs)
– L. Kirk Nurmi (malpractice, refused basic legal services, attitude)
– Maria De La Rosa (Did or did not do something Jodi wanted done)
(Two days after the second mistrial, I have a first hand report Jodi was on the phone saying that she was upset with MDLR over something she did, as if chastising a hand-maiden sold into her majesty’s secret service.)
– Ryan Burns (full of sh*t)
– Dr. Richard Samuels (a disaster)
– Darryl Brewer (alcohol problem)
– Donovan Bering (sh*t list)
– “Fredd” (shoved aside)
– “Bosco” (found JA was not as advertised)
– Lisa Schilling (painted as a crook)
– Jason Weber (painted as a thief)
– George Barwood (basically told to F off)
Is there a probblem with gratitude here? These are just the ones that we are absolutely sure of. There are many other supporters and groups who Jodi may have also done wrong. Let us know, we’ll add you (or them) to the list.
It’s high time to re-align the stars in this case. Jodi has some homework to do if she wants my support:
– Dump JAII, SJ and the charismatic fans because they can’t help you, but they will gladly sink you further than they’ve done already. Dump them, because everyone else in the civilized world has.
-The era of Jodi Arias is Innocent is over. You’ve been proven guilty in a court of law, fair trial or no. You tore a good man up and left a river of his blood all over his own bathroom. You’ve destroyed two families and that’s just for starters.
– It’s time to stop remaining silent while your super-fans malign the victim and his family. They are still doubling down on that course of action as of yesterday. SJ has doubled down on insulting the Alexander family, which he commonly refers to as “the Adams Family”. What kind of strategy to build support is that?
– You know what? It might help your appeal chances if you acted more like the defenses’portrayal of you and less like the prosecution’s portrayal of you.
– Jodi Arias, you can’t gain reasonable and sympathetic supporters when you are basically agreeing with the JAII crowd that Travis deserved it and his family are only in it for the publicity and the pay off.
– Earn it.
From here on out, you better realize that you are of the lowest rank (Private) and nobody special. This will help to avoid injuries in your future interactions with other convicts. The supporters who are reasonable people that you haven’t lost (yet) would appreciate that. Normal people who could become your new dedicated supporters might appreciate that, also.
Since Jodi Arias won’t do the following, I will do it for her:
Thank-You everyone who supported, defended or were otherwise involved in saving Private Jodi in any way, shape, or form. Your efforts did not go unnoticed and were all deeply appreciated 🙂
I will be sure to earn you trust and support going forward as I have such profound gratitude for each and every act of each and every supporter, and all you have endured for my benefit.
Thank-you once more, everyone.
Love, Jodi’s conscience
(come out, come out, wherever you are).
So, I’ll say it one more time and then I ain’t saying it anymore. Jodi Arias has an individual moral choice to make. Does she want to stick with SJ, Stankowitz, Fandora, Gem, Crystal, Bobby Juarez III, Krusty Crab, Wavy Gravy and Jaded over at JAII, or does she want to earn real support that can actual help her?
If Jodi Arias wants true supporters, then she needs to acknowledge that she has thrown supporters under the bus. Apologize and try to not do that anymore going forward. She needs to earn trust and show some gratitude. If she wants to maintain the status quo, then good luck playing grab-ass with Ben and phone tag with SJ from Perryville over the next 70 years, cause that’s where it’s gonna end, the way they are doing things over there.
So, Jodi Arias (aka Agent 99) has a moral choice to make, or the people from JAII could do the impossible and straighten up their act. Ultimately, people will need to see some major changes, or else Arias will ultimately lose all legitimate support and end up as just another cult classic followed by just the super-fans and assorted fruits and nuts. Choose wisely. Arias.
Most people are probably aware that Simon Johansson, the entrepreneur of ill-repute, exiled from the UK, was behind the posting of the full names of the 11 jurors on his website JodiArisIsInnocent.com.
This may have been in retaliation for those on Twitter who posted the name, the address and even a map to the home of the one juror who held out for Life. This was tweeted by quite a few on Twitter the same day as the non-verdict. People are wondering how in the heck SJ, living in Switzerland, ever got a hold of those names. Suspicion, of course, falls upon a combination of Jodi Arias and/or her Mitigation Specialist, Maria De La Rosa, and Sj or one of his minions. So, what purpose did it serve other than to tend to incriminate, fairly or not, all of these people?
My sources informed me that Jodi’s mother and her Aunt Sue Allen-Halterman contacted SJ and asked him to take down the list of the 11 jurors names, to no avail. As of today, they were still there.
Many may have seen that move as heroically fighting fire with fire, as “SJ” has done throughout this case. But SJ far overstepped the bounds of decency as well as attacking each and every American and our U.S. Constitution. He cannot be allowed to get a pass on that, especially with everything else he’s done.
The individual, moral choice of the single holdout juror was not a violation of any kind, broke no laws or ethical codes, and her decision was entirely within her rights as a juror to make, for reasons I’ll explain in the next article.
This whole situation with the juror and the leak of the jurors’ names can and should be thoroughly investigated. If there was any wrongdoing by any party, there should be severe consequences. Barring that, the juror was within her rights and her decision was hers to make, keep, and hold fast to without any explanation owed to any of the other eleven. That’s the law for a Life or Death deliberation and verdict, in case you were not aware. More about that in the next article.
Out of all the schemes SJ has pulled, this one is by far the worst, in my opinion, because to threaten jurors and to publish names he obviously had prior to the verdict, strikes a blow to the very heart of our democracy and our Constitution. It’s beyond the pale. Here’s why:
“One of the primary concerns of the founding fathers was preventing the United States of America from developing an oppressive government. Much of the Bill of Rights was born out of that concern, including its prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and of course, the right to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial plays a central role in the justice system and it is important to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and function of the jury in a criminal matter.”
“A primary strength of the jury trial is that it acts as a check to unfettered prosecutorial power. Prosecutors have a tremendous amount of power when deciding whether to charge a defendant with a crime, as well as what charges to bring. However, they must make this charging decision understanding that a group of individuals, entirely unknown to them, will be deciding their case after they present the evidence. Prosecutors typically do not want to waste time and resources on unreasonable charges in front of a jury evaluating their case.”
“Another strength of juries is that, if judges decided every case, it could raise a number of concerns about fairness in the judicial process. For example, appointed judges might be beholden to politics and the people who appointed them. Additionally, elected judges could be swayed by public opinion in a given case. Jurors, on the other hand, are not appointed and instead serve on a jury as part of their civic duties. In cases where public opinion weighs heavily on one side, they can also be sequestered to minimize the amount of influence exerted by the public or media on a given matter.”
“On the other hand, jurors are laypeople who are sometimes asked to understand complicated legal concepts and apply those concepts to the case at hand, without letting emotion clog their decision-making. It’s not an easy task, and can be very time consuming, especially in cases involving serious offenses. Because of both the time and complexity of some matters, it is not surprising to hear stories about jurors falling asleep or failing to pay attention throughout a trial.”
“It’s easy to forget how important the jury really is to America. “The right to be a juror is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all eligible citizens. The right to trial by jury helped spark the American Revolution, was quickly adopted at the Constitutional Convention, and is the only right that appears in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.But for most of us, a jury summons is an unwelcome inconvenience. Who has time for jury duty? We have things to do.
In Why Jury Duty Matters, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson reminds us that whether we like it or not, we are all constitutional actors. Jury duty provides an opportunity to reflect on that constitutional responsibility. Combining American history, constitutional law, and personal experience, the book engages citizens in the deeper meaning of jury service. Interweaving constitutional principles into the actual jury experience, this book is a handbook for those Americans who want to enrich the jury experience. It seeks to reconnect ordinary citizens to the constitutional character of a nation by focusing on the important, and largely ignored, democratic lessons of the jury.
Jury duty is a shared American tradition. It connects people across class and race, creates habits of focus and purpose, and teaches values of participation, equality, and deliberation. We know that juries are important for courts, but we don’t know that jury service is important for democracy. This book inspires us to re-examine the jury experience and act on the constitutional principles that guide our country before, during, and after jury service.”
This is why, when some vile foreigner punk named Simon Johansson, threatens our Constitutional rights, all Americans and all peoples should be alarmed and disgusted, not only at his latest antic of naming and posting the 11 jurors in the Jodi Arias trial, but all the other mean-spirited and revolting stunts he’s pulled throughout the Jodi Arias case.
SJ pissed all over that tradition, using the social media as a weapon to threaten and intimidate the Arias jurors, and future jurors. Jurors are serving our country and should be thanked and applauded for that service. What will we do if citizens are afraid to step up to serve on juries? They should be treated with the utmost respect and confidentiality. The decisions of jurors should be accepted and only questioned under very rare and unusual circumstances, such as the guilt phase of the Jodi Arias case.
In America, it’s vitally important to our Constitution and our criminal justice system that the rule is HANDS-OFF ALL JURORS, WITNESSES, VICTIMS, FAMILY MEMBERS AND PRINCIPLES IN A TRIAL.
We found the verdicts to be fair and just verdicts, were it a fair trial. But we believe it was an unfair trial and the jurors did seem to be confused about a few things, from listening to their statements. We believe the original jury followed the prosecutor, rather than the facts and the law.
