Jodi Arias Fiasco (Updated)

Her lawyers tried to withdraw – this week.

Under the circumstances I can’t imagine this was a sound professional move, regardless of how difficult she has been or is being.  I’ve been wrong second guessing them before, though, so for now I’m just posting the fact of it.  I’ll leave the commentary to others, of which there seems to be an abundant supply.

Apparently there are reports of witnesses being harassed and threatened, and at present there’s a wild and evidently blood thirsty throng outside the courthouse reveling in the idea of killing her.  I’d say it was like a culture gone pagan but, you know, some pagans were civilized.

Legally, are we dealing with a denial of due process here?  Read Moore v. Dempsey and tell us what you think.

Update:  I don’t want to pick on her lawyers, and who knows maybe nothing would have made any difference here because what is going on is not rational.  But still, my approach to this would have been so different.  I think you have two PD’s here who follow the conventional defense wisdom.  The conventional defense wisdom means you lose, because that is what defendants are supposed to do.  Often the only question is how badly do you lose.

Having the death penalty hovering out there is a lot of pressure.  And in high pressure situations people often revert to their training, which is keep control of your client, keep your distance from your client, don’t get too “personally involved” in the case, whatever that means.  In any event, the death sentence is nerve wracking, but it seems to me you have to ignore it.  You can get bogged down deciding between this or that tactical move or this or that strategy, or figuring out who benefits from this or who benefits from that.

A long time ago I decided that this kind of approach is too confusing, too speculative as to what would result from it, and beyond that didn’t feel right.

So I more or less begin with:  What is the truth here?  What is the right thing to do, based on that?

Much simpler generally, though not always.

In any case, once you figure that out all the strategy and tactics fall into place, and you don’t worry – or at least worry as little as you can – about who benefits and who loses, because nobody really knows how it’s all going to pan out beforehand anyway.

You don’t always, or maybe even often, of course, arrive at the exact truth.  But you get as close an approximation as you can.  Many times you wind up agreeing with the prosecution, and then generally a deal can be struck.  That’s just the reality.  The system is good on that level.

But sometimes you disagree completely with the prosecution.  I think the advantage of the approach I take to these things in that case is that I have a scenario I’m comfortable with, that I believe in, and that I can then go to work very systematically to advance to the maximum extent the system will let me.

I’m guessing that the defense lawyers here subscribe to the standard defense lawyer philosophy that nothing is really true, that even if it is it would be unknowable, that the only things that exist in the system is “evidence” that is in and of itself meaningless unless and until arguments are made about it.  And then the most persuasive arguer wins.

This winds up putting arguments over evidence, and instead of letting the evidence tell you where to go, you wind up trying to force an interpretation onto the evidence.  Ironically, this is frequently where the police go wrong.

And the judges?  Most of them are slaves to power.  (Well, maybe not this lady.) When a case is before them where there is a significant power differential – and every criminal case is such a case – most judges are impervious to evidence.  It doesn’t matter in the slightest to them.

It would be nice to get back to a system, if we ever had one, where evidence led the considerations in a case and controversy.  People are finding out how far we have fallen from that better reality, even as we know that it might never have been as real as it looms now in the imaginations of some of us.

Appreciate all the commenters here.



Filed under wrongful convictions

94 responses to “Jodi Arias Fiasco (Updated)

  1. kim

    I read that a few minutes ago JM. I’m sure it relates to the post conviction interview but better to have the court deal with that (maybe that’s why the court order regarding future interviews was placed on sheriff) than walk away from her at this point. I’m still wondering what put her in the elevated suicide watch last week, I could speculate but that wouldn’t be appropriate, but wonder if it had anything to do with them?

    Shameful that the court continues to allow the gatherings everyone gets the point.


  2. Buck Eschaton

    Just an aside, based on some of the things you’re saying, do you, or have you read Rene Girard?


    • No, haven’t read him. I probably should now, though.

      Briefly, though, while I’m sure there’s an anthropological argument to explain the origins of ritual sacrifice, I don’t think it’s the best explanation. I would certainly agree, though, that what we are seeing in this Jodi Arias thing is very primitive and sub-rational. Kind of astonishing, really.

      Your comments and take on this are interesting. Please continue.


  3. lissajrobinson

    Hello Buck, thank you for posting this reference to Rene Girard. I’ve just looked him up. Very relevant to this case.


  4. Buck Eschaton

    Yes, he’s relevant to a lot of things. Of course there’s the violence, the lynch mob outside the courthouse, Jodi, regardless of whether she’s guilty of this crime or not, as scapegoat for some many people to offload there resentments, hate and anger on. Then Girardian theory has insights into the psychological interplay of seduction. Seduction going on in both the Multi-level-marketing thing, and then seduction in the religious and romantic areas to. It must have been hard in 2008 to hold all three of these seductions or false realities together with the oncoming economic collapse. With people starting to lose there homes, unemployment, downlines going kaput, etc. The 2008 economic crisis unveiled a lot of people’s hot air and the bunk of their grandiose economic promises.
    TA was not a “motivational speaker” if I understand correctly he was a salesman, seducing people to enter into his downline.


    • The first great “sensational” trial in the US was the Lindberg baby case. Right at the beginning of the Great Depression. In fact I brought that up while I was posting a lot about the Casey Anthony case two years ago and wondered whether the economic pinch so many people were feeling had them looking for a collective outlet for their anger. The reaction to the acquittal was astounding. The bloodlust beforehand was very similar to this Jodi Arias thing, and it does seem there is a pent up aggression factor at work here: the ritual failed to deliver Casey Anthony, so it’s all the more intensely important now.

      But rationally, the case against Casey Anthony was shit and the jury did the right thing. And I have to tell you, I think this case is almost worse, because here there is no doubt there was a terrible murder. And it’s possible she did it, but it is also maddening how unlikely it is at first blush. And if she didn’t do it, but was present when it occurred – as is certain – the next best scenario is that she had already been horrifyingly traumatized well before she was prosecuted. What an incredible nightmare.


      • HonestAbe

        She may very well be sentenced to death and be innocent. Wasn’t the first and surely won’t be the last. Saying this reminds me of the Crippen murder where shoddy forensics and a rush to judgement led to the hanging of an innocent man. There was evidence as in this case but it wasn’t applied correctly and there was coincidence which surely led to his demise.

        Let’s face it, this is a high profile case in a state that has received some pretty bad press. It’s also a state where the sheriff’s department is, shall we say, a little unconventional (you usually don’t see an interview after a conviction). Martinez wants his win at all costs, he has the support of the Alexander family, the media (Have you heard one broadcast that points to doubt in the evidence? I haven’t.) and the “justice for Travis” mob.

        This case is lousy with inconsistencies but Martinez and Flores, as well as the medical examiner, have been allowed to perform an evidential litmus test regarding if he was shot first or last, if the bullet to the head caused enough trauma to stop him in his tracks and if not for how long, even the number of stabs that were applied in 62 seconds (even HLN has performed tests to see if Travis could be shot and stabbed almost 30 times in that period). Yet, the truth is that we don’t know if he was shot first or last. This posting ( notes why he may have been shot first but it went unnoticed by Dr. Kevin Horn. Also, I lost track of how many times Horn said “possibly” yet the defense didn’t jump all over him or the fact that even Flores changed his opinion. I also found it odd that no one at the trial explained how Jodi could overcome Travis. Even his younger brother noted that he is invincible, plus he’d been working out.

        Ugh. Where’s Jackie Chiles when you need him: This trial, the antics, and the verdict have been nothing short of egregious, outrageous, and a complete miscarriage of justice.


        • You know, one last incontrovertible piece of evidence: the throat cut.

          That is the mark of either a professional killer or a hunter. Did Jodi hunt? Did any of the other suspects hunt?

          AA is our font of information around here I hope she sees this and lets us know.


          • No, Jodi did not hunt. She wouldn’t even kill a spider (which is actually a lot like me.) Travis and his friend Dave Hall *did* hunt, however, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if others of his friends hunted. Dave Hall went on HLN showing videos of him hunting with Travis — but then claimed Travis never owned his own gun because he always borrowed a gun from him. Aside from the fact that Dave Hall obviously knew very little about Travis in the first place, and was convinced Travis was a 30 year old virgin, assuming Travis did own a .25 caliber gun, wouldn’t he look rather ridiculous bringing that to a hunting event? He might as well have brought a BB gun.

            Someone else on JAII talked a while back about the inordinate difficulty that lies within slashing the throat of an animal, even an already wounded and incapacitated one. It’s not easy to do, apparently. I’d never thought about that aspect before. But a hunter surely would have experience in doing so.

            Good point, JMRJ.


        • Not only does it seem unlikely that she would overcome him, it seems even more unlikely that she would even try in the first place. That is such a reach. If she is the cold, heartless, calculating and pre-meditating murderess she has now been found guilty of being, it seems completely inconsistent that she would do something so likely to fail and indeed expose her to a ferocious response.

          Maybe she drugged him. Was it ever suggested that those photos showed signs of him being drugged? Somebody said there were no drugs found in toxicology reports and I don’t think anyone around here has indicated that they know the significance of that.


          • There were no traces of drugs in the toxicology report. Travis didn’t look drugged while he posed for all those shower photos. I did uncover some independent research that cocaine and heroine leave the body within 1-2 days, and that they can also accelerate the rate of decomposition. Is it possible then that he was actually killed AFTER Jodi left? Sure, her hair is at the scene, pulled from the root, and her blood is in the handprint, mixed with his. But couldn’t that have also occurred from a nasty fight they had where he beat her? There was plenty of my hair scattered around the house from my ex dragging me by my hair. And that house contained a great deal of my blood. After all, when she got to Utah, she wore long sleeves on a HOT SCALDING summer day and her fingers were bandaged. Ever pricked your finger? It’s quite surprising how much blood flows from such a tiny wound.

            Sure, these all might seem crazy now that’s been convicted. But could there be other possibilities?


  5. Dennis

    Exactly why there’s a mob mentality is a good question, but just as interesting and puzzling to me is the crowd, who despite the evidence and the defendants own confession, continues to search for the real murderer/s.


    • Dennis, let me just speak for myself here a minute.

      First, as a lawyer I have a concern for the US Justice system and what I am seeing here, from the standpoint of the conduct of the general public, is nauseating. I think it affects every jurisdiction and the entire jury pool, nationwide.

      Second, the evidence. The evidence that she was there is incontrovertible and that in and of itself is incriminating, when considered by itself. Of course, Travis Alexander was also there and is obviously not guilty of anything. You see? Incriminating and a firm inference of guilt are two different things.

      The question then becomes: what did she do while she was there? One possibility is that she stabbed the guy to death by herself, but this is an unlikely scenario that would only be overcome by very solid evidence, and there doesn’t seem to be any. There is equivocal evidence. And there is her “confession”, which like everything else she says is extremely unreliable.

      The more likely scenario is that someone else – a man or maybe more than one – did this. The nature of the injuries suggest that much more than they suggest her acting alone.

      Was someone else there? There is evidence that suggests as much. Doesn’t demonstrate it with any real degree of certainty, but suggests it. Only one item of that evidence is that Jodi said so for a long time, which wouldn’t count for much except that it actually does have some independent, if not definitive, corroboration.

      As I pointed out to JLC, that evidence is of the same character and quality as the state used to convict her.

      So in my opinion the jury reached the wrong result. Moreover, the state should never even have charged her without doing a much better investigation.

      The net result of all this could be a towering debacle.


      • Remember too, JMRJ, that her “confession” was on the witness stand, and it was a confession to killing him in self defense — not a premeditated killing in cold blood. She doesn’t remember what happened after he lunged at her when the gun went off. She doesn’t remember stabbing him. In fact, she has no recollection of that whatsoever.


        • Yes, well that’s one of the reasons I don’t put much stock in her account of anything. To me it seems she’s probably just going along with this “I shot him” thing because her lawyers told her the intruder idea wouldn’t fly and wasn’t true, and it’s the only other scenario she can imagine.

          I just think it is so unlikely that she killed him with a knife by herself. Someone else must have done this.


  6. A representative sample from twitter:


    And another:


    • And honestly, those are mild compared to some of the ones I’ve seen.

      Most of these folks claim to be Christian and praying to Jesus that Jodi is put to death. What kind of Christian beliefs of ANY denomination, even Mormonism, make two wrongs a right? One of the most famous stories from the Bible is of Jesus stopping the execution by stoning of the adultress. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” That woman may have destroyed a marriage. She may have caused children to hurt because their parents separated after the adultery. She may have been a prostitute or an evil woman. We don’t know much about her at all. But what we do know is what Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I’m not even a Christian and I love love love the deep compassion taught in that story.


