Spotlight on Dr. Kevin Horn


The Jodi Arias Trial    On The Horn of a Dilemma


Fact based reporting

By Amanda Chen with Rob Roman

horn 3 images (9) 

 attack new

At the trial, Jodi Arias said something very true about Dr. Horn and the prosecution. She said “I disagree with the order of injuries”.

 The diagram above is how Jodi explained the gunshot. A not incapacitating shot stunned Travis, and he fell to the bathroom floor, before going to the sink. This diagram is not scientific. The shot (red line) would have to come from above Travis’ head and to his right on a roughly 45 degree downward angle.

This theory fits the forensic evidence. Jodi Arias may have gone to his aid, when the deadly struggle resumed. Dr. Horn made the jury and all of us certain that this could not be so. So we should take a look at the very important testimony of Dr. Kevin Horn.

There are many ways a prosecutor can win a case. There is hard work, attention to detail, experience, excellent direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and preparation. There is also a fierce devotion to the job of bringing a dangerous criminal to justice. Finally you will need a good grasp of the evidence, and know how to explain and persuade a jury that your evidence is sound.  

Detective Flores was very convinced before the trial that the gunshot was first. He told the 48 hours interviewer three times that this was so. Was this because he trusted what Jodi Arias told him? I don’t think so. Detective Flores said that he is not a medical doctor and he cannot determine the order of injuries. He must rely on the medical examiner to be so confident that the gunshot was first or last.

Why does it matter? If the gunshot was last, this means many things that Jodi Arias said on the stand about June 4th, 2008 must be lies. It means that the attack on Travis Alexander began with a knife. After so many knife wounds and slitting the throat of her victim, Jodi then shot Travis in the head in cold blood, just to be sure he was dead or maybe to create the illusion of two attackers. Here, there is no possibility of self-defense. 

 Pretend that it was proven that the gunshot was first. What does this mean? Here, there are two possibilities. Jodi shot Travis while he was sitting in the shower. The shot did not incapacitate or kill him and he was still moving about in pain. Jodi could not call the police or get help, because it looks very bad for her. So she gets a knife and “finishes him off”.

The other possibility is that Jodi was telling the truth. She shot him in self-defense and he continued to come at her, so she got hold of a knife and fought back. Then in a highly charged state fueled by adrenaline, she went too far. Her memory was impaired in some way.

If even one juror could believe this possibility, this jury could “hang”. If more jurors see the possibility, Jodi might not be found guilty of 1st degree murder. This is not a good position for the prosecution. Jodi Arias already tried to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. Every member of the jury must be convinced that the gunshot was last for the prosecution to be certain of winning this case. 

horn 7Then we are introduced to Doctor Kevin Horn. Dr. Horn proved convincingly that the gunshot was last. During his testimony, the prosecutor asked over and over about this point. Dr. Horn testified three times during the trial, and each time he gave more testimony about the gunshot and the order of injuries.

A medical examiner is a trusted public servant, a scientist, and something of a detective. They are experts in their field and we can be sure what they say is true, right?

 If you saw the trial of George Zimmerman, you will remember Dr. Shipping Bao testifying for the prosecution. First he said Trayvon Martin could only live 3 minutes after being shot. Then he said Martin could live 10 minutes. He thought Martin could have been shot from .4 inches away or maybe from 4 feet away.Bao said Trayvon would be immediately incapacitated. Later, he said Martin could have walked 20 feet. He said that many things were “not my job”.  He read from notes that no one ever saw before. He admitted to improper procedures before, during and after the autopsy. Changes-Opinions

 Why do I bring up Dr. Bao? It took Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a renowned medical examiner and gunshot expert, to discredit Bao’s testimony. It seems that many times, lower level workers and assistants do a lot of the work, and a supervisor signs off.

 Dr. Bao said something very interesting. ‘My opinion is mine, it belongs to me. I can change any time, my right to change.’ But a change in opinion in a capital murder case can mean the difference between life and death.

There’s always plenty of other evidence and witnesses in a case. Can the testimony of a medical examiner be so critical to a case? Can a small change in the medical examiner’s report or opinion change the outcome of a trial? Let’s look at some recent cases:

 “Dallas, Texas — A jury found appellant, Victor Hugo Quinonez-Saa, guilty of murder and assessed punishment at 75-years confinement and a fine of $10,000.

In his first point of error, appellant asserts that the admission into evidence of autopsy photographs was reversible error because the medical examiner who testified had not performed the autopsy or viewed the body of the deceased. The autopsy had been conducted on the deceased by Dr. Auerlio Espinola, an assistant medical examiner.”

 “BROCKTON, Mass. — Massachusetts prosecutors have taken the highly unusual step of charging one of their own expert witnesses — Connecticut state medical examiner Dr. Frank Evangelista — with perjury for what they allege are inconsistencies in his testimony in a murder case.”

images (7) “ST. PAUL, Minn. — After spending six years in prison, a Minnesota man has been exonerated in his daughter’s death. Avry was just four months old when she died. Mike lost his daughter and then six years of his life, after being convicted of killing her. A judge found the Ramsey County medical examiner gave false or incorrect testimony.”

 “Highlands, Texas  — On May 5, 1999, Brandy Briggs found her 2-month-old baby Daniel Lemons limp, barely breathing and unconscious at her home. She called 911 and the baby was rushed to the hospital. On May 9, the baby died. Ms. Briggs was prosected for 1st degree murder. The evidence was based on the opinion of Dr. Moore, a medical examiner.

The trial court found that “Dr. Moore’s trial opinions were based on false pretenses of competence, objectivity, and underlying pathological reasoning, and were not given in good faith.” The trial court characterized her testimony as “expert fiction calculated to attain a criminal conviction.””

 Here is a passage from the court report on this case:

“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when the State knowingly or unknowingly uses perjured testimony to obtain a conviction. We held on direct appeal that false testimony resulted in a due process violation when there was a fair probability that the death sentence was based upon incorrect testimony.””

 Medical examiners make honest mistakes like everyone else. Medical examiners are overworked and they are under pressure to help the prosecution team get a conviction. So, what do a few cases gone wrong really show?

 Doctor Horn appeared confident, thorough, and trustworthy. We should not try to implicate Dr. Horn because of mistakes in other states and under different conditions. He is very careful with his reports and testimony, isn’t he? Let’s take a look at two of Dr. Horn’s past legal cases:

images (8) “Ms. Randall operated a home day care business. She discovered a four-month-old child unconscious on her floor on April 18, 2007. She called 911. Paramedics transported the child to Phoenix Children’s Hospital. The youngster was taken off of life support the following day, and passed away.”

 “Kevin Horn, M.D. (“Horn”) performed an autopsy. A CT scan revealed a “possible skull fracture, secondary to brain swelling.” The Peoria police were notified and Detective Kevin Moran was assigned as the lead investigator. Subsequently, Dr. Horn concluded that the youngster died from “blunt force trauma of the head and neck.”

 A grand jury indicted Randall for the child’s death in November 2007.The Prosecutor’s Office announced they would seek the death penalty.”

 “Nearly two years later, the State finally withdrew its notice seeking the death penalty. After argument, the charges were dismissed with prejudice on August 4, 2010.

 Ms. Randall then filed a complaint. The amended complaint alleged eleven causes of action and the named defendants included Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Thomas, Whitney, Horn, Moran, and the City of Peoria.”

 Here, Dr. Horn seems to make a neutral diagnosis of injuries, which then changes to intentional infliction of injuries shortly after meeting with Detective Moran and the D.A.’s office. This death penalty case never made it to trial. In the next case, the self-defense case of Harold Fish, Dr. Horn seems to pass off mere speculation for scientific certainty.


The speculative testimony of the Medical Examiner, Dr. Horn (in State v. Fish), was relied upon by the State as “forensic science” in arguing their case to the jury. Yet, the testimony of Dr. Horn failed to meet minimum evidentiary standards.” 

 “Although the Court of Appeals found that Dr. Horn ultimately focused upon “offensive” and “defensive” wounds as equally likely ….. we submit that expert testimony speculating about gunshot wounds as “defensive wounds” when they are no more likely than “offensive wounds” not only falls short of evidentiary standards, but is more prejudicial than probative.”

 “The State relied upon the testimony of Dr. Horn as essential evidence to support its conviction. It is obvious that the State would not have prevailed (in State v. Fish) without the testimony of Dr. Horn.”

“An expert opinion must be within a reasonable degree of medical probability which is an important evidentiary standard throughout the United States that must be enforced in order to prevent unreliable medical testimony from swaying juries, which is exactly what happened in Fish’s case.”

 “Dr. Horn’s interpretation of the wounds as “consistent with defensive wounds” was nothing more than a speculative judgment about one possibility within an array of many possible inferences.” 

 “The testimony of Dr. Horn not only swayed the jury, it was used as the decisive “evidence” against Fish. Dr. Horn’s testimony fell below evidentiary standards and was misleading. It violated due process of law.”

horn 2 ta 115

In the Arias case, Dr. Horn said that the gunshot pierced the skull and therefore must have impacted the brain. Dr. Horn said the victim was shot in the frontal lobe and therefore would be “immediately incapacitated”. Dr, Horn’s report indicated that the brain was not impacted by the bullet, but he claimed it was a typographical error. All of this is highly questionable.

 Dr. Horn stated that he found no blood in the wound track. Crime scene photos show blood congealed under Mr. Alexander’s nostrils. Dr. Horn stated that the gases from the gunshot would cause a massive shockwave through the brain. If the brain was impacted, the wound track through the brain could only be mere fractions of an inch.

 Shortly before the trial, Juan Martinez aksed Detective Flores to meet with Dr. Horn. They met to discuss possible death penalty aggravators. Detective Flores changed his opinion and his sworn testimony. Dr. Horn’s opinion and report also changed. Detective Flores stated all this at trial. Dr. Horn was insistent and adamant about his new opinion after holding the opposite opinion for years. Imagine that!

 Imagine this: Lisa Randall was a grandmother and Day care operator who faced the death penalty and three years of prosecution based on no evidence other than the faulty medical opinion of Dr. Horn.

 Harold Fish was a retired teacher and a Mormon father of 7. Fish was an avid hiker and hunter forced to kill a man who attacked him on a trail. His conviction was reversed and he was released from prison to enjoy three years of freedom before he passed away.

horn fish randall

 In both cases, there was no evidence at all to support a conviction. There is nothing anywhere in the past of either to suggest they would harm or kill another person. There are only the tragic events of one day and the testimony and opinion of Dr. Kevin Horn.

lisa randall 

  Lisa Randall:  Death Penalty and First Degree Murder Charges Dropped

fish freed 125

Harold Fish: Conviction Reversed 

The Prosecution was certain that the gunshot was last. It was a post-mortem gunshot and Travis Alexander was already dead. If so, then there is no question that this is “gratuitous violence”, needlessly inflicting a gunshot after the victim had died. If so, this easily proves the heinous and depraved prongs of the cruelty aggravator. Interestingly, heinous and depraved were not charged in this case.

 The prosecution took the gunshot last theory, persuaded the jury and most trial watchers, and got the conviction. Yet, the way the case was presented shows that the prosecutor does not even believe his own theory.

 Here is something else to imagine: the theory, using a presumption of guilt, that the gunshot was first and that Travis Alexander was shot above the right eyebrow while sitting down in the shower.

 This theory fits the forensic evidence. It has a much more profound “cruelty aggravator”, and it is a much more reasonable theory to seek a 1st degree murder conviction. Further, this is the only scenario under which the charges of both 1st degree premeditated AND felony murder make any sense at all.

 So you really need to ask yourself: Why, then, did the prosecution try so hard to disprove it?

 Death From Above

shower shot ta

I call this the “death from above” theory.

It’s not so scientific. Like Jodi, I’m an artist, so maybe I can see images in my mind and understand the dimensions easier than others. Maybe we need to use a dummy to truly see it.

If Travis was sitting in the shower, then taking a presumption of guilt, this is how he was shot. It’s a slightly angled downward shot from behind and above Travis. The prosecution didn’t want the jury to consider this theory because then the jury would also have to consider the defense theory, and the defense theory is the most reasonable of the three, according to the facts.

travis floor

 Post Traumatic Death on the Floor

This is the prosecution’s theory. After Travis Alexander is stabbed and his throat is cut, Jodi drags him still “bleeding out” near the bathroom sink where, for some reason, she shoots him at a slight angle. She doesn’t shoot him last in the shower, because he was found in the shower with his left side facing out.

