Spotlight on the Jodi Arias Trial

My name is Amanda Chen. I am from Guangdong China and I am studying American law in the USA. I am not used to speaking my mind and though people in China can get around it, such social media as YouTube and Face book are blocked in China. I think you are lucky to speak your opinion and debate with people from all over, I have studied some murder cases looking at interesting legal questions, and I find the Jodi Arias case fascinating. In China, Jodi would have had her trial and appeals and most likely would have been executed on her knees with a gunshot, all before Christmas 2008. Four to six months is a normal time in China from start of trial to final sentence. It’s a good thing this happened in America, because I think it’s the wrong outcome and a mistake.

Just when you thought it was safe to watch HLN again, along comes Jodi. Jodi is back in the news for the never ending trial, stone throwing and suffering fest. Some mentally deranged person on HLN wasted no time in declaring on Monday that Jodi was “just standing there like a zombie” Too bad the spokesperson didn’t wait a few minutes to find out that the sound was cut off and that Judge Stephens was addressing the parties. Jodi is shackled hand and foot, so what do you expect her to do, dance? Of course we are all comfortable to know that it was a unanimous decision, Jodi was found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder. Ninety percent of the public will agree, case closed, end of story. But is it really?

Many people think death is the right penalty for Jodi. This is justice. We can study the death penalty and see what cases get this justice.  I read on other sites that death penalty cases are for the murder of children and the helpless, for murder with rape, kidnapping and torture, for multiple murders and defendants with previous violent felonies, for conspiracies with multiple actors and murders for hire. Also the death penalty is used for murder for a money motive. Then I looked at the cases of all death row inmates in Arizona. I also looked at the other states, too. All of them fall under one or more of these circumstances. All except for just one case: the case of Jodi Arias.

But let’s ignore that inconvenient truth and move on. A death qualified jury is a happy jury and it’s a jury that usually has a less critical eye on the prosecutor. I think they loved the prosecutor. I heard that HBO will run a new series called, what else? You guessed it. Prove it, you say? Why should I have to prove anything, says Jane Velez Mitchell. Nowadays, speculation is the new proof, and malicious speculation is even proofier.

So after five months of trial, we know exactly what happened in that bathroom on June 4th, 2008, right? No. We know almost nothing about what happened in that bathroom. We know almost everything else, though. Well, they say that Travis Alexander unfortunately is no longer alive and Jodi is a liar, so how could we know what happened? During the trial, the evidence experts described a great deal of blood spatter, blood evidence, and other crime scene evidence. But what were their conclusions? They had no conclusions. The defense just didn’t have that expertise. The prosecution must have thought they didn’t need to prove anything about that. It just couldn’t be that the blood and crime scene evidence contradicts their theory? No, it couldn’t be that. Doctor Henry Lee and Dexter would be completely shocked. So are Richard Speight and George Barwood. They both found evidence that backs the defense theory. Jose Baez also said that the best defense for Jodi was to study the crime scene. But, no time for that, let’s move on.

This was a premeditated first degree murder. We all know that. It was proven in court. It doesn’t matter that the gun the prosecution claimed Jodi stole from her grandfather contained 7 hollow point bullets and Travis was shot with a round point bullet. We should ignore that the casing found at the crime scene was a Winchester 25 auto, but Jodi’s grandfather didn’t have that type of ammo. She rented a car at the airport. That’s sneaky, you know, because of all the cameras and security at airports. It can’t be because the airport has name brand rental agencies with cheaper prices, discounts and a better selection. It’s not because they allow you to put more miles on the car and go further distances. Also, it’s not that Jodi was being double sneaky by not hiding anything about the gas cans. We know she was calculating x miles needs x gallons to get in and out of Arizona. So what that Jodi is not good at math? We know that she didn’t take the gas cans just to save money and because she was afraid of breaking down in the desert and roasting to death. She was a young, single woman travelling alone in the desert. Why could she be afraid she would get stuck in the desert and be at the mercy of anyone who came along?

Now the license plate being upside-down, that’s a sure sign of an intent to commit murder. Forget about the fact that the roommate does not remember seeing a white car with or without an upside-down plate or no plate. Arizona borders California and a California license plate in Mesa is no big deal. We also have the phone not being charged. How could Jodi stock up on plenty of water and gas, but yet she forgets to charge her phone? That’s the act of a sneaky murderer. It doesn’t matter that Jodi has made that same trip from Southern California to Arizona many times before and that phones run out of charge all the time. Not just this but Jodi colored her hair. Her hair was brown with blonde highlights and it was in bad shape by June. She had just cashed some paychecks she needed for the trip, so it wasn’t because she finally had some money and she was meeting her new love interest. She colored her brown hair brown to murder Travis Alexander. So now we have our mountain of evidence of premeditation, so let’s move on.

I know Jodi isn’t good at math but Juan Martinez is. He even has a formula for Jodi’s obvious guilt of 1st degree murder. It’s the same as HLN. The formula is this: Lies + autopsy photos + speculation = guilt. We know that Jodi just wants to lie her way out of the death penalty or life in prison. Juan Martinez told us that. We know Jodi lied at the interrogation and the two interviews for Inside Edition and 48 Hours. She will just continue to lie. We should not consider that maybe Jodi had a very good incentive to tell the truth. We shouldn’t believe that because Jodi admitted she lied in the past, she must now be truthful to gain credibility with the jury. How else will they believe her? She admitted that she killed Travis Alexander, but we can’t give her credit for that. Forget about all the things Jodi said at trial that were proven to be true. We should never consider that being honest on the stand was crucial to her defense. Jose Baez said that “Jodi was an excellent witness”. But instead, we should listen to Jane Velez Mitchell. She was a radio talk show host and now she’s on TV. She the one with the “facts”. We can just move on.

Also, we cannot consider that Jodi lied because she was afraid and confused and she simply has no memory of most of what happened in that bathroom and the flight out of Arizona. This is what Kurt Nurmi called “an inconvenient truth”. Jodi talks a lot, she was disciplined in Perryville Jail for never stopping her talking, but she has never spoken about the stabbings. She must just be being that sneaky zombie of a Jodi. We like the truth and we want to know the truth. A good prosecutor can catch you in a lie in just an hour on the stand. Jodi spent eighteen grueling days on the stand and where were all the lies? Jane Velez Mitchell thinks she knows where they are, but JVM is using speculation and malicious speculation. That’s OK, because speculation is the new fact. Moving on, now, moving on.

