There’s no way this doesn’t seem surreal, no matter what your views on the guilt/innocence/fair trial issues.
Of course I feel the same way about “victim impact statements”.
Trial as soap opera doesn’t help with the public frenzy problem.
Impression, 2:13 EDT: It’s like she’s in a play, playing a role. Grounded in a detached drama, not fact. I’m still not buying that she killed him. I’d be impressed, and not necessarily in a good way, that under the circumstances she’s able to muster up the resolve and courage – or audacity, as the case may be – to make this speech, but instead I think she’s totally in la-la land. Clueless.
I would agree with the many on twitter who say she showed no contrition or remorse. It’s entirely possible, though, that the real reason is: she didn’t do it.
We’re at the same place they should have been at the very beginning of the investigation: we don’t know whether she is a history making but small scale sociopath, or utterly innocent of this killing. Neither is more likely than the other. Everything everyone has done in the intervening five years hasn’t really accomplished anything, except to browbeat the defendant and her attorneys and put on a giant spectacle for the plebeians public.
Lawyers on Strike 
It was very difficult to watch. She has always been stoic, just like her mother. I wish the death penalty did not exist. This young beautiful eloquent woman should not have to beg for her life.
LikeLike
I just think the procedure is ridiculous, not really her. What exactly is the convicted of an especially cruel murder person supposed to say?
Like I said, to be able to transcend all that and actually get up there and give a power-point presentation is impressive, either way. But if you’re asking me, the far more likely reason is not stoicism. Nobody could be that stoic. She’s emotionally and mentally disconnected from the event and what’s going on around her. That’s dissociation.
She doesn’t really believe she killed him. She has accepted everyone telling her she did and internalized that to the greatest degree she is capable of, which isn’t enough to make it real to her or anyone else she tells.
Just my impression. I do think there are a lot of good appeal issues, no matter what happens.
LikeLike
“What exactly is the convicted of an especially cruel murder person supposed to say?”
Exactly, JMRJ. And what does the jury want to hear? “I’m so sorry I did this. Please let me live.” I mean, this is the same jury that first convicted her, and then found her crime to be especially cruel. Do they even want to hear ANYTHING she has to say?
I honestly think that to stand before a jury that convicted you and appeal to them, you have to be disconnected. I was completely disconnected from my own emotions when I gave a victim impact statement to a jury after they convicted a stranger-stalker, and that wasn’t even close to what Jodi did today.
What do you think are the best issues for appeal? I know you haven’t seen the entire trial, but you’ve heard bits and pieces.
LikeLike
Appeal? Intimidation of witnesses, mob-dominated trial, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct including knowing perjury, plus anything else I haven’t thought of off the top of my head, plus any state law grounds, substantive or procedural that I wouldn’t know because I don’t do Arizona.
The “best” issue, as in most likely to succeed, is always ineffective assistance, because the system doesn’t mind if defense lawyers are blamed. They don’t like when prosecutors or judges are to blame. Somehow the former doesn’t reduce confidence in the “system”, but the latter does.
The “system”, in other words, in the minds of most judges consists of prosecutors, police and them. Defense lawyers are all renegades, irresponsible and not part of the system proper.
They’d never explicitly admit that this is how they think, but it is how they think.
LikeLike
In AZ, they can’t argue IAC in a direct appeal — only in PRC.
LikeLike
There are good reasons for that. Direct appeal court can only go on the trial court record but there might be better evidence of IAC outside the record; so, if direct appeal court rules on that issue it might moot any other evidence of IAC the appellant has. Better to just save it for a collateral proceeding where you can introduce new evidence.
LikeLike
Ok, so, I read up a little on Moore v. Dempsey. Was the central issue in that decision the mob outside the trial, the behavior of the press, the threats against witnesses? In which case, the similarities are striking.
Or was the central issue that the defendants’ trial was a farce that lasted only 45 minutes with no defense raised at all? In which case, there’s no similarity. Say what you will about the defense they raised, but they did raise one.
Also, could you explain in plain language what habeas corpus is in this context and how it relates to “collateral attacks” on appeal? If I’m going to rubberneck this tragic farce, I might as well use it to educate myself.
Finally, what are the chances, realistically, that an appeals court will issue a decision to “teach a lesson” to the public or the media, as you mentioned in an earlier post? Even if they did, I’m afraid the lesson would be lost. I imagine it would take years and everyone will have moved on by then. The public wants its pound of flesh NOW. By the time this winds its way through appeals, I doubt it would produce much more than a ripple of grumbling about our “criminal coddling” system — which, judging by the majority of online comments, should have executed her prior to this trial.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about these public trials is how much total strangers get invested in their opinions about guilt or innocence. I don’t know if she’s guilty or innocent, but since I have nothing to do with any of the people or agencies involved, I have the luxury of not really caring that much whether she’s guilty or innocent.
LikeLike
Moore v. Dempsey is regarded as a case about mob dominated trials, not ineffective assistance of counsel. F. Lee Bailey successfully argued that issue in the Sam Sheppard murder case in the 1960’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Lee_Bailey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
Habeas corpus is an exceptionally complicated area of law, especially federal court habeas corpus reviewing state court convictions. States have their own habeas corpus laws, generally. In either case, however, habeas corpus proceedings, or other collateral attacks, are a procedural vehicle where you can cite evidence that is “newly discovered” or otherwise isn’t in the trial court record. In a direct appeal, the appellate court is restricted to evidence that is in the trial court record, or evidence that was offered but not admitted into evidence, as long as there was a showing of what that evidence would be.
Briefly, you can only bring a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court about a state court criminal conviction if there is a federal issue, and you have to have raised that issue first in the state courts and “exhausted” it, meaning that you have given the state courts a full and fair opportunity to rule upon the federal issue. State courts are as bound by federal law when it pertains as federal courts are. In theory. If you look at the most recent motions filed by the defense lawyers in this case, you’ll see that they raise a number of federal constitutional issues. This is in part to preserve JA’s options in federal habeas corpus.
Realistically, the chances that any appellate court will do anything about any criminal conviction are extremely small, although cases like this where there has been so much attention bust the statistical curve to some extent.
I think you are properly getting the sense that this was not a fair trial for any number of reasons.
You ask exceptionally good questions and are a very intelligent commenter.
LikeLike
Aw….thank you. That’s kind. The truth is, I’m just bored with most of the conversations about this case and you alleviated my boredom by making an argument for a third-party assailant, which I still don’t believe, but it was so much better than any other arguments for a third-party assailant that I got intrigued.
I guess I’m outing myself as to my position. I went from believing her guilty to believing her innocent to “I seriously have NO idea and I feel sheepish for getting so caught up in it, because it really is a tragedy no matter what happened.”
Ultimately, none of it matters. Not only because it’s going to go right on being a tragedy either way, and not only because I’m I painfully bored with the arguments on both sides, but I think it’s inarguable that the verdict isn’t reliable because of the mob mentality surrounding the trial. And whether one thinks she’s guilty or innocent, that’s really, really bad either way.