    • HonestAbe

      People have lost their senses with this case and can’t think for themselves. I have argued with more on Twitter and the result is always the same: they call me names, tell me I have the “hots” for her or that I’m delusional. Both sexes are responding aggressively to any thought that she might be innocent and despite my counterarguments, almost all have resulted in the same comments: she’s a liar, a manipulator, and she killed him in cold blood. It’s beyond aggravating that so many people will not even entertain another theory. Most act as if they were there and go so far as to insist that the know not only the chain of events but the sequence of stabs and the gunshot.


  7. Dennis

    What evidence is as good as what convicted her to show there were others at the scene? As far as I know, there was co-mingled blood, a palm print, and Jodi’s bandaged fingers after the fact. There’s evidence as great as that?


    • Dennis

      You don’t have to respond to above as we’ve been over this before in another post and we disagree. I do understand your point about the blood lust, but outward behavior or words doesn’t necessarily reveal what one really feels, thinks, or how one would behave or speak in another venue.


    • Well, Dennis there was a shoeprint in blood at the scene. The cops would have had to look for other evidence at the scene of someone else and apparently they didn’t.

      But all the evidence that she murdered him, as opposed to just being present at the scene, such as the gas cans, the phone off, things of that nature, is evidence that requires an inference. And there are incriminating inferences and innocuous ones. The prosecution asks for incriminating ones, and that’s all right, but it’s up to those who evaluate the evidence to be more discerning.

      When I offer the same kind of evidence – such as, the cigarette smell in the car, the odd route, the improbability of the idea that she would stab a more powerful man to death – the people who agree with the verdict here point out that that evidence is capable of other interpretations, as indeed it is. But the problem is the double standard: all the inferences adverse to the defendant from the prosecution’s evidence are made and accepted; all the inferences that are contrary to that from other evidence are rejected, even though the contrary inferences are just as good as the adverse ones. I mean, the quality of the evidence and the inferences from them are exactly the same.

      Sometimes, evidence like that is good enough to convict. In the places I am familiar with, the jury is instructed that they can accept such evidence and the inferences from them as evidence of guilt, but only if they are able to exclude all other inferences to a moral certainty.

      That’s not possible here, and so I have to disagree with my colleague Kim that this was a proper and correct verdict. Yet, on appeal and in post-conviction proceedings the jury’s determinations will be given great deference, even though they are wrong. Very important that the jury get it right. They have no idea.


      • Dennis

        I disagree that the inferences (that’s circumstantial evidence I take it) are anywhere near equal on both sides. You also have undisputed conduct of the defendant that demonstrates the scheming and covering-up of the crime.

        There’s also an issue here that no one seems to address. This wasn’t just a trial about hard and circumstantial evidence; it involved a self-defense claim and testimony from the defendant. The defendant’s trial and pretrial testimony was absolutely damning in every way, including how it influenced the perception and weighing of other evidence.

        One point:

        You have offered again and again that it is highly unlikely that this woman killed this man by herself due to size differential. Well, nobody would be more aware of that difference than this woman, correct? So what is she to do if she wants to kill this man by herself? How about flipping the odds by attacking him when he’s nude, confined in a small space, on a wet slippery surface, while his eyes are closed, his chest bared, face and body in hot shower water, relaxed and completely unaware of what is coming? In other words, completely defenseless and at her mercy. And if things get a tad out of hand, well, that’s why you bring a gun.


        • I disagree that the inferences (that’s circumstantial evidence I take it) are anywhere near equal on both sides. You also have undisputed conduct of the defendant that demonstrates the scheming and covering-up of the crime.

          Dennis, I can’t stop you from disagreeing but respectfully, the truth of the matter is you’re just wrong here. For example, the gas can evidence and the “odd route” are exactly the same kind of evidence, both not debatable, and the inferences from them are exactly equal in quality. Actually, I think the odd route is better evidence because it is not so readily explainable. Assuming the shoeprint was in blood and was identified as belonging to someone else, that is exactly as good as the evidence placing Jodi at the scene at the time of the murder. Exactly. And whose job was it to positively identify that shoeprint? Not Jodi’s, and not her defense team. By the time they get involved gathering the crime scene evidence is all over. Only the police have the opportunity to do that, and they didn’t. That’s on them, and not on Jodi or her lawyers.

          There’s also an issue here that no one seems to address. This wasn’t just a trial about hard and circumstantial evidence; it involved a self-defense claim and testimony from the defendant. The defendant’s trial and pretrial testimony was absolutely damning in every way, including how it influenced the perception and weighing of other evidence.

          Well, I probably haven’t addressed it enough, although I’m sure I’ve touched on it. I have said self defense was a bad strategy here, and I think her lawyers are responsible for that decision more than she is. And beyond strategic litigating considerations, I also think it is far less likely to be true than the 3rd party scenario. I agree that her trial testimony became extremely problematic at that point, because she was following her attorneys’ advice and labored under a scenario that she did not wholeheartedly believe, which in turn made it less credible, not to mention that throat slitting coup de grace, which can’t be disputed, is inconsistent with it.

          But I wouldn’t say that everything she said was “damning in every way”, and as I’ve said on many occasions, I would put very little weight on anything she said, including arguably “damning” things.

          You have offered again and again that it is highly unlikely that this woman killed this man by herself due to size differential. Well, nobody would be more aware of that difference than this woman, correct? So what is she to do if she wants to kill this man by herself? How about flipping the odds by attacking him when he’s nude, confined in a small space, on a wet slippery surface, while his eyes are closed, his chest bared, face and body in hot shower water, relaxed and completely unaware of what is coming? In other words, completely defenseless and at her mercy.

          I’ve said before, I think in response to Kim, that the vulnerable position Travis Alexander was in makes the scenario more likely than it otherwise be, but I have also gone to some length to say that that’s a pretty low bar, because without him being in the shower, naked and vulnerable the knife attack scenario is so unlikely as to be fanciful. And you’re up against the unlikelihood of a person with no history of violence suddenly becoming Jack the Ripper and a very proficient killer, too.

          Again, I have to tell you, if you’re asking me whether it’s impossible that she did it anyway my answer would be no, it’s not impossible. That’s not the issue, and arguing that it’s possible, as you just did here, doesn’t advance the discussion or anyone’s understanding, including yours, at all. Possibility is conceded. You should concede unlikelihood. It’s too obvious to keep arguing about it.

          But it’s good that you’re engaging over here. Glad to have you.


        • HonestAbe

          It actually is unlikely. I’m not certain why you think being nude automatically reduces one’s ability to defend himself. It doesn’t. In fact, it allows one to move more freely, there is less to grab onto, and what is available is slippery. Also, the easiest area to defend is a small one. Not only does it limit her attacks but it also pushes one against the wall forcing a more violent defense that often turns into defense. If you think I am wrong, corner a dog and see what happens. Probably the most likely scenario where she could pull this off alone would probably need to occur when the male is shot first and Mr. Martinez has assured us (with his crystal ball) that didn’t happen.
          If you recall from testimony, Travis had almost superhuman abilities yet he is, using the words of Mr. Martinez, going to stand at the mirror and let Jodi stab him repeatedly in the back. Utterly preposterous. The will to survive is much greater than that. Considering he was almost twice her weight and presumably considerably stronger, there is almost no way that she would walk out of there with a pristine face. Moreover, if this was premeditated, why would she risk him beating the hell out of her when she has to be somewhere else? If she were going to plan this, should would have expected him to fight as human nature would dictate when someone is trying to kill you.


  8. Dennis

    I don’t concede unlikelihood at all, but I will concede that with better representation and staying off the stand she could have fared better. OJ fared well himself.

    There also seems to be an unspoken gender bias going on with some people that is severely distorting their vision in this case: “How could this pretty soft-spoken girl do this? It just seems impossible. Look at him and look at her! It’s soooo unlikely. ” As I said before and say again here, if the genders were reversed you wouldn’t be hearing any of this. (BTW, you people do know that there are kind, caring, giving priests who rape little boys, or is that too unlikely?)

    As to the evidence, I won’t go over it because it’s there for all to see and analyze. Whether she had help–which I don’t see at all–is irrelevant to her guilt.


    • It’s sad that you don’t concede unlikelihood. It’s as true as anything possibly could be. I understand that unlikely things happen anyway, but that’s implicit in saying that they are unlikely rather than impossible.

      This is not difficult, You’re just being stubborn.

      Gender bias has nothing to do with this. Empirical observation tells you that human females are generally incapable of overcoming human males in a physical conflict. It’s not bias, it’s empirical fact. It would be bias not to recognize it.

      “Whether she had help”? Maybe she did, maybe she was a participant, or even the ringleader. The involvement of others doesn’t automatically exonerate her. But the involvement of others would also make her a victim if that is not the case, and nobody knows which is which. What we do know is that there is evidence suggesting the involvement of others, which would leave a stalemate, if that was all we had.

      I have not said that I believe in her innocence. I have said there are very good reasons to doubt her guilt. The person with fervent belief here is you, not me. You, and another commenter here who calls himself “Guilty, Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt”.

      Reason is such an important tool, especially in something like this.


  9. AK

    To all the lawyers: Why wasn’t Jodi allowed to take an “Alford Plea”?


  10. Dennis

    You asked me to concede unlikelihood, not possibility.

    My reference to gender bias was not just about size; it was about how it has slanted peoples perception as to what is likely and not in this case.

    “But the involvement of others would also make her a victim if that is not the case, and nobody knows which is which.” But we do know which is which. Among other things, shortly after leaving his residence and dead body, she called Travis pretending she had never been there.


    • Dennis, Dennis. You’re getting confused, among other things. If you’re not willing to concede that a smaller woman overcoming a stronger man in a physical struggle is unlikely – not impossible, but unlikely – and if in addition you’re not willing to concede that it’s unlikely that a person with no history of violent behavior can all of a sudden in her late 20’s become a brutal and proficient Jack the Ripper type killer, you’re just not being rational. Put the shoe on the other foot: if she had a history of violent behavior and attacking people with knives, wouldn’t you think that supported the case against her? And you’d be right, of course. Just be honest, not polemical.

      And that phone call is a very interesting fact here. But it doesn’t show what you want it to show in this context, because: a) we don’t know if she was alone when she made it, which is to say we don’t know whether she was being threatened or coerced at the time; and b) perhaps although alone at that point, she feared the other(s) were going to implicate her and was trying to blunt an anticipated accusation.

      Now (b) would be an indication of guile and deception that would make one suspicious that she played a conscious role in the murder, even if there were others involved. It wouldn’t necessarily make her guilty in the murder, but it would definitely point in that direction.

      See how you can concede things and it helps advance understanding rather than impede it and create a lot of noise?


  11. Dennis

    I never refused to concede that a smaller woman might have trouble killing a bigger man in the abstract; I thought you were asking about the incident’s unlikelihood in it’s totality.

    Just because someone hasn’t done something before doesn’t mean much at all, especially since murder is a crime that is often not repeated. As to the brutality and it’s unlikelihood, this is where perception bias comes in.

    As to the call, she would be coerced to make the call why? How do the real murderers benefit from a call that creates an alibi just for her? If she wasn’t coerced, you want someone to believe that an innocent woman, shortly after escaping the clutches of captors who brutally and viciously murdered her close friend, doesn’t call the police but makes a classic alibi call instead? Maybe she feared some sort of reprisal from the real murderers even after being in the protective custody of the state for years? It isn’t like that excuse hasn’t been tried before. Maybe a yeti is the murderer but she knew she wouldn’t be believed because everyone knows that yetis prefer clubs over knives when they kill.



    • There’s no perception bias on my end, at least none that you have demonstrated.

      I won’t rehash the points we’ve already argued, you lost them. The thinking to be done as a consequence is yours to do, not mine.

      I thought of the same point you did about the phone call, and speculated that the call might have come after she was released, maybe even marking the time she was first actually alone after the murder. It would make more sense that way, assuming there was someone else there, and that they stayed with her for some part of the drive after.

      I won’t argue that that call has any purpose other than to protect herself, upon reflection that much is obvious. But she could try to protect herself and still be innocent. “Others present at the scene” opens up all kinds of possibilities. Too bad nobody looked into it before me. I’m not in a good position to provide a lot of answers.

      In other words, granted, I am speculating. But then, there’s very little information to go on here. This was a terrible crime and an incredibly sloppy and/or incompetent investigation, the shoe print alone proves that much. I can tell you why that is: the police and prosecution are so used to being favored that they no longer do their jobs with any sense of getting it right. They can do a lousy job or a good job and still win, still get promoted and feted, so why go to the trouble of doing a good job?

      You’ve been brave to come over here and comment, so I regret to say this but people like you are part of the problem, maybe a big part. You’re anxious to find guilt in some other person for some reason I have yet to completely understand, though I have some ideas. But the bottom line is that this case is very troubling and should be to anyone who doesn’t have some axe to grind, or who, like commenter Kim perhaps, is too inclined to give unwarranted credence to a case brought by the government. I don’t think it will do to say “this was a proper verdict based on the evidence presented” when the real issue is the evidence that wasn’t presented.