When a juror voluntarily releases his or her name to the public, then and only then should their name become “fair game” for reporting.
One seen as a heroic fortress and refuge against a blizzard of vengeance seekers in this case, JodiAriasIsInnocent.com has far overstepped its bounds, out-lived its purpose and should be shunned and abandoned by any and every true supporter of Jodi Arias.
Jodi Arias continues to cling to SJ and his foreign website, registered in Pakistan, run by a fugitive from the UK, and utilizing outdated, pirated software. These were the people who made her art and book sites possible, who set up a fundraising site for her appeals, and who delivered important information to supporters they could find almost nowhere else. Heroic efforts to be sure. JAII gave a voice to Jodi Arias and her supporters and fought valiantly against a giant and overwhelming opposing force of dedicated and highly motivated pro-prosecution supporters.
But the talented people who fulfilled all these tasks in support of Jodi Arias and the dedicated regulars and commenters on the JAII website are not welded to that website. They aren’t married to it. It’s just one punk and just one website. They can go off on their own, blog on their own, create their own websites, join other decent and civil support groups, communicate with Jodi on their own, and help her in any way they wish. They do not need SJ or JAII any longer.
JodiArias will follow her support and her supporters, not SJ and JAII. SJ is of no use to Arias any longer. He can not gain new, fair-minded supporters to her cause, he cannot help raise money for her appeals, and he cannot help her legally. SJ cannot rally supporters to her aid, because true supporters want nothing to do with him, his sleazy posts and comments, and his unethical schemes.
SJ damages Jodi’s cause with his checkered past, his rotten reputation and his inability to see or care how he is chasing hordes of current and potential new supporters away. Ever since the famous “Body bag” post where SJ posted a photo of Travis Alexander in a body bag on his bathroom floor with the caption “Justice Has Been Served” and “It’s In The Bag”, SJ has been losing a steady stream of supporters. Now, with his 2 dozen or so regulars, it’s really more of a trickle.
Two separate sources told me that on the eve of the 2nd penalty verdict, SJ again raised his body bag pirate flag, but then lowered it before the night was through.
My sources have related to me numerous stories of defections after that photo post, initially, but even more so since then and the end of this trial. SJ has built himself a Leper Colony, and the hopelessly infected are the only ones who will remain. People need to make a conscious effort to stop bringing hits to that site, as that is what SJ lives for.
Another source wanted to make sure I knew, after our Jodiland Wars article, that Ben Ernst, reputed to be very close to Jodi Arias, was not a part of JAII and did not comment there. No one wants to be associated with that offensive site or its Captain any longer.
During the Jodiland Wars, I tried to remain somewhat neutral between SJ and JAII and other groups of supporters who wanted Jodi Arias to divest herself from the ill-repute of JAII. But CNN’s HeadLine News does not own the Jodi Arias case and neither does SJ. There are many, much better alternatives, for supporters as well as for Arias and her family.
SJ’s crude foul language drives away 1/3 of his audience. His anti-American and anti-Constitutional stance and combative posture drives away another 1/3, and his mean-spiritedness and stunning lack of ethics drives away another 1/3. How many does that leave? Hmmmm. You do the math.
SJ has refused to join forces or share fundraising duties with any other blog, group, or website. How foolish is that? He’s an extremely jealous and competitive man, so much so that JAII will soon be a table for one. Some of his fellow pirates may stay with him, as his warship slowly sinks into the shoals, and no one’s complaining about that.
The only reason SJ and JAII is still afloat, though, is Jodi Arias. My sources tell me her family does not want to be associated with JAII and SJ, but Jodi Arias is demanding they stick with him. Jodi Arias has refused help from Jason Weber, Lisa Schilling. George Barwood, and others. Unlike the 2 dozen or so supporters at JAII, each of these people have hundreds and hundreds of supporters behind them and new supporters arriving every week. Jodi isn’t budging now, but she will, she will.
Maybe when Jodi Arias realizes that SJ has only manged to raise a few hundred dollars in many months, she will finally see the light.
Maybe there’s some kind of benefit in dealing with a foreign website that has no accountability and is immune from all law. But who needs that particular website? No one at all. If anything, SJ and JAII have prevented Jodi Arias from gaining a solid support base and raising funds for her appeals, only because SJ wants to be the sole voice and arm of Jodi Arias. Well, he’s not.
SJ is the emperor with no clothes. SJ is the little tiny man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. He’s a blowhard with emphysema.
If he truly wanted to help Jodi Arias’ cause, rather than generate website hits, which he can’t do either, SJ and JAII would take the high road.
That means hands off the victim, the victim’s family and the jurors. That means fighting ignorance, misunderstandings and hatred with patience, intelligence, humaneness, and integrity. Stick to logic and the facts of the case. That’s how to generate a following that can actually assist Jodi Arias and her family.
SJ is a warrior, but the war is over now, he should just fade away like MacArthur. This is a time to heal and to build, for everyone involved on all sides of this case. SJ thinks he has Jodi in his back pocket. But even she will eventually abandon him and follow her rational and humane base of supporters.
SJ is a supporter-repellant plain and simple. The jury had an important individual moral choice to make. Now, most fair-minded supporters have made their choice to abandon SJ and JAII. Now Jodi Arias herself has an important moral choice to make. You are known by the company you keep, and there’s no getting away from that. SJ can go gear up for his next Constitution bashing, mean-spirited fight with a new, hopefully foreign, defendant.
Another General Douglas MacArthur, he’s not, He’s more like another General Custer, or a General Nuisance.
“We are not retreating – we are advancing in another direction.”
“A better world shall emerge based on faith and understanding.”
“The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It’s the age-old struggle: the roar of the crowd on the one side, and the voice of your conscience on the other.”
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.
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.
Robert Knox’s post In Defense of Jodi prompted a lively debate and discussion. Some prosecution supporters were fit to be tied, and wanted to put Knox in stocks, or just throw blocks. Yes, I’m joking and being overly dramatic, but there was a spirited discussion from both sides in the comments section that was very civil on this blog, on Facebook and a little on Twitter. Most comments were interesting, informative and well done.
A commenter and an Administrator on a popular FB page wrote a response to Robert Knox’s post.
A frequent flyer on that page named Ireyna wrote a response and she gave me permission to share it here. In the interest of fairness and equal time, and because I liked what she had to say, I wanted to post it. I also spoke to Robert Knox, and we had an interesting discussion about the physical evidence at the crime scene, especially the bloody hand print. Some of that is important to talk about.
So here is Ireyna’s response posted verbatim as quoted:
“It’s really so difficult trying to see Knox’s side. I don’t think he really knows Jodi as he claims to. His name was not on the list for allowed visitors to Jodi in Estrella either. His rendition of Jodi makes Mother Theresa look badass. For basically a very newcomer, he is more than likely a second, third, or fourth etc. etc. profile for someone already commenting on the case.
So imo, his words don’t hold a lot of weight regarding Jodi. Sure Jodi comes across as a sweet little girl on many of her broadcast interviews … that’s the catch … acting like a sweet little girl and all these men are turned on by it … almost revolting. She was a woman of 27 when she hacked and shot Travis. At age 27 most females are really into womanhood with children of their own or planning a family. They act accordingly. Not seeking the spotlight using little girl’s innocent voices.
I’m not claiming Travis was a saint and never have. He was an average man playing the field like many men do, trying to find the right fit. Many men and many women date many others before they find the right fit. Some just keep on dating once they are married. Should we be happy if they are all slaughtered off for being unfaithful?
I have no doubt that Travis was afraid of getting married and settling down for fear he would have to face situations similar to that of his parents. Is that a sin that should be punishable by a horrid death? Knox idolizes Jodi. He sees only Jodi and not what she has done. I doubt he takes into consideration what many witness statements/interviews of Jodi’s own relatives and friends have to say.
Most of us justice for Travis supporters realize Travis was not a perfect man. Such a man does not exist. Whether he watched porn or not, that is no reason to slaughter him. Jodi was obsessed with him and couldn’t let go and I believe she was the instigator of the late night calls about sex. She offered herself up for sex and then was mad at Travis b/c he was seeing others. In what is left of his journals (the ones Jodi did not destroy) it is proof that he wanted to move on and have nothing more to do with her. Why didn’t she leave it at that?”
– Ireyna Rihter
“As someone upthread stated, there is really nothing much to debate in Jodi’s letter to the Alexanders. Some things may have a ring of truth however much does not. Her relationship with Travis was really short lived … when Jodi decided to involve Sky by complaining about Travis, the drama began.
I believe Travis was then finding out Jodi’s true nature. I do not believe he was begging her to move to Mesa and there is text that proves he didn’t want her in Mesa and was upset she moved there. There were witnesses who spoke of Jodi’s interference … Lisa for one, and it didn’t paint a pretty picture at all.
Deanna … even though there was no longer the dating relationship there … they were very good friends. I cannot believe that Travis told Jodi to keep things from Deanna b/c she would freak out; she is just not that kind of person and her testimony has weight. The murder scene that Knox thinks could be true as Jodi stated … maybe just a wee bit …
I can believe that Travis was down after the gunshot after standing at the sink pouring blood and then was trying to get away.And I believe Jodi was screaming at Travis but certainly not to get away. She was likely screaming at him that she would finish him off b/c he rejected her. Whatever we gleaned from Travis’ journal pages, he was done with the Jodi drama that she always created and he was finished with her extreme hissy fits of crying over him.