It’s not the fault of the jurors. And it is possible they would have rendered the same verdict. The trouble is, we can’t possibly know. I don’t believe jurors would vote diametrically opposed to their conscience (again, I’m an optimist), but factor in a phenomenal atmosphere of threat and the distance between “guilty” and “yeah, probably guilty” disappears.
Everyone knows what happened to the Casey Anthony jurors. Everyone knows that same public was watching and knew what that public wanted. A reliable verdict can’t be rendered under those conditions.
If the jury had been sequestered, I would likely accept the verdict. I’m the one who pointed out that the Casey Anthony jurors were shocked at the level of press coverage and the level of anger directed at them. I believe they were shocked because they were sequestered under extreme conditions. They had chaperones most of the time, including when they ate together, spoke to family, or used the Internet. They were escorted into court to avoid the press.
I would much rather accept the verdict. Like anybody else, I’d prefer to believe the system works, at least more often than not. But I don’t see how it can be and it shouldn’t have to be — jurors shouldn’t be put in that position in the first place. They shouldn’t have to fear coming back with any decision, no matter what that decision is. In this case, they could not have acquitted her at all without severe repercussions. Again, that’s just inarguable. The lesser charges would probably have met corresponding degrees of outcry to one extent or another. But all options were not on their table.
Would I have accepted the verdict had they acquitted her? In a purely theoretical sense, no. Because those conditions render the verdict unreliable, no matter what it was. In a practical sense, I might have, just because (a) it couldn’t have been appealed anyway and (b), more importantly, the angry mob outside wasn’t screaming for her to be released. Sometimes they do and I wouldn’t consider an acquittal under those circumstances reliable.
On the other hand, it’s a lot more interesting to talk about what the courts can do or are likely to do than what I, with my non-existent law degree, think they should do.
LikeLike
We might in fact be in new territory on this trial by media issue.
For years there have been debates about cameras in the courtroom, and at present it’s a patchwork nationwide. Now we’re seeing that perhaps that whole debate has been overtaken by events, because visual media is ubiquitous and available to everyone. One place you see the effect of this is the police brutality cases where the cops lie about what happened and then a video recording from someone’s cell phone turns up, because video recording cell phones are everywhere now. Half a century ago, when the Sheppard case was decided, this wasn’t even possible.
The public might be getting confused, collectively, about the line between fiction and reality, what with “reality TV” and all. Is “Jersey Shore” real or fiction? I saw an episode of that, and from what I could tell it’s a blend. It’s unscripted and staged at the same time.
You can look at 10 minutes of twitter feed under the Jodi Arias hash-tag and be as appalled at the comments you see as you are by the sight of Travis Alexander’s body lying in the shower. One competes to out-ugly the other.
I think the legal profession is not handling this well, much as it seems to fail at a lot of things. Certainly the profession should speak with one voice about due process and fair trial rights, and most especially about jury verdicts, but then you have Nancy Grace. She claims to be a lawyer but whips up a mob when there are trials going on. I think this is a serious problem, and the general public can take a lot of liberties that maybe they otherwise wouldn’t because they figure Grace, being a lawyer, makes it acceptable.
I’m not sure what to do about it all, but you’re right that the most interesting non-prurient thing about this JA fiasco is this “mobbing” issue.
LikeLike
JMRJ, You write:
“She doesn’t really believe she killed him. She has accepted everyone telling her she did and internalized that to the greatest degree she is capable of, which isn’t enough to make it real to her or anyone else she tells.”
I guess you keep putting aside the fact that she doesn’t REMEMBER killing him……and that is why she comes off as “dissociated”. How can it be “real” to her if she doesn’t REMEMBER?
And this has been Jodi’s problem all her life: she ‘INTERNALIZES” everything people say about her…including what Travis said to her about herself. She tells people what she knows they want to hear……yep, I did it; yep, I deserve the verdict you gave me; yep, I am the horrible person you say I am.” “They told me I have worth (my lawyers)…..so I am going to repeat what they told me even though I don’t believe it”. Here are some pictures of my art work…..”they” say it is good, but I am not really sure.
I KNOW THIS WOMAN……I have BEEN HER, and to some degree I still am.
LikeLike
Well here’s the thing: with dissociation, as opposed to amnesia, you remember and don’t remember. You mix and match things, some are factual and pertain to the situation because you remember them, and some are fantasy. For example, when she says she remembers Travis naked on his hands and knees, I think she saw that. When she says that the second person there was a woman I think that isn’t true. When she says she grabbed her purse and ran out and got away I think that didn’t happen.
I agree that she might be a person who accepts others’ bad judgments of her very readily. But I can’t rule out that she’s another kind of person entirely, though I think that’s unlikely and I’m more inclined to agree with you.
LikeLike
JMRJ, you wrote:
“Well here’s the thing: with dissociation, as opposed to amnesia, you remember and don’t remember.”
This statement clearly shows that you did not watch the trial and especially did not pay any attention to Dr. Samuels description of “dissociative _amnesia_”. You are analyzing only one concept of “dissociative amnesia”, the “dissociative” part. Dictionary definitiion…in psychology: “the process of which a group of mental activities breaks away from the main stream of consciousness and functions as a separate unit”. What he explained as “amnesia” was that the memory does not FORM in the brain….so it will never recover in memory where you remember “parts” of it, but not all of it. Apparently you have disdain for a psychologist’s explanation and just don’t believe “amnesia” took place here at all.
“Amnesia”: partial or total loss of memory caused by brain injury, or by _shock_ or repression”. In this case, shock or “trauma” caused the brain to not form or retain the memory.
I really wish you would stick to the testimony presented at trial and not this speculation about her second story of “intruders”, which is entirely irrelevant in concluding whether the prosecution proved its case in this trial, with the evidence presented, and based on that evidence as presented to conclude it was the “correct verdict”. You may want to throw in all you know that the jury did not know when coming to your personal conclusion about guilt or innocence, but you cannot use these “facts” to conclude the jury came to the correct verdict with what _they_ knew.
LikeLike
Well, I didn’t watch the trial and don’t plan to. I try not to have disdain for anyone’s opinion, even psychologists. I think considering other scenarios is especially useful in this case, because there’s a huge amount of ambient noise out there and a lot of investigating apparently wasn’t done.
I and some others find that a more fruitful are of inquiry than you do, I guess, but I certainly don’t mind your focus either.
But I will say as yet another matter of trial strategy, that if I had a viable scenario where I would have to dirty up the victim, and another where I didn’t have to do that, then other things being equal I would opt for the latter. Attacking the victim of a murder is pretty distasteful to a lot of jurors, and no matter when you do that it’s kind of ugly. I’d avoid it if I could.
That would take most of the abuse stuff out of the picture. I don’t think that would be a bad thing either. You might be more anxious to have a jury deal seriously with an abuse related defense than I am. Personally I think it’s always going to be a tough sell, especially in a murder case.