We are lucky we had Juan Martinez to stop Jodi. He’s everyone’s hero and the person you want if it your own family member is brutally murdered. On March 6, 2012, Juan spoke for the prosecution at the commutation hearing of Robert Towery. This was a meeting where the board decides if Robert lives or dies. Robert robbed and murdered an elder acquaintance.  He faced the death penalty. So we were fortunate that Juan asked the board to please not forget that Robert injected the victim with a syringe full of battery acid. Who even cares that there was no battery acid found in the syringe or in the victim? Who even cares that this was made clear at Robert’s trial 20 years before?  Details, details. Juan had a solemn duty to lie to protect the public. Anyway, who cares because this case involved the robbery and murder of a helpless elder, a conspiracy, another actor, prior violent felonies, and a money motive. Many people don’t remember the facts, but many people remember the Battery Acid Killer from Arizona. An obvious lie had become the truth. Why ruin their memories and inconvenience them with the truth? If you don’t believe me, it’s all on YouTube video. So don’t worry. Instead, we can just move on.

Juan argued that Jodi’s life before 2008 was irrelevant to the penalty phase. He asked that the defense should not be allowed to present evidence about what she did or what she was like in the past. But Juan was the one who endlessly brought up Jodi’s past. Juan told us about when Jodi was 10 years old, when she was 14, and when she was 17 and had her first relationship. We heard endlessly about Bobby Juarez from Juan. We need to know this because it’s the evidence of 1st degree premeditated murder. Juan’s so clever, I love him.   Juan also told the jury you can’t believe Jodi when she says she shot Travis and then they both fell to the floor and then Travis was grabbing at her so she broke loose and got away. Juan said the jury should never believe that because who would turn their back on their attacker? Nobody would do that! She must be lying. But then there was Juan telling the jury that Jodi stabbed Travis in the shower. He said Travis just walked past Jodi in the middle of a knife attack and he just went to the sink and turned his back on her. We can believe that because Juan is so Juanderful! Juan Martinez also showed the world just how incredibly long two minutes can be, then he said it was way too short a time for Jodi’s story to be true.  I love how he talked about Bobby Juarez and Christmas tree, Snow White, Fog, and Ring. It sounded just like a Harry Potter story. I love it!

We should just move on and we should not think about the fact that the gun being last is not believable. Never mind all the reasons why it’s not believable, never mind about Dr. Horn’s doctored report and his false testimony. Never mind that Jodi supposedly went through all the trouble to set up a robbery just to get her grandfather’s gun, and then decided to use a knife first instead. Don’t worry that Detective Flores said three times on the 48 Hours interview that the prosecution believes that the gun was first. Pay no attention to the fact that the prosecution changed their theory while looking into possible aggravators for the death penalty.

So, Dr. Horn stated on the stand that no blood was found in the wound tract in the brain. There’s your proof that the gun shot happened after Travis died. But he also stated that no wound tract was found in the brain. Don’t think about the idea that no blood was found in the wound tract that also was not found. Forget about all the blood coming out of Travis’ nose in the crime scene photo. Ignore the fact that it is almost impossible to shoot someone in the head above the right eyebrow and across the nasal cavity when the victim is lying on the floor. Don’t think about what a badly placed shot it was if Travis was lying still. Forget the idea that Travis was able to walk to the sink and turn his back on his attacker because he was shot and didn’t know what had just happened to him. It makes more sense and fits much better, but we should follow Juan Martinez instead. Juan’s our hero.

Can we move on now? Well we know Jodi was justly found guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder. She was unanimously found guilty by a jury of her peers. Case closed. End of story. We cannot be startled by the fact that 7 jurors found Jodi guilty of both premeditated and not premeditated murder. Jurors, those two charges are alternatives. You can choose one or the other. Well, those alternatives were offered by Juan, so we’ll choose both, thanks.  Juan was so sure of his case for premeditation, that he added the extra charge of 1st degree felony murder, just in case the jurors didn’t believe the lie that the gun was last.

We know there are the three aggravator prongs of “especially heinous, cruel or depraved”. Many posters on sites don’t seem to know that especially heinous and depraved were not found by the prosecution. So, during the aggravation phase, there was the single aggravator prong of especially cruel to be decided on. The jury was unanimous on the single aggravator of cruelty. We know the defense presented eight possible mitigators. The jurors could select any or none of those and they could also select any mitigators they could find from any part of the trial. Whatever mitigators they believed were true, they could weigh against the single aggravator.

So we should not be concerned that when the jurors were deciding on the death penalty, at least one juror believed the instruction was that you can find as many aggravators that you wanted from the entire trial. Diane Schwartz AKA juror #6, said that she went home before that decision and decided on all the aggravators she could think of from the trial. She even named four of them. If you don’t believe me, it’s right on video. Why would it matter that this is not what the jury instructions said she could do?

Watch Juror #6, Diane Schwartz, talk about all the aggravators

She found against Jodi Arias, in violation of juror instructions

and Arizona State law.

We can’t consider that Jodi told the truth on the stand. Travis’ friends dispute this in Jane’s new book. Forget about facts, we’ve got speculation from JVM. Don’t think that Jodi was scared and confused and has no memory of much of June 4th 2008. Just because there are many well documented cases of precisely the same thing happening to many others should not sway us. We must not think that dedicated people like Juan Martinez and Dr. Horn would not tell the truth and change a report and testimony. We should never consider that the gun had to be first. Forget that it was an injustice to both Jodi and the Alexander family to insist on the death penalty in this case. We should just move on. Because if we stop to think about it, we would have to consider that Jodi Arias did not receive a fair trial. This can’t be because that would be a violation of her Constitutional rights to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.