      I remember this career law clerk who once told me – and then immediately tried to back pedal, realizing what he had revealed – that in his court they went with the government position because the government had no stake in the case. That is so wrong. The government tries to win just like any other litigant, often more self interestedly than other litigants. Careers, doncha know.

      I haven’t said that I believe Jodi Arias to be innocent. And I’ll still say that I don’t know. But I care more than I did before, I think this was a shitty case that became sensationalized, and I am very disturbed by the possibility that a completely innocent person – nay, a victim – is being crucified. I’d like to be a lot more comfortable that that is not the case, but I’m not.


      • Jessie

        I think the vested interest you’re seeing is that most people have an understandable, if unfortunate, desire to believe their own criminal justice system gets it right. The alternative is too scary to consider.

        This isn’t limited to Americans. In the Amanda Knox case, Italians think she’s guilty and Americans think the Italian justice system is flawed. In the British nanny case, Americans believed she was guilty and Brits thought the American justice system was flawed.

        In both those cases, the US and England, respectively, believed one of their own was being brought up on charges without evidence and it’s not true in either case. I’m not saying the evidence in either case leads to a reasonable conclusion of guilt, just that there was evidence against the accused in both cases.

        Yet even on the flimsiest evidence — and it doesn’t get much flimsier, for example, than the Casey Anthony case — we still desperately need to believe our own system works.

        If you took the same set of facts and moved the Amanda Knox case to the US and the Jodi Arias case to Europe, I believe we would be howling for Knox’s blood and howling that the Arias case is a miscarriage of justice.

        With regards to the Arias case, I admit I have a hard time swallowing your third-party scenario, though I have an equally hard time swallowing the supposed evidence of premeditation. Had the prosecution not changed its story right before trial to stabbed-first/shot-last….who knows? Maybe I’d believe she’s guilty. I don’t have trouble believing she could overpower him with a knife if he was first incapacitated by a gunshot, but I completely agree that the chances she would have succeeded in overpowering him with a knife first are ridiculously slim.

        So, what appeals issues do you see in this case? It seems to me dirty playing that the prosecution changed their theory of the crime only days before trial, transparently because they needed an aggravating factor to seek a death sentence. The prosecution witnesses then fell into line with that story….except for the detective who (whoops) slipped up on the stand and stuck to the original shot-first/stabbed-last story — the same story he recited on national television at the same Jodi Arias was giving one of her earlier stories. Yet she’s lambasted for lying, while the detective is allowed to backpedal and claim he “misunderstood.” Even the medical examiner had to claim his earlier reports were mistaken.

        But…I’m not a lawyer and one of my frustrations in the public chatter about this case has been listening to non-lawyers try to interpret the legal system. What are the real appeals issues?


        • Very good question, Jessie.

          In the American system, apparently unlike the Italian system, facts and evidence are not generally reviewed on appeal. A jury is not often second guessed. It’s not that it’s impossible: in New York, an appellate court has the option of finding that a verdict is “against the weight of the evidence”, but effectively they never do. On those rare occasions when they might, it’s only in civil cases and only to reduce or eliminate a money award they find is “too large”. The argument is often made in a criminal case where there has been a conviction but where I am such an argument has prevailed only once that I have noticed in more than 20 years. That’s once out of thousands upon thousands of cases reviewed on appeal.

          The grounds for a reversal in a criminal case are thus generally confined to technical or process type errors. Even here the chances of anything being done on appeal are extremely small, something on the order of 1%, although death penalty cases are different. When something is done, the result is almost invariably a new trial, not a dismissal of charges.

          For a non-lawyer you did really well to focus on the prosecution change on the “shot first” thing. I could see an appellate court holding that this last minute change was unfair surprise, which is a due process problem. It is less likely that they would explicitly consider the dishonesty of the prosecution witnesses in altering their testimony just because the tactics changed, but that might be an unstated factor if they actually did something with the appeal. I would say there has been a mob-dominated aspect to this trial which runs afoul of due process under a 1920’s Supreme Court case entitled Moore v. Dempsey, with the 21st century twist that it involves national media coverage. This of course is a reach in practical terms, since the last time there was any ruling favoring a defendant on that argument was probably that doctor that F. Lee Bailey represented in the 1950’s.

          And of course there is always the “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument. This is an argument that has a greater chance of success because the system is more agreeable to the idea that a defendant might have been deprived of a fair trial through the errors of their own lawyer than because of some misconduct or error by a prosecutor or a judge, even though of course the latter two are far more likely to be responsible for a wrongful conviction or an unfair trial.

          You also have to distinguish between “direct appeal” and “collateral attacks”, like habeas corpus. On direct appeal you are confined to the record made at the trial, but on a collateral attack you can bring up things like “newly discovered evidence”. You can also address “ineffective assistance” better in collateral proceedings, because you can bring in other evidence of bad representation that probably doesn’t appear in the trial record.

          Complicated, isn’t it?

          I’m considering the idea that the American system is better in theory but much worse in practice, and that the Italian system is worse in theory but much better in practice. On that Amanda Knox case, I looked pretty closely at the appeals court ruling exonerating her, and I would have to say that there was basically nothing there, other than her sort of ridiculous account under questioning. It may be that there is something wrong with these interrogations where the police mindset is to get the interviewee to incriminate themselves. If you’re really investigating something, as opposed to just trying to pin it on someone, you keep an open mind and probably wouldn’t miss as much information as seems to get missed, either because important clues are ignored or because the right questions aren’t asked since they’re too busy building a case that might not be true at all.

          Good comment, Jessie. Thanks.


          • Jessie

            I learned a long time ago that, with the Amanda Knox case, there are two — and only two — kinds of people on the Internet: Those who believe she is an evil, cold-blooded killer and those who believe she was persecuted by the Italians for a youthful innocence that would border on mental retardation. Anyone who believes something in between need not play the game.

            If any real good were to come out of the public rubbernecking of these criminal trials, it would be if observers used them as an opportunity for the mental exercise of trying to argue the opposite of whatever seems obvious to them.

            But that’s not how the game is played. It’s reduced to a grown-up version of Twilight where “Team Travis” and “Team Jodi” or “Team Amanda” and “Team Meredith” face off in a bitter dispute that only further entrenches whatever they already believed about something that none of us actually knows very much about. It could make us smarter, but instead it just makes us dumber.

            I do fear the effects on the criminal justice system. I would be afraid to be a juror in even a moderately high-publicity trial, for fear that if I didn’t decide the way the public wanted me to, it would ruin my life. That, more than anything else, is what makes me doubt the Jodi Arias verdict. How much easier would it be to just give the public what it wants, especially if it seemed reasonable to think the defendant was guilty? And I do think one can make a reasonable argument that she’s guilty (especially if we keep in mind that she could have been abused AND committed a murder — those two contentions are not mutually exclusive).

            Speaking of which, is the non-sequestered jury a valid appeals issue? I’m hoping that someday, somewhere, a court will recognize that the nature of the publicity around these trials amounts to a widespread form of juror intimidation. It’s not enough anymore to ask potential jurors if they’ve heard of the defendant or admonish them to avoid the media coverage. That admonition doesn’t speak to the world we live in anymore.


            • Jessie, I think we’ll have to agree that JMRJ is on neither team. He seems very impartial, but has provided extremely interesting and thought provoking commentary, in part due to his experience as a criminal defense lawyer.

              I don’t know which “team” you started on. I was blissfully ignorant and had never even heard the name “Jodi Arias” until a woman (someone I hold in very high regard) mentioned it on Facebook. She stated she was convinced Jodi is a narcissist (she’s had a fair degree of experience in that regard and I would consider her rather an expert on the subject). I took her at her word, not even reviewing a single article on the subject of Jodi Arias. Later, when Jodi took the stand, she revised her viewpoint stating that she believed Travis abused her and that she felt “triggers” from her testimony. My friend, the Facebook poster was immediately attacked by fellow posters to her community page. At that point, I took an interest, perhaps initially motivated by the desire to defend my friend. Not wanting to appear ignorant, I began reading articles about the trial, assuming it would become quite obvious to me why my friend felt as she did. But it did not.

              After the first few articles, I was 100% convinced Jodi was guilty and I was quite horrified that a woman would fabricate a domestic violence defense. I couldn’t understand where my well-researched friend was coming from. Unable to watch live testimony at work, I resorted to viewing HLN. One evening of that was more than I could stomach. I then began looking on Twitter after discovering a tweeter was providing coverage of the trial — albeit in a biased (against Jodi) fashion. Suddenly, I realized the actual trial footage was on YouTube, and I reviewed Jodi’s testimony up to that point.

              I was captivated. I found myself watching a woman (who I had previously assumed was a liar, a scoundrel and a cold-blooded murderess) describe in a clumsy manner, her feelings about receiving texts from Travis in the middle of the night. She was describing my feelings, my panic, and she could well have been me (other than the fact that I didn’t kill anyone and I was married to my abuser). Her awkward description of panic attacks — something I’m unfortunately intimately familiar with — without knowing the term, convinced me that this woman had indeed been abused. By then, I’d had almost two years of counseling. I knew the terminology. Perhaps because she didn’t, but described the feelings so well, I was more convinced than had she sat there using the appropriate terminology, if that makes sense.

              I went back and watched all the trial to that point, and continued watching. As I searched for somewhere to discuss it — other than in private conversations with friends — I found that it was an extremely hot topic and most who dared say they agreed with and/or related to anything Jodi said, were immediately “hung, drawn and quartered” in an internet fashion. I then found the JAII site. At first, I wasn’t sure I could agree with her “innocence” and read, but didn’t post. I was somewhat disturbed by the excessive nature of injuries “overkill”. Speaking with friends, I realized this was something I and other would have done in order to ensure our abusers were dead, dead, dead. Coincidentally, unable to sleep, the HBO documentary came on one night about Wendy Maldonado “Every F—ing Day of My Life”. I began researching other abused women who killed, and as I did so, even that “overkill” began to make sense to me.

              So, I guess I could say I started out one one team, and switched — although I’ve neither watched nor read any of the Twilight sagas.

              I totally agree with your concerns about high profile jury trials. It would be frightening to find oneself reporting for jury duty only to discover you were a potential juror for such a case. In addition, my concerns are for due process of any defendant in a high profile trial. After the manner in which Alyce LaViolette, Dr. Samuels and Dr. Geffner were subjected to attacks on the stand, but more importantly, death threats, intimidation and persecution in their private and professional lives, how can a high profile defendant ever again expect an expert witness to be willing?

              It’s been more than 20 years since a jury was sequestered in Arizona. There’s little support in my perfunctory review of appellate opinions on the subject, although it has been raised. Perhaps because this trial became its own rare “animal,” in a day and age where smart devices are found in the pocket of the vast majority of jurors, it’s an issue worthy of review.


            • Yes, I think not sequestering the jury is a good issue for appeal, it has that “doesn’t pertain to the merits” aspect that appellate courts like.

              I don’t see any good coming out of all the public rubbernecking, which is a really apt term I might add. To some extent this “mob-dominated” problem has been around for a long time (see, e.g., Moore v. Dempsey) – the Lindbergh case in the 1930’s was pretty bad – but I suppose we are witnessing a new era and perhaps it’s time to consider some other remedy than just sequestration and admonitions. Any suggestions?

              Thanks for the thoughtful comment.


              • I was really hopeful that some other legal minds would comment on this. I wonder where Kim has gone? Perhaps she became very busy and this blog was too distracting. I really enjoyed her comments.

                In this day and age, where almost everyone has a smart device, it seems the only reasonable method by which a jury could avoid coverage of a high profile case would be to (a) confiscate their devices or (b) require that they not access the internet.

                While jury sequestration certainly brings its own share of problems, I am not sure any defendant can truly experience a fair trial if the jurors in a high profile trial are allowed to go home every evening — and in this case, return to work one day a week on Fridays.

                The judge, in this case, should have granted the defense motion when it became evident that the mob was congregating outside the court (where smoking jurors went to smoke) and posing for photos with the media and the prosecutor. When it became evident that Travis Alexander’s own sister was encouraging a ruthless campaign to discredit an expert witness for the defense, and that witness’s life and livelihood were threatened, the judge should have stepped in. It simply wasn’t enough to reprimand Tanisha Sorenson (Travis’s sister) in chambers. While I wouldn’t have expected the judge to publicly reprimand her, some issuance of a statement regarding the circus outside the court would have been prudent in my opinion.

                I believe even our own Kim (although she found the verdict to be 100% correct) opined that the judge lost control of the courtroom early on. The manner in which Martinez abused witnesses went far beyond badgering, and yet, he was never admonished. He went so far as to impersonate and mock Kirk Nurmi’s stance and posture while cross-examining Jodi. The judge barely remarked upon it, after serious objection by Mr. Nurmi. His closing arguments painted Alyce LaViolette as a villain far worse than the defendant.