You know, I am the host around here. Don’t I get to opine somewhat freely? Are there no privileges pertaining thereto? LOL
LikeLike
You’re kidding right … appeal issues? What colour is the sky in your world? She is a cold blooded killer who couldn’t take being rejected by Travis. No way was she going to allow him to move on with his life unless she was part of it. She premeditated his murder but, thankfully, was not smart enough to get away with it.
The judge in this case bent over backwards for the defense allowing them to fling any bullshit they wanted at the jury in an attempt to get the murdering bitch off. Good thing the jury had more sense than the defendant, and saw through her lies and non-existent fog.
Her last statement, before sentence was handed down, proved her ‘fog’ was a pretense in order to not answer questions that would condemn her. Her final words, “I remember when the knife went in his throat, he was still conscious.”
Her decision to hurt the Alexander family one last time sealed her fate. There will be no issues to appeal. If there were, the filing of her appeal would be finalized by now. By the looks of things her appellate attorneys are not even close to doing so.
LikeLike
Well, just briefly you should try to understand that many appeal issues have nothing to do with the defendant’s guilt or innocence, so without meaning to be insulting nevertheless your comment demonstrates that you are largely ignorant in such matters. Beyond that, I wonder what is prompting the interest in this subject today.
LikeLike
Her defense should have been “I didn’t do it!” with tightly closed lips immediately following.
I heard all about her sex life from the prosecution and the media, but nothing in the way of hard evidence…
LikeLike
Mark, yes, she was “dirtied up” pretty well, from lots of sources. That’s a prosecutor tactical term, you know. They talk about “dirtying up the defendant” especially when they have a weak case on the facts.
LikeLike
Wow. I could have sworn I heard far, far more about the nitty-gritty dirty details of her/their sex life from the defense team. What I do remember is that Kirk Nurmi asked the defendant on direct about every single little detail in terms of the sex, positions etc and her feelings about every single little detail. Nurmi wanted at every turn to say this trial was REALLY about sex, lies and dirty little secrets. I don’t think the jury saw it that way though. I know I did not. I could care less about how adventurous they were, how much sex they were having, how much or how little or with whom she had other sex or how much he or she liked the sex. Sex is not against the law. But I am sure everyone is very well aware this is a common tactic used in defense cases and in trials like this. When you cannot change the facts change the conversation. Its just a drag for the defense that people are pretty hip to this at this point.
LikeLike
AA, how are you? I of course watched as well, and have to say I was surprised (pleasantly) at the content of her statement. It has frustrated me though, reading people’s thoughts on social media. People forget that the jury does not know everything we know (assuming the admonition has been followed). The t shirt did not offend me one bit. The jury does not know the history/statement from the Long Beach DV group. Whether one believes Travis abused her or not, she did testify to abuse by her parents, abuse by other boyfriends, and she appropriately did not trash him in her statement with the t shirt, at least IMO. It appears her mitigation specialist may have helped her say everything she needed to say ( and getting her to re-focus) without harming her appellate opportunities.
You both know my opinion on the trial, but the statement struck several chords with me.
LikeLike
What “abuse by other boyfriends”? you mean she told of them cheating on her…..and you consider that she was saying that was “abuse” of her?
LikeLike
Trialwatcher, she described physical abuse in other relationships. I believe it was Bobby and possibly someone else, can’t recall her exact testimony. In her statement, when she showed a pic of them together, she also mentioned there relationship had good/bad.
LikeLike
It was Bobby. He has abused subsequent girlfriends as well.
Jodi only ever had 4 boyfriends: Bobby, Matt, Darryl and Travis. Two of them abused her.
LikeLike
What kind of “abuse” did Bobby perpetrate on Jodi, and/or subsequent girlfriends? Perhaps I missed something from her testimony. Was it physical or verbal/emotional abuse?
LikeLike
It was physical, verbal and emotional. Remember, Bobby was the boyfriend she called the police on, but they did nothing. He has subsequently abused at least one other girlfriend who filed for an order of protection against him in Hawaii where he lives now. There’s also another girl on YouTube who claims he abused her as well, but she may or may not be credible or just attempting to cash in on the limelight.
LikeLike
And by interpreting her “survivor” t shirt in that manner I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Attacking Travis in that statement, considering verdict, was not a smart thing to do.
LikeLike
I didn’t see her showing the t-shirt as an attack against Travis at all. She didn’t specify which boyfriend she was talking about. She could have been talking about Bobby.
Willmott, on the other hand, did get into the abuse by Travis, which I thought was not a good idea.
LikeLike
I agree AA, I did not take it as an attack against Travis, that was my point. I see how you could take it as I was in the second statement but that was not my intent. I don’t know who counseled her on her statement, I’m assuming it was her mitigation specialist, but whoever did helped her to focus and I think it was fine. Based upon what she said about her parents, too, that covered the DV aspect as well.
In addition, the jury doesn’t know the Long Beach DV story tied to the shirt, people are attacking JA based upon what they know about the shirt.
LikeLike
Oh thanks for clarifying, Kim. Yes, I thought the whole statement was well done, although to me, Jodi seemed very very nervous and uncomfortable throughout. I don’t blame her. She spent 18 days before that jury, and they convicted her of the highest charge they could, then, found it extremely cruel. For me (although others interpret have interpreted it so differently), the big giveaway of her nerves, awkwardness and insecurity, was when she had to explain her hair colour being red, then blonde. That’s exactly something I would have done. I can’t believe others can read into it as narcissism at all.
The Long Beach DV story, oh Kim, I can only imagine where you get your information about this mess because you seem to buy into what you hear as the end result, without considering what went on beforehand. You do know how that shelter and its supporters was bullied right? They got more than 100 calls and emails in the same day, and their supporters (listed on their website) got just as many. They HAD to make that statement. Their supporters were begging them to make it stop.
I’ll never forget when something similar happened to me on a smaller scale several years ago. Through my former company, I ran a fan site for a musician who became unpopular due to his associations. A music forum encouraged its members to harass me, and my clients. For three days from hell, they called and emailed me and all my clients listed on my company website day and night. A cease and desist letter to the music forum from my attorney resulted in the posts encouraging the harrassment being taken down, but the damage was already done. I’ve been where that shelter was at. It’s not fun, to say the least. My clients didn’t even know who the musician was. All they wanted was for the calls to stop. I caved and took down the site. It wasn’t worth my livelihood.
LikeLike
AA I don’t know much about the Long Beach story, other than a statement being made that they have no opinion on the case. My point being, regardless of which side of the fence you are on, & if I was sitting on the jury, the tshirt would not have bothered me either way. Of course the “haters” have exploded with that.
Again, you know my thoughts on case, but I am so frustrated with people who have put themselves so directly into this case, both sides. Last night when I saw people crying in front of the courthouse being interviewed I wanted to throw my tv across the room. And the supposed “neutral” sites that claim innocence for JA who are disgusted by the actions of all those related to TA but then turn around and make their own slanderous comments about TA supporters.
And top that off with the people who are PO’ed at the jury for the hung verdict? Those jurors will be affected by this case for a long time to come.
What’s your educated guess on what happens next? My hope is that the death spec is removed and judge sentences, but I have a feeling that will not happen.