We have Juan Martinez and we have Wendy Murphy who compared Jodi to Hannibal Lectur, a fictional serial killer and cannibal. Wendy Murphy told us all about the “porn defense” Jodi used. Jodi used sex to make the jurors forget about the gruesome crime. She said that the defense didn’t produce mitigation witnesses on purpose so they could get the death penalty and win on appeal. I’m sure that was the defense strategy, to make sure that Jodi got the death penalty. We have Jane Mitchell and her best selling book. We don’t need facts at all. We have speculation and malicious speculation, so all’s well. We have Nancy Grace, who always says “I want to investigate the case. I want to know the truth”. Then she declares Jodi Arias guilty at the start of her trial. We don’t need Gus Searcy, Lisa Daidone, Darryl Brewer, Patty Womack or Alyce LaViolette to give their honest opinions. Luckily they have all been threatened, intimidated and frightened away. Why should we wait 20 years to know the gun really was first? We have Juan Martinez, he took out the Battery Acid Killer! I want to know the truth, so we should ignore the facts. We should kind of follow the law. We should do the right thing for Travis. Let’s call Jodi Arias a cannibal, a whore and a zombie. Let’s put her to death and just move on.


Unlike most blogs, ALL comments are accepted and will be posted.


204 thoughts on “Spotlight on the Jodi Arias Trial”

  1. I met Jodi a few times when she worked at a french bistro in Palm Desert on El Paseo although I didnt know her or think too much of it at the time she was friendly and not weird or awkward like shes been described in the media. I am interested in this case maybe because I cant picture this slender perky girl commiting this crime or maybe because if she did do it why she did it. Let’s say for a second she did what the prosecution claims she did, this is a crime of mental issues and a crime of passion but definitely under no circumstance a death penalty case. Im curious why the court wont allow her to admit in lie detector results? Could a 3rd party administer a lie detector test such as a reporter doing an investigative piece of this? I know that a reporter was able to administer one to one of convicted murderers in the Texas Cadet Love Triangle. Also why did Juan Martinez not want the jury to see the blown up reflection of TA’s eye? Its also highly unlikely those pics that were recovered from the memory card were not the only ones from the bathroom if you look at the time lapses why would Jodi hold the camera as shes stabbing him? If she did im sure the camera would have snapped a lot more pics. The biggest hole in the prosecution’s theory to me is the rental car, If that were me I would have gotten a rental car too because if you think about it Jodi was paying off her car to TA and behind if I was behind on my car payments to an ex as she was there would be no way I would take the car to visit them across state lines only for them to try to take the car back or use it against me if there was an arguement etc. I am 100% certain she got the rental car because of her arrangment with TA and she wanted to see him. There is nothing premeditated about not wanting your ex to take back your car especially if you’re trying to get your life together after losing pretty much everything including your house. If anything I think the rental car proves it wasnt premeditated, she loved him and wanted to see him and if he didnt want to see her he wouldn’t have let her in the house. This whole thing is a tragedy I hope she gets a new fair trial.

    1. Hi Melissa. It’s nice to meet someone who has seen Jodi in real life. Amanda wrote this article so she might reply to you also.

      I watched the trial with an open mind and the first thing that bothered me was they had no conclusions about the crime scene blood evidence. Then the Medical Examiner didn’t seem quite right. Then I thought Jodi to be very credible on the stand.

      I agree. This is an unusual domestic homicide. The only thing different is it’s extreme. This may be due to a heightened state of trauma and her mental illness combined.

      We have studied the death penalty cases. No one can tell me how this should be one.

      Her mental illness was no problem when she was with Darryl. There was caring and love in that relationship. In the bizzare relationship with Travis, it seems like she was losing hold on reality.

      I think it’s clear that Jodi loved Travis and she believed Travis loved her, even though it is obvious to us that he did not. A little honest discussion could have saved a life. Come to think of it, a little honest discussion could have saved her many years earlier.

      I kept thinking this is wrong. It just didn’t fit right.I was also just thinking of the lie detector test that Jodi passed. It’s psychic! Not too many people know abou that and I had forgotten about it.

      I also hope someone will do an investigative piece. Someone in a high place needs to have faith that something is very wrong here.

      Check my comment on the rental car in the comments section of this page:

      Many people rent a car even if they have a car. Also, we have thought about these issues for months and we only feel more stongly about it.

      I was also thinking recenty about the camera. I need to review the testimony. I’m not so sure all those photos were really deleted. If some were not, that helps Jodi’s case.

      I have researched other cases where a person was killed and the killer had no knowledge or memory of it and blamed intruders. It’s rare but there are cases out there.

      There’s nothing typical about this case, except it is a domestic homicide prosecuted as if it were a mass murder.

      I liked reading your comment.

      1. Just something quick I wanted to point out and ask. I have never found where Jodi actually TOOK and PASSED a polygraph. I know about the motions involving admittance of one and that is based on some case law. But specifically I can’t find anything confirming a polygraph test. This investigation and trial has layers and layers of corruption, and more holes than a block of Swiss cheese! I applaud Melissa for speaking up here! Seems other so-called “friends” of Jodi, which pretty much means anyone who might have so much as torn a movie ticket stub for her once, have been willing to whore themselves out to HLN! I think Patty Womack started out with good intentions, but got “lynched” and now, at least from appearances, it seems as if she’s also let Jodi down. Keep speaking up is what I say to everyone now. Truth and justice will not be hidden forever.

      2. Sandra Webber,
        Yes, there was a motion to have the results admitted in the sentencing phase. We cannot have access to all information. Therefore I have to assume that Jodi had passed or was willing to take, a lie detector test.

        I am confident that whether it was murder or self-defense, she had no memory of the stabbings.

        I think Patty Womack was contacted and offered money and she took it. She does not seem very sophisticated. So she may not have even realized she was compromising her future testimony.

        Most of the people you are talking about were really fiends of Travis or Mormons who went on HLN.

        The wheels of justice turn slowwwwww.

      3. I think it’s a virtual certainty that she took and passed the polygraph. The reason is because the motion to admit it was made by the defense, not the prosecution.
        If she had failed the test, the defense obviously would not have made this motion. If she had not taken the test but was willing to, the defense would not have made this motion because it would be dangerous in the event she failed it, that would be very irresponsible of her lawyers.
        There was a story that Juan told in court explaining circumstantial evidence, something to the effect of: If you take a nap on the beach, wake up and see footprints in the sand which were not there before you fell asleep, you can safely assume that someone walked by. This he said is as good as direct evidence. Well by the same logic and power of deduction we can be reasonably certain that Arias took and passed a polygraph.
        This is never talked about because it’s not only not good for the prosecution but it is very important. There are many people, including some on the jury, who don’t care or even understand the evidence. These people condemn her because she is a lier. Take any piece of evidence, the gas cans for example (most people see this as proof positive of premeditation, eliminating any possibility of self defense or a crime of passion), no one believes her when she says she used them for security reasons or that she returned the third can or any number of her other claims on this. The key is that they don’t believe her, not that there aren’t any reasonable, alternate explanations for the one thing everyone assumes she had the cans for. That’s why the polygraph is important and nobody ever talks about it.