                Although it’s now been removed, I saw a post on Facebook over the weekend as an “open letter to Darryl Brewer,” Jodi’s former boyfriend. In the post, implicit threats appeared such as (and I paraphrase), “We know where your son attends school. He’s a good boy. Does he want to hear how you testified to the character of a murderess?”

                I realize that the rest of the world is beyond the jurisdiction of a judge in Maricopa County, but the circus occurring daily in front of her own court was well within her jurisdiction — regardless of where the individual participants reside.

                As more and more has come to pass — including the harassment and threats to Ms. Womack — I have begun to suspect appellate justices will not look kindly on some of the judge’s rulings and her complete inaction to attempt to prevent recurrence. While I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial at all, the judge severely admonished a gallery member publicly for making faces. I realize he was almost the equivalent of a second prosecutor in the courtroom as far as the defense was concerned, and that Judge Stephens allowed a wide berth to both sides. However, he was in complete control of his courtroom, as a judge should be, in my opinion.

                Again, I restate my previous comments regarding concern for willingness of expert witnesses to become involved in high profile cases and the resultant effect on due process.

                As an innocent 21 year old immigrant from Ireland, working for a criminal defense attorney (when I thought I’d been hired by his nephew, a personal injury attorney — something I could actually stomach), I could not understand how gangbangers deserved a fair trial. If they hadn’t committed the crime of which they were accused, they had certainly committed another equally heinous crime — that was my “magical thinking” opinion, back then — naive as I was. Within a year, my boss — a former star prosecutor then in semi-retirement, thereby afforded the luxury of taking on cases he specifically deemed required his assistance — convinced me that every individual tried within the US system (even me, a non-citizen) had the right to due process and a fair trial. He worked until the very day he died to uphold that premise, much to the chagrin of his former colleagues at the state’s attorney’s office in Cook County.

                Somehow, we must return to those convictions and to due process, under the law, as required by the amazing constitution of this country. If we don’t, we might as well return to the Roman Gladiator Arenas and have done with it. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now!


            • Actually, in the wake of this:


              it would be a good lesson for the public if the judge granted the defense mistrial motion. Not that she will, it would take a lot of what passes for courage among the judicial set. But it would be a correct and good ruling, and maybe people would learn to calm down, be more rational, and certainly not interfere in court proceedings by threatening witnesses and what not.

              So that’s a possible remedy in our new era: grant mistrial motions on due process grounds under Moore v. Dempsey when things like public bloodthirstiness get out of hand. Of course this would require judges to do their jobs and go against the establishment as well as the mob, so don’t hold your breath.

              Good motion by the defense team.


              • Jessie

                If the mistrial were granted, I should think all that would happen is the prosecution and the press would come back stronger than ever. The expense of defending her (but never the expense of prosecuting her) would be repeated over and over. I don’t think Nurmi really wanted a mistrial any of the times he asked for it, so much as he wanted it on record that he asked and, more importantly, why he asked.

                Getting cameras out of courtrooms would be my first suggestion for stopping this. Not closing the courtroom, of course, but trials couldn’t turn into the same kind of circus if the press had to go back to using pencil drawings.

                Second, defamation suits, early and often. HLN slandered a criminal defendant, knowing perfectly well if they did it enough they’d soil her reputation until she couldn’t be defamed. Attack it early when they can still show damages.

                And sequestering a jury can work. Or at least it could at one time. When the Casey Anthony jury was released, they had no idea the case had gotten anywhere near the coverage it had. They were shocked. And we didn’t see this kind of thing with witnesses being threatened until they withdraw. It’s gotten more brazen now, so I don’t know if it could work anymore. The real danger is that jurors will fear for their own well-being if they know there’s a bloodthirsty mob outside, waiting for “justice.”


              • “The expense of defending her (but never the expense of prosecuting her) would be repeated over and over.”

                Good point, Jessie! The prosecution always has deeper pockets than the public defender’s office. Isn’t it interesting that not even ONE media outlet has asked the Maricopa County Attorney’s office to disclose its costs?

                I recently saw a comment (I think it was on OccupyHLN) that “poor” Juan Martinez makes “minimum wage”, while Nurmi drags out this trial for the $225 per hour the public defender’s office reimburses him. I may have actually wet my pants laughing at that comment. Obviously, these folks have NEVER been self-employed.

                A prosecutor with Martinez’s experience easily makes $150,000 per year in AZ, and probably more, plus generous benefits (vacation, health insurance, disability insurance, workers’ comp insurance, retirement, etc.) and his staff are paid by the county. Nurmi, as self-employed, has to pay his own rent and utilities, his own expenses, pay for administrative staff, pay for his own benefits, pay a larger share of taxes, etc., etc. $225 per hour doesn’t equate to Martinez’s salary by any means. Not only that, but Nurmi has to wait until the PD’s office gets around to paying their invoices — which I’ve always heard drags out for quite some time. Furthermore, Nurmi has sufficient experience to charge considerably more to his private clients than $225 per hour (a really low hourly rate for any attorney) at this point in his career. But he has no time for private clients while this trial is continuing. I would be anything he can’t wait until it’s over.

                I wouldn’t characterize it as Nurmi not WANTING a mistrial to be granted. He knew when filing that his odds of mistrial being granted by this judge were slim and none. You’re correct that he wanted to preserve the record of his objections to (shall we say) the “manner” in which the prosecutor and mob scene was acting for appeal. Issues not preserved in the record cannot be raised on appeal.


      • HonestAbe

        So well said and the “haters” cannot look at the downstream implications. Jury instructions are there for a reason but the majority of the “haters” have completely ignored them. I blame HLN and the general media for a lot of the conclusion jumping. I didn’t see one example where they provided Jodi with her most basic right and that is innocence until proven guilty. I know it’s as arcane as guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but if one listens closely, it’s an easy directive. But back to my point…when many jurisdictions are abolishing or at least putting the death penalty on the shelf because we’re finding that many have been wrongly convicted and even executed, this dimwitted jury has convicted someone on some of the flimsiest evidence I have seen in quite some time.


  12. Dennis

    “There’s no perception bias on my end, at least none that you have demonstrated.”

    Actually, one could argue that I have. I’ve given a credible crime scene scenario multiple times that shows how a smaller woman could surprise, weaken and over-power a bigger man, along with testimony from a big former boyfriend who said the suspect was surprisingly strong, yet you continue to resort to size and gender difference making this murder all but impossible, incredible.

    “I won’t argue that that call has any purpose other than to protect herself, upon reflection that much is obvious. But she could try to protect herself and still be innocent.

    On what planet does an innocent person make a classic alibi call shortly after a killing?

    “Others present at the scene” opens up all kinds of possibilities.

    Indeed, it does, and the suspect tried that tact. After denying she was there she changed her story and claimed home invasion. When she saw that wasn’t going to fly either she changed her story again.

    “In other words, granted, I am speculating. But then, there’s very little information to go on here. This was a terrible crime and an incredibly sloppy and/or incompetent investigation, the shoe print alone proves that much.”

    The woman confessed. She admits to killing the man and doing so alone. She tried a multiple assailants story earlier and dropped it, presumably because the defense–who knew about the shoe print and method and manner of the investigation–knew it wouldn’t work.

    “I am very disturbed by the possibility that a completely innocent person – nay, a victim – is being crucified”

    When has genuine self-defense ever involved 20-some-odd stab wounds, a near decapitation and a gun shot to boot?

    “The government tries to win just like any other litigant, often more self interestedly than other litigants.”

    The state is not always wrong just because you distrust them.


    • Denny, I don’t know why you get so confused over the word “impossible”. I have nowhere said that a guilt scenario was impossible, or even “all but impossible”, just that it was unlikely. Could it have happened? Sure. It’s not likely, though.

      And I have to qualify about that phone call. There is another possibility consistent with innocence: dissociation. That would be strongly supported by either a guilt scenario or an innocent one, but I’m thinking it’s beyond your ability to entertain, let alone grasp, either way.

      My understanding is that she has not said she killed him, but that she doesn’t remember one way or another. I think she said she remembers shooting him, but it seems to be undisputed that the gun shot didn’t kill him. This isn’t exactly a “confession”, but I suppose it’s close enough for government work. In any case, you have the problem of being credulous, believing everything she says – so long as it’s consistent with guilt. Your selection of what to believe and what to disbelieve couldn’t be less random or impartial, and pretty much proves you’re too biased to have a fair opinion on the matter.

      And, when did I ever say the state is “always” wrong? Homework for you: look up impossible, possible, likely, unlikely, always, sometimes, often, never and see if you can get a handle on these fairly common terms. Ugh.


    • HonestAbe

      When has genuine self-defense ever involved 20-some-odd stab woulds, a near decapitation and a gun shot to boot? Simple, a self-defense where the assailant is considerably larger and stronger than the intended victim. If she intended to kill him, she could have performed it much more efficiently and cleanly than his remains revealed. Also, let me bring you back to the OJ trial. If you will recall, the ability to slice another person’s throat requires skill and the prosecution said that it was possible in OJs case because he received training for a movie.
      Personally, I am with JMRJ and think she didn’t do this alone or others were involved that could have made her another victim. That last slash across the throat just doesn’t jibe with the multiple frenzy of the other stabs. it’s calculated and its intended purpose is clear. I’m really disappointed that the police didn’t investigate the shoe print or even perform and forensic tests on the other bathroom shower.


  13. Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

    I think it’s obvious jodi arias hs been driving this bus and defense strategy since the beginning. According to dr Samuels he and Nurmi, after 2 full years of trying to go with the ‘other people did it’ story and finding nothing of value to support it, including bloody boot print, they asked her about self defense. As jodi learned more about this strategy she became committed to a new lie but as per her MO, she swiftly went into overkill and ended up forcing her lawyers to find a new expert witness as Dr Cheryl Karp’s clinical notes and eventual analysis became clearly filled with inconsistencies based on arias’ lies to her and their vetting of the experts testimony in preparation for cross exam. At trial.
    Further it’s extremely disingenuous to lay blame for this defense strategy at her lawyers feet becs we saw Arias doing things like having anonymous people send her lawyers purported copies of Travis letters where he supposedly admits to DV and pedophilia. Very few people r aware that after the letters were FIRST looked at by one handwriting expert the defense hired, her own lawyers promptly withdrew the request to have the letters admitted into evidence. This will be available once records r unsealed. It was upon this request by her lawyers to withdraw letters that arias immediately asked to represent herself. She then had her mother approach the National Enquirer in an obvious attempt to inflame public against Travis Alexander, knowing the letters could not be authenticated.
    Finally we saw at trial evidence that arias attempted to influence another witnesses testing in a hearing with HER attempt to smuggle out coded messages to Matt McCartney telling him he fucked up in what he said to her attorneys that contradicted what she had been saying for a full year. Jodi Arias told us on stand that Matt McCartney saw proof of physical bruises on her. But when McCartney was interviewed prior by state investigators he said he had never seen evidence jodi was physically abused by Travis. This interview with Matt was elicited via cross exam. Of A laviolette by j Martinez when asked about what she knew Matt McCartney knew about physical abuse of jodi. IOW, this interview directly contradicts what arias told us all on stand about Matt.

    It is more than obvious why her defense didn’t call Matt to corroborate Jodi’s testimony, why they completely ignored issue of coded messages. Jodi insisted on this particular defense and it ismy belief after the post verdict interview and her insistence at testifying in the sentencing phase as well as things learned at trial, that they KNOW jodi lied and will lie again on stand soon and since they are caught up in an ethical dilemma they are in serious CYA mode. That is NOT her attys fault.

    I’ve also recently learned that rules of evidence may become more relaxed at this stage, so evidence previously ruled in admissible may see light of day. Don’t be surprised if we hear far more crazy stuff while she is next on stand. Don’t be surprised if her lawyers once again req. action to withdraw as counsel just prior to her taking that stand.


    • Guilty, how could they “…go more than 2 full years with the ‘other people did it’ story” and find “nothing of value to support it” when there were several things of value to support it cited here, when we don’t even know very much about it?

      What makes you think JA was “driving the bus” on her defense? Were you privy to conversations between her and her attorneys? Do tell.

      Why do you relish this case, and the guilty verdict so much?


      • I assume Guilty believes Jodi was lying during her post-conviction interview when she said Nurmi was the boss.

        I do hope Guilty responds to your last question.


        • HonestAbe

          I have heard many others say that JA directed her defense which I am sure is nonsense. People such as Guilty make arguments as if they were at the scene and in attendance during JA’s conversations with her defense team.

          I saw your post on Judge Stephens earlier and couldn’t agree more that she lost control of the courtroom and allowed a lot that should not have been admissible. I am sure she did her best but she appeared uncertain of her abilities. I noticed that Jeffrey Evan Gold also noted that he expected an appeal based on the failure to sequester the jury and their ability to watch the overly biased HLN coverage.