 The average width of a human head is 18cm (7.1 inches). Let’s imagine Travis’ head diameter is 8.0 inches. The gun barrel would have to be somewhere near 8 to 12 inches above the floor.

 That makes good logical sense, doesn’t it, Dr. Horn?


These are actual X-Ray and CT scans of the brain. Look at all that room right where Travis was shot. There is easily plenty of room for that gunshot to completely miss the brain. Travis was shot in the face through the skull and the nasal cavity. Travis was not shot through the frontal lobe, but across the frontal lobe. It was not necessarily rapidly and thereafter incapacitating. Dr. Horn is wrong again. 

B0005622 Enhanced MRI scan of the headbrain???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The “Linebacker”  position

attack new

Defense Theory



Even many trial watchers who believe that Jodi Arias is guilty of 1st degree murder also believe that the gunshot was first. Here is a video from one of them named Gray Hughes:


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

Click to access m3846408.pdf

360 thoughts on “Spotlight on Dr. Kevin Horn”

  1. All excellent points. The only thing I’m not clear on is how, if we consider theory guilt, gun shot first, does felony murder fit in the picture.

    1. If it is gunshot first and murder, then she shot him and he was wounded and didn’t die. At this point she is an unwelcome guest and trespassing. This falls under the felony predicate of burglary (unlawfully entering or remaining in a private dwelling). Instead of calling an ambulance, she stabs him to death and this is felony murder.

      1. Evidently Arizona changed the common law definition of burglary from “intent to commit theft therein” to “intent to commit any felony therein”. In the Arias case:
        “The State argues the defendant’s status as an invited guest changed when the defendant stabbed the victim, thus committing an aggravated assault. According to the State’s theory, the defendant was no longer an invited guest for purposes of all wounds inflicted after the first wound. At that point, Defendant remained unlawfully in a residential structure for purposes of committing a felony. In addition, the State argues the evidence establishes the defendant entered the victim’s home with a gun and knife for the purpose of committing the assault.”
        So the underlying felony is assault not theft.
        Here’s the problem with that: Thanks to the merger rule, not all all deaths resulting during the commission of assault are felony murder, otherwise there would be no distinction between assault and murder. All murders involve assault. Which may be why assault is not a predicate felony for felony murder while sexual assault is listed as one. If you consider the assault as the predicate felony, second degree predicate I guess, which is what the prosecution claims here, then all murders will be felony murder, there will be no first and second distinction. Even if you enter a place legally, you seize to be there legally at the point of assault because that qualifies as burglary which in term qualifies you for felony murder, under all circumstances (unless your on your own couch at home). What he’s doing is he’s trying to morph a second degree murder into a first degree murder under the felony murder charge.

      2. You are just full of surprises. That’s exactly right and why there is the problem.

        The intent of the law is that if you are involved in a murder, you are just as gullty as the one who murdered.

        Hopefully, anothe intent is to say, hey you, if you are robbing a place and a person shows up and you kill them, it’s a death penalty case. So an intent to save lives.

        This is a technical application. It’s a stretch. I say it fits felony murder for the gun first under a botched murder, but not for the knife first. .

  2. If she shot him whilst he was sitting in the shower, then I would argue that Jodi’s first action is not defined as self defense? Surely if Travis was shot in a sitting position, naked and without a weapon, any of his actions thereafter would be would be deemed self defensive? Not that I don’t get the point of your article!

    1. If she shot him first while sitting in the shower, then I would say it is both murder and premeditation. The point is that the jury should be allowed to decide between too realistic alternatives, that Travis was shot in the shower in premeditated murder, or that he was shot in the bathroom in self-defense. The third theory of stbbed first and murdered is not realistic in my opinion, and I believe that even the prosecution does not believe this theory.

  3. Okay, let’s set premeditation aside. The gunshot first in the shower murder theory assumes premeditation. Up to the point that Jodi fires the gun, she is a welcome and invited guest. You have to assume that she shot him and he was injured but still alive. So for whatever reason, she doesn’t fire again.

    At this point he is injured and jodi is no longer a welcome visitor. She decides to get a knife and finish him. She is now unlawfully remaining in a residence which is one of the felonies listed on the Arizona statute. She doesn’t leave the home, she doesn’t call an ambulance. She gets a knife and “finishes him off”.

    So, in the course of burglary, which by Arizona law simply means entering or remaining in a dwelling with the intent to commit any felony, she killed Travis Alexander. This is Felony murder by Arizona law. Why this doesn’t work for the knife first murder theory? Since premeditation is assumed, she planned to kill him with a knife. You cannot break that up into the first stab, the second stab, and so on. There is no break in the action. Felony murder does not apply in this case.

    The break in the action, when Travis is wounded and she decides to switch to a knife to finish him off, fulfills the predicate that at that time, she is guilty of burglary with the intent to commit a felony. With the knife, it is one continuous action, so the predicate that she is guilty of burglary with the intent to commit any felony doesn;t materialize. This is because at the time she forms the intent to murder, she was a welcome guest in the home.

    In the same way, if she shot him in the head in the shower and killed him instantly, this is not felony murder, but it is premeditated murder.

    1. Rob, there is no reply showing to my questions, and it states that my comment is awaiting moderation. I will re-post it as it may be confused with Martina’s:

      Repost – If she shot him whilst he was sitting in the shower, then I would argue that Jodi’s first action is not defined as self defense? Surely if Travis was shot in a sitting position, naked and without a weapon, any of his actions thereafter would be would be deemed self defensive? Not that I don’t get the point of your article!

      1. Okay, let’s set premeditation aside. The gunshot first in the shower murder theory assumes premeditation. Up to the point that Jodi fires the gun, she is a welcome and invited guest. You have to assume that she shot him and he was injured but still alive. So for whatever reason, she doesn’t fire again.

        At this point he is injured and jodi is no longer a welcome visitor. She decides to get a knife and finish him. She is now unlawfully remaining in a residence which is one of the felonies listed on the Arizona statute. She doesn’t leave the home, she doesn’t call an ambulance. She gets a knife and “finishes him off”.

        So, in the course of burglary, which by Arizona law simply means entering or remaining in a dwelling with the intent to commit any felony, she killed Travis Alexander. This is Felony murder by Arizona law. Why this doesn’t work for the knife first murder theory? Since premeditation is assumed, she planned to kill him with a knife. You cannot break that up into the first stab, the second stab, and so on. There is no break in the action. Felony murder does not apply in this case.

        The break in the action, when Travis is wounded and she decides to switch to a knife to finish him off, fulfills the predicate that at that time, she is guilty of burglary with the intent to commit a felony. With the knife, it is one continuous action, so the predicate that she is guilty of burglary with the intent to commit any felony doesn;t materialize. This is because at the time she forms the intent to murder, she was a welcome guest in the home.

        In the same way, if she shot him in the head in the shower and killed him instantly, this is not felony murder, but it is premeditated murder.

    2. Hmmm, I don’t know. I think the stabbing which took about two minutes is not one continuous, unbreakable act. It’s not like she had a machine gun that jammed. Each stab is an individual action which precedes the next and can be stopped at any time. There were some stabs which were superficial and others fatal, can they really be fused into one act? Some may have been a “heads up, back off, I mean business” stabs, the neck slash was not one of those. On the other hand, I consider the whole thing, including the gunshot, as one act, the act of killing which can’t be separated for Juan’s convenience. But my problem is really the way Martinez spins this into murder one while he’s saying effectively it’s murder two. He’s saying that even if she didn’t form the intent to kill she’s still guilty of murder one because she magically became uninvited because of some Arizona loophole (which may not be a loophole at all if you consider the merger rule).
      Can you describe a scenario in which someone (Wendy let’s say) dies at the hands of someone else (Nancy let’s say) who does not live on the premises, where it would not be a felony murder under JM’s theory of the law? Even if Nancy was not committing any felony at the time, if Wendy dies, even accidently, Nancy can be charged with felony murder because at the time she accidently stuck the fork in Wendy’s forehead we can safely assume she was no longer a welcome visitor but a burglar.

      1. You are confusig me.

        You seem to accept the felony murder in the beginning of your comment and then you act like it’s ridiculous at the end of your comment.

        Okay, now I get you. Well. on an extreme technicality, I believe the gunshot first murder theory can be squeezed into felony muder. I understand what you mean. This is clearly not the intent of the law.

        So if i do a domestic killing at my house and not at the wome’s house, I am free from felony murder? You really should have a primary felony that’s intended with the murder being the consequence of the intended felony. That’s the intent of the statute,

        I wonder why no one discusses this? It’s because the desired result od guilty was accomplished, so no one questions it.

        I still feel the gun first botched murder attempt can technically fit, but the knife first murder does not. If it’s knife first self – defense, then it is not even murder.

        It’s scary that you play these things out in your mind like I do.

    3. Rob, I have from the beginning believed it to be exactly the way you explained it above, and I don’t know why the prosecution thinks that the gunshot has to come last to get a conviction because, I’ve always thought that she did shoot him sitting in the shower and remember in her ninja story, she said they shot Travis first and said that they intended to shoot her and the gun jammed, I believe that the gun jammed after she shot him and only wounded him, so therefore she had to get the knife to finish what she started, I am not a Jodi hater at all, as a matter of fact I believe the defense could have claimed crime of passion and and won a lesser charge, cause that’s truly what I believe it was, I don’t believe self-defense for a number of reason’s, 1. If indeed you committed self-defense, you should have no problem telling the police, when caught, exactly how you had to defend yourself, cause that is not a crime. 2. When in fear for your life the natural reaction is to run as far away from that fear as possible, when I look at the pic of the hallway, where his bedroom door and the closet doors are they are almost with same distance, if you extended both arms, I 100% know that she could’ve just as easily went out his bedroom door and never looked back, as a matter of fact it would have been easier, if you think about it she said he was coming after her, what if he would have decided to come through the closet, right next to him, she would have ran right smack into him. 3.rd and final reason, I don’t for a second believe That Travis was going to kill her, especially over a dropped camera that didn’t break, even if he got mad she could of threw her arms around him and started kissing him and she knows that. she had deep feelings for him and he had deep feelings for her, he just knew that she wasn’t right for him. I would pretty much wage my life on my opinion.

      1. Donna, You may be right. My point is that I don’t believe even the prosecution thinks the gun was last. So, even if it was murder, it was an unfair trial. Even if it was murder, it should not be a death penalty case.

        It is very possible, an argument got out of hand, they both made agressive moves and both were defending themselves.

        I thin if there is an argument, sometimes the goal is not to run away, but to resolve the problem, and then it gets out of control. You made a good point that she can use charm to stop a fight rather than violence.

  4. I would say the intent of the law is to deter the underlying felony itself. Even if you don’t intend or reasonably expect someone to die during the commission of the felony, like a Marijuana offense, if someone gets a bee sting and is allergic you can be charged with felony murder. So it’s not to deter murder but those felonies listed under the statute.
    What I find interesting is Robert Towery was not charged with felony murder it appears (I can’t find this charge anywhere in connection with him though I could be wrong). His case seems a classic felony murder, they were invited in (like Arias) but planned to rob the guy , kidnapped him and at some point decided to kill him. Now here I could see charging those guys with both premeditated murder and felony murder.