He had moved on and was happy she was out of his life. After he wrote things like that, I really do not believe he wanted her to swing by and visit him. All of that is Jodi’s word . I also do not believe he was begging her to marry him, again only Jodi’s word. Travis was talking about several other possible consorts and he had every right to as a young man shopping for Mrs. Right.
Jodi was clearly obsessed and could not let go and evidence proves that. That letter to the Alexanders was primarily to throw someone else under the bus … most likely Deanna, whom Jodi seems not to be able to face in court. I truly believe that Jodi was jealous of the love Travis had with Deanna. And the fact that Travis trusted Deanna so much to care for his dog while he was gone. He asked Deanna, not Jodi. The letter was self serving and certainly no answer for the Alexanders. She really should feel sick and ashamed over such a babble of lies.” – Ireyna Rihter
This comment is very representative of the sentiment of the Blue Empire of Justice 4 Travis or prosecution supporters. Blue because as most people know, that was Travis’ favorite color and a rallying color for Travis. Empire defines the overwhelming majority that do support the prosecution and the guilty verdict. It’s definitely a comprehensive response showing the general feeling towards Jodi and what most J4T supporters feel was really going on in the relationship.
I understand Robert Knox has known Jodi Arias for going on two years. He told me they have exchanged many, many letters and have had lots of phone conversations. He didn’t say if he had visited her. In any case, his profile name may be different from his actual name and who could blame him?
People that use their real names, ironically many prominent Jodi supporters, were hounded via Facebook from here to Tripoli. They were attacked in their real lives. This has happened on both sides and it’s part of the craziness – deep inside the Jodi Arias trial jungle. I hope most of us are over all that now.
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
The late night talks were probably started by Travis, imo, as he would save his social calling for night time after all the business of the day was finished. I believe he had that habit before meeting Jodi. Possibly Jodi and Travis had discussed marriage early in the relationship. There is some reason to doubt that in the Summer of 2007, that Travis begged Jodi to marry him or begged that she would move to Mesa from Palm Desert/Big Sur.
Let me correct that: It appears that sometime in 2007, they had discussed Jodi moving to Mesa and Travis wanted this. After They “broke up” in late June, it appears from text messages that Travis may not have been so hot on the idea.
It appears there was some friction about Jodi moving to Mesa, but talk about that subject is remarkably absent for most of the time Jodi was living in Mesa. Apparently,Travis ‘adjusted’ to the situation.
It might be interesting to look back and see what Jodi’s response to Deanna Ried actually was in court when Deanna was testifying in the original trial, so I gathered some clips of that:
(Excerpts from CroakerQueen 123 video. For the full video, please click on this link: CroakerQueen123
Jodi kept busy with her art work and rarely looked up towards Deanna. When the questioning shifted to the time Deanna broke up with Travis, and their relationship afterwards, Jodi’s ears seem to perk up. Talk about Deanna inheriting Travis’ dog Napoleon was another subject that definitely captured Jodi’s attention.
There’s so much evidence that Jodi was (and may still be) obsessed with Travis that it’s practically indisputable. She stated it herself quite a few times.
That got me thinking of the “snooping” evidence, more famously known as the “peeping” evidence. An unwelcome guest or a stranger peeping in somebody’s window is strange. Even friends or neighbors looking in someone’s window at odd hours would be probably seem strange to you, also. But a frequent visitor and welcome guest looking in someone’s window is not so strange, and it happens a lot. I’ve done it, and chances are, you have, too. Check out this story about Ashton Kutcher to see what I mean:
– Kutcher told police that he later tried to call Ellerin twice during the evening but she had not picked up her phone.
– Kutcher drove to her apartment at 10.45 pm in the hopes of smoothing over what he thought was a looming argument, and found that the lights were on in her apartment and her car was parked outside.
– After knocking on the door and calling out to her with no answer, Kutcher said he looked through a window into the apartment and saw what he thought was red wine pooled on the floor.
Here, even Ashton Kutcher peeped in the windows of his date’s house when she didn’t answer the door. His instincts were good, because unfortunately for her, at that time she was quite dead.
Recently, Amanda and I reviewed some Youtube videos of serial killers who openly discussed their crimes and what some people said about them. It was a fascinating study of the criminal mind and psychology that we highly recommend.
A victim’s family member on the death penalty: “Death is not a punishment, living is.”
Why a woman helped her lover to kill people: “If you were mean to me, that meant you loved me and I did what I was told by my lover”.
A different victim’s family member on the death penalty: “I would like to see him dead, not eating breakfast or reading a book.”
Notice how Ireyna, as many prosecution supporters who looked closely at the details in this case, believes the gunshot was first. Although many prosecution supporters think the shot was first, they believe Jodi shot Travis in the shower, and then things got messy, when that didn’t kill him.
That got me thinking of the physical evidence in the bathroom. Robert Knox and I had a conversation about the bloody handprint on the wall. Hing – hing – hing …. the BLOODY HANDPRINT ….. hing – hing – hing – hing. I remember discussions in the past where we were talking about whether or not the bloody handprintactually existed. I rembered thinking the trial videos showed that it did. But then after a talk with Robert Knox about it, I re-checked the trial videos. Here’s what I found:
It turns out that there was no evidence at all presented at trial that there was in fact a bloody handprint on the wall. Your mind conjures up an image of Jodi Arias with blood red hands and hands dripping blood, bracing herself against the bathroom hallway wall to get more leverage to stab Travis, or slipping in the pools of warm, slippery blood and putting her hand out against the wall to stop a fall.
There was a palm print of a left hand and it was found to be Jodi Arias’ print. The print was discovered while dusting the entire bathroom entrance hallway from waist level to about eye level. The evidence collector performed a presumptive test for blood and the test was negative. The DNA scientist discovered that the print contained a majority of Jodi Arias’ DNA and a minority of Travis Alexander’s DNA. One would expect, if the print were formed during the homicide, that the majority of the blood would be Travis’.
The DNA scientist also didn’t say the sample hand print was in blood, but only some “genetic material”. So it turns out that Robert Knox was correct, there was no bloody handprint. There was a hand print found of some type of genetic material, and it was matched to Jodi and Travis. That’s all. Could it have been blood? It could, but the test for blood was negative. Jodi could have made that print at anytime she was in Travis’ home and bedroom. Similarly, the hair in blood, found to be Jodi Arias’ hair in Travis’ blood, is not 100% proof of her presence that day, either. At least, not the way it was presented in court.
They did not get into details about the color of the hair found or what coloring was used. Detective Flores made a comment to Jodi at the interrogation about the hair root, or follicle decaying after several weeks, proving that she had to have been there recently since the time she left Mesa in April, 2008. Flores said the hair root begins to break down in a few weeks. I have not found the evidence to back that up. It seems a hair root can last for months. Travis had a maid service in May, but that doesn’t mean some of Jodi’s hairs couldn’t have been there from months before.
You can tell that Juan Martinez does not like the scientific evidence such as DNA very much, and Kirk Nurmi was just as eager to not jump into that stuff in great detail. Some trial watchers have said that the DNA and print evidence was rock solid, so the prosecution and defense stipulated to it prior to trial, and that seems to be why it was presented so briefly. It’s really amazing that in the type of chaotic crime scene we saw, with both parties bare-handed, that so little print or DNA evidence was found.
The DNA profiler explains how she tested the swab from the handprint.
(Excerpt from CroakerQueen 123 video. For the full video, please click on this link: CroakerQueen123
This dovetails ever-so-nicely into the dreaded alternative theories. It’s possible that the physical evidence of Jodi Arias’ presence at the crime scene (hair, blood, DNA) can be effectively challenged. That would leave only the evidence from the camera. This would explain the Alternative Theorist’s obsession with the photos from Travis’ camera. If that evidence could be explained away, then presto change-o, Jodi Arias was never even there. Here’s some of the stuff the Alternative Theorists have investigated
The idea that the shower depicted in the photos is not the shower in Travis’ master bathroom.
The idea that the sex photos were from another time, and possibly downloaded onto Travis’ camera.
The idea that the shower photos depict more than 2 people present, some theories stating there were many people present as well as animals, including Napoleon present in the bathroom.
From the world of HJ Blankenship
The idea that the time stamps on the photos were altered, doctored, or added to the photos to depict June 4th, 2008. Some theories stating that the camera Travis had did not have a time-stamp capability.
Various interpretations of the photos known as evidence #162 (the foot photo) and #163 (the baseboard photo) to depict persons other than Jodi and situations other than described in court.
The idea that Jodi Arias is not an octopus, and could not hold a knife, a gun, and the camera all at once.
One interpretation I came up with, that Jodi’s left hand can be seen in photo #163 below Travis’ back, necessitating an additional third person in the bathroom to snap the photo.
If you consider the skimpy physical evidence of Jodi’s presence in the bathroom on June 4th, 2008, you can understand why the alternative theorists are skeptical of the camera evidence. Having possibly removed Jodi from the scene, they look at other strange facts from around that time to come up with other possible assailants.