      4. Yes, you’re right. The lie detector test is not generally admissible in court but it is admissible for use in a limited way.

        That was my reasoning too. That the defense would not try to bring the results into evidence if Arias had not passed the test.

        I wonder what they will do about the gas can evidence in the 2nd penalty phase because Jodi did in fact state that she returned it to the same Walmart, while Kirk Numi said she did not say that.

        Notice that in the 2nd interrogation video, Jodi states that Travis was down “on all four of his knees”. Juan Martinez will claim this is an obvious lie, because a person has only 2 knees.

        This is what’s called a mistake, which everyone will make under questioning over several hours. Jodi was on the stand for 18 days under hugely stressful conditions,

        a factor she is never taken into account when evaluating her testimony even though the average person, telling the truth will always misspeak and make contradictory statements in a few hours on the witness stand.

      5. LOL to the knee thing. Look Martinez, who was not on the stand, made quite a few errors himself, he misspoke more than once.
        I think the reason the motion for the polygraph was made in the second phase and not the first is precisely because of admissibility issues, I’m not sure what the law states exactly on this in Arizona.
        I’ve heard F Lee Bailey talk about the polygraph extensively, he’s under the impression that if it’s administered properly it’s 100%.
        I think that people who are telling the truth can sometimes fail it (due to stress factors, the administrator’s incompetence, etc.) . However, I believe that people who are lying rarely pass it. I think a sociopath who has no conscience and who’s heart rate doesn’t miss a beat, who’s blood pressure doesn’t rise while lying through their teeth can pass it, but I think that’s very rare.
        I think the polygraph results are very important.

      6. So do I think it’s very important, especially because I do not detect lying from Jodi on the stand, because Juan’s usual M.O. is to accuse the defendant of lying to discredit their testimony, and because lying was a central theme in this case.

      7. Exactly!
        Frankly I’d like to see Martinez, Flores and Horn hooked up to the polygraph. And then I’d strap Demorte in as well.

      8. We are working on an article which explore Dr. Demarte’s diagnosis and what it’s actually based on.

        I truly believe that Flores is a good man and a good Mormon, and if they really investigated the change of testimony, he would tell the truth and reveal what happened.

      9. What I would hope is that they are right now dissecting the Tesoro and Walmart testimony, with which they were hit at last minute. There will be an explanation. Weather it’s credible or not remains to be seen. They have to explain this.

      10. Yes they do need to explain this. Martinez might hunt down the exact rental car and see how much actual gas capacity it has.

        In the 2nd penalty phase, or at least in a new trial, the defense needs to explain this.

      11. Out of all of them I hold the least contempt for Flores. Having said that, when he got on the stand and said that he’s no doctor, he’s just a dummy who misunderstood what was communicated to him, he was lying. He knows very well what the conversation was. Furthermore, Horn claimed that he didn’t even have any conversation with Flores. I think he’s trying to be moral but not doing very well.

      12. I think we can agree that the gunshot was not fatal, and therefore Martinez is lying when he keeps saying Travis was killed three different ways.

        There are stories of killers who use strikes to stop a victim’s “death rattle”, but even so, the idea of shooting someone after cutting their throat strains credulity.

      13. Martinez might already have the original car. He’s had enough time for this. It’s possible that the capacity is not favorable to his case. I don’t think the first time he heard that she returned the third can was while she was on the stand, I think it’s possible/likely this was disclosed earlier.

      14. I don’t even think the prosecution claims the gunshot was fatal, under either scenario. But regardless what was the fatal blow, it is impossible for someone to die three ways, you’ve only got one life. This was just melodrama. Of course melodrama is much more effective than reasoning, with that group.

      15. You know this would greatly concern me if the trial took place a few months after the death. Five years later this seems like such an insignificant error, I can’t remember what I did last Tuesday. I can’t remember where I put my keys last night. It may not even be an error, it may be something that could be explained. Barwood made some suggestions on possible explanations, I don’t know if they’re reasonable or not but without a serious look back who knows? The defense did not have a chance at an investigation of this because Martinez blurted this out in court a couple of days before the Tesoro/Walmart testimonies, that’s highly unethical imo. The defense protested to this, to no avail, as usual.

      16. That’s another one of Juan’s M.O.’s, sneaking ambush of information in re-cross or re-direct, and after the witness is finished testifying.

      17. Why would she insist that she returned the can to the SAME Walmart? Wouldn’t it be easier to say “I returned it but can’t recall which Walmart”? That would really throw them off.

      18. she has to explain why her receipt isn’t marked and why she was refunded in cash. Both of these are not Wal-Mart policies.

        She insists she returned it. You would have to believe that she has no idea that Darryl Brewer would eventually be interviewed and they would review her purchases if she became a suspect.

      19. But you know this is on Sherry’s head. She should not have allowed that in. It was not disclosed during discovery and they had five years to disclose that. Regardless what she said on the stand. I find it hard to believe that he knew she claimed to have returned a gas can but never asked her where in five years. Martinez could have asked at any time leading up to the trial where she returned the can and disclosed the Tesoro/Walmart evidence and testimony. He did not.
        How do you know this was the first time she mentioned that she returned the can to the same store?

      20. I don’t know and I would also assume they would have asked her that. But this is 20/20 hindsight, this may have been overlooked and no thought to be important before the trial.

        I noticed last night. I forgot that friends of Travis were watching the trial and phoning in tips on any inconsistencies in testimony into a paralegal working with Juan.

      21. Yeah ok I get that and agree with you.
        But the point is why would she insist that it was the SAME Walmart? Which store it was has nothing to do with their return policies.