  5. Ok maybe that was a bit schizophrenic.
    I don’t think any of them fit felony murder. The state’s theory is assault, the new Arizona burglary definition appears to make that possible despite the fact that assault is not a predicate felony for felony murder – all you need to do is remain somewhere unlawfully (you become unwelcome by virtue of the assault). The problem is that I think the assault, no matter how he wants to split it up, is all part of the killing, and I think the law recognizes that.
    The merger rule: Felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder.
    Whether the shot or stab was first I think it’s circular logic to say it is that very act which made her a burglar.
    Can you think of a scenario where someone dies at the hands of another (who is not in his own dwelling at the time) and it’s not felony murder according to Juan? Please give me an example.
    (The dwelling part is only mentioned because of the burglary definition in Arizona)

      1. I think the whole felony murder concept is stupid. It’s been quite watered down since it’s original inception in English law and many jurisdictions are apparently moving away from it, naturally Arizona is trying to revive it to it’s medieval glory. I think it’s one of those tough on crime provisions that lands many a not-too-badass in jail and can be abused. I seriously doubt it deters any of the underlying felonies, I’m sure the first time most criminals have heard of this is when they’re charged with it. It has bothered me for a long time in the Arias case, not because in it’s absence she would have gotten off, (after all they can give her three death penalties if they want, she did kill him three times according to Juan, but kill her only once) but precisely because it smells of abuse and desperation. It’s what makes me question the whole state theory and look more closely at her story. I wonder if it’s a basis for appeal. I think it’s not the last we’ve heard on this subject from Nurmi since he’s already made a motion for it’s dismissal. I think now they have their hands full with the sentence.

      2. Yes, they have their hands full. I agree with the proper use of felony murder. A man goes to rob a home, he thinks nobody’s there, the owner shows up, he kills the owner. This should be 1st degree.

        Two guys get high and go out to rob whovever. One of then kills somebody, they both should be first degree. I agree with the reason for it. It should be as straightfooward as possible

        Because, like you said, when you start getting Hinckey with the law, it raises questions of motive and intent of the prosecutor.

  6. Since it only takes a moment to form intent I’d say the first example can be handled by premeditated murder. I’m not sure I agree with the second example where both should be first degree murder, giving someone life of death when they didn’t kill anyone is tough for me, but I see your point.

    1. The famous legal case are the two bank robbers. One got away and one was shot by the police.

      The one who got away was convicted of first degree felony murder for the death of his accomplice.

  7. That’s exactly why I don’t agree with it. Imagine if the one who got away was the 18 year old kid of the dead accomplice, who was dragged along to learn the trade from his father.
    If a policeman accidentally shot an innocent passer-by while trying to stop a robbery should a petty criminal get life or death for that? I think this law does not deter the underlying felony as it purports to do. Furthermore it has nothing to do with preventing homicide since that’s not the intent. In any punishment the intent should be key and our murder statutes cover that imo. It is a law that aims to punish someone for unintended consequences. Just a layman’s opinion

    1. I have to disagree. I don’t think the intent of the felony murder law is to deter the felony, but to deter murders committed during the felony.

      The 18 year old kid – these are facts that can be brought up when charges are made or during a plea or trial,

      The petty criminal should know that it is reasonably forseeable that a death will occur during the commission of a felony.

      Intent goes out the window when an innocent person dies due to your decisions and actions except in self-defense. Just my current opinion.

      1. I agree with everything you are totally saying, some of the things I don’t agree with is when there are two perps and both should be equally charged with the same thing but if one of them decides to help the prosecution and gets a plea deal like in ryan ferguson’s case, They used police scare tatics to get him to plea to testify against ryan, which was innocent, They should never accept a plea deal from one of the two who committed the crime. I believe that in Debra Milky’s case the main person who pulled the trigger of course blamed the other guy, so in other words the one who co-operates first is the one who gets a better deal. Thank God that, the one who actually shot the kid didn’t get a plea.

      2. Donna, I think that some times plea deals are needed when you just don’t have enough evidence. In Arizona, they give one killer 10 years, and his accomplice gets the DP. This is not right.

        I think when you use confessions and accomplices testimony, you need to back it up with some evidence. This way, we do not have a Debra Milke situation or a Robert Towery situation where the one who makes the deal gets something too valuable to belive the person.

  8. The deaths which occur are unintended consequences, if someone dies (even if you didn’t plan that) because you brought a gun to the picnic, then sure you’re responsible but that’s covered by M1, M2, whatever. If someone dies because a cop thinks he’s Bruce Willis, then I see that as circumventing the spirit of justice. How do you think the felony murder laws prevent homicide? Do you think someone is less likely to try to steal a stereo? (Not being facetious here)
    I would take a giant eraser and wipe all that off all the books and replace it with a murder one statute for all law enforcement officers and prosecutors who knowingly, through false means, ensure the incarceration and execution of an innocent person. While I understand the principle behind immunity I believe we can’t pretend we have a just society while someone who may not be a violent criminal suffers the most severe penalty while another, with more power by virtue of being an insider who should bare more not less responsibility, is completely immune.

    1. Martina! Do you think there are Dexters in the prosecutors office?

      I think if you are stealing stuff and someone shows up, you would think three times before killing them if you are going to be facing 1st degree murder.

      But as lesser offenses get larger and larger sentences 20 30 50 years, then you say screw it, I might as well kill the witness.

      So these crazy sentences I believe are counter-productive.

  9. It comes to a point of diminishing returns.
    I think felony murder is used more often than not, not for the guy who shoots a witness, for that we have other laws, I think it’s more often used to mete out punishment to somebody because we need to blame somebody. Let the guy serve time for the crime he committed, no extra sauce.
    I think the sentence should not be used as a deterrent but as a punishment which fits the crime considering the intent, relatively speaking. It’s not that I think preventative medicine is not a good thing it’s just that I think it’s been shown that not even the death penalty is a deterrent.

  10. There is no deterrent for that. There is a reason though. Alyce Miller explains all this perfectly.
    You can punish people till the cows come home, it will make no difference, you just ignore the cause and perpetuate the vicious cycle.

      1. I just realized who the 2 people are in this main conversation, rob, I always made replys to your comments on another webpage, prob occupy, but you only used your first name but now I realised it was you cause I find myself replying to your post, you might remember a post by dab, thats my initials, I usually won’t reply to people who want to argue, but I like a good debate, and there will never any that can stand up to Jodi’s two sides of the story, oooppps, meant three,lol

  11. Yes that’s a point of view. I’m more into positive conditioning than negative conditioning, I think the former has more teaching value and the latter is the cause of a lot of evil.

    1. Yes, like I think Jodi growing pot on the roof was the perfect opportunity for Mr. Arias to form a closer relationship with his daughter.

      Instead he calls the police and totally destabilizes a 14 year-old girl.

      1. No, Donna, but they scared the hell out of a 14 year old girl who was just experimienting like all teens do. Bill Arias called the police and Jodi never trusted or confided in her parents again.

  12. It’s a hybrid, you take a Chihuahua and a Chupacabra, you throw them a tequila party and you get a Juanhuahuacabra. Then just stand back and watch the women go crazy!

      1. I’ve never quite figured out which was the response that you wrote was to my post…because they are all interspersed with Martina’s – and none of them seemed to answer my specific point:
        In the article Ms Chen says this, “I call this the “death from above” theory.
        It’s not so scientific. Like Jodi, I’m an artist, so maybe I can see images in my mind and understand the dimensions easier than others. Maybe we need to use a dummy to truly see it.
        If Travis was sitting in the shower, then taking a presumption of guilt, this is how he was shot. It’s a slightly angled downward shot from in front and above Travis. The prosecution didn’t want the jury to consider this theory because then the jury would also have to consider the defense theory, and the defense theory is the most reasonable of the three, according to the facts.”

        The Prosecution didn’t want the jury to consider this… Is she saying (with the directional arrows), that she believes Travis was shot sitting in the shower, or at least sitting somewhere? How does self defense become a valid defense if he was sitting in the shower or anywhere with that downward angle? In which scenario in Jodi’s telling was the headshot from above on that angle? I thought that she said she shot him as he charged her…?

      2. Maybe Amanda confused you. There are three possibilities. 1) JA shot TA as he was charging her. This is self-defense 2) JA shot TA in the shower. It was a botched attempt. He was wounded and JA got a knife and finished him off. This is murder 1. 3) JA stabbed TA, then she shot him while he’s lying on the bathroom floor. This is murder,

        What she’s saying is that the third theory, the prosecution theory makes no sense. The only realistic theories are the first two.

        Doctor Horn and Juan Martinez steered the jury towards this 3rd theory. The evidence suggest the jury was lied to and the prosecution does not really believe this theory.

        Since the jury was not allowed to choose between the first two theories, it’s an unfair trial whether it was murder or self-defense.

  13. So how does she get the downward angle with the bullet if he is ‘charging’ her?
    The confusion comes from the downward angle diagram…she would be better showing the diagram of how it would work if he was charging her because I can’t imagine that…

      1. Rob, Thanks – will look now. I too wish there was an edit button – I have made some spelling errors that make me blush!

      2. Prue, I like the edit button on Disqus. On this one, I guess only I can edit the comments. I spell stuff wrong on other posts, so I know what you mean.

      3. Rob, I still can’t see how that angle would work…the bullet was not fired point blank, right? If someone is raging in, in a linebacker pose, he is not going to dive 4-6 feet away, so for Jodi to have got that angle of bullet as he was diving…the pose doesn’t work in the scenario she painted. She would have had to have been holding the gun way above his head for the trajectory to work?

      4. He was in a crouched position with his head tilted to his right. She would have to be to his right side when the gun fired.

        I can say that to get a shot like that on the floor when he is motionless is absurd for one thing and almost impossible for another.

      5. On your post above, I told you I believe she was shot first, so I was not one of the jurors but I still believed other that what the prosecution laid out, because I am able to put puzzles pieces together myself with out someone else’s theory. So why can not the jurors, think for themselves as well?

      6. That’s my concern. Regardless of what Jodi did, I believe the prosecution steered the jury away from the gun first theories to gain a tactical advantage.

        That is not a search for the truth and that is not justice.

        This is win at all costs, and that is bad and dangerous for all of us.

  14. Just another spelling mistake, LOL, I’m frustrated without the edit button, it’s my favorite button.
    It might help if you start your comment with the name of the person you are responding to (in reference to Prue’s comment), just an idea..

  15. Don’t worry Rob, I’m sure there are many mistakes.
    If you can’t match the comments it will become a mess when traffic picks up.
    thank you

      1. Is there no way to show the first few words of the previous comment? I know you’re Perry Mason not Zuckerbaby

  16. I don’t think you could change any one’s opinion on either side, I even believe that if the gun was found and it proved to be premeditated, that her supporters would stop supporting her, but if something came out that showed 100% self-defense, I might not like it at first but I would accept it and change my opinion, and most people on either side of that fence are quite that open to change opinion, agreed?

    1. Yes, if the gun were found, I agree, Donna. There are other things that could happen which could change my mind.

      Many people who believe Jodi is guilty of murder 1 also believe the gun was first. It just makes more sense. But this means that there was perjury and prosecutorial misconduct.

      Remember that the defense only needs to show it is possible. Even if I believe she planned the murder in Yreka, if as a juror, I believe it is possible it was not planned and it was self-defense, I cannot convict.

      I agree. I can change my mind.

    2. Hey Donna!
      I think you’re right most people are pretty entrenched in their opinion. If the gun was found and turned out to be grandpa’s, Jodi would be cooked in my books: first degree. I would also dismiss my current opinion of abuse (psychological or otherwise) since I would not think a person who is abused plans a murder while they are in no imminent danger. I would like to see something which would convince me, I don’t much like being on the “nuts” side LOL.
      I still wouldn’t be rooting for the death penalty though either way, that should be reserved for people who bury others alive and such, otherwise there are tens of thousands of people convicted of murder who are not on death row and all should be.

      1. ps. Even if she turns out to be a cunning murderess, Martinez should still be disbarred and quartered imo. Just because you adamantly believe someone to be guilty does not mean you don’t play by the rules.

      2. I don’t believe in the death penalty because I know that innocent people have been executed. It would be far worse to execute an innocent person than to let a murderer go free. Some of the things that I can’t seem to get past is self-defense is not a crime, so when you were caught by the police you automatically want to explain how you had to defend yourself from being killed. Common sense, when you do nothing wrong, you tell the truth. The part about the intruder story that boggles my mind is she told the detective that they told her that if she tells anyone, that they would kill her whole family, and right after that she does an interview with 48 hrs and tells the whole world about it! Go figure that! I for one believe it to be a crime of passion and would have gotten manslaughter had the defense with that, because that could have been proven. It seems that most of jodi’s followers believed others to be involved at from the beginning, but that seems to have faded some, and now most believe, that it was self-defense. Maybe I am wrong, but that’s what I believe to have observed.