LikeLike
Kim, I’ll just jump in here and say that at least there’s a possibility that cooler heads will prevail in the prosecutor’s office and they’ll just accept life w/o parole, stop pursuing the DP and then the post conviction proceeding circus will begin, with less and less media attention as it goes on. Right now the DA’s office is saying DP all the way, but there might be a grownup in there somewhere and there’s a couple months to mull it over.
If not, though, I can’t imagine they won’t get the DP from a “fresh” jury. I mean look what’s been going on here, and no one they pick will have been insulated from any of that at all. All of which raises very strong arguments on appeal, plus I heard one report that AZ is the only state where they can try again for DP when a jury hangs on it, plus DP cases get more scrutiny on appeal and post conviction proceedings, including federal habeas.
So what the prosecutor’s office has to look at is, even if they get the DP, which as I said I think is quite likely with a new jury, there’s a very strong chance it won’t hold up, and they’ll be litigating this at great trouble and expense a long time into the future, a long time after no one will care anymore. Which is why I imagine they might think better of it.
LikeLike
I so agree John, I hope the big boss takes his time in evaluating this. He is an elected official, hoping that helps him make a smart decision. The people of AZ have to be outraged at the amount of money spent on the trial.
I do understand the family’s feeling regarding the DP, I would never want to be in their shoes, but it is nothing but a waste of time and money, and quite frankly, tearing them down. They need to try, best that they can, to move forward.
There is no way they will find an impartial jury to hear this case. And what is the “mini trial” they will present so that the impartial jury can make an informed decision? This is a cluster on so many levels. It will add another appellate issue into the mix, which looking at the totality of the circumstances, could cause a reversal/remand, etc.
LikeLike
Kim wrote to AA:
“What’s your educated guess on what happens next? My hope is that the death spec is removed and judge sentences, but I have a feeling that will not happen”.
I have no “educated guess” on what “happens next” as I am not a lawyer, but I fear that Martinez will try to offer plea deal that will include lwop and NO APPEALS.
This was an UNFAIR TRIAL, and “justice” was not served. (whatever that means). Taking a deal like that will do NOTHING to correct the absolute WRONGNESS of how this trial went down. This prosecutor is among the WORST OF THE WORST…..and needs to be sanctioned and knocked down a peg or three.
If I were Jodi, I would not accept a “plea deal” and let Martinez carry out a new trial at great expense to Maricopa county.
Someone on the JAII site talked about Ulisis Ferragut, the Arizona attorney, possibly showing interest in this trial. He was in the seating behind Defense table at end of the trial. Someone said he was talking on AZFamily.com yesterday but I could find nothing on the site. Look at his website: http://ferragutlaw.com . He seems to be PERFECT for appeal lawyer. I don’t know what he thinks of the whole trial and whether she has a chance in appeals…..and I have not been able to find out anything online about his views on it. Anyone?
LikeLike
Trialwatcher I’m not familiar with the laws of AZ but in OH you cannot waive certain appellate rights. Although this was an entirely different set of circumstances, TJ Lane, the Chardon High School shooter pled as charged to 3 life sentences (in addition to other sentences for the related injuries) and part of the “deal” was to waive his appellate rights. At sentencing it was made clear he does have mandatory appellate rights. He was 17 but tried as an adult, that may have something to do with the mandatory right but I would think the State of AZ cannot make her waive rights in conjunction with a plea agreement. John, do you know? Also, again, not sure about AZ, but if they remove the death spec I don’t think she will have a right to agree or disagree as there is nothing to agree to, the judge would sentence.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Ferragut (sp?) takes on this new phase if current attorneys want removed. There was speculation that is why he was present in the courtroom. Is his specialty appellate, trial, or both?
LikeLike
Certain fundamental rights cannot be waived, and I think this is a federal constitutional requirement and applies in every state.
Besides, the real fight here is going to be collateral proceedings, not the direct appeal. And I think AA said that in AZ you can’t raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, which is a little weird but then so is the second crack at the DP procedure.
LikeLike
Thx John. The state can remove the death spec though and proceed to sentencing if they choose to, correct?
LikeLike
Oh, yes. The state can do anything, it is sovereign. From what I have seen I don’t think Martinez will do that of his own accord, but his superiors might order him.
LikeLike
Kim, being a little “tapped into” the domestic violence circuit, I know a little more than you about the Long Beach Shelter’s dilemma. Their statement seemed to satisfy the so-called mob and has resulted in the threatening harassing calls dying down, I’m led to believe. Unfortunately, they’re now calling for the shelter to make a more definitive statement AGAINST Jodi’s claims of domestic violence. It’s truly upsetting.
This entire mess is going to result in less and less victims feeling comfortable about seeking help. That is NOT Jodi’s fault. In fact, I have personally spoken to several women who have taken a closer look at their relationships as a result of Jodi’s testimony. If only we had awareness BEFORE the relationship progressed to marriage and/or babies, perhaps we could have left relatively unscathed.
I’m also very upset about those folks who are criticizing the jurors and attempting to discern which jurors voted which way. I don’t believe in the death penalty period. However, the burden upon any juror to decide whether to kill someone or not is truly beyond comprehensible.
A couple of weeks ago, I lost a very elderly gerbil who had a stroke and then another. I’ve had gerbils for a long time and know that they often recover from one stroke, but rarely from a second, particularly if they are in close succession. Before he passed, I had a few moments where I had to make a choice. I could stress him out by taking him to an emergency clinic for euthanasia. The stress of moving him and the lengthy journey may well have hastened his passing and made him uncomfortable. I trained (and became licensed in another state) as a veterinary technician (a subject I only studied because I wanted to access continuing education to help a very senior cat several years ago). On hand, I had analgesic medication which I could have injected him with painlessly, effectively euthanizing him. Alternatively, I could assess his condition, determine his level of discomfort, and allow him to pass naturally in my presence, if I could rationalize that it was not a cruel option. As I observed him, his respiration became shallow and he was laying comfortably and I knew his time was near. Although I prepared a syringe, I couldn’t bring myself to end his life. I could certainly have allowed another professional to do it, but I had a personal relationship with him which made it too difficult. Within moments, I realized he was no longer cognizant or in any discomfort, with only primitive brain functioning, and I resolved to allow him to pass naturally.
I was thinking about that this morning, and the overwhelming requirement placed on jurors in capital cases. Those jurors had a somewhat personal relationship with Jodi. They interacted with her on some level by juror questions. In her allocution presentation, they saw photos of her growing from a young girl to a young woman. In what I considered a very powerful display, Willmott asked them specifically, hands on Jodi’s shoulders, “Will you kill her?” Aaargh! My heart hurts for any juror faced with such a task.
You said: “And the supposed “neutral” sites that claim innocence for JA who are disgusted by the actions of all those related to TA but then turn around and make their own slanderous comments about TA supporters.”