      22. Jodi was adamant about it and adamant that they gave her cash.

        Anyway, she’s guilty because Alan Dershowitz said so and she adjusted Ryan.

      23. If she claimed she had bought a third can and returned it the most natural, almost instinctive, question would be “where” (so that we can verify what you’re saying). This was not an oversight but rather another manipulative, underhanded technique. You can overlook a lot of things, details, but not something like this. If he knew that she returned it then his first question would have been “where”.
        I don’t like the gas cans or the “adjustment” evidence, but I like Juan’s MO less. I’ve got plenty of problems with her story, just like I have some problems with Macneills story, but that does not mean we ignore everything else or we don’t follow the rules. I think Juan has trouble with the rules. I think Sherry’s not familiar with the rules.

      24. She may never have claimed she returned it.

        Yes, this is an important search for the truth, and one issue does not invalidate the others, i agree.

        What about the CD’s? What do you think about tem?

      25. Yes she was adamant. My point is that she’s likely telling the truth or making a mistake, she’s not likely lying. If she were to lie it would be easier to say “I was on a trip and don’t remember which Walmart I returned the can to”. This would make it very difficult for them to check the records. Why insist it was the Salinas Walmart so they could just go straight there? If she were planning a murder and trying to conceal her route I can’t for the life of me figure out why she would borrow cans from Brewer in the first place, but that’s another story.
        Yeah you’re right, she adjusted Ryan, Guilty

      26. But she swears Ryan did not touch her vaginal area. Ryan may have mistaken where this area is.

        Did you see this story? A Democratic Mayor refused to endorse Governor Christi for his re-election, so the Governor’s office closed lanes on a bridge to the town, causing 4 days of traffic jams and delaying people from getting to the hospital, etc. Holy Krap!

      27. Ok let’s assume that Jodi never said, in five years, that she returned the third gas can. Do you think it’s possible for Juan to get Walmart records and testimony together in two days?
        Sorry, what CDs?

      28. Good point.

        Much was made about 2 CD’s Jodi brought with her to Mesa to show Travis the photos from their vacations. The idea being that she woulf only bring them because she knew she was going to Mesa.

      29. Good point. Ryan, a good, repressed Mormon, probably doesn’t know a vagina from Indochina.
        And Chrisite is one the more rational republicans….Lord help us!!

      30. Oh ok, now I know what you’re referring to. Yeah that’s not great, especially if she had them in the rental car as opposed to laying around in her own car. It’s one of those things you refer to as a bad fact, upon first glance. But I have to wonder why Martinez never asked why she had those with her if she did not plan to visit Alexander. Why do you think he didn’t ask her this?

      31. Qué? She believed you could knock her up through foreplay? Wow, you are good….
        This is like the teenage boyfriends who claim “You can’t get pregnant if we do it standing up, due to gravity you know…”

      32. I have luggage I travel with and I periodically throw dirty laundry out and then repack them with fresh stuff. There are things in these suitcases that tend to stay there without being removed between trips. It could be that she had some sort of a bag for her photo equipment, where the CD were put and stayed. I don’t want to be making her case for her, she has to do that, but the fact is that she can’t explain things unless someone asks her the question..
        You can’t fry people based on speculation that goes on outside the courtroom, ie; conscientious observers making calls to a paralegal.

      33. I agree. These things need to be fully litigated at trial. I always carry CD’s and DVD’s in my laptop case, which has pockets and such for them.

        Now, with memory sticks that hold 1+ Gigabytes, there is less need to do that.

      34. Did I tell you that someone copied the entire Milk and Cookies article and pasted it on their facebook page?

        I questioned them and they said they did it to save people time.

      35. Sounds like Dershowitz, he has a history of plagiarism.
        It’s kind of flattering yet violating, hmmm
        Who was it? How did you find out?

      36. I saw other people talking about the facebook page “Understanding the travesties of unexpected murder trials.

        I was reading the page, and I see our entire article posted there. They listed us as the authors, and gave a link.

        But I thought it strange because I never saw anyone take the entire article before, just excerpts.

      37. Save people time? More like save themselves time, AND mental energy. Yes copy and paste certainly saves time and energy, I’m sure many a student will attest to that, Was it someone who agrees with the article at least? LOL

      38. No, that page is totally pro prosecution, bu they encourage debate, even though they wildly outnumber Jodi supporters.

        What it does is it prevents people from going to the site and reading other articles.

      39. “You can also take a sentence or two form the article, Google it, and see if these exact words are located somewhere else.” Yes, clear, but you have to know what you’re looking for. How did you stumble upon it in the first place? Are you routinely looking for verbatim copies of your articles?
        “What it does is it prevents people from going to the site and reading other articles.” I don’t follow?

      40. If you provide some excerpts with a link, people will go to the site and possibly read other articles.

        If you copy an entire article, people will be less inclined to go to the site, I think.

        No, people were talking about a facebook page so I went there and read some comments and postings, then farther down I saw something very familiar.

      41. Oh ok i get ya. No I don’t entirely agree. You’ve got people who have their opinion set in cement and don’t/won’t hear anything else, ok. But then you’ve got some people who will read the article and a couple of things might make sense to them, intrigue them. The latter will be motivated to check out your website, certainly more so than if they’d never heard of it. You know what they say, there’s no such thing as bad press. As long as these people gave you credit and a link, I think it’s good for you.
        I just went there and saw a petition started by our old OHLN friend Speights, so you see it’s not all bad:
        Have you signed it?
        You should post this petition link on all your articles.

      42. Nice. I’m sure Jan Brewer will get right on it!

        Yes,I had the same reasoning, but I think they should have let us know. Especially when we give e-mails and we both have a facebook page to message us.

      43. Of course I agree, but there’s nothing you can do, it’s like spitting in the wind, no way to control it. At least they gave you credit, could be worse. If they had asked you would you have permitted them to reprint your article?
        Bottom line, I think it’s good for you (though I looked at the fb page, it’s full of retards – Tanisha Sorneson’s wedding pictures and musings of Jodi’s day of execution…)

      44. If they told us, that would be fine because then we could go and defend our position.

        Much worse if someone tried to pass it off as their own.

        Yes, it’s a hive for prosecution supporters. Many of them are from Pre-Occupied with HLN.