          By the way, we have something in common. My father was employed by the Cook County Public Defender’s Office under Jim Dougherty. PI law would be a good one to pursue in Chicago, especially if one could land a job at Corboy & Demetrio which is a fabulous firm with fabulous talent.


      • Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt


        U confs talk on a blog and public relations companies hired to sway public opinion via.gossip and misrepresentations, suppositions and argument based on innuendo and fantasy as legitimate things her attorneys could use to support her claims intruders did it. Obviously NOTHING of value existed if they looked for 2 years.

        You ask me if I am privy to her conversations and why I don’t believe her when she said Nurmi has been the boss. Well even you claim to discount everything she says unless it supports ye particular theory on the case. The very definition of bias confirmation.
        No, the reason I am so confident Arias has been in charge is becs so much of her strategy and defense has been built upon this almost pathological idea that she will be able to convince people of her abuse despite a complete absence of corroborative data. I just don’t believe Nurmi or wilmott to be that stupid. Then there are the never ending requests for mistrial that come down to this also pathological immaturity that believes she can play the court as if she would a high school rival and has zero embarrassment about wasting courts time by complaining the prosecutor is a meanie. Again, I just don’t see jw or kn on their own behaving in such a manner.

        Ya know I am very interested in the type of people that would defend this type of person and her completely transparent modus operandi. It’s fascinating. The issue is that she’s obviously guilty so why do u insist on making excuses for her? Are you associated with her jodi innocent websites that’s just a front being run by PR company Renegade Mktg and Simon j hill? I’m starting to wonder.


        • I really don’t know what kind of person JA is, and neither do you.

          I don’t know that they “looked” for 2 years. Maybe they didn’t look into it much at all, or they did and they couldn’t find anything else – and I say “else” because they did have some at least potentially corroborating evidence or at least arguments, and they seem to be better arguments that the self defense thing – such that they thought a jury might be convinced. But I’d have to question their judgment there, because self defense really doesn’t seem a viable alternative, what with the throat slit and all.

          I’m not making excuses for anyone. I’m pointing out that there are lots of problems with the evidence on which this verdict is based, and also extremely serious due process violations where you have prosecutors intimidating witnesses where there’s already a lynch mob outside the courthouse every day, the latter of course having nothing to do with JA’s guilt or innocence.

          And it’s true that I’m looking for things that confirm a theory. That’s why it is a theory. I am also open to anything that rules the theory out. Nobody has come up with anything. Saying it was “looked into for 2 years” without any basis doesn’t rule out anything, obviously. Saying over and over that “she admitted it!” also doesn’t rule anything out, either.

          If you have something like that I’m all ears, but it seems you don’t.


          • HonestAbe

            This is probably one of the best rebuttals I have read. Guilty is very much like many I have Tweeted with. I pointed one woman to this site and she said, “…it doesn’t change my mind about Arias being a cold blooded murder.” Another wrote, “Ask any one in ANY domestic violence shelter. We prayed for conviction.” I even pointed out that this case has opened the door for more death penalties when there had been an outcry over DNA evidence that proved innocence and received, “NOT TRUE. A not guilty would have meant that they [the jury] believed her and that would have F*CK#D us all.” I even received, “THEY KNOW FOR SURE BCZ SHE SAID SHE KILLED HIM.” I then got called “sick and twisted” for questioning the verdict. Ugh… Some apparently have selected hearing and are inserting their own words. For example, one Tweeter noted, “She said she killed him.” Yes, she did but she also said it was self defense. I am finding a common thread between most of those who insist upon guilt: 1. Travis was stabbed so many times that it could only be murder. 2. Jodi has lied so many times that she must be trying to cover her tracks and it must be murder. 3. The “haters” pick and choose what they want to believe from Jodi rather than throwing everything away and correctly focusing on the prosecution proving their case. 4. The raised voice of intensity is embedding his theories into their head as if it were a hammer and a chisel. During the final days, Martinez said that Jodi stabbed him in the shower, he got up to look in the mirror where she stabbed him repeatedly in the back, etc. I can give many other scenarios that are much more likely than that one. 5. They have placed the entire burden of proof on Jodi.

            The burden of proof is with the prosecution. It doesn’t matter if people believe or like her. There are rules. She is presumed innocent until the prosecutor tips the scale. As long as her position is a possibility, there is that reasonable doubt. – Brian Silver Defense Attorney.


        • Wow, Guilty, I think you’ve read one too many blogs about SJ. A PR firm hired to alter the public image of Jodi? First of all, Jodi is indigent and her family is too poor to afford a proper defense attorney to represent her. Where did they find the money to hire a PR firm? Wouldn’t that money have been better spent on a dream-team lawyer? Secondly, while I mean no offense to SJ, he certainly hasn’t done a good job altering Jodi’s image, has he? In actually, it’s more likely that Travis’s friends/family/upline/church paid HLN to destroy Jodi, isn’t it?

          In actuality, SJ’s a wonderful man who hosts a website (at significant personal expense) simply to provide those of us with a different opinion a place to speak our minds. What does he gain from it? No financial gain, that’s for sure. It costs a small fortune to host a site with that much bandwidth. I used to be in the business of web development/hosting and I know all about it. I once ran a fan site that had far less traffic and had to stop when the monthly bills regularly approached $500 — more than I chose to spend on a hobby.

          Those of us who have a different opinion about Jodi than you have no other safe place to post our views. Many who have posted on blogs/forums/Facebook have actually received threats in their homes and places of business. I know this for a fact. It’s not funny at all that the mob should track down someone who uses their real name to post their opinion and attack their livelihood and welfare, is it? I don’t believe you would agree with that for a moment.

          As for abuse, I have no “corroborative data” that I was abused, nor do millions of other abuse victims. In fact, suspicion is often only aroused once someone dies. My ex-husband was arrested, but his attorney called me a “delusional self-seeking woman” in regards to that event in his appellate brief. By your standards, an abused person without an independent witness to the abuse, is therefore, lying.

          For the heck of it, let me put this out there. Are you familiar with an internet forum called MyDeathSpace? If not, Google it. There is a sub-forum about this case. Therein, you will find an old now locked thread (usually at the very bottom of the sub-forum). If you will indulge me for a moment, go to the very last post on the bottom of page 20. The poster goes by GGLuvsBC and posted on 2-15-2009. He/she obviously dislikes Jodi as much, or perhaps even more than you do (referring to her as “a whore”), and claims to know Travis. He/she posted on that date: “There is so much more to this tramp than meets the eye and don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth…especially if she tries to pull the “battered woman” defense which she no doubt will try and do.”

          Think back to that time, February 2009. The 48 hours special had not yet aired. Jodi was only talking about the intruders. She would not even discuss whether Travis was abusive or not. Self-defense was not even hinted at until more than a year later. So, where did this person get his/her information? My friend discovered that post a few months ago when she was trying to figure out where the hatred of Jodi began.

          I don’t expect to change your mind at all. I would just like you to consider that post, that’s all. Would you please do that for me?


    • Guilty, may I suggest that you consult the minute entries instead of relying upon information you read on ANY blog or forum or on HLN.

      For example, let’s look at your statements about the letters. When did the National Enquirer allege that Mrs. Arias (Jodi’s mother) asked them to publish them? Do you even know? A simple Google search will provide you with that answer. We don’t know when the National Enquirer alleges Jodi’s mother contacted them. What we do know is that the National Enquirer ran the first story on the subject, as an exclusive in its January 16, 2013 issue. That was January of 2013, by the way. That was AFTER the trial began in case you’re not aware. It began on January 2, 2013.

      The article states: “As blonde bombshell Arias changed her look to that of a demure brunette wearing specs for the televised trial, her mother San­dy Arias met with an ENQUIRER reporter in Phoenix and handed over photocopies of two letters allegedly handwritten by Alexander.”

      By its very wording, the timeframe as to when Mrs. Arias approached the National Enquirer appears to be DURING the trial. Also, according to the article, Mrs. Arias allegedly only presented TWO (2) letters. The article reads:

      “In the first letter, dated Nov. 27, 2006, Al­exander asks Arias to wear “boy’s briefs” that he can “rip off.” He also asks her to wear one of his shirts with his engraved cuff links so he can see his initials while she performs oral sex on him.

      The second letter was dated March 2, 2008, just three months before Alexander’s murder. In it, he admits that he once hit Arias “in the face.” He also claims that marrying her would help erase his “deviant” thoughts.”

      The pleadings detailing the “letters” in question detail TEN (10) letters written between November 27, 2006, and May 27, 2008, by the way, but I’ll get back to that in a moment. While the National Enquirer certainly does not have the best reputation for factual reporting, clearly, they allege that publication of the letters was a “last ditch attempt” by Jodi Arias and that Jodi’s mother approached them AFTER the trial began, not before.

      Let me aid your thought process for a moment. Was Jodi representing herself when the trial began on January 2, 2013 and at any time up to January 16, 2013, when the article appeared in the National Enquirer? No, she was represented by Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott. We have televised evidence of that fact, don’t we? Reviewing this televised evidence of the trial and the court minute entries, there was no point from January 2 through January 16, where Jodi requested pro se representation, was there? Please research this for yourself in the court minute entries. Don’t take my word for it. Once you do, you will see how erroneous your statements in this comment are in that regard and how you have been misled, either by statements in a blog, forum, or on HLN.

      So, let’s take a look at exactly when these letters were first presented to the court for admissibility or preclusion as evidence, shall we? You will need to look back all the way to June of 2010 to find references to those letters in the minute entries (I would also suggest you review the online court docket for specific dates of filing of various pleadings regarding the letters). There are few entries to review from this time period, so undertaking this project will take you but a few moments.

      From the minute entries, however, you will be able to clearly ascertain who was representing Jodi at that time: Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi. The state, on June 18, 2010, made an oral motion for the original letters to be produced. That motion is available online for your review, if you are interested. Later, on August 11, 2010, the court ordered disclosure of either the original letters or the source of the electronic correspondence regarding the same, based on the state’s oral motion. Defense counsel agreed to disclose the source. On September 14, 2010, defense made an oral motion for a handwriting expert to analyze the journals of Travis Alexander. Later on October 26, 2010, the state advised that the defendant’s handwriting expert examined the letters on October 12, 2010, and that a yahoo email account (from which those letters were sent per the earlier entry) is still under investigation. On October 27, 2010, defense requested additional discovery regarding the state’s allegation that the letters were forged. On January 13, 1011, the court sealed the Supplement to Response; Motion to Preclude Letters Purportedly Written by Travis Alexander to Defendant filed on December 22, 2010. (Presumably, this was either the defendant’s disclosure of the source or perhaps the defense handwriting expert’s report — but that is not contained in the minute entries so we can only surmise.) On February 25, 2011, the state reported its handwriting expert had not concluded a report on the letters, but would do so by March 18, 2011. It was not, however, until August 15, 2011 that the court ruled upon preclusion of the letters.

      On March 18, 2011, Kirk Nurmi announced to the court that he was leaving the public defender’s office. On March 8, 2011, other attorneys from the Public Defender’s office appeared in regards to Mr. Nurmi’s resignation, and the court ruled that he was not allowed to withdraw because a trial date had been set. On March 21, 2011, Martinez moved the court to continue the trial due to a trial conflict stating that the victim’s family objected to substitution of counsel within his office. The court denied his motion. On March 22, 2011, the court reviewed its earlier decision in regards to Mr. Nurmi withdrawing. Mr. Nurmi stated that the Public Defender’s office had removed the paralegal, investigator and mitigation specialist assigned to work with him because he was no longer employed by the office. The court ordered their reassignment. On April 4, 2011, the court ordered the public defender’s office to compensate Mr. Nurmi fairly and to remain as counsel for the defendant.

      During all of this time, as the minute entries reflect, Jodi continued to be represented by the public defender’s office. A hearing regarding whether Jodi should represent herself or not was held ex parte on August 8, 2011 and was sealed. It was granted with the stipulation the her attorneys remain as as advisory counsel. On August 15, 2011, the judge reinstated Jodi’s attorneys at her request. As you can see, Jodi represented herself pro se for a period of 7 days in total.

      In regards to the magazines with “coded messages” which the prosecution raised on cross-examination of Jodi were intercepted by guards at the jail in August 2011. They were intended for Ann Campbell, a friend who visited Jodi weekly, NOT Matt McCartney as you allege. That’s nothing but a rumour started in blogs and was NEVER discussed during trial.

      Matt McCartney NEVER told investigators that he had not seen bruises on Jodi’s body. Again, that’s another rumour started by a blog. Nor was there any cross-examination of Jodi during the trial regarding such an interview or statements made by Matt McCartney. Again, yet another blog rumour and supposition, albeit erroneous.