      3. Some people believe others were involved. The unexplained shoe print in blood and getting the body to the shower.

        If Jodi really had an altered state, then it’s possible that she couldn’t accept that it happened or that hse did it. So, maybe she believed it had to be someone else. Stranger things have happened.

      1. LOL, I hope you’re having a nice Sunday Rob, don’t want you to get any negative vibes from these comments 🙂

    1. Thanks so much. Nian Nian was being her usual wisecracking self. My friend Annette said she had 20 somethings trying to date her.

      She would tell them “Kid, I have underwear older than you!”.

  17. I am sure that I have mentioned the case that captured my heart, it is one of the most interesting cases that I and others have come across. His petition is demanding his release for the reason of actual innocence, has just went over 250,000 followers from all over the world, and I just read that the Governor of Columbia, Miss has received just shy of a million letters, demanding to release him. He now has captured as much as attention as the infamous Jodi, the only difference is everyone is one the same page with agreement. You don’t find that too often. Out of his 3 support pages I have not seen one single person that disagrees about his innocence, it’s nothing short of amazing. I know that a lot of them get upset and even cry over this case, (I know I have) it weighs very heavy on my heart, and recently 3 judges went over the evidence, and it’s everywhere I look that something is expected to happen tomorrow, maybe those judges had a deadline or something, His story has been on 48 hrs 3 times and Dateline 3 times, Good Morning America, Andrew Jenks just filmed a documentary, and Nightline is airing his story this week. If you would like to see the most recent 48hrs on this case, It’s called The Accuser, it is worth watching.

  18. If he was immediately incapacitated how did he get down to the end of the hallway? Did Jodi drag, stab & carry him up & down the hallway? I never understood why no one spoke about the blood evidence and what it shows about what happened. Where is Dr Lee when you need him?

    1. They want us to believe Travis was shot last, Trixie. This is impossible. What you are saying about the blood evidence is so true.

      The forensic evidence was ignored by the prosecution for one reason, it contradicts their theory. Ballistics evidence also tells a different story.

      Dr. Horn was wrong in a previous Death Penalty case, he was wrong in the case of Harold Fish, and he’s wrong again!

      Dr. Lee knows that there is a treasure trove of blood evidence that tells a story, a much different story then Juan Martinez told the jury.

      Thank-You for your comment!

      1. Yes but someone will. Henry Lee is not the only game in town.

        I believe that after the sentencing, Jodi will get more support and perhaps will be able to raise money for a defense.

      2. Tis is a famous case, and despite what they presented on Oxygen’s “Snapped”, there are huge holes in so much of this story.

        Someone will want to look at this, I’m sure. Someone who may want to raise their profile or someone who really doesn’t like what’s going on in Maricopa, Arizona or the Mormon Church.

      3. This case has become toxic. There are people who have been fighting the system for decades, who have had more compelling arguments than her. I hope she doesn’t go the Milke way, decades later the appellate court sees it was an unfair trial.

      4. Very clever … the Milke Way. People afraid for their reputations to take a look at this case. So, it may be difficult. She needs a really good investigation.

      5. 🙂
        Did you hear about David Kamm? He was released in October, acquitted after three trials and 13 years in the slammer. He had 11 alibi witnesses.

    2. That’s such a good point. Here’s juror number ten saying exactly what you just facetiously suggested:
      She has NO idea what actually happened. I think they (the defense) made a mistake making this into a battle of the psychologists, they should have focused a lot more on the crime scene and blood evidence as you said. This juror thinks the motive was jealousy and “an evil mind”, like that’s evidence.

  19. Yes, several pro Jodi Arias is Innocent supporters have used your argument (evidently) in trying to say Horne perjured testimony and/or ‘changed his report’ from his initial report at trial. What evidence do you have to support this? It is after all contrary to what Horne said on the stand. Detective Flores’ misinterpretation of Horne’s opinion is not proof that the Medical Examiner ‘changed his opinion’. Is anyone here @ all familiar with how medical reports are actually created? If you were -you might understand how this typo/error came to be and why it is most certainly NOT the smoking gun pro Jodi Arias Supporters want it to be. I AM very familiar with how these ME Reports are created. The Medical Examiner- whilst conducting the autopsy speaks into an audio recorder as he goes over the autopsy and his findings. A Medical TRANSCRIBER (an employee or contracted service provider OF the Medical Examiner) is provided with the recorded autopsy findings and the Medical Transcriber then takes the audio recording and translates the Examiner’s findings onto a basic autopsy report TEMPLATE in order to CREATE the M.E.’s Report of Findings. The M.E. does NOT create the actual typed report. Yes, of COURSE he is responsible for the end result, but errors happen every day and are certainly not PROOF of any malfeasance. This report ‘template’ is used over and over again and provides an outline of all aspects required to conclude a Medical Examiners Report. It is VERY easy for the Medical Transcriber to miss one point -for a variety of reasons- one being if the Medical Examiner fails to DIRECTLY address an issue, such as a perforated Dura Mater. Some issues are not directly addressed by a professional due to the obvious issue of -if one thing is true, then it follows that….. For instance, it is not necessary for a doctor to also describe the size of a bathtub and water level in the tub IF the findings were a child drowned. It is of course always a good idea to be as detailed as possible- but it is NOT always required to list every single associated fact with a particular finding. Another example is if a person died from blood alcohol poisoning, it is not always necessary in a report to list the OTHER findings in the person’s blood that were also present due to the blood poisoning. The point is they died of blood alcohol poisoning. One can imagine that in many autopsies the Dura Mater IS intact, so in essence the odds of the last report created using said template, the Dura Mater was intact, is high. ONE typo on a report does NOT an argument for perjury MAKE. This argument in my opinion is tiresome and will not be helpful in any appeal.

    1. Thank-You for your comment.
      I think you have it all wrong. I don’t think the “Dura Mater” is a smoking gun, and I don’t think it’s a typo either. Dr. Horne, I believe, stated it was a “misunderstanding”. Fair enough.

      The real point is that Dr. Horne is wrong. Whether he was ordered to testify by the prosecution, or not, he is in error. I’m not an M.D. or an expert in ballistics, but by casual observation, I have discovered 8 reasons why it’s not possible for the gunshot to be last.

      They are listed in this article and others on this site, especially” in the article “why Jodi Arias will get a new trial. Horne is an expert in dead bodies, but he’s not too good as a detective.

      If a more qualified M.E. did not refute Horne’s testimony, Lisa Randall might be on death row and Harold Fish might have died in prison. Horne is a “company man” who likes to help the prosecution.

      The truth is that Travis Alexander was shot first, whether it was murder or something else. Horne was very aware of Flores’ testimony ‘pre-trial, where he testified that the gun was first. I think Flores is blameless in this, but not Dr. Horne.

      Dr. Horne is completely convinced that the gunshot was last and most probably post-mortem, according to you. If so, he is badly mistaken.

      Dr. Horne testified that no blood was found in the wound tract in the brain while also testifying that no wound tract was found in the brain. This is wordplay, and not science.

      Juan Martinez, in State vs. Miller, had 4 legitimate death penalty aggravators, but he bitterly fought the judge for a 5th aggravator. Yet, in State vs. Arias, you have a victim where it can be demonstrated he was shot post-mortem.

      This is called “gratuitous violence” and in Arizona precedent, this easily qualifies for as depraved behavior and the depravity prong of the heinous, cruel, and depraved aggravator. Jodi was not charged with this.

      To me, this is strong evidence that the prosecution decided to change the order of injuries for whatever purpose. To get a guilty conviction is the most likely purpose.

      Dr. Horne’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove first-degree premeditated murder. Doctor Horn is wrong. This is the reason why this must be re-tried, whether because there is malfeasance, or ineffectiveness of defense counsel.

      From what I’ve seen in this case, I believe it’s malfeasance. Trying to sway the jury on false evidence.

      1. According to Geffner (and others) even if the shot enters the frontal lobe it is far from a certainty a person will be immediately incapacitated. Just as a side note, in the 50s there were literally thousands of frontal lobotomies performed and many of them were with no anaesthetic, most patients were not incapacitated.

      2. Dr. Geffner was right, but the defense needed an MD with gunshot experience and knowledge to tell that to the jury.

        I truly hope that Nurmi aqsked for a continuance early in the trial when he first knew that the order of injuries would be challenged.

      3. Ps. It’s not just Horn, the prosecution was well aware of what exactly was in the report, they just hoped Willmott would not catch it, to their shock she did. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Martinez was not all over the eight pages of the autopsy report like a Doberman on a quarter pounder, after all he flashed the autopsy photos incessantly and with great enthusiasm.

      4. Yeah, I don’t want to be unfair to him but I think Nurmi might be too lethargic for the capital murder business. I don’t think there was a motion for a continuance based on that but there was one when Martinez dropped the Walmart and Tesoro surprise mid-trial and that was denied, so it’s possible he did make a motion (obviously to no avail). The judge is absolutely useless.

      5. Yes I understand that overruled objections and denied motions are good for an appeal but if you’re trying to win the case at hand I’m not sure that kind of a pattern is fabulous. It’s always better to win the case in the first place rather than on appeal two decades later.

      6. It was absolutely essential to get less than an M1 conviction in the Jodi Arias case. Once you get the M1 conviction, the cruelty aggravator is a sure thing. Everything they did should have been aimed at getting less than the M1.

        That should have been in their mind every second of every trial day.

      7. How does overruling an objection or denying a motion which may not even be heard by the jury help them with M1? Not being facetious here

      8. Well, you would have to do both.

        Funny, I an getting many likes from American Culture Shock, but I have zero visitors each day. How can that be?

        Martina, I am convinced that if LaViolette was a better witness, they would not have gotten a unanimous verdict.

      9. Maybe, I don’t think so. I think it was a fait accompli before they started, bar some unforeseen bombshell (as Nancy would say) the verdict was bound to be guilty. I think Laviolette is essentially a very good expert and under normal circumstances probably a good witness. Had she testified in the MacNeill or Sneiderman trial she would not have been subjected to the absolutely outrageous shit from Martinez and would have been a very effective witness. They didn’t want to believe her because they already hated the accused. The fact that they loved Demorte is further proof that it had nothing to do with Laviolette’s quality as a witness. If anything I think you were right when you said the crime scene and blood evidence should have been analyzed, that may have helped. On the other hand, if all the psychology went over their heads how I would expect them to understand forensics I don’t know. The problem was the jury. It took David Camm three juries, that’s 36 people later, to get twelve thinking, rational individuals. You don’t have to be a genius to deduce that if eleven people are testifying under oath the accused was with you at the time of the crime, he didn’t do it, no way no how. Now think about how much money the state spent there.

      10. I think it was the venerable Diane Schwartz who stated that there were 4 or 5 jurors who thought it should be less than first degree.

        That tells me they had a good chance to at least hang the jury. Say what we want about DeMarte, she was a good witness. She admitted to things that were not good for the prosecution and she came across as very credible, even if inexperienced and disrespectful of more experienced people in her field.

        Nurmi also made a big mistake by avoiding the autopsy evidence and photos like the plague. They show reasonable doubt and even scream it.

      11. There is another blog about how the entire universe revolves around gun ownership. I am going back and forth with them now. They are giving me lessons on the founding father’s and pre WWII Germany. : – )

      12. Venerable LOL. What it tells me is that four or five were not capable of standing their ground, that tells me plenty. Do you remember the Zimmerman juror who was interviewed who said he was guilty? Now no matter what I think of him, she could have hung the jury, if she were smart and/or strong. Can you imagine if people like Schwartz and the manicurist compelled the others to change their minds, if they were the intellectual leadership in that room, what kind of mental giants we are dealing with? The foreman, who I believe is a good man, said that he thought Arias was crucified in the media yet it didn’t seem to affect his decision. I believe saying someone is crucified in the media is basically saying the trial could not be entirely fair, particularly from someone who is not supposed to know anything about the media in conjunction with this case.
        I have to disagree on DeMorte, I thought she was terrible. I thought she had absolutely no idea what she was babbling about. All she does is tests, which an ape could do, and she doesn’t know what abbreviations stand for, she uses old tests, she throws parts out because they are not “empirically” backed and reaches often mutually-contradicting conclusions. Then there was the tiger vs. lion or whatever, this explanation she gave was better than an SNL skit. I’d like Tina Fey to do her.
        I thought Wilmott knew more about the tests than Demorte.
        What did she volunteer, that wasn’t pulled through her nose, that was bad for the prosecution?