I am not sure which sites you’re referring to. I only visit the JAII site and it’s the only one I know of that supports Jodi in any way, shape or form. I have seen very little of the types of comments you mention there. Interestingly enough, when those comments are made, it’s most often by someone from the JAIAB site who is attempting to infiltrate. They actually prepared instructions on that site as to how to gain access to the password-protected areas of the JAII site. Unfortunately, they’re very obvious in their behaviours. They also post on the JAIAB site using our handles. For example, there are posts under “Also Abused” mocking various personal tidbits I’ve shared on the JAII site. What they’re attempting is to entice us to post on their site so that they will gain access to our email addresses in hopes of then learning more about our actual identities and harassing us. One person received numerous calls at her place of employment. Some others were threatened in their homes. I can assure you that none of the JAII regulars have resorted to any such behaviour, nor would we even consider it.
As for what will happen next, I think Martinez will push and push for the second jury to be empaneled. If you take your emotion about Travis and the manner in which he was killed completely out of the equation for a moment, you really have to wonder why he refused to even entertain Jodi’s plea offer for second degree murder, and insisted on going forward with such a media-spectacle trial which has cost AZ taxpayers millions of dollars. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it’s up to the family. Their input must be considered. But it’s the Maricopa County Attorney’s office which makes the final decision.
Martinez had a woman without a previous record of any type of criminal activity, let alone violence. He had a string of circumstantial tidbits of renting a car and using gas cans for a trip across the desert, a phone dying or being turned off, coupled with a burglary at her grandparents’ home and the same caliber of gun being stolen (even though a different type of bullet was used than the gun was loaded with). He’s really extremely lucky he prevailed with first degree murder. If it wasn’t for the public outrage over Casey Anthony still being fresh, and a jury that consisted of 8 Mormons, with a Mormon murder victim, a recently converted Mormon defendant, and plenty of sex which is not allowed in that religion prior to marriage, he most likely would have ended up with a lesser conviction. Jodi’s plea offer wasn’t for manslaughter. It was for second degree murder. Yet, Martinez refused to entertain it.
The mob claims Martinez really cares about the Alexanders. When all this is said and done, he won’t even take their calls. Mark my words. He has behaved the same way throughout his career. His sole goal is to become the “baddest bad ass” prosecutor in the toughest sheriff’s jurisdiction.
Sure, it’s a sad thing for the Alexanders that their estranged brother was killed in such a fashion and that his pristine reputation has been soiled. But it didn’t have to happen. Second degree murder with the maximum possible sentencing guidelines could have avoided all this — and saved the AZ taxpayers a significant amount of money.
LikeLike
JMRJ, as I said to Kim, I firmly believe Martinez will push and push for this. His boss is elected and unless the AZ taxpayers object, I doubt a cooler head will prevail.
On another note, I don’t understand at all how this will all work. How can a second jury consider the totality of evidence presented if they weren’t present during the trial? Will they read the many volumes of transcripts? Will the parties present a “mini-trial”? Will it matter if they have been influenced by the media and are, therefore, not impartial — as the first jury swore to before being empaneled? Obviously, the new jury would have to accept the verdict of first degree murder and the aggravation factor of cruelty. However, how can they consider the various mitigating factors of abuse, Jodi’s childhood, etc., if they were not present for her testimony and the testimony of the various experts? Does this meet the constitutional due process requirements?
There have, apparently, been five other similar situations in Maricopa county: http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130522arizona-juries-that-couldnt-decide-on-death-penalty-prog.html
There was only one in which a new jury was not asked for. Cropper, one who was sentenced to execution, appealed but it was affirmed. The opinion was interesting to skim through. He preserved 12 issues in the appendix for federal review. I could not find whether that has occurred as yet, but I did not research thoroughly by any means. I didn’t look the others up yet.
LikeLike
Trialwatcher, I believe if Jodi accepted such an offer, she would waive her right to a direct appeal. However, she would not waive her right to post-conviction relief — which is first petitioned to the trial judge, but can then be appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS (if they agree, and the AZ Supreme Court agrees).
A brief review of Ferragut’s website gave me the impression he was more of a criminal defense lawyer. Media pieces discussing him seemed to imply likewise. However, Al pointed out that he represented the appellant successfully in Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F. 3d 1020 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2004, which was the case about the controversial 24-hour web cams of pretrial detainees at the Madison Street Jail.
Ferragut seems to take the types of cases no one else would dare to. He may well be the guy who would take on Jodi’s appeal.
LikeLike
JMRJ, you said: “And I think AA said that in AZ you can’t raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, which is a little weird but then so is the second crack at the DP procedure.” That’s correct. Al from JAII pointed that out to me in an AZ Supreme Court opinion from a few years back. IAC must first be raised during PCR before an intermediary or the AZ SC will review it.
LikeLike
Kim, my understanding (from skimming several AZ opinions last week) is that Jodi would waive her right to direct appeal, but not to PCR.
LikeLike
Kim, you wrote in a post below (no reply button under it) the following reply to my question.
“Trialwatcher I’m not familiar with the laws of AZ but in OH you cannot waive certain appellate rights.” etc., etc.
I guess I have been watching too much HLN while I am dozing off and then trying to sort out NG’s nonsense “legal expertise”. She is the one claiming that if the prosecutor does not want to follow through with a retry of the penalty phase with new jury, that he can offer Jodi a “plea deal” that would INCLUDE no parole and no APPEALS. (are you saying Jodi herself cannot “waive certain appeal rights”, or that prosecutor is not allowed to _offer_ such a “deal”?) She and other legal “experts” on her show agree he can do that…..but none of them are/were experts on Arizona law. However, I wondered (and you sort of answered my thoughts) that if he simply REDUCES the charge to LWOP without offering an actual “plea deal”, that that would not allow him to take appeals off the table?
So…..1: he offers her a plea deal that includes NO APPEALS, or
2: he just reduces the penalty and takes DP off the table and the judge decides.
Kim….in regard to Ulisis Ferragut……your question is exactly what I have been trying to find out. But read his website…..seems to me he takes on appeal cases and has been able to get verdicts thrown out. I am just trying to find out exactly what he had to say on Azfamily website. Someone on JAII site said he was “speaking” on that site but failed to provide a link or tell us what he said. I am going to go as far as to call his office today to see if they can direct me to a video of what he said on azfamily.com yesterday, if anything.
LikeLike
John, John, John,
You are one of the few who ‘still doesn’t know whether she’s guilty or innocent’. Not, unfortunately, the majority of us who actually watched the trial. I am really confused as to how you think it’s appropriate to make any commentary on innocence or guilt when you haven’t watched the actual trial. Heard the actual testimony for yourself and seen the actual evidence. To take information you learn about in a blog and assume you are getting even a quarter of accuracy I find surprising. Haven’t you rightly condemned the HLN sound bite watchers for taking gossip and headlines as fact? If you are going to take such a strong position like you don’t think it’s likely she did this or did it alone, shouldn’t you have listened to what the jury heard and saw, in its totality? If you were defending someone in a high profile case that the media had all but crucified, but you felt ws truly innocent, becs of yr full and complete picture of the case…wouldn’t you be expecting, especially by your legal peers, that they at least watch the entire trial before making any judgement?