      The particular messages contained in the magazines (Star Magazine and Digital Pro) were: “”You f***ed up what you told my attorney the next day / directly contradicts what I’ve been saying for over a year / get down here ASAP and see me before you talk to them again and before / you testify so / we can fix this / interview was excellent! Must talk ASAP!” Please note that magazines are routinely passed between inmates in jail and any other inmate could have written those messages. The prosecution offered no handwriting analysis to prove that the handwriting was Jodi’s. Did that not leave you wondering why?

      In regards to Dr. Cheryl Karp, a review of the minute entries will clearly reveal that she had to be replaced due to her own serious health issues. (As a matter of fact, she suffers from cancer, a very serious health issue indeed.) Her defense was not forced to replace her due to inconsistencies, but that is yet another blog rumour. By the way, she was not replaced by Dr. Samuels. He was retained as an expert during the same time period as Dr. Karp. However, Dr. Karp was replaced by Alyce LaViolette when her cancer prevented her from continuing.

      It should also be noted that Jodi submitted a plea offer for second degree murder to the state beginning October 26, 2010. She renewed that plea offer the following December, and again (even AFTER further evidence came to light) in July of 2011. That memorandum is also available online for your review. The state rejected her offers. If the state had accepted, however, trial would not have occurred. Jodi would have been convicted and serving a sentence of 10-25 years (presumptively 16 years), and no one would be any the wiser about Travis Alexander’s sexual proclivities. That bears consideration, in my opinion.

      If you have difficulty locating any of the minute entries I refer to above, please let me know. I think you will find that if you conduct your own research independently, it will be quite enlightening for you to understand what actually DID occur versus what you have heard in a distorted fashion on blogs, forums and/or HLN. I would also suggest that you review the prosecution’s Motion in Limine from June 2011, to preclude certain testimony of Dr. Samuels and Dr. Karp.

      The judge has already denied Jodi’s attorneys’ motion to withdraw during the final stages of this trial which has already commenced. Therefore, your statement that they may renew their motion is moot. However, since they are not appellate attorneys, they will withdraw upon conclusion of this matter.


      • Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

        Also Abused,
        Moot point?i told u her attys would req to withdraw as counsel again and…they did …despite your attempt to school me on the law and that becs the judge denied it before somehow in yr mind it meant they wouldn’t make the motion again. You clearly missed my point.

        And as far as the minute entries, I hate to break it to you but I have already read each one plus more. In fact, all, barring those that have been sealed. And, as an FYI, nothing you posted argues against anything I said above. You make this assumption anyone that doesn’t believe that jodi had help Must be getting their info from HLN or blogs. I hate to break it to you but I detest HLN. Oh, by the way, what factual evidence presented at trial supports Jodi was not alone? Oh…you got that from a blog!!! Or how about the reflection in eye that shows others present ? Blog?

        And No, you are wrong again about the Matt McCartney interview in which he tells investigators, and i quote
        ‘I knew he verbally abused her and i suspected physical abuse but never saw evidence that would support that’. No….this did NOT come from a blog or HLN. You are clearly NOT watching the trial as close as you profess. During cross examination of alyce laviolette, Juan Martinez asked laV what it was that Matt McCartney had to say about Travis physically abusing jodi. Remember, a lav claimed to have read interviews Matt did. SHE then admits to Matt’s statement to investigators and it directly contradicts what jodi said on stand about Matt confronting her about all her ‘neck bruises’ . Not to mention that she also contradicted her own testimony in post verdict interview when she says then ‘many other people saw bruises including a ppl guy and her sister’ becs on stand she said Matt was ONLY person.


        • Oh Guilty, CLEARLY you miss the point as to why Jodi’s attorneys moved to withdraw today. But if it makes you feel good to have scored in our debate, please be my guest 😀

          School you on the law? Haha that’s actually quite funny. Actually, I just pointed out the factual inaccuracies in your previous post particularly as they pertained to timing of events. You stated as fact that Jodi’s mother attempted to sell the letters to the National Enquirer at or around the same time as they were first introduced to the court. There was actually a 3 year gap between those events. It’s perfectly acceptable to present your views with disclaimers such as “If I recall correctly” or “I believe this timetable is accurate.” However, if you present statement of fact which are erroneous, don’t be surprised if someone corrects the timeline. My timeline was factual. Yours was not. Yet, you continue to state that you are correct and that everything I have pointed out is in error. What is the point?

          If you have read all the minute entries, you obviously misunderstood or misinterpreted them. As for the “plus more,” I will await your revelation as to what that could be.

          I’m thrilled to hear that you detest HLN, there’s absolutely no need to “hate to break” that news to me, as you put it. However, much of what you have posted on this blog comes directly from HLN. Therefore, even if you hate the network itself, someone who watches their shows has influenced you, and unfortunately, that’s in error.

          As for the “evidence” that someone else was there, I think I’ve gone over that ad infinitum. None was presented at trial because the defense strategy was self-defense. Therefore, it was irrelevant and inadmissible. However, my suspicions do not come from a blog, but from the police report itself, as I have stated many times.

          What is your source for the direct quote as to Matt McCartney’s statement to investigators? The investigator(s) have not released their reports of such a statement to the public, nor have they given interviews (to my knowledge). As for Alyce LaViolette’s testimony, she was not allowed to quote directly from collateral sources (hearsay evidence) which she used to form her opinion, so again, there’s no direct quote from Matt McCartney therein, as you allege. You seem to have forgotten (despite your alleged superior recollection of the trial) that in response to a juror question, Ms. LaViolette testified that according to collateral sources she had read, Matt McCartney suspected abuse and that Jodi told him of emotional and physical abuse.

          Once again, you mischaracterize Jodi’s post-conviction interview (I assume that’s the post-conviction interview of which you speak, since Ms. LaViolette has not given one). She stated there were photos of her with her sisters that showed her bruises. She never spoke of a “PPL guy” knowing of her bruises. She mentioned a gentleman who knew of them who the defense declined to “track down.”

          Ah, but it’s all about winning an argument for you, not about looking at various aspects of this case and discussing them intelligently? For the record, let me give you some satisfaction. You were right with your prediction. Jodi’s attorneys DID move to withdraw again today (although you missed the point of the purpose of that strategic move on their part). However, could I ask you to take out your crystal ball once more and make a prediction for me? Your degree of accuracy is stunning. (Pardon my sarcasm.)


          • Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

            AA, sorry if I came across a bit snarky and ‘superior’. I really didn’t mean to. I think like many people that discuss the issue we get frustrated. I appreciate your civility towards me knowing we see things very differently. i looked back at my earlier post where u referred to timing of national enq approach of Arias’ mother and realized why u thought I was implying she had her mother do that way back before trial. In my post I was listing things that had happened but yes I knew she did that only after trial started. I’m posting via my phone now which is a bit difficult so I will stop soon and address more later when on computer. I’m open to hearing why the sj jaii site is not the work of a pr firm. I will tell u more of what convinced me and I will listen to yr reasons why this info isn’t true.

            Until then, peace, I didn’t mean to be such a bitch and again I appreciate your posts that treat me civilly despite my beliefs. As an FYI, I know there are many sick individuals put there that insist on the vile name calling.. Whore etc. I despise that as much as I despise those from the jaii site that call Travis and family


            • Oh sweet Guilty (I hope you won’t take offense at that if you’re male, but you honestly come across as a very sweet person in this message), no offense taken whatsoever! In fact, I was rather snarky (or at least, very sarcastic, myself, I think. But then, I’m often accused of that, possibly because I was raised in England (before Ireland) and it’s the manner in which we speak. I apologize if I offended you.

              While we may have opposing views on some things, we found common ground and that’s really quite astounding, isn’t it? That’s the nature of this blog, I’ve found, at least for those who don’t run away. I give credit to our host, JMRJ, for fostering an atmosphere of civility, something quite rarely found on the internet of late.

              I’m not sure I can convince you that SJ is a real, and very kind, intelligent man (he’s on vacation at the moment), but I can only assure you that he is, and that I have good reason to know the same for an absolute fact. But that’s neither here nor there, since you haven’t had my experience.

              I honestly believe there is a very small minority of the posters on JAII who call the Alexander family vile names (at least publicly) and even if they do, many others object, and point to their grief. I truly believe those who post disgusting vile comments about well, anyone, involved in this trial (with, perhaps the exception of Martinez, who has angered us all at times, and we’ve used “names” to deride him, but they are not really that bad — after all, he does remind you a little of Kermit the frog when he speaks at length, right?) are there to pose problems for the site, and make us all seem like a vile lot, deliberately to discredit us and the site. It rather irks me that, although there are at least 10 different blogs/forums/Facebooks that people who hate Jodi can post all the vile information they want, we can’t be left one teensy eensy little corner of the internet to speak our minds.

              You will rarely see vile remarks from those of us who have been regular posters there for the vast majority of the trial — although, we may, at times, become frustrated and voice an opinion about, for example, one of the family members launching a campaign designed to destroy Alyce, for example. I have to admit, that angered me a great deal because Alyce is someone I greatly admired long before I ever heard about this trial and who has been tireless in her efforts, both to assist victims and to rehabilitate abusers (the latter of which, is not something I particularly agree is even plausible — but I’m still learning). When, the “hate campaign” began again for Dr. Bob Geffner, before he even testified, I was extremely angered. I’ve been afforded the luxury of sitting in on a couple of his seminars, and there is no greater advocate for domestic violence in this country. As you might imagine, domestic violence is a cause near and dear to my heart.

              And here I am again, sleepless in the wee hours. I bid you a good night, Guilty, and perhaps we shall converse again tomorrow.


              • GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

                Hi AA;

                So I dont know if youve seen my earlier posts asking why again you thought I was being “rabid” and hostile. But anyway,like I said before I really didnt think I was saying anything differently than I had said before about Jodi Arias. So maybe you’ll explain to me what I said that made you say all those recent things. As far as SJ, I am not sure how you can say he doesnt say horrible things about the victims family. In a not so long ago post he was calling them “in-bred meth heads that protect a pedo (phile)”. and calling the jurors all kinds of names. I honestly do not see how that helps Arias at all!!!You know -since she has endorsed his site on her twitter acct, that she admitted was her twitter account that Donavan Bering runs for her-she calls SJ her angel and his site the ONLY valid site for donating to her. I would not be surprised if Juan Martinez in the next jury sentencing phase shows that site in court along with all the vile things SJ has written about Travis and family. That could big time hurt her. Because her endorsement of his site would lead anyone to believe she encourages that kind of thinking about Travis and family. Wouldnt you think? And that kind of thinking over there…the tone of it and hardly remorseful but in your face.


              • GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

                Hi Also Abused:

                I just wanted to follow up on our recent conversation about SJ and the jaii site. About SJ – you said:

                “In actuality, SJ’s a wonderful man who hosts a website (at significant personal expense)”. “I’m not sure I can convince you that SJ is a real, and very kind, intelligent man (he’s on vacation at the moment), but I can only assure you that he is, and that I have good reason to know the same for an absolute fact”. “I honestly believe there is a very small minority of the posters on JAII who call the Alexander family vile names (at least publicly) and even if they do, many others object, and point to their grief. I truly believe those who post disgusting vile comments about well, anyone, (with exception of JM/Kermit) involved in this trial are there to pose problems for the site, and make us all seem like a vile lot, deliberately to discredit us and the site”.

                You said all of the above about SJ and yet here is only the recent post by him that sounds far from a “very kind and intelligent man” and in fact seems more typical of his every single day posts. (Which I would be happy to re-post too if you’d like to see them.)

                “A status conference set for June 20th. The penalty phase retrial set for July 18th. Fuck the haters and the bad acting money-grubbing inbred meth-head loser family. And just in case anyone needed reminding…
                We are here for the long haul. We are proud to stand behind and support Jodi Arias. Always have done. Always will do. Nothing will ever change that. WE ARE TEAM JODI – AND WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS in our quest for JUSTICE FOR JODI. NEVER DOUBT IT FOR ONE SECOND…
                Team Jodi”

                Need I say more? It just completely baffles me how anyone can think that A.- this guy SJ is a ‘kind and sensitive man’ and B.- how anyone could possibly think that having a website like this out there in “support of Jodi Arias” (and one in which Jodi Arias herself has PERSONALLY vouched for through her Twitter account-the twitter acct she has clarified to the media consists of ONLY her thoughts and words) is in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, IN THE END, GOOD or BENEFICIAL for Jodi Arias’ case, her appeal, or anything. There is NOTHING preventing Juan Martinez from using this guy’s website and all of his incredibly vile blather- as being an extension of the absolute lack of remorse Jodi Arias feels. This has always just baffled me to no end that Jodi Arias isnt’ smart enough to figure this out, her attorneys are not smart enough to figure this out nor any of her other champions claiming she has indeed shown remorse. Jodi Arias -by endorsing this site -letting the world know that only this site and her sites R the only trusted sources for sending donations to her….is telling the world that she obviously AGREES with SJ’s characterization of Travis , Travis’ family (“pedo-huggers” I believe)?, and the JURY. I remember when SJ first started the site he said that he and HIS would never -ever- criticize the jury-even if they came back with a GUILTY verdict- because HE and HIS were far above what happened to the sour grapes folks that were unhappy with Casey Anthony’s jury. But as soon as he found out he had been living in a state of denial and the jury came back GUILTY M1-Cruelty- he could not begin to denigrate and ridicule this jury fast enough!