        Remember the age progression photo of Jodi? I’d like to do a 20 year age progression of Nancy Grace, Juan Martinez, and Sherry Stephens, the enabler.

      45. You don’t need to defend your position. The article speaks for itself, to those whose mind is not closed. The rest are irrelevant.
        Nancy looks like she’s already age progressed.

      46. LOL Nancy and OJ locked in a cage together, how about?

        Yes, it’s totally hopeless to debate, although there are some recent converts and they are not stupid people.

      47. That’s exactly the point, the converts are people who seek different opinions, those type of people might be motivated to go to your website. The rest you won’t convince of anything, not even a doubt. You will just get beaten up trying. I know you like a good fight

      48. I can’t even get someone to agree that getting the rental car at the airport, is not evidence of premeditation, because assuming she intends a murder, the alibi portion of the trip is purposely intended to be highly visible.

        GAWD !!!!

      49. Borrowing gas cans from a guy who is directly linked to her is not exactly low profile either. I just can’t get anyone to explain to me why it is that she planned to murder Alexander at his house full of people during rush hour??
        The same could be said about the gun, why did she stage a robbery which would be reported to the police rather than “borrowing”, cleaning and later replacing the gun at grandpa’s house? Why take enough gas for an eighteen wheeler in Salt Lake City? Any one of these things could be explained as a slip up, but there sure is a lot of slip ups in this colossally stupid plan.

      50. One thing I recently thought of. In those 13 hours, all Travis had to do was call someone and tell then Jodi’s here.There goes her alibi.

      51. Excellent point. Not just calls someone but imagine if Mr. popularity received a call while she was there and told them he was with her or if someone heard her in the background. That’s certainly something she couldn’t plan for or control. That’s not even mentioning the fact that I have NEVER heard of anyone having hours of sex with a guy they want to murder immediately after.

      52. Juan talked about Jodi’s pattern with Bobby Juarez, etc. What about this pattern: An argument starts and moves upstairs to the bedroom where she is caught at the end of the hallway, later there is sex and everything’s OK. Another argument starts and escalates in the bedroom where Jodi is choked to unconsciousness. An argument starts downstairs on June 4th, followed by sex, followed by another argument upstairs which explodes into violence.

      53. Possibly. On that FB page I just read another excerpt from her diary two weeks before the killing. In it she talks about him and Mimi;
        “Travis said he’s still certain he wants to marry MiMi, although they’re not yet dating…”
        Does that sound normal? He wants to marry someone he’s not yet dating? What are we in India? It sounds to me like he’s trying to make Jodi jealous, knowing she is dating AND having sex with others while he is NOT. Remember Mimi told him she’ll go to Cancun but wants to be just friends, no sex (why is he telling Jodi that he plans to marry Mimi knowing she doesn’t want him?). I think he could have flipped out when Jodi told him she was continuing on to Ryan’s. That’s what it sounds like in her diary:
        It’s just extremely strange that you’ve got photographs where everything is hunky dory and next thing you know he’s dead. Either he flipped out over something or she did. If it is the former it was self defense if the latter it was a crime of passion. If she planned it she wouldn’t have documented it with a camera and then left it there. None of Juan’s story makes even remotely sense.

      54. Yes, I agree.You cannot premeditate rage from 2 weeks away. You need a motive for that kind of ferocity. The best motive is she was attacked.

        How could a non violent person do that and just go to utah like everything’s wonderful. Only an experienced killer could do something like that.

      55. If you read the diary excerpt:
        “He got offended and upset, then acted distant. I tried being so sweet & speak kindly to him, playing up all of the advantages of not violation the law of chastity, and he didn’t want to hear any of that. Then it got worse, he asked me who I’m seeing, have I been getting my kicks w/someone else, etc. Of course I swore that I wasn’t (which is true) but also pointed out that I didn’t freak out when he confessed his potentially undying love for MiMi. He said to leave his love life out of it. Typical. Then after a moment, he apologized, and said a lot of his frustration is from the fact that things in his dating life arent’ going that well, and yes, he still likes MiMi, but it’s not progressing the way he wants it to, and he’s leaning toward giving up on her…” “I won’t miss his teasing or his bi-polar tendencies to snap and yell and say things he ends up regretting…”
        Doesn’t that sound like HE’s jealous, controlling and volatile? He’s trying to pressure her to have sex, he admits that he’s frustrated in his dating life, that things are not progressing the way he wants with Mimi (translation he’s not getting ANY sex anywhere).
        He’s obviously losing control over her, he knows damn well he’s not marrying Mimi and he has no booty call in Mormon central. Now why would he be concerned about who Jodi’s dating?
        People are saying this is when she already hatched the plan but if that were true she wouldn’t have been writing about him or his car in her diary thereby creating documentation linking them together, it’s nonsense. I believe this entry is authentic and tells me that he was already building up steam, his frustration was rising, I think it’s very possible that he’s the one who flipped out and it wasn’t over no camera. It was the same reason OJ flipped out except OJ won that fight and Travis did not.

      56. There is too much emphasis on the camera. I believe they were fighting from downstairs. The camera is just the match that lights a smoldering argument and the flames are instant.

        The Dersh is elbowing his way on CNN, like they all do when there’s a book to sell.

      57. Is it another Israel book or Jodi Arias, Inside the Mind of a Killer?
        I just saw the clip of Dr. Drew where he has Cassandra Collins on. At one point he actually asked her to diagnose herself, not kidding. I guess where he works the nuts run the asylum. Good work there Drew. He’s approaching the Grace Grotesque Factor.
        She says depression is her main issue. The court documents say she criminally incompetent and dangerous to others.

      58. Oh, who won the Australian Open? I’m just asking because I forgot. Who won again? I can’t remember.

        I forgot that aggravated assault means somebody got seriously injured. Doctor Drew is despicable, would stoop to any level for a ratings boost. I liked the guy who said, basically your a criminal and your mentally ill. Why should we believe what you say?

        See how he steps in and says oh, Cassandra is a “highly qualified nurse”. Really?

      59. That guy, the lone voice, got a few seconds before he was bulldozed over by the other 10 rabid Arias hater guests and their imbecilic questions. She thinks she has credibility because she’s been to jail not prison. She forgot to mention the mental hospital she was sent to against her will.
        Yes, Ms.Collins must be a hell of a nurse. Do you think anyone will let a criminally incompetent stalker near a syringe?
        Drew should have his license revoked immediately.