      13. So funny. I definitely agree that if I saw an unfair trial and I was on the jury, I would hang it no matter what.

        My brother was jury foreman for a murder trial. They voted unanimous guilty. My brother is a very vocal and convincing used car salesman.

        YES, Schwartz was the intellectual leader.

      14. Ok Rob, I went to your Culture site, I had trouble signing in, a fail. You have to sign in to “like” it, I guess which is funny because I can post a comment but I can’t like it??? I thought I was signed in, my name shows up?? There is something amiss here.
        I never even noticed those like buttons, you got to make them bigger, like Horn’s head size bigger.

      15. You should be able to like it. You have to sign in to WordPress to like it. I am guessing. I can’t control the size of the like button or of Horn’s head.

      16. I understand that likely most of the time when a jury retires to deliberate and they take that initial vote, they’re rarely unanimous out of the gate. There is likely always some convincing going on. I’m not beyond changing my mind if I hear compelling, rational arguments. I just cannot imagine those coming out of the mouth of the death panel manicurist. If I was not sure it was premeditated, which I am not, those bloodthirsty bimbos would still be in that jury room.

      17. Good for you!

        I knew the jury was unanimous for guilty, but what I didn’t know was they were not unanimous on the degree. What made the difference.

        The disagreement of the 5 over felony murder and the 4 over life or death proves that not everyone was blindly following Juan and Schwatz’s gullible Gilligans

      18. I think on the life/death question it was an emotional decision, some just could not see her as a Manson type. I suspect they were not lamenting over the aggravators or mitigators or viabrators. On the degree I think it’s largely moot. The jurors who voted premeditated and felony don’t understand anything. The rest of them didn’t swallow the felony plan B but still saw it as first degree, the final result is the same. I would have liked at least one person to step up and say it could have been second degree because the prosecution had precious little to show premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

      19. I would have to say that given the evidence and especially the testimony of Dr. Horn, that the jury made the correct decision.

        My argument is that the evidence was not fully presented and that the testimony, especially the testimony of Dr. Horn, was faulty and possibly maliciously so. Therefore State v. Arias II, a long time from now.

      20. Well ok, but from where I’m sitting Horn was impeached by Willmott. I also think his testimony was blown out of the water by Geffner. So in my opinion, if they (the jury) had been unbiased, Horn would have been neutralized as if he never existed. I don’t even think the jury understood the significance of the sequence of events or even what Horn was talking about. I think the most damaging testimony was about the gas cans, that sealed her premeditation fate. Of course in their defense, they didn’t know about the Tesoro/Walmart shenanigans by Martinez, I think that was very significant (and very dirty). I agree with you somewhat, given Sherry’s incompetence, and what the jury was given, it was not the worst verdict I’ve ever seen. I was not shocked. The real obscenity here is the judge and the prosecutor.

      21. Willmott took a massive hit when she questioned Horn about Phineas Gage, the man with the crowbar through his skull who lived and functioned for years and years. The defense needed an MD Medical examiner and a gunshot expert to refute that testimony.

        Whether the TRUTH about the order of injuries makes a difference or not, I don’t know, but I would like to find out in a fair trial.

    2. If Horn didn’t type the report why did he testify that it was a “typo”? Why did he sign the report, it was a whopping 8 pages long which he had five years to review? IF it was a “typo” and the Dura Mater was in fact not in tact, why didn’t Horn go on to describe the extent of the injury to the Dura Mater, the size of the entry wound etc.? That is what the autopsy is for after all isn’t it? Why was Flores under the impression the shot was first, another misunderstanding connected to Horn? To suggest that in a capital murder case the ME signs a report he neither wrote nor read is either misguided or disingenuous. To suggest that one has to be a Jodi Arias supporter to see through the obvious malfeasance is tiresome.

      1. OK, that are also valid issues. Dr. Horne is an expert witness, and the opinion of the ME has a lot of weight for a jury. Yet, he continues to make speculative and unsupported statements including statements about gunshots in general terms, while implying they are specific to this case.

        IE, If you are shot in the frontal lobe, you will become immediately incapacitated. That’s a general statement which assumes a victim was shot through the frontal lobe, not grazed or shot NEAR the frontal lobe, like happened in this case. Again, more wordplay and trickery in a death penalty case.

        ….and he has done it at least two times before.

  20. First of all I would never even make it on a jury like this because no way in hell I would ever get death qualified. Was it death penalty case your brother was on?

    1. I am not sure. It’s Las Vegas, Nevada, so I assume so.

      The way I feel is that the DPs the law of the land, so I can give that sentence, but it would have to be beyond any and all reasonable doubt and a particularly nasty case.

  21. Not all laws are just laws, we’ve learned this throughout history. If you were living a couple of hundred years ago could you burn a witch (aka midwife) at the stake? I would never impose the death sentence on anyone just like I would never turn in the fugitive from the law Edward Snowden. I have no problem with life sentences for dangerous offenders.
    Ps. It’s always “beyond a reasonable doubt” just ask Todd Willingham or Troy Davis. Had you been on their jury you would not be able to sleep today. The jurors who were listening to the good detective Saldate were also certain beyond a reasonable doubt. They thought Milke had her little boy shot in the head, that’s nasty.

    1. I totally agree.

      Snowden had other, better ways of doing the same thing. He could have released select smaller pieces of information, etc.

      The girl shot in the head at the Arapahoe school shooting just died. : – (

      1. I’m glad you agree, don’t get me started. The death penalty and incarceration rates scare me more than the fifty guns per household. The odds of you finding yourself in the slammer are much higher than being shot by somebody, neither alternative is appealing. And the prison industry is probably far more profitable than than the gun industry, though they do alright as well.

      2. For non violent offenders, what’s wrong providing some counseling and rehab while you have a captive audience?

        For violent offenders, the same. Longer prison sentences make sense in some cases, but where’s the discretion?

        It is shameful and needs to be fixed.

      3. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, it makes too much sense. Also it would likely decrease the recidivism rates, that’s no good for business.

      4. I can’t remember or find the Wilmott cross of Horn about Gage. Do you know which day this was? What was said in that testimony?

  22. This was only about a minute long exchange and I think the only damage here was that he got it in (because she doesn’t bark at him like Martinez would) that an object like an arrow going through the brain is different, according to him less damaging, than a firearm projectile because of the gasses and expansion. If that were true the Gage case would not have been such a sensation, to this day.
    However, she established that there is no exit wound, no blood (ie; no wound track), no fragments, no damage to the dura mater (oops that was a typo), in short no evidence that there was any bullet in the brain. You can be certain that even if the bullet did hit the frontal lobe, especially because it ended up in the cheek, the 13lbs, 1.25inch thick, three and a half foot iron rod Gage had flying through his head like a scud (which landed 80ft away) did a lot more damage, His brains were splattered all over the rail tracks and when he vomited in the doctor’s office he threw up another part of his brain. This created quite a “cavity” for Gage. This guy was never incapacitated. Horn insists the bullet “had to” go in the brain based on where the entry hole in the scull is. With no exit hole and path in the brain matter, that’s an extrapolation, pure speculation which is more likely to be false than true given the absence of any medical evidence. It’s simple geometry that if you have two distant points you can draw a line and infer the path of travel, it’s an equally simple mathematic reality that if you have only one point, you cannot infer anything about the trajectory. Since the bullet did not exit we can’t assume it traveled in a straight line, that’s where his premise fails. He’s basically claiming that the bullet went straight into his brain and then bounced off of something to end up in the cheek. What did it bounce off of while in the soft tissue of the brain? The bullet did a 180? He is molding his testimony to fit the story. He starts stuttering as he denies having numerous conversations with Flores. He claims he never talked to him at all, is that likely? First he said that the shot would have not been immediately incapacitating, then he says it would have probably been incapacitating and finally he insists it would have been rapidly incapacitating. He says the brain was liquified but he took slices??. He didn’t say it was liquified in his report, in his report he used a different word, he said it was soft. On the stand he repeatedly refers to the brain as liquified, for obvious reasons. All this under oath.
    The dura mater question actually came from a juror, which means at least one clearly knew he was lying. Brian Silber said that in the 80s in Florida the cops had to change from 9mm to 40 caliber weapons because the former does not take people out. Evidently even the 9mm is of a higher caliber than the 25 caliber which was used.
    The only thing he didn’t lie about was his name (though even that’s under review as people claim he’s actually Rob Lowe). I bet there are quite a few experts who would say that even if a brain is the consistency of pudding (this was only six days after, not a year) a bullet would still leave evidence it had been there. If he had been shot post mortem it would not be a gusher but there would still be some blood since all this happened in a very short time frame, and that blood would not just disappear. I also think it’s highly unlikely that if she shot him while he was dead she did it from three or more feet away. Why not put the gun up against his head?
    Although I think Wilmott did impeach him, Geffner contradicted him and at least some of the jurors knew he was lying, the defense should have had their own expert addressing this specific issue since it was so crucial to their case. Even a simple emergency room doctor would have refuted what he said, though it’s debatable whether it would have made a difference with THIS jury.

    1. Here is something you will really like. I just saw this for the first time last week. Apparently, even some people who think JA is totally guilty know that the gun must be first.

      This is what I was trying to make when we were doing the doctor horn article.

      I wanted something in 3-D to show both that Jodi’s version and shower version of gunshot first were plausible and also that the trajectory of a shot like this when Travis is lying on the bathroom floor is super-unlikely.

      1. No offense but that was a bit better than your 3-D LOL. It’s so funny because if you read the comments you see how emotionally charged and irrational people are. Even if one of “their own”, someone on the same side (ie; Gray thinks she’s as guilty as sin) deviates from the party line a bit they get attacked. The funny thing is that if Gray’s theory/reconstruction is accurate then the self-defense theory cannot be completely ruled out thanks to the single minded presentation of the prosecution. Even funnier, if you read Beth Karas’ comment to Gray, is that while this was not reported by Karas or anyone else, IF Beth Karas believes (as obviously others do) that Horn perjured himself then her guilt is irrelevant because it was an unfair trial and a bad verdict.

      2. EXACTLY. Could she have shot him in the shower? Think of the implications….then she needs to be in jail for life. Could she have shot him accidentally in a struggle? Yes, you cannot rule it out.

        A fair trial means the jury gets to pick from these two possibilities, and not the impossibility of the 3rd scenario.

        Thanks for your 3-D remark. : – p Actually I use 3-D software to design aircraft parts. But I have no idea how to do that with people and the human form.

      3. It’s not just Horn, if Horn lied then so did Flores (and Demorte imo) and the head bull shitter was Martinez. Now you can convict Mother Theresa if you use lies, that’s why they call it a kangaroo court. The guilt/innocence of the accused is of no consequence. That’s dangerous. All the guns in the world won’t protect us from that.

      4. I think Horn was pressured by Martinez. I would like Flores to explain why he was so confident he gun was 1st that he said it 3 times on 48 hours.

        Now Maricopa has the “baby seat killer” who may not be the killer at all.

      5. His testimony was painful. Nurmi asked him why he made no attempt to correct his testimony knowing it was inaccurate, Flores says it wasn’t inaccurate, it was a misunderstanding, as if these two are mutually exclusive: If it’s a misunderstanding IT IS INACCURATE, no matter your motives. I would have liked Nurmi to ask him how he arrived at his conclusion, what was said that made him think the shot was first. After all he’s not the doctor so somebody gave him that idea; WHAT did Horn say? Let’s see him explain that. He claims, under oath, that the sequence of events was not important at that time. Well we know at which time it did become important don’t we.
        Of course Horn claims, under oath, that he had no conversation whatsoever with Flores.
        Classic corruption

        Murder two for this guy? It’s a tragedy but from what I know this is classic Maricopa overkill. This happens every year all over the country and most of the time the sentences are relatively light in view of the fact that the accused can hardly be punished any more than by the consequences of their own negligence/accident.

      6. Texted? Not a chance, they talked, and all three of them, and they were quite clear on what came first. They’re all lying. I’d like to see the phone records just for fun

      7. I had to control myself when I heard Martinez barking at Jodi if she has trouble with the truth. The incessant memory remarks were quite precious as well in view of Horn’s amnesia.