* The uncanny similarities between the murder and the old Mormon blood atonement ritual (multiple stabbings, the rital scraping of the skull with a specialized star-shaped instrument, a deep stab through the heart, the slit throat, and a ritualized cleansing of the body afterwards).
* The blood atonement ritual was a way a devout Mormon, who had committed grave sins, could still be forgiven and welcomed into heaven on planet Kolob with full honors, if the person were purified through allowing him or herself to be murdered.
* Alternative theorists also look to CASH Hughes (Chris And Sky Hughes) theorizing that the powerful couple needed to take Travis out before his indiscretions caused a backlash in the greater LDS community that could take down PPL (The multi-million dollar Pre-Paid Legal insurance empire.)
* The mysterious suicide of Dan and Desiree Freeman’s younger brother, Josh, shortly after Travis’ murder.
* The suicide after the murder of the girlfriend (Ashley Reed), of a jealous and violent man (Dustin Thompson). Ashley was spending more and more time with Travis and had discussed moving into his home with him.
* Ashley Reed even made an anonymous call to the Mesa Police department implicating her boyfriend, Dustin Thompson, in Travis’murder (see the Flores Report). FYI, Dustin owned a small caliber pistol.
* The mysterious shoeprint in blood found in the bathroom. That’s a must for any competent Alternative Theorist to try and fit that shoeprint into a quality alternative theory.
Some people think that Alternative Theories defy Occam’s Razor (the idea that the simplest solution or explanation is usually the correct one). They also think there’s way too much splainin’ to do for any of these theories to pass muster.
Even Jodi Arias has spoken out asking the alternative theorists to shut their pie holes and their think tanks and labs down and just stop it. But they remain undeterred. Completely unabated, the AT’s are still going harder, faster, and stronger than ever. They continue to make inquiries, do investigative and forensic work, and to formulate new and modified theories. Oh yeah, and to make videos, too.
Someone posted this video which may or may not be from HJ Blankenship, the guy who discovered the reflection in Travis’ eye and the first trial watcher to step out of the social media, get mentioned on HLN, and to directly influence the Jodi Arias trial. I think it was either Gray Hughes or Mike LeBlanc who posted this.
I have to say, HJ did a great job on this video, it’s unquestionably entertaining, to say the least.
Here’s a small sample of HJ Blankenship’s Tour de Force
So, we somehow managed to get it all on one page, the Justice 4 Travis Blue Empire, the Die Hard Jodi supporters, and the Iron man Alternative Theorists. All three categories of active trial watchers have changed their views and their focus at least a little bit, and some a lotta bit. All three categories are still out there, clarifying their views and investigating it all even further. They’re checking and double-checking. We’re all waiting for the jury’s decision.
Will it reflect real Justice, serious Justice or just more Injustice? It will depend mostly on your point of view.
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.
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:
Why Arizona Death – Qualified Juries are inherently dangerous
The Jodi Arias Murder Trial, the OTHER side of the story
Fact-Based Video Reporting by Rob Roman
In this report, we will show exactly why the verdict of Arizona juries should be viewed with caution, especially Death verdicts. We will show more of why Arizona jury instructions can be completely unintelligible, especially the ones about voting Life or Death.
Please don’t get me wrong, jurors are amazing people who perform a near heroic civil duty in taking time out of their lives to fulfill our Constitution. They should be venerated, respected, and their decisions should generally be accepted without question. But in this case, I believe there is something wrong, and it may be a combination of Arizona jury instructions and Arizona juries.
Let me show you why I believe this, but first I want to explain our comedy article about the original Arias jurors.
A long while back, Amanda and I put together an article for fun and jokes called New Discarded Juror Questions.
We put it out on Halloween so people would know we were just joking, but in a way, it wasn’t really joking. Here are some samples:
Discarded Juror Questions:
Juror question #111
“The defense did not prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. We have chosen on so many aggravators for you. I used to work Hospice, so trust me, honey, death ain’t no big deal. Would you like a strawberry Frappucino for your last meal, sweetie, or what?”
Juror #6, Diane Schwartz was not a nurse and was never a hospice worker. But I thought she did show a really hardened and cold side towards Jodi Arias, very similar to what a Hospice Nurse might be like. She said that she prayed to God before making her decision to sentence Arias to Death. Nice!
It seems she was confused by what the single aggravator was that the jury had just decided on. She made a staement that the defense failed to prove abuse, even though it was not up to the defense to “prove” anything.
Juror question #332
“I see England, I see France.
This morning, …. didn’t I see your oh so
tight, oh so pink, underpants?”
This was a parody of Arias juror William Zervakos. Many prosecution supporters didn’t respect Bill’s decision to vote for Life for Jodi Arias. They thought he and the other three who voted for Life must have been mesmerized, hypnotized, Psyched out, and anesthetized by the sexual talk and the sexy stories told by Arias.
Juror question #445
“Why in the hell were you just staring at me with your dead shark eyes, you evil, lying psycho?”
This looks like a joke on alternate juror Tara Kelly, yet these are two things she actually said in interviews about Jodi Arias. She thought that Arias had tried to give her a “stare-down” during the trial. Tara also did say that she thought Jodi Arias was a “Psycho”. Really I thought that this nail tech must have inhaled a little too much acetone.
Juror question #299
“Jane Velez Mitchell said “One of THE JURORS LOOKS like ARIAS’ MOTHER!”
Do you think I look like your mother? Do you think that’s gonna help you now?
Well? Do You? ANSWER ME!!!”
This was a joke about reporters watching the trial who said that one of the jurors looked like Jodi Arias’mother, Sandy. This is the juror, Mary-Lou, they were talking about. This was really a ridiculous statement by Tweeters trying to be funny. And here she is yelling at Jodi Arias like her mother may have when JA was a teenager.
But let’s take a look at what the real jurors really said:
In a capital case, there are three major decisions for any jury to make. The first is whether the defendant is guilty or not and what is the degree of guilt. The second is establishing whether and which of the statutory aggravators presented is true or not true. The third is to decide if any of the alleged mitigating factors are true or not true, and then to weigh them against the decided upon aggravator(s). If , for you, the aggravator(s) outweigh the mitigator(s), you have a decision of Death. If the mitigator(s) outweigh the aggravators, you have a decision of Life.
Each of these 3 decisions seem to be on an increasing level of difficulty. Needless to say, if there is no 1st degree conviction, the remaining two decisions are not necessary.
In the original Arias trial, the decision of whether or not Arias committed the killing was never a factor in the trial. The first words out of the defense were that Jodi Arias did this, this was not a “whodunit”, and that the real question was “why?”
The meaning of this is that the jurors, for the first major question, have the job of deciding the degree of guilt, rather than, did she do it? This is why it is so surprising when Diane Schwartz, juror #6, in the original trial, talks about her reasons for finding Arias guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder.
There were 15 hours of deliberations, and everyone on the jury supposedly knew that the question was whether or not it was pre-meditated. So, one would expect that a juror who was asked why they found Arias guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder, would immediately start talking about why they felt the crime was premeditated.
Alarmingly, this is not what juror #6, Diane Schwartz talked about. What she talked about was whether or not Arias committed the crime.
“There was so much evidence, the hair the palm-print, the pictures”.
The defense stipulated to all that. They never denied the hair in blood, the bloody palm-print, or the photos. What on earth was she talking about?
We have already reported how the 7 jurors who voted Arias guilty of 1st degree felony murder were mistaken, but it is complicated and it’s easy to see their confusion about that.
Once deciding on 1st degree murder, deciding on the aggravator of cruelty was a fait accompli the way Arizona words the statute and the jury instructions for the “cruelty aggravator”, the single one out of fourteen aggravators which is far and away the very most popular aggravator applied to a murder.
Juror #6 really presented as a leader. She is a retired 911 call-center boss, a person who would be really friendly with police and very sympathetic to crime victims. Nothing wrong with that, but what kind of reasoning was she using? Juror #6 really did make the rounds, appearing on HLN five times, and breakfasting with the Friends and family of the victim. She also appeared in interviews on NBC’s 12 News, ABC’s 10 News, FOX News 10 Phoenix, and at the Arizona Republican.
Diane Schwartz was famous for being the juror who “mouthed I’m sorry” from the jury box, in a seeming continuation of the non-verbal communication that was observed to be going back and forth between the jurors and the Alexander family and friends. She also apologized to the prosecutor’s table, where she said that Prosecutor Juan Martinez and Detective Esteban Flores refused to look at them. She went on to apologize to the Alexander family verbally.
Schwatz spent a lot of time talking about the victim impact statements and how important they were in her decision.
Schwartz and company, for she appeared to have quite a few followers in the jury, surely fulfilled her obligation to not make a decision based on sympathy for the defendant. But, it seems she may have forgotten that this no sympathy rule also applies to the victim and the victim’s family. She seemed to have plenty of sympathy for them and it seemed to play into her decision for Death.
Keep in mind that every murder is cruel and horrible, and almost every homicide victim has a family that has been severely impacted by their loss.
But here’s the kicker and the reason why Arizona juries are so scary: The way a death sentence is supposed to be decided is for the jury to decide what the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are, and to weigh them against each other to decide which side outweighs the other.