This is of course assuming you are telling the truth that you really haven’t been watching all of it.
LikeLike
“Guilty”…….but you are ignoring all the others in this forum who absolutely watched every minute of the trial and conclude that it was NOT a fair trial, that JM is the most corrupt and deceitful prosecutor ever, and that Jodi “may or may not” have “murdered him”. Oddly, we all agree, even Jodi, that she did indeed actually do the killing….. but we are still not sure about what really happened and how she could have done it. Because the “facts” put forth by the prosecution were nothing but speculative nonsense that anyone with any sense would have recognized as such and found to be “reasonable doubt”.
You are jumping all over JMRJ for not watching the complete trial but keeping an open mind nonetheless, but ignoring all the rest of us who DID
LikeLike
Trial watcher, I’m still around! And I watched same trial and support verdict based on evidence. I do, however, still find intruder theory interesting.
LikeLike
Kim, you say you watched the same trial and support verdict based on evidence. Apparently the only “evidence” you listened to and gave credence to were the outrageously weak arguments and “evidence” _speculated_ on by Juan Martinez. I suspect you gave very little credence to the defense arguments against the prosecution’s “evidence”, or perhaps you completely discounted the testimony on the defense side, as well as the defense witnesses. I suspect this is the way you viewed it because you have an automatic bias against a defendant because you automatically believe the prosecutor and his witnesses and don’t believe they would/did lie. You have as much as said that you don’t believe the prosecution witnesses lied.
It is one thing to say evidence was presented …..and use that as “proof” of an event or fact, but quite another to use FALSE evidence and say that it “proves” anything. As the latest political refrain goes: “you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”.
LikeLike
Trialwatcher, I do not believe that any witness, prosecution or defense, “lied” during the trial. Of course, other than the defendant.
LikeLike
You are actually confirming that you believe ME Horn (and Flores) was NOT LYING when he changed his story about whether shot came first or last, and whether the dura mater was damaged?? If so….you are hopelessly prosecution oriented. Horn’s nose should have grown two feet long as he said those words. His face sure turned red.
You believe Jodi spent 18 days on the stand doing nothing but LYING that whole time? I guess you just can’t get past….”she lied, and lied twice” so you will NEVER
LikeLike
continued:
NEVER believe another word out of her mouth no matter how logical and plausible it may seem? It is not even LOGICAL that she would have , could have, lied for 18 days straight.
LikeLike
Trialwatcher, did I say she lied for 18 days straight? Of course I did not say that. btw this site isn’t the site with all of the answers, this is a site with people who have opinions, just like every other blog. If you feel better being in a place where everyone thinks the same as you, that is fine. I prefer to also listen to thoughts of others, as do some of the others on here, including John.
LikeLike
Add me to the list of people who watched the trial, every minute of it (barring some of Dr. Geffner’s testimony which I am still trying to catch up on), and who does not believe she is guilty.
LikeLike
Guilty, hi.
This is sort of a good point. We have to keep in mind that this is a blog, we don’t determine anything here. I think it would be irresponsible to say I knew under these circumstances, not to say that I don’t know.
I have a mild bias. I’m defense minded. I say mild because it wouldn’t prevent me from having an opinion that someone is guilty. Say, the guy that shot up the people in the theater in Colorado. Guilty of what might be an issue, I suppose. But overall I’m willing to be convinced by evidence, though my standard of proof might be considerably more demanding than the average person’s, and possibly more demanding that the law actually demands by some interpretations. I’m willing to accept that in the same way most judges, who are almost always former prosecutors, have natural sympathy for the position of a prosecutor, I would have natural sympathy for the position of the defense attorney.
In this case the issue is not so much the evidence that was presented and argued at trial; it’s the evidence and arguments that weren’t presented. So in that sense having watched the trial or not is immaterial.
Let’s compare and contrast in that one respect the Colorado theater shooting. In that case there is no argument at all about who went into the theater and shot everyone. But in this Jodi Arias case, there is an argument. It wasn’t made at the trial. Considering information from admittedly non-official sources, or official sources but second hand, but that nevertheless appears to me at least to be reliable, it might have been a very strong argument. This is enough to have an informed opinion, I think, whether you have watched the trial or not, at least inasmuch as the opinion is to be agnostic on guilt or innocence.
But I would go further and say I suspect she is innocent, more than I suspect she is guilty. And in all likelihood the reason for that is certain experiences I have had practicing my profession. It is likely that before I had those experiences, even though I was still a lawyer, I would have found certain aspects of the reasoning leading to a conclusion of innocence to be not credible. I am referring to the part played by the psychological phenomenon of dissociation.
You see, in addition to being a skeptic of prosecution cases, I am also a skeptic of psychology. In the main I regard it as a pseudo-science. But having observed the complicated phenomenon of dissociation in a litigation setting myself, then at least to that extent my skepticism has been overcome. I can believe in dissociation for the simple reason that I have seen it.
Seeing is believing, right?
It’s a very big piece of the puzzle here. In order to run with the idea – even if you’re skeptical at first, just entertaining it to see where it takes you – you wind up selectively discounting the dissociating person’s account. But you should not do this in a biased fashion; rather, you should be guided by likelihoods. You determine likelihoods by other criteria having nothing to do with what the witness is telling you.
So here, for example. I tend to believe that she did not kill Travis Alexander during a struggle with a knife because it’s unlikely. Given that, I tend to believe that two other people were there and killed him, because that’s a likely alternative. Then again I do not believe that the two were a man and a woman, even though that’s what Jodi says, because it’s unlikely. Then I have to come up with an explanation as to why she would say that if it’s not true, and lo and behold, the dissociation phenomenon provides one: the second man raped her. Indeed, rape under the horrific circumstances that must have obtained at the time would strongly imply severe dissociation in the first place.
Then you look at the prosecution case, at least as I understand it from the sources I have. You have gas cans, you have phone calls, you have the brutal facts of the killing. You have motive, or at least potential motive. You have opportunity, no doubt. You have her there at the scene, at the time. You have a slew of false statements.
But the gas cans and phone calls and so on have other explanations than she killed him. You have potentially lots of people with motive, but there’s no indication that anyone else was seriously considered. You have an objective indication that someone else was present at the time of the murder – a shoe print – that no one identified. You have not eliminated others that also might have had motive and opportunity.
And just as seriously, maybe most seriously, you have not addressed the problem of dissociation; rather, you have evaded it and distorted it into a straw man: “amnesia”, which like all straw men is easily knocked down.
This is not nearly enough to determine guilt, in my view. So unless I am missing something, I consider this a wrongful conviction, not in the sense that I know absolutely that she is innocent, but rather because there is little and certainly nowhere near enough reason to believe she is guilty and actually some reason to believe she is innocent.
So I hope this explains my position fairly in a way that’s understandable to you and others.
LikeLike
“we don’t know whether she is a history making but small scale sociopath, or utterly innocent of this killing.”
LOL This blog has become The Onion.
LikeLike
John, what’s your thought on her interviews tonight? 4 1/2 hours of them I’m reading?