      8. That’s an old trick from an old goat and he was doing that memory problem equals lie trick and the defense witness broke the law once so they must be lying 15 years before.

      9. Juan is not a bulldog, he’s a little yapping chiwawa. A too tightly wrapped burrito, that prick teacher in high school that you just couldn’t stand……

      10. I can’t stand this political correctness shit. This is coming from a woman who runs a facebook page called Murderers, Thieves and Crime Whores or something like that.

      11. The political correctness is another form of extremism and it’s totally infringing on our freedom of speech. I’m exercising the First: Fuck her if that Crime Whore can’t take a joke! Phew, that felt good
        (ps. you might have to edit this)

      1. Did you see the letter Arias wrote in response to JVM’s book? This guy has a video on this as well (irritating). I wonder which friend she was referring to who apparently collaborated on it. Do you know?

      2. No, dos you have a link? JVM’s book is a bunch of baloney. A one-sided Crapola fest.

        We wrote an article very favorable to JVM about what she said about our “toxic, toxic culture”.

    1. I have seen the letter before. It shows that Jodi can put herself in other people’s shoes, something the prosecution supporters claim she can’t do

      Just can’t fathom a person who would go to that much trouble to make a video like that. Yes, it could be Womack, but I do not know..

      1. Even if she deserved to be in jail for the rest of her life, is humiliation a part of that? Are we a civilized society who has made any advances since the dark ages if we consider that a part of justice? These people should start reading, start with Dostoyevsky, Solzenitzen, Oscar Wilde….

    1. Why would anyone do such a thing. I have seen this before. Do lab techs actually get paid per conviction like some reports claim?

      I always expected DNA evidence to be planted, because it’s so powerful and relatively easy to do. But this is insane. I don’t see how anybody could be convicted on just scientific evidence.

      It seems some of these people may be guilty, but now we will never know. What is wrong with people that they seem to have no conscience?

  23. This is exactly the point with Arias, she may be guilty but that does not mean she doesn’t deserve a fair trial. The more unethical/illegal stuff that goes on the more you have to question the actual guilt. If they are convinced she’s guilty and have a case then there is no need to fabricate evidence or testimony. Doing so is desperate and it’s how truly innocent people end up in prison. You effectively take away the function of the jury as the prosecutor becomes the judge and executioner the minute he decides, in his opinion, on guilt. Most of the exonerations involve some sort of misconduct. This, imo, is actually good news for the jury system. You can fix misconduct by holding them accountable for it. It is much more difficult to come up with a good alternative for the jury system. Even if you have a wacko like this in a lab somewhere, if you take away prosecutor immunity, this outrage wouldn’t happen.

    1. That blows my theory that some red states are more prone to evidence tampering, etc. because they have such tight budgets and they push to get a quick indictment so they are under more pressure as a “law and order state”.

      In this case, there may be too much money in the system so people have something to gain by being “the person” with the case-breaking evidence.

      How can a prosecutor, in god conscience, write a note to a lab tech saying “we really need this!!!!!!!!” ? My God. Part of the prosecutor’s duty is to protect the innocent accused.

      1. It may not be the money in the system. It may be indirectly related. I’m sure neither Horn nor Demorte got any money beyond what was above board, ie; bribes. What both may have to gain is the implicit promise of prestigious and lucrative career advancement, which of course eventually translates into $$$. It may be much simpler on an instinctive level, I’m sure there were Nazis and members of the Politburo who were drinking their own koolaid.

      2. Yes, but I’m saying they cut corners on investigations to save money, then they cut corners on the case to get the conviction. It is more prestige and career advancement.

        DeMorte is famous forever. No doubt it has helped her career and she will be called for more expert, smug testimony.

      3. The Arias trial was a long trial and leading up to it was a lot of hoopla. I don’t get the sense they cut corners on this particular investigation, I get the sense the investigation didn’t turn up convenient facts for them.

      4. They wanted a sure-fire way to distinguish murder over heat of passion or self-defense etc. The idea that the gun was last does this for them. It was bravado that may end up causing a re-trial in the end. IMO

      5. Wanting something “sure fire way” is exactly the problem, it circumnavigates the justice system, they take away the jury’s choice between those two alternatives (which is the whole purpose of having a jury).
        I agree

      6. I can see how there is so much pressure. A lot of work has been done. The suspect is in custody. If you let them go, the public doesn’t feel safe. It’s a tough spot to be in.

      7. There are thousands of prosecutors dealing with this pressure daily who do not succumb to it. If you can’t stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen

      8. First, take the time and get a good solid case.

        Maricopa likes to overcharge and scare the hell out of people into pleading guilty. If people don’t buckle, like Arias, then they get stuck. That’s when they start taking shortcuts.

      9. Sounds like the mafia. I would imagine that a lot of people resist when facing the wrath of the law and the implications for the rest of their lives.

      10. Yes, indeed. Did you see the article where we discovered that in one case, Maricopa prosecutors used “resisting arrest” as a past violent conviction in a death penalty aggravator?

      11. No I didn’t but it does not surprise me since Martinez threatened to introduce animal cruelty in the Arias case because she evidently “squeezed” her cat too hard. What a fucking fruitcake.

      12. Oh yeah that was real brave of her, can you imagine what an asshole she would have looked like if she let that in? Perhaps it’s not a stretch

      13. Sure, a doctor/lawyer meets a half literate guy who can barely put together a cogent thought, bonds with him over 48hrs in the yard over some Dr. Scholls and next thing you know he’s sharing his deepest secrets. They had four other guys just like that, total of five felons, for which they swept the US corrections system.
        During the course of the trial Spence clearly demonstrated, from the limited communications he had in his possession, that there was a concerted effort to guide these felons to have conversations on unrecorded lines (while obviously making deals with the state).
        The other interesting story is the sexual abuse case, where he’s accused of “putting his hands down the pants of a female family member”. I believe that is Alexis. Certainly has all the trademarks of Alexis, the ringleader. Now ask yourself this: Does it make sense that Macneill put his hands down the pants of Alexis (not even one of the younger female members of the family) AND THEN asked her to sign a statement that he didn’t do that? Now combine that with the fact that the prosecution’s entire theory (as well as Alexis’) revolved around Macneill murdering his wife so he could be with his mistress who by the way was living in that house at the time this alleged incident took place. Now does that make ANY sense?

      14. I think you smell a rat. This Alexis is tough, isn’t she? I don’t think it makes sense, as she was in college at that time. Sounds kooky to me.

      15. Well, they’re fighting the good fight. Sentencing is held off and they still have to deal with this extra charge. I think that Gypsy got off scott-free

      16. The college thing is not the main point for me. He ostensibly, according to Alexis, murdered his wife so he could be with Gypsy and when he finally was with Gypsy he started molesting Alexis? He had thirty years to molest Alexis, or any of the other daughters. Why has Alexis never accused him of this before Gypsy moved in? Why haven’t any of the other female members of the family? Why has no one else? Why was the molestation case dropped before the murder trial, only to be reinstated now, and why was it leaked to the media? Have you EVER heard of a molester asking their victim to sign a statement denying the molestation? Would the molester want to draw attention to their crime? Would such a statement carry any weight? Would a doctor/lawyer know this?
        Yeah, she’s tough, she’s a sociopath.

      17. When was this statement? At the time Gypsy moved in? No, it doesn’t make any sense. This is some really strange Mormon type stuff going on.

        My Culture Shock site is dead, boo hoo!

      18. She got off scott free if you assume there was a crime. Otherwise she’s only guilty of being a bitch, which is not to be underestimated.

      19. I haven’t seen it reported anywhere when exactly he was supposedly trying to get her to sign the statement but I have to assume it must have been very early on (again, supposedly). The alleged “molestation” happened in the six months after Michele’s death so it must have been around that time (allegedly). I can hardly imagine he would try to get her or anyone in the family (bar his son) to sign anything much later as Alexis was heading a campaign against him so they were not on speaking terms I’m sure.
        I don’t understand why you started a new website, why not fuse these two together and get some symbiosis going? Alternatively, get one website going and when it’s hot then spin it off?? I don’t know, it’s tough, people need visual stimulation these days, you don’t have enough cartoons and special effects over there. You need less Buddhism themes and more Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon stuff ….

      20. People are interested in Jodi Arias, but they don;t seem to care about gun rights or the death penalty. That’s exactly what I tried to do is get people from Spotlight to go over and check out Culture Shock. It seemed hot for a while, but now I have zero visitors.

        Well, why would she claim that the Doc tried to get his hands down her pants? That’s very direct, isn’t it. Maybe he was trying to examine her?

      21. Move in? What about going to the funeral and sending him erotic pictures throughout? What about telling her own mother that Michele died in January? I could go on. I never said she’s normal. I never said I liked her either, in fact I have a visceral reaction to her I could compare to the feeling I get when I see a bunny being devoured by an anaconda. I think it’s likely she wasn’t upset by Michele’s death, I think it’s even possible she wanted her dead but that does not mean she acted on it or that she put him up to it (though I’m sure she manipulated him plenty, paying off her debts for example). What I am saying is that if I assume she had something to do with it then I have to assume that it was in fact a homicide. In fact, the only evidence of homicide presented during the trial was the testimony of witness #1. Witness #1 is the felon who testified that Macneill told him that he drown his wife, the same guy who was miraculously released from prison a couple of weeks after the verdict who was not due to be released until 2016. Even the pathologist, who the prosecution found on Nancy Grace, could not conclude that Michele drown. There was no mention of drowning or homicide in the original autopsy. Drowning is not an exotic death, how hard is it for an ME to identify (particularly when told the person was found in a tub)? I’d say the original ME was probably looking for drowning as a cause of death, but did not find it. Neither did she find homicide.

      22. So, you’re saying no water was found in her lungs? My gut tells me that Gypsy had the good Doc whipped and she instigated the whole thing. This doesn’t make the Doc a bad guy.

        It just means she led him by the nose. It’s not an impossible scenario. A little head goes a long way, especially if your wife doesn’t do these things. It fits really well.

        With your total accident and total innocence theory, the face lift just doesn’t fit.

      23. She’s trying to utterly destroy him. If he were acquitted in the murder trial it would be something else to prosecute him for. If he were convicted, which he was, it will now serve as insurance in case of reversal. This case is so feeble that there is a very good chance he will win an appeal if it’s not thrown out before that.
        Have you ever heard of a father who BEGINS to molest a child after the child hits their twenties or thirties? Remember, Alexis does not accuse him of molesting her before this incident, that’s significant.
        Have you ever heard of someone asking for a written confirmation that no molestation took place before they are charged by the authorities or even suspected? Or ever for that matter? Have you heard of anything like that?

      24. No, I have not heard of molestation of an adult daughter. I don’t know how these Mormons operate. No, this written confirmation makes no sense. Maybe it happened a long time ago, and she’s getting revenge.

        About the jailhouse snitches. I saw that testimony, and they said that in order to make it legit, no promises are made about an early release. This way they can testify that there were no promises made.

        This also guarantees that their testimony helps to win the case. If they win the case, then they get something, such as an early release.

      25. No I’m not saying that. The paramedics testified that water came from her mouth. That there is water in someone’s lungs does not mean they drown (if you shot someone and they fall into water, they will take a few gulps but it won’t be the water that killed them, it will be the shot). What I am saying is that NOBODY concluded that the manner of death was homicide. The only one who claimed she drowned was the 80 year old retired medical expert for the prosecution, Dr. Perper (who in 2010, well before he was hired by the prosecution, and obviously well before he was privy to any medical evidence, shared his “expert” opinions on this case with Nancy Grace on HLN, which is why he was subsequently hired), but there were chest Xrays from the emergency room the day she died which indicated no evidence of water . Not even Perper was able to rule the manner of death as homicide, he ruled the manner of death as undetermined, to the chagrin of the prosecution. So while he claims she drown he cannot rule out that she drown accidently.
        Here’s what the original ME, the only one who examined the body, who performed the autopsy said:
        “This 50-year-old Caucasian female appears to have died as the consequence of natural cardiovascular disease. Postmortem examination revealed anatomic evidence of chronic hypertension and myparditis, which are capable of causing acute unexpected arrhythmias and sudden death,” wrote Frikke in her report concluding Michele MacNeill died of natural causes. Dr. Frikke died a year after Michele, before the state started to investigate this, so she was the only who was not leaned on.
        One of the prosecution’s medical experts, Dr. Cragum a cardiologist, said that high blood pressure is “the silent killer”. Michele Macneill had high blood pressure, the plastic surgeon testified to this.
        So here you have competing causes of death, and the best the prosecution could come up with (even with hired guns) is manner of death undetermined. So now you have to prove that she didn’t take the medication herself, that it was administered against her will and that she was put in the bathtub, that she didn’t die of an accidental overdose or cardiac disease. Now we know that the jury wanted to hear the 911 call again shortly before the verdict and that their decision pivoted on this call. I don’t see much connection there.