The Arizona jury instructions for this don’t really say this explicitly, however, and are quite confusing. In the Arias first penalty phase (and the second, if they ever get to deliberations), there was a single aggravator of cruelty. There were eight mitigating factors given, including that Jodi was of a young age, had no prior record, and was abused.
The idea is for each juror to decided which, of any of the mitigating factors are more true than not true, and then to weigh them against the one single aggravating factor of cruelty.
Listen to the Judge’s Instructions:
Here again, according to statements by juror #6, the leader, she seems to not understand this at all.
ALL THE AGGRAVATING FACTORS??
What is she even talking about? Did she pass on this faulty decision making to her fellow jurors?
The main thing you hear from these jurors also is that they didn’t believe Arias, couldn’t trust her testimony, thought she was playing them. This was the theme drilled into their heads by Prosecutor Juan Martinez, who spent much, much more time and energy on discrediting witnesses and the defendant than he devoted to actual evidence.
In an earlier interview, Diane Schwartz said that there was”absolutely nothing” on the mitigation side, in her view. So then why did she say it was such a tough decision for her?? Why did she soften her approach more with each consecutive interview?
One more time, you just NEED to see this:
The other leader, jury foreman Bill Zevakos, had different things to say:
– “We couldn’t allow ourselves to get emotional”.
– “I had to”stop being ‘Bill’ and start being juror 18”.
– “We needed to divest ourselves of the personal”.
– (Paraphrase) ‘From the evidence that we saw, the e-mails, the text messages, the conversations they had, it was evident that she was verbally and mentally abused’.
– (Paraphrase) ‘Until you are face to face with people who have gone through a horrendous loss, you cannot imagine what it’s like.’
– “She was crucified in the media.”
Bill Zervakos speaks:
Zervakos also said he thought the jury instructions were ambiguous, a big understatement. Interestingly, he thought that the jury was forced to interpret the law, which is exactly what Nurmi put in his motion stating that the Arizona F(6) cruelty aggravator is unconstitutionally vague.
So, maybe Diane Schwartz didn’t say what she meant, or was unable to give a complete answer? Well, maybe not, because look at what Juror #16, Mary-Lou Allen Coogan gave as the reason she voted for Death:
“Because it was premeditated”.
Premeditation doesn’t qualify the case for a Death sentence, that cannot be a reason to vote for Death. She went on to say that the prosecution proved their case, they proved she did it and that there were extenuating circumstances. That is not a proper criteria for delivering a vote for death.
The elements of the crime are supposed to be independent of whether a juror finds any mitigators to be more true than not true.
Here’s the judge explaining exactly that:
The juror must decide what mitigators, the eight given or any others they can gather from the entire trial, decide which, if any are true, and then weigh them against the single aggravator of cruelty.
And here we have this juror talking about premeditation and proof that Arias did it. It’s really beyond belief. No way could these jurors have understood the instructions, that is unless the instructions just mean you can make any decision you want for any reasons you want. Basically that’s exactly what they say.
Juror #13 Kevin Spellman made more sense than either of these women. He said that the wounds themselves mean for him that not only was it not self-defense, but it had to be pre-meditated. That is that you cannot have that crime scene and those wounds using two weapons, without having a moment of reflection on the intent to kill. About the death penalty, he referenced the brutality and the cruelty of the killing, which shows an understanding of how he was supposed to make his decision, which you do not see in Diane or Mary-Lou’s answers.
So what does this mean for the new penalty “mini trial” – The Sequel? With those instructions, who knows what to expect or how the jurors will arrive at their momentous Life or Death decision.
Pizza Party directly after the verdict!!
Since when do we execute mentally ill first time offenders? The response we usually get is that mental illness doesn’t matter unless Arias was insane at the time of the crime. Others deny there is any mental illness and say that a Pesonality Disorder is not a mental illness. Let’s take a look at that:
BPD, or Borderline Personality Disorder, is a condition many people have of varying degrees. Many of these people are very creative and very successful people.
“Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
Borderline Personality Disorder is a serious condition which is believed to affect between 1-3% of the general population. Yet, despite being so prevalent, BPD is not commonly understood.
People who live in a relationship with a person who suffers from borderline personality disorder often know that something is terribly wrong with the behavior of their family member or loved-one but often do not know what to do about it or that there is even a name for it.
There are a number of different names used around the world for the same disorder:
Emotional Regulation Disorder (ERD)
Emotional Intensity Disorder (EID)
Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (EUPD)
Emotion-Impulse Regulation Disorder (EIRD)
Impulsive Personality Disorder (IPD)”
Borderline Personality Disorder (Radical changes in DSM V)
“The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose borderline personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:
A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a. Identity: Markedly impoverished, poorly developed, or unstable self-image, often associated with excessive self-criticism; chronic feelings of emptiness; dissociative states under stress.
b. Self-direction: Instability in goals, aspirations, values, or career plans.
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a. Empathy: Compromised ability to recognize the feelings and needs of others associated with interpersonal hypersensitivity (i.e., prone to feel slighted or insulted); perceptions of others selectively biased toward negative attributes or vulnerabilities.
b. Intimacy: Intense, unstable, and conflicted close relationships, marked by mistrust, neediness, and anxious preoccupation with real or imagined abandonment; close relationships often viewed in extremes of idealization and devaluation and alternating between over involvement and withdrawal.”
Here are some elements that may exist in persons with BPD:
Catastrophizing – The habit of automatically assuming a “worst case scenario” and inappropriately characterizing minor or moderate problems or issues as catastrophic events.
Chaos Manufacture – Unnecessarily creating or maintaining an environment of risk, destruction, confusion or mess.
Cognitive Dissonance – A psychological term for the discomfort that most people feel when they encounter information which contradicts their existing set of beliefs or values. People who suffer from personality disorders often experience cognitive dissonance when they are confronted with evidence that their actions have hurt others or have contradicted their stated morals.
“Control-Me” Syndrome – This describes a tendency which some people have to foster relationships with people who have a controlling narcissistic, antisocial or “acting-out” nature.
Denial – Believing or imagining that some painful or traumatic circumstance, event or memory does not exist or did not happen.
Dependency – An inappropriate and chronic reliance by an adult individual on another individual for their health, subsistence, decision making or personal and emotional well-being.
Depression – People who suffer from personality disorders are often also diagnosed with symptoms of depression.
Dissociation– A psychological term used to describe a mental departure from reality.
Domestic Theft – Consuming or taking control of a resource or asset belonging to (or shared with) a family member, partner or spouse without first obtaining their approval.
Fear of Abandonment – An irrational belief that one is in imminent danger of being personally rejected, discarded or replaced.
Hoovers & Hoovering – A Hoover is a metaphor taken from the popular brand of vacuum cleaners, to describe how an abuse victim trying to assert their own rights by leaving or limiting contact in a dysfunctional relationship, gets “sucked back in” when the perpetrator temporarily exhibits improved or desirable behavior.”
Many people out in social media–world and video-land say that Jodi Arias does not suffer from a lifelong mental illness, including Jodi Arias herself. Let’s see what a reporter who was up close and personal with Arias had to say:
Jodi Arias has a very severe form of this mental illness. Will we go back to the days of the Salem Witch Trials, and kill people with physical and mental disabilities because we ignorantly believe they are Evil?
Even if we do decide to put a mentally ill, first time offender to death, can we follow Arizona’s jury instructions, or are they actually indecipherable and unfollowable??
“Cate” believes that Judge Stephens and Juan Martinez were correct and that Kirk Nurmi, Vladimir Gagic, Amanda Chen and Rob Roman are wrong about the validity and the application of the Felony Murder charge. “Cate” supplied some very good case law on this issue.
In our last article, we were asking a number of questions about the Felony Murder Charge:
Does it make sense that in Arizona, you can find someone guilty of BOTH Felony Murder (an unplanned murder) AND Pre-meditated murder (a planned murder)?
Does the felony murder charge correctly apply to the Arias case, or was the charge kept solely to give the jurors another choice of 1st degree murder (in a sort of heads I win, tails, you lose situation for the prosecution)?
Can you be found guilty of felony murder (A death occurs in the course of another dangerous felony) based on burglary with intent to commit the murder?
Is this a legitimate charge under the facts of State v. Arias?
Were the 7 jurors who found for felony murder correct or not?
We needed to dig deeper into the issue to get to the bottom of who’s right and who’s wrong about this. I’m going to make this as easy to understand as possible, easy enough for even me to understand. The citings and cases are all here for you to look at in more detail if you like.
“Cate” offered up an appellate case which had most of the relevant case law regarding the felony murder rule in Arizona, and how the elements of the felony and the elements of the murder can now be, in some cases, the same.
The appelate case is State v. Moore, argued in the Arizona Supreme Court.
Moore: It’s not felony murder because I can’t be charged with felony murder based on a burglary that is itself based on the intent to murder.
The Court: Yes, you can, and you did.
“Relying on State v. Essman, 98 Ariz(1965), Moore also argues that under the merger doctrine, felony murder cannot be predicated upon a burglary that is itself based on the intent to murder.”
State of Arizona v. Julius Jarreau Moore is an appeal of a death sentence for a man who killed 3 people. One murder victim was outside the house with a woman who also was shot, and 2 murder victims were inside the house. Sergio Mata, Guadalupe Ramos, and Delia Ramos were all shot to death in their rental home and Debra Ford was shot and survived. The crimes took place during a flurry of crack smoking.