LikeLike
Didn’t watch them, assume I’ll see something about them on the web today. I can’t believe she’s still doing interviews but at this point what the hell, I suppose.
Maybe this is the new reality in trial by media cases. Back in the Sam Sheppard days, you couldn’t get on TV so easily. Those cameras were big! And expensive! Now anyone can get on TV any time with a $20 webcam. So why not criminal defendants trying to counter the corporate media spin?
Seems crazy, but probably this is what times of transition look like. The Moore v. Dempsey appeal issue looks more and more interesting, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Okay, that was harsh, and I apologize, but innocent? Does anyone in the legal community with any knowledge of the facts of this case think she’s innocent? My understanding is those taking issue are doing so because they feel she was over charged, that murder 1 and felony murder are unjustifiable.
LikeLike
Wow, Dennis, did you miss us? I thought you were completely done with us.
To answer your question, justifiable homicide as in self-defense, yes.
LikeLike
I think she’s more likely innocent than guilty. Does that count?
LikeLike
Macro-level background: The financial crisis is coming. Things are starting to come apart economically. These people were living at the top of the bubble, in the bubble state of Arizona.
Two groups of people are involved. They overlap. There is the faith-based multi-level marketing, you had to believe. Then there’s the religion, the chastity, the conformity. Within their group a person needed to conform to the religion to keep the faith-based economics together.
Travis Alexander’s group never liked Jodi Arias. They did not want Travis to marry Jodi. She did not fit in. Everyone needed to conform to make the business work. She was a designated scapegoat from the very beginning, Travis’ peers always wanted to expel her. For some reason they hated her.
Travis would not conform, he kept seeing Jodi. He tried, some might say reluctantly, half-heartedly, only due to peer-pressure to push Jodi away. To try to conform to the expectations of his religious/business peers he began to see other women. Some hint that this may have got out of control, I don’t know. But he still apparently got to together with Jodi. He must’ve still liked her. He was not conforming, sexuality is powerful, there had to have been jealousy forming in his peer-group. Travis appeared to be ambitious, sexually and in business. He was stepping out of line. He was not embracing his peers and pushing Jodi away.
Did the presence of Jodi with Travis that day piss someone off? That was the last straw. Someone went there to stop it. Maybe her story is true as far as it goes. Maybe she knows who the assailants are, if in fact her original story bears truth. Maybe they killed Travis and told Jodi that she would take the fall, that she would be the only suspect. If it was some TV drama with twists and turns, Jodi knows that she’s stuck, Travis is dead and she has no alibi. So calls and leaves a message to try and get something going. I think she did call Gus the night of the murders, because he was only non-Mormon M-L-M guy.
A lot of holes all over the place.
LikeLike
While very interesting, this seems a bit overly conspiratorial to me, but you know what? It shows in another way how piss poor this investigation was. And it’s so hard for me to understand. They can take their time and follow lots of leads and evidence. I know of a terrible double homicide around here from more than two years ago but nobody’s been charged.
There was no rush here, and there were lots of issues from the get-go. To so quickly settle on something so unlikely was just lazy, or bizarre, or both.
LikeLike
I thought this trial was whether the murder was premediated or not. She already confessed to shooting him. The state did NOT convince me it was premeditated. So she filled gas cans. She filled gas cans on the way back from Utah too, so what do the gas cans prove. She says she took one back, but there is no record. This is a red herring. so what. She was at Travis’ house for over 12 hours before she killed him, his roommates were scheduled to be home around 6:00 p.m. Why would she stay so long if she went there planning to kill him. Its obvious to me there was a huge fight and struggle, and she just lost it and shot him. Maybe she brought the gun for protection coming across the desert and decided to use it in the fight. I think “heat of the moment” sudden quarrel best fits this scenario (manslaughter). I just can’t get past the 12 hour “visit” to buy into premeditation. Also, most women would never have sex with a guy they hated that much. In the sex tape made only a few days before the murder, she is hanging on every word he says. She doesn’t sound like someone planning a murder. If I were on the jury, I would have dug in. Juan did not prove premeditation to me at all.
LikeLike
You are correct that that’s what the trial was about. But we here at Lawyers on Strike are not limited by the trial record or proceedings, and can go wherever our febrile imaginations take us.
Just kidding. We’re trying to reason this through a bit, perhaps more than those involved did. So we’ve been discussing alternative scenarios where JA didn’t kill TA at all. But I also agree with you that pre-meditation was a reach, and I wish you had argued that to the jury rather than JA’s own lawyers.
LikeLike
I don’t get the premeditation, I’m probably missing something though. So there was the Cancun trip, he was going with another woman, but the other woman near the last minute didn’t think going with Travis was a good idea. Jodi comes back, they’re together again, who is it that she is jealous of? What is the motive for “premeditation”? Self-defense at least makes some sense as a motive.
LikeLike
To those like Dee:
You’re not the only ones who have a problem with premeditation and some think better counsel would have secured at least a 2nd degree verdict–which Jodi wanted to plead to. Manslaughter seems like a reach considering she shot, stabbed and decapitated her victim. But I also think that claiming self-defense was a mistake because if you don’t believe it, believe her, premeditation becomes less of a hurdle for the state..
To AA:
JMRJ and I haven’t agreed much and we’ve argued a bit, but I enjoy and appreciate both his blog and his commenters like yourself. 🙂
LikeLike
Actually Dennis, I’m going to have to agree as a matter of trial strategy that I can’t see how you argue something just flat out unsupportable to a jury, and that’s what self defense was. If you damage your credibility like that, you give more credence to everything the other side says, and the jury is likely to go with the other side even on things that are more questionable. So I think you’re right about that. I also think you’re right about manslaughter. The throat slit made that too much of a stretch, too. So the defense team apparently settled on a best case scenario where she’s still found guilty of murder, realistically speaking. Handed most of the case to the prosecutor to begin with, he was 90% of the way there.
But OTOH when they’re trying to kill your client it’s a lot of pressure. Hard not to focus on that. Iohno.
LikeLike
Yeah, JMRJ, some of the lawyers I saw speaking about this case before I took any interest were saying that the defense strategy here was all about saving her life.
LikeLike
Dennis,
As far as the stabbing and throat slitting goes, here is what I think happened. They had a huge fight, he probably said some things to
her that really set her off. She knew she had the gun, so she took
it out of her bag and shot him once. It was a small caliber gun and
didn’t end it like she thought; so she fired again, but the gun jammed.
If she had killed him with the second shot, it would have been a
simple homicide, However, he was only wounded, and kept going. At this point, there was no turning back for JA, so she grabbed the knife
and started stabbing him, but he still made it down the hall. She knew if he made it out of the house, it was over, so that is why she slit his throat, to stop him and finish him off or else get caught. Horrible and gruesome, but it still doesn’t prove premeditation..Also, the gunshot first is the only thing that makes sense. Why use a knife when you have
a gun? That theory was touted to make her look more evil. There are many people walking around today with bullets in their head so
the prosecution’s crap about him dropping after the gunshot is just that – crap.