        Gypsy may have wished Michele dead, but that’s just speculation. The only indication of that is that there was a roommate of hers that said she told them she wanted to mess with Michele’s brakes. This was not presented at trial so that’s not evidence. Even if it is true it does not mean that she got Macneill to act on her wishes.
        In your theory, how did he administer the drugs to Michele? The only reason anyone thinks she was doped up by him is because Alexis claims this. But there is evidence that she was out and about the day before she died. If that’s true, how did he get her to take drugs from him a week after the surgery? This is especially bizarre in view of the fact that Alexis claims that her mother suspected that he had overmedicated her after the surgery and purportedly said “Alexis, if anything happens to me make sure it wasn’t your father.” (LOL, yeah right). At this point, she was not blind and not helpless, so why would she take drugs from someone she suspected was trying to kill her?
        Does this sound like the day before she died she was taking drugs from someone?
        What sounds more reasonable to you: Is it more reasonable to assume that Macneill concocted an elaborate plan involving surgery and other doctors (witnesses) to cover up a drug overdose and got his wife to go along with it reluctantly OR is it more reasonable that a 50 year old ex beauty queen with no career and grown children, who has always basically just depended on her looks, whose husband has just gotten into shape and is having affairs wants to have a facelift (like thousands of other women her age)? There is no evidence that the facelift was his idea, we only have Alexis claiming this and she has certainly made that into a propaganda campaign.
        What do you mean the facelift doesn’t fit?

      26. Okay, so you are saying that all the incriminating evidence is coming from Alexis. The what is her motive? To get back at her dad for cheating on her mom? Doesn’t she have a lot to lose financially?

        I see where you’re going with this and you make a lot of sense.

      27. Alexis also testified that right after the surgery her mother, who was so bandaged up she couldn’t see, got her to give her each pill so she could feel them and distinguish them that way (does that sound right to you?) in an effort to thwart further attempts by Macneill to dope her up. Then a week later, the bandages are off, Michele is taking her daughters to ballet classes, she’s feeling good according to Alexis (which is why Alexis claims she felt it was safe to leave town) then at this point suddenly Michele takes medication from Martin? How did he get her to take an overdose? How?

      28. I remember that testimony about feeling the pills. I didn’t know this happened after Michelle was up and about. That makes a big difference.

      29. I have heard of adult molestation, there was a woman who said her father was molesting her right up to her wedding. What I have never heard of is someone who BEGINS to molest a child after the child becomes an adult. Does that even make sense? If you molest a person since childhood it makes sense that the perpetrator can keep it secret, it does not make sense that you suddenly molest an adult child and expect the adult will keep silent.
        If it happened a long time ago why not say it happened a long time ago? There is no statute of limitations on that. What would be the reason Alexis complains only about a single incident shortly after the death of her mother if she had been molested as a child .
        Is it possible she was never molested and is trying to create the maximum disgust factor possible? How depraved would it be if her father was doing sexually inappropriate things to her shortly after her mother died?
        It’s worth noting that victims of sexual abuse are normally not named but in this case we know it was Alexis because she went public.

        About the snitches, yes they said a lot, all of it perjury. Did you hear the cross examination? One of the felons was referring to “Operation Utah” and that it was going to be big when talking to his mother from prison, LMFAO, that was some of the most entertaining courtroom drama I have ever seen. Now the defense has emails where the county investigator, Jeff Robinson, is writing to Knoxville federal prosecutors:
        “Mr. Buchanan was a very important witness,” and “I highly recommend and encourage leniency.”
        Mr. Buchanan was “witness #1” on the stand, and was on a day pass from a Tennessee penitentiary where he was doing hard time. He insisted he was not going to get an early release. He is now a free man, and not because he served his sentence. Voilà, only a few days after such an email he’s released, you would think the wheels of justice move a little more slowly – it took Ryan Ferguson 10 years to get out and he’s innocent.
        It’s worth noting that Robinson, a state employee, also perjured himself.
        During the defense cross it was crystal clear that they all had deals before they agreed to testify (not even mentioning what manure they testified). Furthermore, and even more importantly, there is no doubt that the state (ie; Robinson) was directing the inmates to use untapped lines in the prison to communicate with them while negotiating these deals. That’s withholding exculpatory evidence, aka, misconduct.

      30. The molesting claim seems to be an obvious backup plan just in case the Doc was acquitted. It will probably come to nothing.

        As for the snitches, it’s very dangerous to be a snitch in prison. At the very most, one of these guys heard something and told the others, so they are all trying to make a deal. At the very most, I’m sure there is only one of them who actually heard something.

        Does this one know something that he could not get form the TV, internet or papers? That’s the only way to know for sure.

      31. Oh yes, this happened while she was almost back to normal, a week after the operation, that’s not in dispute. If you listen to the video of their daughter Giselle I posted you will hear her clearly say that Michele was making an outing the day before she died, in Utah I would imagine that involves driving a car. Alexis also said that she was feeling good at that point.
        This in my opinion would have made her extra vigilant to any sort of doping attempts since she probably needed very little medication at that time. There would have been no reason for anybody to be giving her medication, she was not bed bound.

      32. Yes, i missed that and that makes a difference. You have good judgement, so I trust you. This Alexis is using the legal system to exact revenge on her father? Do you think she really believes he had something to do with it or do you think it’s just that she erroneously blames him?

      33. That wasn’t a complaint, I’m mostly scrolling through my own crapola, you’re giving the one liners, I’m writing War and Peace type comments. I’ve got to calm down

      34. I know. I’m not knowledgeable enough to respond, but I see your point. You’re making a good point. If his attorneys can demonstrate that this a a mailcious charge, that can go a very long way in setting up a successful appeal for the murder charge.

  24. I need at least 5lbs of ganja is no different from I need the shot first or a bipolar diagnosis, they’re ordering up custom made evidence like a pizza. Either these people have no conscience or they are so jaded by their experience that they have lost any sense of moral responsibility. Either way, it is the system which is failing to provide checks and balances. This is what puts all of us in danger at all times.

    1. If Martinez hates criminals as much as I think he does, it is logical that in 25 years he would find more subtle ways to cheat. So, if he truly believes someone is guilty, then he doesn’t sweat a small manipulation of evidence to get the conviction.

      I am looking at the case of Scott Lehr from Phoenix. I don’t have access to enough information. No priors and he is found guilty of a series of rapes and attacks plus 2 murders. The “baby seat” rapist / killer.

      One witness at trial was asked to identify him, she pointed at someone standing in the back of the room. She stated 3 times it wasn’t Scott. Varying descriptions of his build, hair color, beard or no, car or truck, and baby seat in car or not all changed after witnesses talked to the prosecutors.

      Some DNA could not exclude Scott, but Pros. expert agreed the DNA evidence could also not exclude animals and insects, either.

  25. Do you think Juan’s trademark is subtlety? Maybe if he were smart he would be but he’s not. Furthermore I think he’s not only gotten away with this for years but in Maricopa it looks like it’s encouraged by the very people who are supposed to keep him in check. He doesn’t even notice or realize what’s wrong with it.
    I gotta look into this one now, this case doesn’t sound good to me either.

    1. Well, they do say there are a number of 5 point RFLP matches. Is 5 point any good? There is a similarity in license plate matches although no witness gets it totally right. Of course it’s possible for a family man with 3 cute kids, look at BTK.

  26. No, not at all, I don’t think it’s revenge for him cheating on his wife. I think it’s revenge for him rejecting her, Alexis, not Michele. All the incriminating evidence (if you can call it that) is not coming only from Alexis but it ALL starts with Alexis. You’ve got the siblings, the felons and the medical examiners all of whom have twerked their reports and opinions. The death was ruled as natural causes and only after an intensive campaign coming from Alexis did the state even start to look into it. First came the siblings, nobody suspected Macneill, everyone initially said he was distraught. Suddenly appears Gypsy Willis. Alexis confronts Macneill and he gives her shit, he even threw her out of the house evidently.
    All the daughters said they revered their father growing up and wanted to be like him, Alexis said it’s the reason she became a doctor. All the siblings also said that he was an absentee father, that he was always doing his own thing. Translation, Alexis (I will focus on her, but you can extrapolate) worships her father (you can also see this in their family photos and videos), wants to please him, spends her life vying for his attention and affection; he ignores her. Her mother dies and he moves his mistress into their family home, unforgivable. Alexis protests, he throws her under the bus in favor of his mistress – the final snub, she flips out.
    She starts working on her siblings (including six year old Ada who she coached for years) . Rachel is a delusional half wit she’s easy to convince, Vanessa is a severely dysfunctional heroin addict who gave up her daughter for adoption to her parents thereby she lives life pretending her daughter is her sister, she’s a hot mess and also easy to manipulate, the other daughters were very young, very easy to get on board and their opinions are not important anyway. The only one who believed in Macneill’s innocence was his son Daminen who said he wasn’t talking to his sisters because they were trashing their father. He committed suicide in 2010.
    The entire family has serious issues, do you think it’s possible that Alexis miraculously escaped completely mentally healthy? I believe she lied profusely on the stand and that she’s very prone to histrionics. Do you remember when about five of them held up pictures of Michele in and outside of the courtroom? Who’s idea do you think that was? What do think the purpose of that was?
    With Damien dead, she’s got the whole family on board: Oh yeah maybe dad did kill mom, oh yeah he did it. When a family turns on a member it is very compelling for the authorities, they start to think and proceed to shop around for favorable medical opinions to fit their theory. They pressure some, buy others. They put the squeeze on Macneill’s mistress, she’s easily intimidated knowing it could be her ass in the sling (I can imagine the conversations they had with her…). Of course Gypsy gets a gift too like the others, she gets immunity. I would bet the entire reason Macneill was in prison in the first instance was because she manipulated him into paying off her debt of some $70000, I can’t see him voluntarily coming up with the idea of stealing one his children’s ID, a felony, that was her brainchild. That’s where I agree with you, a little head goes a long way.
    That’s where Macneill gets himself in real trouble, not because he confides in every criminal Tom, Dick and Harry but because he becomes very vulnerable. Now the state leaks a whole lot of info and goes searching through the prison system for witnesses. All they really need is anyone who came in contact with Macneill at that time and they’re home free, the rest is just a bit of creative story telling, oops I mean altruistic testimony.
    I think Alexis is by far the most dangerous of them all, because she appears as a victim, a holy innocent, a person who’s suffered so that you can see her halo. She is much more subtle and outwardly does not appear as blatantly dysfunctional as the rest of the family. In reality she’s relentlessly vengeful. Even if you believe her father killed her mother, after he got convicted, lost EVERYTHING and tried to kill himself, you would think she would take a brake. After all he supported all of them for many years if nothing else, but she seems to have absolutely no bond with him. Oh No. Now she’s going after him with the “he put his hands in my pants” thing.
    Honestly, do you believe he would “put his hand down the pants” of his almost 30year old daughter? I think she’s gone overboard, I think even people who blindly take everything she’s said as gospel will question this one. It makes ZERO sense.
    If anything she has a possibility to gain financially, despite her claims. If there is anything left of the estate after all this, if she completely destroys him who do you think will control the money? Gypsy? Rachel? Vanessa? I think not. But I don’t believe this is about money. I believe that rejection is a very powerful emotion and combine this with an unstable person and you know what can happen (we’ve seen this many times). I believe this is all about psychology.

    1. Really good analysis. I wasn’t on board before, but you make an excellent case.

      Are you still on OHLN? It seems Jason has lost his following. Friends and enemies alike have abandoned him and have started there own facebook pages.