“Debra Ford went to the Phoenix apartment of Sergio Mata, Delia Ramos, and Guadalupe Ramos to purchase and smoke crack in the late evening hours of November 15, 1999. In the early hours of the 16th, Moore came to the apartment looking for Debra. When Debra came out to see Moore, they talked for a bit and smoked some crack.
Shortly after, Sergio came out of the apartment and Moore shot him in the head, killing him and then turned to Debra and shot her in the neck.
Debra remained alive and conscious while praying for her life. She heard several additional shots fired while she was on the ground. When police arrived and went into the apartment, they found Guadalupe on the couch and Delia inside the bedroom closet. Both were shot to death. Debra survived and testified against Moore during trial.”
Sergio was shot outside the apartment building in a public area, and there was evidence of pre-meditation, so his murder was charged as a premeditated murder. Guadalupe and Delia were shot inside the home, it appeared as if Moore’s motive was to steal drugs, and there was some reflection, so those two murders were charged as both premeditated and felony murders.
The felony murder was first based on burglary – theft, but the prosecution changed it later and based it on burglary – assault, possibly because they had more evidence of the assault than the theft.
The trial was in 2002, the jury found for the aggravator of multiple murders, but did not reach consensus on the aggravator of cruelty. The case is interesting because right during the penalty phase, Moore’s medical expert had a heart attack, causing a mistrial. Moore had a new aggravation and penalty phase in 2007, the jury found the same aggravator and sentenced Moore to death.
In the mandatory appeal before the Arizona Supreme court, Moore cites a number of issues. The relevant one to the Arias case is this:
Relying on State v. Essman, (1965), Moore also argues that under the merger doctrine, felony murder cannot be predicated upon a burglary that is itself based on the intent to murder.
State v. Essman (1965)
Essman: It’s not felony murder because the felony and the murder are the same thing.
Felony Murder does not apply when the felony is included in (Merged into) the charge of homicide.
Court: Yes, we agree.
Essman is in itself an interesting case. Essman was home and cleaning his gun with his daughter in a near bedroom. He began playing around with the gun. His wife came home and told him to put the gun away before someone gets hurt.
Essman said something like “See? It’s harmless”, as he pointed the gun at the family dog and fired twice. Nothing happened because Essman had emptied the revolver. Then he aimed the gun at his wife and pulled the trigger. The gun went off and killed her. Apparently there was one bullet left in the chamber. Jerk.
In his instruction on second degree murder the judge in Essman instructed the jury that the felony-murder doctrine applied where the felony was assault with a deadly weapon. The pertinent portion of the instruction was “when the killing is done in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate a felony such as assault with a deadly weapon.” The felony-murder doctrine does not apply where the felony is an offense included in the charge of homicide.
The felony murder doctrine basically states that any death caused during a dangerous felony becomes a 1st or 2nd degree murder.
The decision quoted People v. Moran 246 N.Y. 1927
“The acts of assault merge into the resultant homicide, and may not be deemed a separate and independent offense which could support a conviction for felony murder.”
In the appeal of State v. Moran, Chief Judge Cardozo quoted State v. Huter
“To make the quality of the intent indifferent, it is not enough to show that the homicide was felonious, or that there was a felonious assault which culminated in homicide”. People v. Huter 184 N.Y.
“Making the quality of the intent indifferent” means that the intent needs to be to commit a felony which causes a death, rather than an intent to commit a murder. Remember in felony murder, the death caused could be accidental (heart attack, death of a bystander, etc) or intentional (sudden decision to kill, foreseeable consequence of felonious activities).
“Such a holding would mean that every homicide, not justifiable or excusable, would occur in the commission of a felony, with the result that intent to kill and deliberation and premeditation would never be essential.” People v. Wagner 245 N.Y.
– And this is why most states practice this kind of common law.
“The felony that eliminates the quality of the intent must be one that is independent of the homicide and of the assault merged therein, like robbery or larceny or burglary or rape.” 246 N.Y.
This is the Merger Rule. When the predicate felony of a felony murder merges with the actual murder itself (assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon), the merger rule applies and the crime cannot be charged as a Felony murder.
Why is this so important?
In the case of 1st degree murder, if the crime can be charged as a Felony Murder, two things happen:
First, there are no lesser included offenses or degrees of the crime. You either get convicted of the highest degree of murder, or you are not convicted. It’s all or nothing.
With Pre-mediated Murder, the jury can decide on lesser offenses and lower degrees of the crime (2nd degree Murder, Heat of Passion, Manslaughter), so you do not necessarily get convicted of the highest degree of murder.
Second, intent to murder no longer has to be proven, only that a death occurred during an intent to commit a dangerous felony.
It might be advantageous for the prosecution to charge felony murder over premeditated murder, because a conviction would be of the highest degree, and intent to kill doesn’t need to be proven.
This is why the Merger rule is meant to prevent a murder with no dangerous felony other than the murder itself from being charged as a felony murder.
A serious problem with the Arias case is that the prosecution never really specified prior to trial exactly what the felony defining the burglary was, meaning the Felony part of the felony murder is Burglary with intent to …….?
It’s not even specified in the jury instructions, the way it is in other cases. It merely says burglary with intent to commit any theft or felony.
So what’s the felony in the felony murder charge in the Arias case?
In Moore, State v. Miniefield is also cited. You can hear Kirk Nurmi discussing this on day 9 of the trial (we included the video and where to find it in the Holy Grail article).
Miniefield basically got drunk and went ballistic trying to kill a guy he got angry at. He had at times, a handgun, a shotgun, and finally, Molotov Cocktails. He finally managed to set the guy’s house on fire and the guy’s young daughter was burned to death.
Kind of makes it difficult to root for this guy in his appeal, doesn’t it?
This guy wanted the felony murder conviction dropped so badly, he was even willing to admit to pre-meditated murder.
Minefield: It’s not felony murder because I intended to murder the victim.
It’s not felony murder because the arson was not independent of the homicide.
Court: Yes, it is felony murder and the arson IS independent of the homicide.
“Later Arizona cases implicitly rejected the broad language in Essman suggesting that the predicate felony must be “independent of the homicide.” For example, in State v. Miniefield, the defendant argued that it was fundamental error to charge him with felony murder by arson because “the arson was merely the use of fire to attempt to kill the victim.”
The Court rejected this argument by noting that the felony murder statute provided that when a person commits arson and the arson results in death it is first-degree murder. “The statute does not draw a distinction between a person who intends to kill another by fire and one who only intends to burn down a dwelling house and accidentally kills one of the occupants.”
See the logic there? Arizona doesn’t care if premeditated murder and felony murder, seemingly mutually exclusive, are both charged and both found as long as the basic elements of each theory are proven.
Most recently, the Court distinguished Essman in State v. Dann (Dann I), (2003).
“There, the defendant argued that because he intended to murder a victim rather than assault him, he could not be convicted of felony murder.
Noting that the defendant did not dispute that felony murder could be predicated on burglary based on intent to commit assault, the Court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding of the predicate offense. The Court further observed that the merger rule does not apply in cases in which the separate crime of burglary is alleged.”
Meaning that it helps a felony murder charge, to have a separate charge for the felony.
The Jodi Arias case did not have a separate charge for felony.
“Moore complains that the State, while charging felony murder based on burglary, did not specify until the settling of jury instructions, and after the close of evidence, that burglary would be defined by his intent to commit murder rather than theft.”
Arizona prosecutors sure like to keep secrets from the defense, don’t they?
“We agree with Moore that Blakley implies that the state should identify before trial the particular felony that will be used to define burglary when the latter crime is the predicate for felony murder.”
Moore was indicted for and convicted of two counts of premeditated and felony murder for the murders of Delia and Guadalupe, one count of premeditated murder for the murder of Mata, one count of attempted first-degree murder for the injuries to Ford, and one count of first-degree burglary. The trial court was to sentence Moore in August 2002, but the hearing was vacated after the Supreme Court held that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional. See Arizona v. Ring (Ring II), (2002).
Arizona v. Ring (Ring II), (2002). Is a landmark case which held that juries, not judges, should decide the death penalty mitigators and aggravators and decide on life or death.
Landmark cases are sometimes based on the trials of real pieces of ……… work, like Ring.
“In November 2004, the trial court empanelled a jury to determine Moore’s sentence. The State alleged two aggravators: that Moore murdered Delia in an especially cruel manner, and that Moore murdered multiple persons on the same occasion. The jury did not reach a verdict on the (F)(6) aggravator, but did find the (F)(8) aggravator. Before the penalty phase concluded, the court declared a mistrial because Moore’s medical expert suffered a heart attack.
Moore was another endless case.
Why felony murder is so contentious:
Remember that Felony Murder means that if someone dies in the course of a dangerous felony, that death can become a 1st degree murder. A defendant could get life in prison or the death penalty. While Premeditated Murder includes lesser charges a jury could decide on.
There’s a famous case where a man goes into a home with a gun to rob it. He hears a sound and changes his mind and runs out of the home. On the way, he trips over a wire falls and the gun goes off. Unknown to him, there was a person behind the wall who was shot and killed. The man leaves thinking the worse thing he did was the gun went off. He was arrested for felony murder and faced the death penalty. This is because he attempted a burglary and in the course of the attempt, he caused the death of a person.