LikeLike
Here’s something far more interesting. A blogtalkradio chat with Gus Search, who was a big shot in PPL at the time of the killing (and may still be) in California. He knew Jodi very well and helped with her business. It’s about 27 minutes long and well worth listening to until the end. He dispels the myths about Jodi trying to seduce men and wearing slutty clothing. He talks about other women who were mistreated by Travis, Mormon women, who were too afraid to come forward. He also talks about the fact that if Jodi was the unwanted stalker claimed by many, that information would have been around the circle. But it wasn’t. In fact, Jodi was trying to break up with Travis and he was not allowing her to.
But even more importantly, he completely dispels the Cancun myth as Jodi’s motive for going to Travis’s house on June 4, 2008. Gus also went on that trip. He won it too. 1000 people went. It was booked in February or March and there was NO chance to change who went on the trip thereafter. Travis listed Mimi Hall (the infamous Dave Hall — Travis’s hunting buddy) back in March. There was NO way he could have changed his companion to Jodi in June. NO WAY!!! But of course, you won’t hear this on HLN or see it talked about on the blogs that hate Jodi.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/routingout/2013/05/23/gus-searcy-on-what-they-didnt-want-you-to-know
LikeLike
So I went over to this other site where everyone is handicapping this whole thing from a psychobabble-she’s-obviously-a-narcissistic-sociopath point of view and am trying to get some feedback, given how much they disagree with me:
http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-her-statement-to-the-jury/#comment-1435
http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-her-statement-to-the-jury/#comment-1449
I guess you could call that trolling, but I’m just testing my own thoughts, or trying to.
LikeLike
I can’t even stand to read that site, JMRJ. I recall early on in this trial, she was armchair analyzing Jodi and it made me rather ill to read.
I just roared with laughter at the one response though: “That said, I cannot comment with the introduction, “with all respect,” for I do not. I find reading him like double-speak. “Word salad” in most of his writings. He is not an expert in criminal law. He is not a mental health professional. I believe this is more than obvious. He comes here to control. To monopolize as is evidenced in his over-long ramblings. I so enjoy & learn much from this professional web site. This is the first time I have been dismayed. However, it is free press. May he correspond with Ms. Arias discussing the not-within-possibility of *reality, the so-called Ninjas ~”
LikeLike
Yes AA I have said elsewhere that I can’t think of anything with less evidentiary value than after the fact psychological diagnoses here. Watching what she does and says now, after being not only prosecuted but locked up for five years, as if that has any bearing at all on what she was like before any of this happened? It’s ludicrous.
As far as I know there is no objective evidence that prior to the murder she was anything other than normal and functional, maybe a little drawn into the Mormon M-L-M stuff. And that was one of the real problems with the prosecution case that got thrown out the window when they decided to go with self-defense.
But I did get one fairly thoughtful response there, though it wasn’t from the moderator.
LikeLike
I’d like to ask anyone who believes, as I do, that there are dozens of very intelligent, thoughtful reasons to question this entire “investigation” by Det. Flores and especially Juan Martinez’ case, to visit my facebook page, “Inconvenient Truths TV”. I’m just a citizen journalist/investigator who cares about the truth, the whole truth and justice for all.
LikeLike
What can an ordinary citizen do when they have CONCRETE PROOF that the prosecutor entered deceptive evidence and the judge allowed it in Jodi’s trial? Who can I tell, who would look and listen to an ordinary citizen like me?
I really need some guidance. Knowing what I know is driving me up a wall; with no where to turn, can you offer a suggestion?
I have never believed Jodi was guilty. Too many inconsistencies in the Prosecutor’s story, too much detatchment in Jodi’s story, just as you said. Too many coincidences to Jodi’s first statements to Detective Flores, indicating she wasn’t there and didn’t kill Travis.
There are these two opposing camps, as you noted, but both believe Jodi is guilty. On one side they believe she is a homicidal maniac, and on the other side they believe she rightly killed him in self-defense; this is absurd. If a person stabs that many times it is overkill, a word those that support domestic violence abhor. Either way she would be guilty.
If proof of lies by the prosecutor would help Jodi, shouldn’t it be in the hands of someone who could use it to set things right? But who?
LikeLike
Short answer is that there isn’t much you can do, even if you do have CONCRETE PROOF, about which I am skeptical. I mean, you might, but if you’re not connected to the case I’d figure that to be unlikely.
Assuming you really do have something, though, showing that the prosecutor and/or judge deliberately lied and cheated, you could take it to federal law enforcement. But don’t expect them to roll out the red carpet for you, even if you’re right. In fact, don’t expect them to do anything at all. And realize that depending on what kind of information it is, there may be some risk to you, personally, in going to anyone.
LikeLike
First off, Jodi herself needs to be made concretely aware of the evidence collected by many amateur sleuths, researchers, writers, etc. That means sending through the fallible USA mail to Perryville Prison, abiding by all rules and procedures explicitly. Beyond that, she needs to elicit the interest of experienced, ethical, rational, respected appellate attorneys with records of success for previous clients. Jodi’s been in the dark for a very long time. How can she find her way out without at least ….a flashlight?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truths: Inmate’s mail can be read and/or censored, and their phone calls monitored. The only safe way to communicate with an inmate is with or through their lawyer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that is well understood about the lack of privacy. As for
“her lawyer”, well, she has a court appointed appellate lawyer, as I understand it. Appointed just as Kirk Nurmi was, I would surmise. It’s very obvious Jodi’s investigator did not uncover or perhaps was not allowed to uncover much about the evidence presented, especially about the photos. With all due respect, safe left this ballgame a long time ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unlike many other cases, sir, this one was televised; it was all about the pictures. The age of computers has, as I am sure you most certainly can appreciate, allowed the public to access many things unavailable to them until recently.
Screen shots of evidence, once impossible, are now instantly done on a private computer. Anyone who wanted to search for the truth in Jodi Arias’ trial was able to.
That in fact is exactly what was done here. I want no publicity or recognition. I just want the facts to be addressed, and this case reversed with prejudice, or whatever will leave Jodi Arias with vindication.
This is an extreme example of prosecutorial misconduct. It is an extreme example of ineffective assistance of counsel. It is an extreme example of the public’s spewing venom – like the stonings of days gone by. It has to be rectified.
The pictures were not what the prosecutor wanted them to be, nor what he stated they were. None of them were taken on June 4, 2008. None of them had automatic time stamps. The camera didn’t have that feature according to the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. In addition, when presented at trial they were very dark. When light is shed on them it reveals what they truly are: a lie by the prosecutor.
Not only did the prosecutor put evidence in front of the court that was tampered with and misrepresented and misled their relevance.to the murder. I have no way of knowing if he realized what they were but that is no excuse.
I appreciate your blog and I have learned a great deal about the inadequacies of the criminal justice system from your references as well as from your opinions.
If this is not a Mooney case I would be amazed.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Trial By Pictures and commented:
To understand the law I go here: strike lawyer.wordpress.com.
LikeLike
Thanks for the endorsement!
LikeLike