                I believe there is a very good chance that we will see Juan Martinez bringing certain other things into the sentencing phase retrial that will be a total annihilation for Ms Arias-as it pertains to her “remorse”.


  14. Dennis


    “And I have to qualify about that phone call. There is another possibility consistent with innocence: dissociation. That would be strongly supported by either a guilt scenario or an innocent one, but I’m thinking it’s beyond your ability to entertain, let alone grasp, either way.”

    Tee this up to 45:15 and watch a minute and 1/2 or so. Among other reasons, she’s got to concede deception because at that point she’s already disposed of the gun and other evidence. If you watch further, you’ll see she also sent an alibi text and email a day or so later.

    “My understanding is that she has not said she killed him, but that she doesn’t remember one way or another. I think she said she remembers shooting him, but it seems to be undisputed that the gun shot didn’t kill him.”

    So she shot him but he stabbed and decapitated himself? But if, for argument’s sake, you’d like to seek refuge in “others were there” she’s still guilty. Splitting hairs.

    “In any case, you have the problem of being credulous, believing everything she says – so long as it’s consistent with guilt. Your selection of what to believe and what to disbelieve couldn’t be less random or impartial, and pretty much proves you’re too biased to have a fair opinion on the matter.”

    I believe her or not when the evidence shows good reason,

    I want to also ask something which again goes to gender bias. If the suspect was male would dissociation be believed or would people say that a man would not be so affected because men aren’t that fragile, emotional etc? Maybe dissociation is the new hysteria.

    And, yes, it’s true that I have trouble grasping concepts and differences in terminology, but that’s only because I’m easily distracted by shiny objects. 🙂


    • “Others were there” only equates to “she’s still guilty” if you credit her testimony that she killed him and make inferences consistent with guilt. It’s also possible that others were there and they, and not her, killed him, and that she was not a participant but rather a victim, or a near victim.

      I have said many times that I wouldn’t credit her testimony by itself. The way to look at her might very well be to see her as a piece of evidence in her behavior, and not as an ordinary witness.

      You raise a good point about gender differences. I’m just winging it here, but my guess would be that dissociation is a more common reaction to trauma in females than in males. Males also have odd reactions to trauma, but I think it’s less likely to be dissociation. It’s not bias to recognize that the sexes have differences, and this may be one of them.

      I think dissociation is a tough sell in a trial setting, for sure. That doesn’t mean it’s not true or hasn’t happened. There’s no magic about being the police or putting a person under oath that makes dissociation disappear.

      After viewing that 48 hours piece, I’d be interested to know exactly what Detective Flores did to investigate the possibility that there were others there. He seems to indicate that he looked into it, but no one has delineated over here what precisely was done. Given the unexplained failure to identify the shoeprint, the natural answer would seem to be little if anything, but if someone else has more information I’d be glad to hear it.


      • JMRJ, when Detective Flores first testified, the jurors had some interesting questions for him in regards to his investigation.

        As I recall, they asked if the roommates showed any concern for Travis’s extended absence, if he checked their alibis, if he had another roommate living there, if fingerprints were taken of the roommates to see if they matched any crime scene fingerprints, and where they were during the killing. I believe Flores responded that there was no other roommate, that one roommate was working, and the other was at his girlfriend’s house, the the fingerprints and DNA of the roommates did not match the crime scene, and that the roommates all assumed Travis was already in Cancun.

        That pretty much seems to sum up the extent of his investigative work other than that which is contained in the police report, which you have already read.


      • Dennis

        I can’t see why anyone would claim self-defense if they didn’t kill someone and there wasn’t proof of same. And, yes, just to state the obvious, there was evidence that she killed him.

        Something you may like know when considering this case–and I offer this simply for your overall comprehension–is that the defense reached out to the prosecution about a murder 2 plea. The document is here: pdf

        I added a space before .pdf


      • Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

        J, I am glad to read that you concede it appears detective Flores did investigate whether others were present. But the real reason no one else discusses that he in fact did is becs A. Admitting he looked into it does not support the conspiracy against j arias and the insistance this was all a set up against her and B. when there is nothing to report becs there is no evidence of anyone else, other than saying that and/or eliminating specific others who Had access to house, like the roommates, and their activities and alibis WERE explained, what ELSE would u see on ANY police investigation? Again the bloody boot print WAS addressed in court. But you aren’t listening or watching actual trial…so…tell me again why you are not? Wouldn’t u agree that to make a reasoned judgement on anything related to this case you should really be paying attention to that rather than listening to bloggers opinions that may or may not be based on other motives????


        • Guilty, you seem to miss the point entirely that Travis regularly left the door to his house open. That means literally that scores of people (including roommates, delivery personnel and even complete strangers) could have had access to his house.

          Flores did NOT thoroughly investigate whether or not Dustin Thompson was involved even though the police department received a tip that he might, and upon follow up, learned information from his wife that could actually establish a motive for Dustin to have killed Travis. Likewise, he did NOT investigate Lisa’s tip regarding John Hepworth, a recent former roommate of Travis Alexander’s with whom Travis had disagreements. Nothing to report? Those were two important tips.

          My question is have YOU listened to the ONLY testimony regarding the boot print from Heather Conner? And have you EVER read the police report? At least JMRJ did that.


          • I should also point out that the ONLY investigation Flores did of the roommates was to interview them. There is NO indication in the police report that their alibis were EVER corroborated. They should have fallen under at least some suspicion since they did not smell a badly decomposing body in the house in which they lived and spent significant time in during the course of five days. But that’s what you call an investigation?


        • Guilty, I conceded that Flores said he investigated that, not that he actually did. Maybe he thinks what he did was adequate. I don’t know. But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that it was in fact adequate.

          Maybe they “addressed” the bloody shoe print in court, but the addressing consisted of saying it was never positively typed or identified, right?

          That’s not comforting.


  15. Dennis

    Oops. “Tee this up to 45:15 and watch a minute and 1/2 or so.” It’s here:


    • Dennis

      Gee, I didn’t expect the actual video to be posted. Never seen pasting a link do that before. My apologies if that’s a problem.


    • Denny, what you’re seeing there is a rather standard, workman-like prosecutor-beats-up-on-defendant-who-testifies-and-makes-them-look-guilty example. Don’t be taken in, it’s not as impressive as it seems.

      He’s getting her to admit things here that she probably shouldn’t be admitting, and it might not even be the truth, not that she necessarily knows the difference. In other words, what was the “motive” in making those phone calls? I don’t know that she even knows. As a cover up tactic it’s spectacularly ineffective. It’s much more readily understood as weird dissociative behavior, and this is also weird but the dissociative person usually doesn’t have what the psychobabblers call “insight” into their own behavior. It’s as much a mystery to them as anyone else.

      Perhaps this is interesting to you – but probably not – nevertheless, the post-murder behavior she exhibits is much more naturally explained by dissociation than by calculation, and that’s true whether you believe the guilt scenario or the innocence (3rd party did it) scenario. Dissociation would be a very likely reaction even if she killed him.

      I don’t know if her attorneys were aware of any of this, which is also disturbing, although it might not be their fault. After all, they’re not psychiatrists, they’re lawyers. I’m getting the sense, although I didn’t watch the trial, that perhaps her biggest problem was her documented and admitted behavior after the murder. Without the dissociation explanation, a guilty/coverup inference would be the natural one for the jury, especially if effectively argued by the prosecutor, which I have no doubt it was here.

      It really does seem that the self defense play was a big error. Hard to fit a lot of the facts into that box.


      • JMRJ, I’m curious, do you think it’s ever a “winning” situation when a defendant testifies?

        In a case like this, with a tricky aggressive prosecutor like Martinez, who beats up EVERY witness (even some of his own), it was really tough to watch.


        • I think it is often a winning situation for the defendant to testify, though of course not always (I’m trying not to confuse Denny here.). If at all possible you do it. It increases the chances of an acquittal dramatically, but of course there are pitfalls, too.

          She would have had a much easier time explaining herself if she had been acquainted with the dissociation phenomenon. Apparently nobody even brought up this word, not even her own psychologist experts? I mean, it fits so well that’s kind of hard to believe. It’s not like dissociation is all that obscure a notion. I’d be pretty amazed if no one thought of it under these circumstances, but at this point I have a lot of reservations about how she was defended here. It might be that Nurmi (sp?) didn’t believe her intruder story, or thought no one would believe it, but I don’t think it was investigated thoroughly enough by anyone, including him.

          Her account in the 48 hours piece seemed to come much more naturally to her, weird though her demeanor was given the horrific event she was describing. Commenter Buck’s take on the MLM mindset and how that might tie in here is really interesting in my view. The people who get drawn into those things are often vacuous to begin with. Maybe vacuous is too strong a word. It’s just that whole culture seems to foster this un-serious “happy face” approach to everything, and of course that seems terribly out of place in this context, but it’s so much a part of their learned behavior that they revert to it even in the most extraordinary – and serious -of circumstances, such as when there has been a horrible murder and the police are all over you.

          So she does interviews, following the MLM dogma of you determine the sale. Pretty ridiculous, but that’s the way that mindset is.


          • Dr. Richard Samuels, a forensic psychologist, did testify to dissociation actually, and at length. It was to explain her fugue in not remembering anything beyond the gun going off and Travis lunging at her.

            Dr. DeMarte, a very inexperienced psychologist (less than 3 years post-grad and only 1 year in practice when she evaluated Jodi), testified for the prosecution and essentially ripped apart Dr. Samuels’ testimony regarding dissociation. She claimed that Jodi missing many hours entirely from her memory is not typical according to her textbooks.

            She also dismissed PTSD and domestic abuse. She found Travis to engage in “infrequent inappropriate communication” (cough cough) instead of being abusive, because he was also occasionally very nice. And she diagnosed Jodi with borderline personality disorder.

            She also claimed to have 8 years of experience counting all of her graduate work, even though she was essentially a permanent student prior to obtaining her doctorate. But, it seems, the jury bought her testimony and disregarded Dr. Samuels and Alyce LaViolette entirely.


            • Well, another tragedy here, then, is that Samuel’s testimony would have gone a lot better if he hadn’t been hamstrung by the self-defense strategy, which was especially problematic given the wounds and the fact that for a long time she had maintained the intruders did it.

              I don’t understand why everyone thought the intruder scenario was so far-fetched. I mean I understand that some of the details she described seemed too unlikely, but the basic idea that someone else came in and did this? It was at least worth investigating.

              And as you can see, picking the wrong strategy to argue can really torpedo everything, even your own expert witnesses.


            • Well, the point for me is not that she’s inexperienced as much as she’s a sellout and a hack for prosecutors. PTSD and dissociation are almost a given, and in any case are consistent even with a guilt scenario, just apparently not the precise one the prosecution wanted to argue, so she testifies accordingly, gets to keep her job or get promoted, doesn’t get threatened by the braying mob, and so on.

              Low character is often rewarded in our criminal justice system. It’s too bad.


              • Thank you JMRJ. My thoughts were that her testimony was a sell out also. But commenters here such as Kim thought she was wonderful. She was all about the textbook and testing.

                Then again, Dr. Samuels made one big mistake. When Jodi changed (with his and her lawyer’s “gentle” urging) from the story of the intruders to self-defense with fugue, he did not re-administer the PDS test (which apparently gauges PTSD). Martinez argued that he should have. Dr. Samuels agreed it was an oversight — not helpful. Martinez went on to suggest that Dr. Samuels (a grandfatherly-type man with 35 years of experience) had feelings for Jodi because he had sent her a book while she was feeling suicidal.

                Later, when Dr. DeMarte testified, she said sending a book was unethical. One of the jurors asked if she would throw out a PDS test if the test taker lied and said a bear attacked her when it was really a tiger. DeMarte said yes, she would because it would be a different event.


            • AA, I saw some of the testimony about PTSD in the later 48 hours program. Here’s one problem: the focus seemed to be on ‘amnesia’, but the PTSD and dissociation thing can involve not so much amnesia, as in you forget everything, but confused and selective memory. Plus, the primary thing with dissociation is the disconnect, emotional or mental or both. The significance of that is this would be more consistent with seemingly conscious or even calculating behavior because it’s more like an exaggerated form of denial than amnesia.

              But it’s a tough sell to a jury, since a person doing those things can also be characterized as cold and calculating and manipulative, appellations that I’m sure have been applied abundantly to JA and will be more now that the guilty verdict is in. From what I could see Martinez was effective in keeping the focus on an “amnesia” claim, even though that really wasn’t the idea.