This is the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia.
Scary to think that because of the felony murder law, the man faced the death penalty for what was otherwise an accidental shooting. Without the felony of burglary – theft, this would normally be a 2nd degree murder at most or manslaughter.
So, there are lots of consequences, sometimes unintended, when applying the law to the facts of a case or deciding how a defendant will be charged.
Dann: It cannot be Felony Murder if I enter the home in order to commit premeditated murder.
Court: It is felony murder because the felony was burglary with intent to commit assault. In the course of that felony, you caused the death of a person. There is sufficient evidence to find intent to assault.
“The jury found Dann guilty of felony murder on all three murder charges. The predicate offense for the felony murders was burglary, which, in turn, was predicated on an intent to commit aggravated assault. The State charged that Dann went to the apartment intending to shoot Andrew, which constitutes an aggravated assault.
Dann asserts that the evidence showed that he entered Andrew’s apartment intending to murder Andrew, not assault him; therefore, he argues, the only felony offense to support the burglary charge was murder, not aggravated assault.”
“This results in ‘bootstrapping’, Dann maintains, because the State is saying that he committed felony murder because he entered the apartment intending to commit premeditated murder.”
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding of the predicate offense. The Court further observed that “merger does not apply in cases in which the separate crime of burglary is alleged and established.”
“Dann I and Miniefield defeat Moore’s argument that felony murder cannot be predicated on a burglary that is based on the intent to murder. The felony murder statute, A.R.S.§ 13-1105(A)(2), does not distinguish between burglaries defined by intent to commit assault versus intent to murder.”
In Arizona, yes you can!
So who is right about the Arias case? “Cate” and Juan Martinez and Judge Sherry Stephens and The Supreme Court of Arizona or Amanda Chen and Rob Roman and Kirk Nurmi and Vladimir Gagin?
“Cate” made the comment that legal interpretations and decisions should be left to the professionals (Prosecutors and Judges), and not to layman blog writers. She forgets that Nurmi and Gagin are experienced criminal defense attorneys in Arizona, and they say the felony murder charge is in error.
“Cate” also forgets I went to law school as did Amanda, I’m a paralegal working in Federal and State Civil Litigation with an emphasis on the Disabled. I think I can give it a shot.
“Cate” made a big legal boo-boo. She forgot that in State v. Moore, all those cited cases and the appeal apply to State v. Moore. They do not necessarily apply to State v. Arias.
Now let’s bring down all the questions from the top of this article and see if these cases have answered our questions:
Does it make sense that in Arizona, you can find someone guilty of BOTH Felony Murder (an unplanned murder) and Pre-meditated murder (a planned murder)?
Yes, it makes sense – in Arizona. You can find a defendant guilty of both premeditated murder AND felony murder. You can see that it’s a correct verdict in State v. Moore, because Moore was convicted of both 1st degree premeditated murder and felony murder of 2 victims.
So, to clarify, you can be found guilty under both theories of first degree murder IF, in the course of a dangerous felony, you commit pre-meditated murder. That’s the reality in Arizona.
This seems to be only in Arizona, as far as I know. It seems like this gives prosecutors two bites at the apple, though.
Arizona seems to like those second bites at the apple, as shown in their nifty little ‘if at first you don’t succeed (at the death penalty) try, try again’.
Does the Merger rule apply in Arizona? Can you be found guilty of felony murder based on a burglary with intent to commit murder?
Can Juan Martinez use an intent to assault or murder as the basis for the Felony burglary in State v. Arias?
If the felony merges with the murder, then any murder would be a felony murder and there would be no need to prove pre-meditation, deliberation, or an intent to kill.
This is the law in most states. This was the law in Arizona. But, Arizona didn’t like that too very much, so they do it their way.
Later Arizona cases implicitly rejected the broad language in Essman suggesting that the predicate felony must be “independent of the homicide.”
These next three cases reflect that rejection of Essman:
Moore: How can I be guilty of Felony Murder based on a burglary with the intent to commit pre-meditated murder?
Court: Because we find you committed burglary with the intent to commit assault. In the course of this felony, you caused the death of a person. Have a nice day.
Other states have held that a felony-murder conviction cannot be based on a burglary intended solely to murder the victim. Arizona don’t give a squid what them there other states do.
“We have already recognized that Arizona’s felony-murder statute identifies burglary based on assault as a valid predicate offense”.
Miniefield: It’s not felony murder because I intended to murder the victim
Court: Your intention to murder the victim is of no consequence for the purposes of felony murder. Your intention was to commit arson because you did commit arson. Whether you intended to kill or not, doesn’t matter in felony murder. You set the building on fire and someone died as a result, Jerk.
Miniefield: I did not intend to commit arson, my intent was to kill the victim.
Court: You lit the Molotov cocktail and you threw it at the house. How was that not your intention, sir?
Dann: How can it be Felony Murder if I enter the home in order to commit premeditated murder?
Court: We have proof you entered the home to commit an assault. Also, we have a separate felony charge
Felony murder can be predicated on a burglary that is based on the intent to murder.
The felony murder statute does not distinguish between burglaries defined by intent to commit assault versus intent to murder.
Does the felony murder charge correctly apply to the Arias case, or was the charge possibly kept solely to give the jurors another choice of 1st degree murder, (in a sort of heads I win, tails, you lose situation) for the prosecution?
I would not put it past a prosecutor who tries to bring in evidence of “animal cruelty and torture” based on a vague, 3rd party report of a too tightly squeezed cat. After that monkey business with the order of injuries, I wouldn’t trust him anyways, nohow.
Can you be found guilty of felony murder (A death occurs in the course of another dangerous felony) based on burglary with intent to commit the murder?
Under some circumstances, yes you can.
Is this a legitimate charge under the facts of State v. Arias?
No. They can charge whatever they want, but then you have to wonder if there is an ulterior motive.
Were the 7 jurors who found for felony murder correct or not?
Incorrect. (but, it’s complicated)
In Arizona, Yes You Can:
Prosecutors can charge a defendant with BOTH 1st degree pre-meditated murder AND 1st degree felony murder of a single victim. (Guess what? You can charge a defendant with anything you want – but, then you have to prove it)
Jurors can find a defendant guilty of BOTH 1st degree pre-meditated murder AND 1st degree felony murder (The verdict form proves it and State v. Moore proves it) (A juror can make any decision allowed by the jury instructions).
Arizona’s felony murder statute recognizes assault as a valid predicate offense.
In Arizona the Merger Rule doesn’t always apply. The felony can incorporate some parts of the murder.
In Arizona the felony predicate does not need to be independent of the homicide
In Arizona, felony murder can be predicated on a burglary that is based on the intent to murder.
In Arizona, burglary does not distinguish between an attempt to assault and an attempt to murder.
So, are Juan Martinez and Judge Stephens correct that the felony murder charge is a viable extra 1st degree murder charge under the facts of the Jodi Arias case?
Has “Cate” decimated all the arguments we made in the Holy Grail article?
Do Nurmi and Gagic and Chen and Roman have it all wrong and are their arguments are no good?
Uh………no. They’re still good. Here’s why:
In State v. Arias,
There is insufficient evidence to support the finding of the predicate offense of burglary with intent to commit theft.
There is insufficient evidence to support the finding of the predicate offense of burglary with intent to commit assault.
Although the Essman ruling used to be the law, where the merger rule always applied and a predicate felony needed to be independent of the homicide, that’s no longer true, because of the decisions in the above cases
Later Arizona cases implicitly rejected the broad language in Essman suggesting that the predicate felony must be “independent of the homicide.” The key here is “the broad language” That does not mean that the Merger rule never applies or that felony predicates can always be the same as the elements of homicide.
The important thing is that each element needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. This means that to find for pre-meditated murder or felony murder, each element of the charge needs to be proven according to the requirements of the two separate theories.
So let’s take another look at the chart from the Holy Grail article, and see if we can find Jodi Arias guilty of Felony murder under the facts of the case.
To find Arias guilty of 1st degree felony murder, we need:
A predicate felony (We are told it is 2nd degree burglary)
A death caused in the course of that felony.
CHARGED OFFENSE – FELONY MURDER
As stated earlier, Count 1 also charges defendant with First Degree Felony Murder. The crime of First Degree Felony Murder requires the state to prove the following two things:
The defendant committed or attempted to commit Burglary in theSecond Degree; and
In the course of and in furtherance of committing Burglary in the Second Degree, or immediate flight from it, the defendant caused the deathof any person.
An “attempt” requires the state to prove that the defendant intentionally did something which, under the circumstances she believed them to be, was a step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the offense. The crime of
Burglary in the Second Degree requires proof that the defendant:
Entered or remained unlawfully in or on a residentialstructure; and
Did so with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein.
#1 As far as the first part of burglary, I will accept Juan Martinez’ explanation for now that once Jodi Arias started stabbing Travis Alexander, he revoked his permission for her to be there, and she was now remaining unlawfully in the residence.
Many people believe Alexander was shot first. Then, let’s say that once Arias ‘began her assault’ on Travis, she was no longer welcome and she was now remaining unlawfully in the residence.