      1. I check it once in a while, but the days of getting bombarded by insults for my comments on there are gone. Even Heather disappeared?? I like his stuff so I read it periodically. I think he’s a good person.
        I think he’s gone the way of FB as well a while back, I can’t stand Facebook to be honest.

      2. Heather is alive and well on facebook. LeAnne Garland started her own facebook page called “dupe process”. Many of Jason’s fans went there. He’s a good guy, but he doesn’t fight back and some Travis worshippers really killed his page on facebook, it’s almost dead.He apparently paid for about 30,000 likes.

      3. If you go to a page like OHLN page, you can “like” the page by clicking on “like”. So the popularity of your page id judged by how many likes and how many regular participants you have. You can pay for “likes” and Jason bought about 30,000 of them. But the high amount of likes are betrayed by the 5 or 6 people who actually comment and participate on his page.

      4. He paid actual $$$ or that was a euphemism? Is there some financial incentive to have “likes”? He doesn’t have sponsors does he? I don’t understand.

      5. He has a money making website. His facebook page is a way to get people interested in his articles and go to the website.

        Having a lot of likes is important to rankings, so people will want to go there.

        Yes, he pays a monthly fee for the likes. In fact, one month something happened and he lost 10,000 likes but then gained even more back. 15,000 likes in one day!

        He makes money on the The facebook likes give him better sponsors on his website.

      6. I like Jason, but he will not budge on some things. He is supporting Michael Dunn, which is fine.

        But I think Michael Dunn will have a tough time of things.

      7. Who are your sponsors Rob, the Free Masons? You’ve got a lot of cobble stones in the background here, is that a subliminal message?

      8. It’s entirely a free site. We don’t make squat.
        This is a sidewalk form Macau, the gambling island in China. I love it there. Everything is artistic

        The sidewalks all have cobblestone pictures of a nautical theme. Awesome place. I go there, but not really for the gambling.

      9. Wow, I love the Macau backdrop story, now I want more illustration. Post some pictures please, if you can

      10. Everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. I can’t imagine what would justify this event. Having said that, we know how the media works and a lot of people thought/think this about Arias – there is no defense….
        I think this (Dunn) is a tough one, for the defense

      11. I believe in the presumption of evidence. But I do take what I know and assess the case, knowing that this information may be wrong or incomplete.

      12. The backdrop story is where the cobbles stones here come from. All I see is stones, I want to see more from the Vegas of China….

      13. You have cobblestones where you are? My Mom told me they came from the ballasts of old ships. The stones are used to put weight on the bottom of wooden ships. Then when the ships were destroyed? They were used to make roads – interesting

      14. Yes I agree. I did not start with a lot of sympathy for Arias or Macneill, now I see things differently. Let’s see when all the evidence is in.

      15. When the trial comes up, I try to forget what I’ve heard.

        Maybe you can get Jason to take on the MacNeil case.
        Thanks for being the 2nd person to like our page!

      16. Yes there are a lot of cobblestones throughout Europe. It’s one of the distinguishing architectural features from North America where you rarely see them in the streets. I never knew this about the ships, was it to give them a center of gravity, stability? Do you know?

      17. Yes, apparently so. For exactly that. That’s the story I heard. At least for seaside villages.It makes sense since you say they are so common in Europe.

      18. Jason has expressed some limited take on the Macneill case, I commented on it, he’s not focused on that case.
        I have tried to “like” this and your other website already, I went through quite a process and couldn’t log in. I just now realized you can do it through facebook, I think. I think that’s how I did it. Anyway, I’m sorry there’s no dough in it for you. I know you work hard, you and Amanda.

      19. We do! Our system is to let evrrybody else report first with their surface, shallow report. Then we research it to try to find something interesting. So our report are last, but they are higher quality

        So people many of them, not just the latest one! I thought if we got a good audience, we could get our own sight. I was hoping people would like the Culture shock site. The Spotlight site was dead for months, then it just grew. 1,000’s of viewers in almost 40 countries now.

        Daily visitors is under 50, but steady. We don’t push the site.

      20. Look, I’m already logged in, I’m posting and you can see my name. I don’t know if there is a glitch in the system or I just don’t know what I’m doing (the latter is more likely, frankly) but I just couldn’t do it from this site directly, and trust me, I tried.

      21. At the very bottom of any page, right before the comments, is a star and it says like. You have clicked on it and nothing happens? Hmmmm.

      22. No, it’s not that nothing happened, it prompted me to log in, now obviously I was already logged in. So I tried to log in anyway, no go. Then I tried to retrieve the password, in case it was different for different purposes, no go. Anyway, I tried everything for about 20mins before I gave up. I don’t get it.

      23. I tried everything, trust me. If the likes are important to you then you need a techie to help you, I’m an ignoramus here

      24. It’s possible there’s no problem on this site and the problem is from my end but I find it strange that you only received two likes if you have traffic???

      25. I don’t get many comments and very few likes. I know I have a high quality readership, and I like that. Maybe they are Prosecution supporters who just can’t believe it.

        I got a real nasty comment a few days ago! Whew! Nasty!

      26. A migraine? Good, we aim to please. LMFAO!
        You think that was bad? Not even close, that was like a raspberry for a buffalo. ROLFing uncontrollably….

      27. Baby Dredd in training. How do you know it’s a she, you can see the name? Can you see if she’s got any tats? She sure sounds like she might be packing heat, maybe even nunchucks, nipple piercing and the old testament.

  27. One more thing occurred to me about the snitches. I think it’s possible that “witness #1″‘s identity was not concealed while he testified simply because they don’t like snitches in jail. Snitches testify all the time and their identities are rarely concealed. You don’t even see this in high profile mafia trials. It’s possible that the state knew, had they made his name known, there may have been someone in the prison where Buchanan was incarcerated who would have come forward, contacted the defense, and disputed his story. It is conceivable that Macneill, a doctor, helped a few guys in prison. This may have been not only his nature but a way for him to survive. One of the felons did in fact testify that he helped him with a medical matter. It is not hard to imagine that Macneill garnered some loyalty while there. Even a guard may have come forward to testify, perhaps about phone calls Buchanan was making regularly on unrecorded lines. That is a more likely explanation why they hid #1.

      1. Yes while he was helping them all with their ailments he was reminiscing about how he killed his wife.

      2. I can’t believe the prosecutors used these losers, five of them (unheard of), with a straight face. A sure sign of desperation. Frightening.

      3. That’s two many. Two at most. It’s impossible to believe he would tell that many people. These people all jumped on the train of the original “snitch”

  28. No he doesn’t. And even more significant is that he had conversations with his mother from prison, and she was instructing him about when to watch TV, when relevant issues were to be discussed, she was giving him Nancy Grace’s schedule. That was revealed during cross. It’s also not inconceivable that the state was feeding them the kind of information they were looking for, “suggesting” if you will. None of the felons testified to anything I found even remotely believable regarding conversations Macneill would have had with them. I guarantee you none of them heard him saying anything incriminating, they didn’t even know him for God’s sake.
    If prison is such a dangerous place for snitches why were the identities of the other two not concealed?

    1. I think the other two had already been transferred. So anyone who could harm them were not around. I think they should have cleared the courtroom for these snitches.Doc is certainly not going to incriminate himself to 4 felons.

      1. Regardless, my understanding is that there is a disdain towards snitches in general in prison, so it makes no sense that one would be concealed and the other two not, regardless where they were housed. It’s possible that Buchanan was in more danger but not likely, he wasn’t testifying against a Gambino and he knew he would get out shortly. It’s more likely that the state had something to hide, imo.
        Certainly recent developments bear that out.

      2. Frankly, judging from his correspondence while in prison, it doesn’t sound like he’s concerned about his safety at all, it sounds like he’s more concerned about Macneill’s well being – at least until the end of the trial. If you read what he said you really have to ask yourself why his identity was concealed on the stand.

      3. Yeah well unfortunately these lawyers won’t be handling the appeal, he’s broke, he has no popular support (at least Arias, who definitely killed someone, has some supporters) and he has lost everything; family, friends, money, his career, he has nothing. It’s why he wants to die. It seems to me to be a steep price to pay for being an asshole. It doesn’t smell like justice to me.

      4. I don’t know, it’s a he said she said thing and he’s up against St. Alexis. Most people don’t see things the way I do. I have some hope because I think there is some division in the legal circles, a lot of those guys know how this works. He was publicly lynched. There was no evidence of homicide.
        I really feel this is another travesty of justice.

    Here’s another perfect example of why people who happen to become the center of a high profile case, who Nancy sinks her teeth into, get convicted. There is nothing, NOT ONE thing in this interview that Nancy says that is true, it is ALL twisted bullshit. Eg. She says that Michele’s clothes and belongings were all out of the house within hours of her death because Gypsy was moving in and needed a closet. Do you think Gypsy moved in, lived in the master bedroom and used Michele’s closet?
    The defense was constantly interrupting (ie; objecting) , the defense is bad, bad.
    She says that she talked to the daughters “in depth”. Then she goes on to say that the Macneills adopted four of their eight children and Martin Macneill decided to “give back” the four adopted children, after Michele died, because he wanted one of their identities. Nancy obviously doesn’t know, even after her “in depth” conversations with the daughters, that only three of the adopted daughters were from the Ukraine, one of the adopted daughters was actually Ada, Vanessa’s daughter, obviously a blood relation. Do you think Macneill tried to give his granddaughter Ada back? Back where? Do you really think Macneill tried to “give” any of them “back”?
    None of this is even relevant, it’s just hate mongering, stoking the mob.
    She is a shameless, idiotic media whore.
    Go to any spot on this short interview and I will tell you why what she’s saying is a complete, inflammatory fabrication. Thousands of people listen to her.
    This is how people get convicted.

    1. Now I heard something, because I can’t even stand to hear her voice, last night she was talking about someone who killed a black boy (father? mother?) and she was hoping that they would seek the death penalty.

      I don’t know any details. So as we knew, she is 100% pro death.

      1. Not just pro death, she’s like death first questions later, maybe later??? WTF, death for everyone! Including defense lawyers.
        She doesn’t understand the most basic, age old principles of law, who gave her a pass in school? Now there was a crime against humanity.
        I can’t stand her facial contortions, never mind her voice.
        I hope this new CEO fires her ass.

      2. It doesn’t look like Nancy will get the boot because of all the new commercials with her face on them.


        They should put her in charge of animal stories or artic sports. PLEEEEZE

      3. I’m an animal lover, I don’t want that woman anywhere near animals. I’m sure they feel the same way

      4. Well, what department would you suggest?

        I would force her to do a 50-50 show, prosecution side with her, and defense side with Al Sharpton or somebody she can’t stand.

        If she quits….Bye Bye

      5. I don’t want her anywhere near broadcasting apparatus. I see her more in a hands on job, like manure manufacture, on the fertilizer packaging assembly line for example. Her CV definitely fully qualifies her, she’s more qualified than Hitler’s propaganda minister Herr G, she would be Frau G

      6. I’ve already said he should be canonized, or at least beatified. Though I realize for this to happen she’ll have to kill him first.

      7. That would be the ULTIMATE Nancy Grace indicted for murder. Do they have the Death Penalty in Georgia? I think so. Who would she hire for her defense?

      8. Yes she’s a hell of a Christian, as all The Inquisitors were. I wonder if she’s ever heard of Jesus and his views??

      9. I know! And she had this obnoxious loud mouth even louder than JVM, if you can believe it. This woman could shatter factory windows form a 1/4 mile.

        I just like myself, and it worked.

      10. There you go, you were looking for a new job for Nancy; she could be the “Marlborough Man” or the “Red Bull” for the Vatican; You see Nancy on a billboard you’re not thinking sex for years to come, she’s the perfect answer to contraception, abstinence, the Vatican roulette without the live round…

      11. Yeah, that’ll work. I was testing it. Maybe there is a problem because i have likes on the other site. It can’t be that no one has liked this site.

  30. There is a blunt force wound to Travis neck that was detailed by Dr. Horn but never discussed as the reason why the wound is there. I would have to say that blunt force wound is a result of Jodi catching Travis with a left hook prior to him being shot, maybe directly after Travis had slammed her to the ground.

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