      60. Conveniently forgetting that she had SIX convictions “expunged”, because charges do not get expunged, convictions do. AND she was found incompetent to stand trial AND not likely to become competent anytime soon.

        This means she will not be convicted of a felony
        or felony only because she’s incompetent.

        Aggravated assault, the definition means you at least threatened to cause serious injury, even though she says she never hurt anyone in her life.

        A very good video with Alyce LaV after the trial where she talks about Dr. Drew abd calls him dangerous because people don’t know he’s a quack.

  2. Great article Amanda, love the sarky parts.
    I’d just like to point out one thing. Dr. Horn’s autopsy report was not doctored. It is precisely because they forgot to “doctor” it that he had to lie on the stand and come up with the “typo” bull shit. This is important because were it not for the original, unaltered report we would just have his word or opinion. As it stands, the original report is very strong evidence that Dr. Horn perjured himself on the stand and Flores as well.

      1. I have seen this video. I’ve seen all her presentations which are available on line, including Snow White. I think Drew didn’t get nearly enough time, just a brief mention, but that just shows that she has class. She didn’t bash anyone, just pointed out the reality. I was deeply disappointed in Lenore Walker. Evidently she stated she would have turned down a case had Martinez been involved, never mind standing up for someone who may need help. This from a woman who gave enormous ammunition to the lynch mob during the trial by undermining Laviolette – very very sad.
        I found it interesting that she mentioned that Willmott (no surprise there) and even the mitigation specialist believed Jodi, she did not mention Nurmi.
        She of course mentioned how abusive Martinez was, that’s obvious to any civilized, rational human being, but also how out of control the courtroom was. You accused me of being too hard on Sherry, I may have been too reserved; she was almost completely responsible for his behavior.
        She is a good, honest person and I believe her professional opinion is solid.

      2. If you get a chance, please see the new article, A Juanderful closing argument, I agree, she should have stepped in. What’s a judge there for anyways? Sherry was mostly right in her overruling and sustaining objections, but she is supposed to shape and control the proceedings, which she obviously was scared to do.

        Compare that with the Zimmerman judge, who put up with zero shit. And she didn’t give a damn who liked it or not.

      3. You should have seen Macneill’s judge, judge Pullman, whoa!
        Yes, I will definitely read it, I just got the email notification.
        Is there a way to “like” individual articles or is it just the site in general?

      4. There’s a star that you click on to like each article at the bottom of each article. Do you see it? It’s under all the facebook, twitter and a etc. icons.

      5. Stevens was very wrong on a crucial issue, right out of the gate; sequestration. Did you hear what Laviolette said about the publicity? She said she was the only one in the courtroom who didn’t know what was going on, you could not get away from the coverage in Arizona.

      6. That’s an Arizona thing. They claim that traditionally, they do not sequester the jury. That’s correct and had been upheld. But tradition has to give way to the modern realities we have all seen in Zimmerman and Arias.

        People on the outside can reach in and interfere with court proceedings. They can call the witness being questioned on Skype, etc. Arizona will have to realize this some day.

  3. Ok, yeah, that’s the one I’m having trouble with. I think I’ll have to create a new wordpress account or something. I got really frustrated the last time, it took me 20min and I got nowhere, I’ve tried it a couple of times to no avail. I’ll try again

      1. I goes in circles, password chase, new password – no go – etc.. hard to explain, will not let me rate the article

      2. Heather Soper liked an article, so I guess it works. To comment is different and separate form being signed into wordpress.I don’t get it.

        When you go to, are you registered?

      3. I don’t freaking know, that’s why I said I’ll get a new account. It’s easier to break into the pentagon than this

  4. We’ve never done it, or we haven’t done it in 50 years is an idiotic argument. Show me a case in the last 50 years that got this type of publicity. Show me a case that got 1/5 of the publicity, ever. The advent of social media is not even that old. This is just bs. The comfort of the jurors is also bs when someone’s life is on the line. This is just a question of integrity and moral courage. I may be wrong but it may have also been a little (or lot) of “We really want her convicted, why should we do anything that will lower the odds of that…”

      1. The expense is a quantité négligeable, even for four months the cost of a Motel 6 is a drop in the bucket compared to the $2million they’ve spent on the trial and more importantly the amount they will now have to spend on a retrial. Economically speaking, sequestration would have been a good investment

      2. They are relying on the integrity of the juror. But, it’s more of a question of pressure.It’s easy to saty away from the newspaper and TV shows, but on the internet, you can hardly avoid it. It shows up right on your own sites like twitter and facebook, without you meaning to see them.

      3. Even an honest person can be swayed/corrupted when you make it easy, even subliminally. I don’t think the principle is that they rely on the integrity of the juror, if that were so what does that say about the integrity of the jurors who have been sequestered all over the country? They were somehow less trustworthy? Arizona has stupid traditions and Sherry’s not the rock the boat type.

  5. ps. Nobody has ever said that it’s against the law to sequester in Arizona or that no jury has ever been sequestered in Arizona. I would be interested to see the last case then where the jury was sequestered. Let’s compare those

      1. There must be a precedent because no one has ever said that no jury has EVER been sequestered in Arizona

      2. The committee discussed whether guidelines or policies are needed for sequestration of juries after witnessing the negative effects of the oppressive conditions of the sequestered jury in a lengthy and highly publicized California trial.

        No one on the committee could recall any Arizona jury being sequestered, even during deliberations, in the past 20 years. Simply put, the culture seems to have changed, and sequestration has fallen into disuse. However, a judge might well have to seriously consider sequestration in the event of a highly publicized, high profile case.

        The committee concluded that Standard 19, Arizona Jury Management Standards (1992),(1) should suffice for general guidance when sequestration is considered. The trial judge, after conferring with counsel, will have to provide specific detail to fit the needs of the particular case. Further guidelines of a statewide nature are not necessary at this time.