              • “From what I could see Martinez was effective in keeping the focus on an “amnesia” claim, even though that really wasn’t the idea.”

                JMRJ, you are correct. That was one of Martinez’s many attempts throughout the trial to manipulate defense witness testimony into something that may have appeared credible into something that then appeared ridiculous. Of course, that is the job of a lawyer; although I, in my naivete, always believed prosecutors have special responsibilities.


      • Dennis


        He asked her a simple question about making the alibi call, and does so in a mild mannered way. There is no “making her look guilty.” That is laughable and a poor attempt to cast evidence you don’t like in a better light.

        Incidentally, you continue to wonder about other assailants. In doing so, you have at times, referred to the suspect’s pretrial story of two masked perpetrators, So which is it, JMRJ, does she remember the entire event or is she dissociative?


        • “Alibi” call? That not only assumes the point in issue, I’m not sure is even fits the content of the call. The call is plainly an effort to demonstrate a lack of knowledge that Travis is dead, but so far as I remember there was no effort in that call to place herself elsewhere at the time of the killing. The latter is what we call an ‘alibi’.

          So the question then is, who is she trying to convince that she is unaware that Travis is dead? Not the person she called – Travis – who is in fact dead. Possibly she is trying to convince herself. That’s consistent with dissociation.

          Which brings up another important point: dissociation and amnesia are not the same. With amnesia you remember nothing; but with dissociation you might remember some things and not others, you might mix and match a lot. Dissociation is mainly about an emotional or mental detachment from, say, a traumatic event, not about blocking it out completely, as in amnesia. So your dichotomy is a false one.

          I’m sensitive to the argument that this dissociation business is a scenario we might – might, apparently not here – believe about a woman, but never about a man. If it’s any consolation, I have always been open to the idea that Scott Peterson out there in CA might have gotten a raw deal.


          • Dennis

            “Alibi” call? That not only assumes the point in issue, I’m not sure is even fits the content of the call. The call is plainly an effort to demonstrate a lack of knowledge that Travis is dead,…. ”

            JMRJ, you apparently didn’t watch what I posted; she admits it was an alibi call. That notwithstanding, for what other reason would a person call someone they know is dead? You’re obviously not obtuse, so you’re simply being contrarian.

            I’m off to other threads/posts as I think the debate herein has come to it’s end, and really has for a while.


            • Well, Denny what she “admits” is neither here nor there, but it was nice having you. Bon soir.


              • Ludicrous! I’ve actually called a dead person myself, a good friend who passed away, simply because I could NOT bring myself to admit that I would no longer be able to speak with him live ever again. I deluded myself into thinking that if I left several messages on his voicemail, perhaps he would find a way to leave one back. I know many people who have done the same. I must either be obtuse or a contrarian, per Denny’s logic, anyway; as must my friends.

                I wonder if the proverbial door will hit Denny on his back on the way out. So many of these fly-by-night shooters simply cannot handle debate of any logical manner. “Resistance is futile.” Once they leave here, they must quickly return to whence they came for swift reprogramming, I can only assume. “These humans will become like me. Prepare them for hybridization or EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE.”


  16. Buck Eschaton

    I think you have very good intuition that someone else was there.
    1. Was he seeing another woman at the time of his murder, someone other than Jody? Was he in a relationship with someone else? Is that true, or was I misunderstanding that 48 Hours video? Was he “cultivating” other relationships? Did someone else know that Jody was there that night? Somebody who may have resented the fact that TA was cheating on this/these other women? Which would cause dissension in the economic and religious structures. If you were writing a novel this would be something interesting to explore.
    2. That 48 Hours video is very interesting and odd. Jody is supernaturally well spoken, she has really internalized the communication structures of MLM sales and Real World-type television. Wow, she can talk, granted that she doesn’t really say much of anything, and really doesn’t do a very good job endearing herself to you. Just a seemingly thoughtful voice droning on and on, trying to say what you want to hear.
    3. From the first part of the 48 Hours video it seemed like the community was preparing both Jody and Travis to be scapegoats.
    4. I don’t think you can rely on anything anybody says in this case, they all seem to be very unreliable narrators.


    • Buck, I’ll try to respond to your questions to the best of my knowledge:

      “1. Was he seeing another woman at the time of his murder, someone other than Jody? Was he in a relationship with someone else? Is that true, or was I misunderstanding that 48 Hours video? Was he “cultivating” other relationships?”

      Marie “Mimi” Hall testified that she was involved with Travis during the weeks leading up to his death. She went on two dates with him and told him that she was not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with him further. He had previously (about a month beforehand) invited her to join him on a trip to Cancun which he, and his upline in PPL had won, as a group vacation, and it was too late to change the plans, so she agreed to go as friends. Per Jodi (and her journals and texts between Travis and Jodi), Travis was going through a difficult time with Mimi’s rejection.

      According to Jodi’s testimony (and I believe her journals, but would have to double-check that), Travis told Jodi he received divine intervention that Mimi was the woman to whom he should propose matrimony. He was having a difficult time with her rejection of him.

      According to Alyce LaViolette’s testimony of her review of Travis’s text/email/instant message communications, there were as many as 10-12 women he was pursuing and/or engaging in romantic/sexual communications with at any given time, at least one of whom was married.

      He may still have been continuing a relationship with Deanna Reid during that time, a previous girlfriend who testified that they had a sexual relationship and who often cared for his dog. He left his dog to Deanna in his will.

      In addition, Ashley Reed (formerly Thompson) was the married woman who left the anonymous tip for the police (later traced to her cell) that her husband, Dustin, may have been involved in Travis’s death. She also told police that she had been thinking of moving in with Travis after separating from her husband, but had decided otherwise, and moved elsewhere shortly before Travis’s death. She described Dustin’s behaviour as “strange” around the time of Travis’s death. The police did not interview Dustin.

      “Did someone else know that Jody was there that night? Somebody who may have resented the fact that TA was cheating on this/these other women? Which would cause dissension in the economic and religious structures.”

      Both of Travis’s roommates were interviewed by police, but neither testified, oddly enough. As far as I can see, neither were asked whether they knew of Jodi’s presence that day. One saw Travis at about 11:30 a.m. in passing, while leaving the house. He didn’t mention Jodi who would have been there at that time but also didn’t remember “anyone” being at the house that week. He also didn’t see her when he returned to the house in the afternoon between 3-4 p.m. He knew Jodi, however.

      The other roommate spoke to Travis in the morning early of the day of his death. Travis said he only had 45 minutes of sleep. He also thought he saw him that evening at around 6 p.m. (but that would not be possible if Travis was already dead by then).

      It’s been many years since I had male roommates. I usually knew they had someone over because I would smell their perfume or notice the toilet seat down or the toilet paper handled carefully or other signs. But perhaps that’s because I’m female.

      Jodi was driving a rental and we don’t know where she parked it, so it’s entirely possible no one noticed it, I suppose.


      • HonestAbe

        Certainly, an affair with a married woman could be the kiss of death but there could be speculation that he may have dealt drugs to help make ends meet, or may have caught the attention of a devout Mormon who decided to take punishment into his own hands as John noted before.
        I also wondered about the car. If it were in the driveway, someone would certainly noticed it. Also, many subdivisions have a policy in their CC&Rs that you may not park on the street overnight. To enforce it, many will fine the house nearest to where the car was parked.


    • Buck, one rather significant feature of that 48 hours interview is when they’re asking her whether she has seen “the photos” and she says she did and there was someone’s leg pictured (this is in the one where Travis appears to be already under attack) and she says it had to be the woman’s leg because the man was wearing blue-jeans.

      Now, this has the ring of truth in the sense that she’s got a picture in her mind of an event that includes what the people were wearing, a detail that suggests – though it does not, of course guarantee – a real event.

      But I also got the sense that most of the details she related about what happened during the actual crime were improbable. Like going to grab Travis to try and get him away. At what point in the melee that must have occurred would there be an opportunity for that?

      There’s another thing that’s significant that people should have chewed on a long time ago: the two individuals being a man and a woman is unlikely. For what must have been a planned assassination it would almost certainly be two men. In other words, I don’t believe her that it was a man and a woman.

      Why would she give false information about that? I think the most likely reason is that she was raped in the bedroom by one man while her boyfriend was being horribly murdered in the hallway and the bathroom by the other. She is so ashamed of that that she claims the other person there was a woman, to preclude anyone else from suspecting that she was raped. It’s weird how much shame, really pathological shame, rape generates in the victim as opposed to the rapist.

      Weren’t the items that were left in the washing machine Travis’ new camera and the bed clothes? Why would she wash only the bed clothes? But if she were raped on the bed the rapist would do that in an effort to eliminate his own physical evidence at the crime scene.

      It’s something to think about. It’s something that should have already been thought about, if not by the police then certainly by the army of experts and lawyers that attended her later.


      • JMRJ, those are very interesting thoughts actually.

        The bed clothes (with the camera) were actually found in the dryer. Other clothing items (socks, shorts, religious underwear, etc.) belong to Travis were found in the washing machine.

        Just in case you don’t know, the camera contained some extremely graphic nude photos of both her and Travis. There was one of her genitalia taken from behind, with her bending over, for example. Those photos were all taken much earlier in the day (around 1 p.m.).


        • Just the bedclothes and the camera, right? I take it from something else I heard somewhere – this is getting confusing – that in fact the camera and the bedclothes were determined to have gone through the washer and dryer cycle, is that right?

          I mean, she would have an incentive to do that, too, although she would have an incentive to do a lot more and she apparently didn’t.

          It’s so tough when the people who are in charge of the crime scene don’t just gather everything like they’re supposed to. The shoeprint. Did they even look for unknown DNA, as opposed to DNA matching this or that person? Hair? If the intruders were covered up including ski masks maybe it’s unlikely they would have left any evidence like that, but I don’t have a good feeling that any of this was seriously investigated. Ugh.

          And you know, if she was raped then unless she was, or at some point is, approached the right way she might take that secret to her grave. That’s how profound the shame of it is for some victims.


          • “in fact the camera and the bedclothes were determined to have gone through the washer and dryer cycle, is that right?”

            That is correct. Please note that she was a semi-professional photographer at the time, so she presumably would have known that a wash cycle would not obliterate a memory card within a camera.

            “The shoeprint. Did they even look for unknown DNA, as opposed to DNA matching this or that person? Hair?”

            I recall no testimony to that effect, other than they found Jodi’s DNA in the palm print on the wall, mixed with Travis’s, and they found a strand of Jodi’s hair at the crime scene. (Although, since she was his lover, that’s not unusual.)

            I think is her family was threatened, she might also choose to take that to her grave, sadly.


            • HonestAbe

              John is really thinking this through as usual. I would have to agree that it would likely be two men. My friend’s father was murdered in a contract hit and it was two males. I am not saying that there is a connection, but the second shooter unloaded a double barrel shotgun into his neck. The attack on Travis’ throat seems similar.
              I also noted then inconsistency with the camera. If she had planned it, she would have certainly turned off the auto date function and taken the card. It just doesn’t make sense that someone would go to great lengths to cover up a visit to Mesa and then leave the card. For that matter, if she planned it, it would seem likely that she would even try to cut the bullet out. But once again, why use the same gun that was stolen from a relative, risk someone hearing it, then leave it and the shell behind? Well, John’s explanation is a good one. Such psychological trauma of hearing him being killed while getting raped would certainly be upsetting. In fact, maybe that’s why she tried to clean him up with a cup of water in the shower and asked Flores to see the photos of the scene.


  17. HonestAbe

    Sorry for the absence. Looks like I missed some good debate. I have been doing my regular battles with the haters on other sites and am always amazed at how little they have to stand on. It’s typically one of the two: “She’s guilty and I know it.” or “There is a ton of evidence against her.” Obviously, the majority of these people have had their heads in the sand. I have pointed them to this site but I found another article written by another lawyer who also perceptibly noted that Juan didn’t prove premeditation which is the crux of this case, at least as I see it. This is a good read:

    I doubt that Nurmi and Wilmott will want another round but there has to be another defense attorney who is willing to take this on. If, on appeal, they pick apart the actual evidence not to mention the likelihood of the jurors not having watched the antics of HLN on TV is probably 1M:1, I would think they should be able to get her acquitted provided they focus only on the evidence and really attack the antics and the absurd suppositions provided by Martinez.

    All in all, I am amazed at how easily Martinez (and HLN) has roped in supporters and generated so much hatred based on such flimsy evidence. His entire case hinges on sucking people into the emotional turmoil rather than facts.
    The only thing I can say is good luck finding anyone that has not already formed an opinion on this case when the trial resumes. I can bet you won’t find anyone with a nose under two feet long sitting on that jury. In the meantime, here’s hoping that Wilmott subpoenas the records from telecommunication companies regarding websites viewed and stations watched by jurors.


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