Problem: Wait a minute, Juan is assuming intent to assault or intent to kill – take your pick. We don’t know exactly what happened in that bathroom. Reporters still want to ask Arias that question.
Let’s ignore that for a moment and move on.
#2 Remained unlawfully in the residence with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein.
Juan Martinez gave us the theft of the gun as defining the burglary. If we believe Arias’ account of the crime
(No premeditation, she brought no weapons with her, A fight breaks out, Arias shot Alexander with his own gun in self-defense, he kept attacking, she finishes him off with a knife, she steals his gun).
I say “No pre-meditation”, because for felony murder, pre-meditated or not makes no difference. Only an intent to commit the dangerous felony matters. You cannot use your finding of premeditation as proof of intent in a felony murder.
So theft of the gun fails as defining the burglary right here. Why? Because, Juan Martinez did not PROVE WHEN the intent to take the gun was formed. The intent could have been formed AFTER the killing (and most likely was). This means that the death would not be caused “in the course of and in furtherance of the burglary”.
Do you understand?
A death has to be caused as a consequence of Arias trying to steal that gun. If she forms the intent to steal the gun after he’s already dead, then the death is not a consequence of the theft.
“Cate” made a remark that maybe Juan might have been being facetious about the gun. I thought of that also, but I hope not, because this is somewhat of a serious matter.
So the gun theft fails. Let’s move on to the assault.
Jodi Arias remained unlawfully in the home. She did so with the intent to commit assault upon Travis Alexander.
Problem: Where is Juan Martinez’ proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to assault? There isn’t any, because Nurmi was right, there is no other felony. There is no other felony because Juan Martinez failed to PROVE it.
Well, I believe she pre-meditated the killing, isn’t that intent?
No, because pre-meditated or not makes no difference. It cannot be an element of intent to assault, or intent to kill. That has to be proven separately. Well, that’s really bizarre. Yes, but law is very bizzare sometimes.
Well, there’s the crime scene and the stabbed and shot body. No one else was there. It had to be Arias. Isn’t that intent to commit assault?
No. Because Juan Martinez didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Arias intended to assault Alexander.
Well, what about all that case law above?
Right. Did you see the Judge say hey, Moore, You were convicted of both premeditated AND felony murder? You dispute the felony murder, but, you premeditated it, so there’s the intent. He didn’t say that.
Did you hear the judge say, hey, Moore, you see that dead body? That proves your intent. He didn’t say that either.
What the judge said was, it doesn’t matter what’s in your mind, we have evidence that you were heavily engaged in crack smoking throughout, that you got a gun, that you told your gf you “weren’t going to stand for it” and to come and find you if you didn’ return. You showed a friend the gun and asked him for hrlp to “get”the victim. You entered the home with a weapon. There’s an eye witness. That’s proof of intent to assault. And people died in the course of the assault. That’s felony murder.
That kind of evidence does not exist in the Jodi Arias case.
In Minifield, it was proven that he took a Molotov cocktail, lit it, and threw it at the home. That’s proof of intent to commit arson. A little girl died. That’s felony murder.
That kind of evidence does not exist in the Jodi Arias case.
In Dann, he claimed there was no other felony except the murder. The State charged an intent to kill, but later changed it to an intent to commit aggravated assault. Dann told the court he intended to kill the victim, not assault him, so there is no other felony.
The court replied that we have testimony that you borrowed a gun from your ex-gf, you tried to boorow another “untraceable gun” from a friend, you told your friend you intended to “straighten out the problem, you entered the home with the gun, you called your ex-gf and told he you just shot three people, and that’s proof of intent to assault. As a consequence, someone died. That’s felony murder.
That kind of evidence does not exist in the Jodi Arias case.
– Well, what if we forget about pre-meditation for now, and let’s say Jodi Arias was proven to be going to Alexander’s home after preparing for a nefarious purpose of some kind, isn’t that proof of intent to assault?
No. Because we don’t know when or where or if she formed the intent to assault, no proof.
– Well, it’s a reasonable assumption that Jodi brought a gun and/or knife to Mesa and into Travis’ home. Isn’t that proof of intent to assault?
No. There’s no proof that Jodi brought the gun or the knife to the crime scene.
In Moore and Dann, there was proof they were armed when they entered residences. Moore was also charged separately with a felony, so for the facts of his case, the merger rule doesn’t apply anyways.
Arias was charged with the felony predicate of 2nd degree burglary – assault. They used 2nd degree instead of 1st degree precisely because the state could not prove she brought a weapon into the house.
– Well, she said she did it. She said she did it all. So, if I don’t believe her self-defense story or that Travis attacked her, or if I believe she went way too far, then that proves her intent to assault, doesn’t it?
No, I don’t think so. I wouldn’t rely on her word about anything. I see the merger rule coming into play here, as there’s no distinct felony here, just like Nurmi said. I don’t see how there’s a clear intent to kill or assault, beyond a reasonable doubt.
She was an invited guest, they did interact and have a good time, she was there over 12 hours, then something happened, and I believe there will always be some doubt there as far as what exactly happened. Apparently, it wasn’t very clear to 5 of the jurors.
Now, I believe the only way that felony murder makes any sense at all in this case is if the gunshot was first. Think about this: She shoots him in the shower, as part of a plan to kill him, only he doesn’t die. Jodi Arias doesn’t leave the residence, and she doesn’t call for an ambulance or for help. At this point, she’s remaining in the residence unlawfully. It’s burglary – assault. Jodi Arias then picks up a knife and finishes him off.
Here I would say this is a clear burglary – assault, and in the course of and furtherance of this felony, she caused the death of Alexander. The other way, it’s not so clear at all. Maybe Juan Martinez wanted it that way.
That’s another reason why the change in the order of injuries by the prosecution is problematic. The felony murder charge certainly fits much better with the gunshot first murder theory. I believe that when the prosecution changed the order of injuries to gunshot last, they forgot that this new theory doesn’t fit felony murder. I believe that later, they stubbornly refused to drop the charge, for fear it would draw attention to the fact that they swcithed the order of injuries intentionally to squash Jodi Arias’ self-defense claim.
– Well, what is your reasoning for felony murder not working the other way, with the stabbings first?
I see a merger rule problem with that theory. I just don’t see clear proof of intent either to kill or assault, to make this strictly a felony murder.
“Cate” said something to the effect of, well, if the felony murder charge really didn’t make sense, why weren’t the legal minds in the major media discussing it? This is her type of street logic that I just don’t get, using something that didn’t happen to prove that something else did.
Remember the saying – “Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.”
You drive me crazy that way, Cate, I have to admit.
Maybe they weren’t discussing it because the prosecution was pushing pre-meditation, or because pre-meditation elements and the lesser included offenses that go with it are more interesting to talk about. Or maybe the viewers weren’t asking about it. Who knows?
If Arias was found unanimously guilty of felony murder 1 instead of premeditated murder 1, maybe they would have talked about it then.
Who are these legal experts she’s talking about, anyways? Dershowitz? Beth Karas? Vinnie Politan? – Please!
Is there a quote or an article or a video from anyone about how the felony murder charge is correct?
I couldn’t find any major media Legal Eagles speaking on the soundness of the charge, but I did find one legal commentator who said what Nurmi said – that there was nothing there. Does the name Monica Lindstrom ring a bell?
This case is not the same as the other cases cited above. This is the only case of the above in which I see no clear felony outside of the murder, despite the Arizona way of not always using the merger rule and sometimes allowing the felony to incorporate certain parts of the murder, which certainly seems to favor the prosecution.
Why was the prosecution so reluctant to explain to the defense exactly what their felony murder theory was in this case?
Why was there was a lot of contention in motions in 2010, before Nurmi took over the case about this exact question?
Why did the prosecution argue for pre-meditation all day every day and then spend just 5 minutes arguing felony murder?
Why didn’t the prosecution specify the exact felony (assault, murder, theft, etc.) defining the burglary, even in the jury instructions? Other cases do.
Why was the prosecution intentionally ambiguous about it, and why did they spend so little time explaining it?
That’s just more than a little fishy when the felony murder is obviously not as clear-cut and much harder to understand.
Maybe Nurmi was right: “(This) is either a premeditated murder or it’s not, and the felony murder burglary charge is just an “empty vessel” in order to seek a first degree murder conviction”.
It certainly seems that felony murder charge was left there more to ensure a first degree murder conviction than because the prosecution honestly believed it was a legitimate charge.
Good job rejecting it, jurors!
Again, the predicate felony = remaining unlawfully in the home (via killing Alexander) with the intent of committing any further felony (killing Alexander) and the murder part of the felony murder is (killing Alexander).
Even in Arizona, and even considering all the cited cases above, “Felony-murder still cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of the murder”. This is the merger doctrine in Arizona.
The gun theft fails, timing of the intent to steal the gun – not proven – therefore no burglary, therefore no felony murder.
The assault fails – no clear and convincing of proof of an intent to assault, therefore no burglary, therefore no felony murder.
Remaining unlawfully in the home. No clear proof of intent to assault – therefore no proof of revocation of consent to be in the home, therefore no burglary, therefore no felony murder.
The charge should have been dropped.
We invite any legal expert, especially those who practice criminal law in Arizona to explain to us why the felony murder charge in the Jodi Arias case makes any sense at all.