      3. So what are they waiting for? A more highly publicized trial to come along? This one didn’t qualify? Nurmi made the motion on more than one occasion, including in the middle of the trial…

      4. That’s a good point. They would have been swayed by Juan’s antics anyway. But then we’re back to Sherry.
        What a hot mess

      5. I saw her looking sternly at the jury during Juan;s closing arguments. I want to review Nurmi;s close to see if she is doing a crossword puzzle or sudoku

      6. Naturally, everyone in Arizona should be armed at all times. Especially all the geriatrics comprising 90% of Arizona’s population (who can’t even get a drivers license since a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon while a 98 year old is behind the wheel).

      7. Thanks for reminding me there’s still hope. Free Ar-15 and a copy of the Affordable care act for everyone young person who signs up for the Koch Brothers auxiliary militia.

      8. I think she should have just had a bartender at the bar, there was so much frolicking going on up there, just the cocktails were missing. A bartender might have held a tighter grip on the courtroom

      9. I thought he had the style of Adolf Hitler in a beer hall. Sherry was obviously in the Hitler-Jugend.

      10. Well Crane was not a Mormon to my knowledge but definitely a debaucherer. His mistake was entering Arizona. His murder is still a mystery according to some.

      11. Not to me. I think that was pretty well settled who dunnitt. Crane was a pioneer of Travisdom and the Travis Alexander school of priest holders.

      12. There was an article in the Arizona Republic
        “Bob Crane’s 1978 murder still a mystery,” in May 22, 2002
        You know they like to lock people up and throw away the key in Arizona, so I don’t know. There is some controversy surrounding this case, not the least of which is how they proceed in Arizona

      13. This case is from 1978, who knows if they even have any viable DNA now. In the Ryan Ferguson case they had DNA, which matched neither Ferguson nor Ericson, yet they have not solved this case to date. One has to wonder if it’s not that we don’t have the tools but that we have law enforcement and a justice system that doesn’t give a shit who’s convicted as long as somebody, anybody, does the time.

      14. I like crime library. I’ve checked it out a lot. Doesn’r it make so much sense that it was Carpenter?

        That’s why wrongful convictions are so bad. Not only the wrong guy gets imprisoned, but a killer is left on the lose.

      15. Doesn’t it make sense that Jodi simply planned to kill Travis? Doesn’t it make sense that Ryan Ferguson, who’s friend confessed and testified against him, murdered Holt for no reason whatsoever while they have DNA belonging not to Ferguson but to someone else at the scene? Doesn’t it make sense that the West Memphis Three, three kids themselves at the time who didn’t know the victims, massacred three eight-year old boys? Doesn’t it make sense that they have DNA which matches one of the step-fathers (who is walking around free) and NONE of the West Memphis Three. Doesn’t it make sense that these guys spend two decades in prison (one on death row) and recently they were not vindicated but forced to take the Alford Plea? They have the the DNA of Terry Hobbs but have neither arrested him nor investigated him? Doesn’t all that make so much sense?

      16. That response was a bit disappointing. I was revving up for a fight. I guess you’re the master of brevity. The strong silent type

      17. All crime scenes are bad. They don’t convey all the necessary information. If you bury someone alive, the crime scene may not seem so gory but that does not mean that it was not a much worse death than the death of someone who dies in the course of a two minute, bloody stabbing.

      18. Yeah, buried alive, can’t imagine.

        Yeah, i mean it looks certainly like he was asleep and never knew what hit him, but that was a smashing blow to the head.

      19. It’s not such a bad way to go, not knowing what hit you. Not as good as dying in your sleep but a close runner up imo. I cannot understand people who do this, I have felt like killing someone before (for a split second) but cannot imagine doing it. It is impossible for me to understand.

      20. Me too, those are the paradoxes of life; I feel guilty when I don’t take the cap off a bottle before I throw it in the recycling bin, but I have thought of hurting someone on more than one occasion. Of course I never hurt anyone and usually go back and take the caps off.

      21. LOL
        I’ve had that feeling more than once, but I have some Spanish blood, so…
        Yeah, the one good thing about me is I don’t produce that much garbage – you’re welcome planet!

      22. Like that girl who stabbed her mother over 100 times. Where does that come from? I could never even imagine thinking about that. It defies the imagination.

      23. Stabbing someone a hundred times is not something someone thinks about before hand I don’t think, it’s the culmination, a build up, an accumulation of a lot of stuff, a snap. What is less comprehensible is all the poisonings or murder for hire stories, those take some sober thought.

      24. Well, yeah. I feel for a person who loses it one time. Not so much for that Isabella Guzman, because she must have stepped over the line so many times.

        Yes, the ones where they kill their spouse or hire someone because they don’t want to get a divorce or they want to get the money for themselves that’s cold!

      25. LOL

        Don’t hesitate to send those type of articles.

        Gives a new meaning to concealed carry. wouldn’t that be a tad uncomfortable? It’s not a fair fight because a naked guy can’t carry equal firepower.

  6. I know you’re all about fact based reporting, can’t help you, the best I could give you on this is an uneducated guess: You bet it was freaking UNCOMFORTABLE! No idea about the caliber, for all I know it could have been a rocket launcher?
    I think most practical weapons you can just tuck in your sock, but I’m no expert…

    1. I would say, there most be an easier way. She denies she stashed it there. But that’s not a material element to the crime.

      T was looking at Gacy the other day. He didn’t start his crime spree until the age of 30.

      1. Well nobody got shot so if the crime is concealing a weapon then it most certainly is material where she had it, assuming she didn’t have a vajayjay carry permit.

      2. The most absurd part of the story for me is that she’s the ex-wife of a Pulitzer Prize author. Judging from the 911 call she’s quite articulate herself???? I mean she doesn’t look like someone who would have a fight to the death over space aliens??? See how wrong I can be

      3. HEY! It was a philosophical argument, and he was fucking wrong, OK?

        She was wearing a negligee. He was either gonna get some,or he was gonna get some. It was his choice which.

      4. LMAO!
        I think you’re right, he was gonna get some either way, just a question of what “some” was

      5. Maybe but it was a hell of a book:
        When an interviewer told Mr. Heller that he had never written anything as good as ”Catch-22,” the author shot back, ”Who has?”

      6. It’s funny how both Heller and Vonnegut (your fave) molded a part of the American cultural lexicon through one book each. The title Catch 22 and Breakfast of Champions both have a clearly recognizable meaning, humorous and à propos. That’s an accomplishment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s