Convicted?

All the media talking heads, many of them lawyers, have taken their cue from the Jodi Arias jury’s verdict of “guilty” to begin describing her as a “convicted murder(ess)”.

Unless things are different in Arizona than they are just about anywhere else in the country, this is….not true.

The conviction occurs upon the judgment, and indeed in most places in a criminal case the final judgment is called a judgment of conviction.  The judgment of conviction can be based upon a “verdict” by a jury or a judge, or upon a plea of guilty by a defendant.  And here is the key:  the judgment of conviction must include the sentence.  Thus, there is no “conviction” until the sentence.

In the Jodi Arias case we do not yet have a sentence, and so although there has been a verdict of guilty there is no judgment of conviction, and so she is not as of this writing a convicted murderess.

This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but like many things in the law it’s true that it doesn’t matter – until it does.  And there have been cases where the distinction becomes important.

So, you know, lawyers should be careful how they speak lest they mislead the public.  Not intentionally, of course.  No lawyer would ever do that.

Advertisements

119 Comments

Filed under Media incompetence/bias

119 responses to “Convicted?

  1. Heather

    I’ve been noticing this, John, and I see the distinction. Is it possible the people calling her a convicted murderess could be sued for defamation of character, then, when they surely know the difference? Would it come under slander?

    Like

    • Well, I suppose defamation might lie, as we say, but can’t see much in the way of damages.

      I posted about this for a couple of reasons. One, lawyers should be more careful commenting to the public. Two, as we can see here, there can often be a pretty long distance in time between the verdict and the judgment of conviction, and it’s not unknown that a verdict will never get to a judgment for a host of reasons. Let’s say we found out about some serious juror misconduct in the next week or so. Like, for example, five of them were bribed. That is a basis to set aside the verdict. Things like that have happened. I think it would be beyond cavil that that particular problem – juror misconduct – is far more likely to surface here than in the typical case.

      Yet even if that were to happen and the verdict was tossed, most everyone will still be saying that JA is a “convicted” murderer, and at that point the error involved, and the distinction, might begin to matter a great deal, even up to becoming measurably defamatory, but of course would be all the more elusive to the public.

      Of course I have no confidence whatever that the judge in this case would throw out the guilty verdict no matter what was uncovered. I have seen only a couple of clips of her, but my impression is that she would be the typical favor-the-government type judge, and even more prosecutor sympathetic than judges I am used to, and that’s saying a lot because I consider the judges I know, as a group, to be wildly prosecutor sympathetic. I mean, crying over the mistrial? People should be appalled.

      The way things probably work in Maricopa County, AZ, you don’t get to be a judge unless you’re extremely prosecutor favorable.

      Like

      • Heather

        This is a very interesting blog, John. Yes, that damned biased Judge, its obscene her crying over a hung jury, I could hardly believe it, How can any trial be fair in the Maricopa County court, I agree. Well, what can be done by the defence, can they skip the hearing on the grounds of a biased Judge? But then, they are ALL biased, so what on earth can be done here? Another court? A different Judge?
        Its shocking that they are prosecutor favourable.

        I really hope things will surface that lead to putting the verdict set aside. I’m feeling confident that something will emerge; as this has been such a farce, how can it not?. And maybe the defamation could be brought forth then.

        As for Skye Hughes’ face when they announced a hung jury, well.. it was disgusting, and the sisters’ too, something extremely wrong to cry because they haven’t unanimously sentenced her to death. Every time I think I’ve seen and heard it all I get shocked again.

        Like

      • Michele

        Tell that to Sheriff Joe Arpaio…he seems to have no clue about the law, from what I have seen.Let them all keep talking!Thanks for the info fellow Rochestarian.

        Like

        • Heather

          I wouldn’t tell him, Michele, I’d jail him, feed him bread and water and put him in solitary confinement till the end of his days. I’d make him sleep on the floor in the wettest, draughtiest cell I can find and he’d never see daylight again. I’d sling his bread and water through a flap, he wouldn’t be allowed any human contact. This is how much I like Sherrif Joe Arpaio.

          Like

      • That is an interesting distinction, JMRJ. An appeal cannot be commenced until the final judgment with sentencing, nor can the defendant be transferred to the penitentiary. In fact, not all out-of-custody defendants are immediately detained prior to the sentencing hearing (although in murder cases, almost all are). However, detainment is at the judge’s discretion in most states.

        While the cameras did not focus on the judge as she declared the mistrial, it was very obvious she was choked up and tearful by the way she spoke. Many have said this was her first murder trial and it was certainly her first high-profile case. While I would have to say that she allowed the defense a great deal of leeway early on, and that she allowed the lawyers to run the trial (unlike many judges), as the trial progressed her prosecutor-favour began to reveal itself, especially post-verdict.

        Like

      • cassie

        I want to ask a question John I want to know what is the most possible and reasonable outcome did Jodi could end up having with the situation turning out like it has. I’m not talking gilt here or whether she is not. But it’s about the simple fact we all know she has not received a fair trial she has literally been put on a Salem witch prosecution and everyone in America are mostly everyone has decided to jump on the bandwagon of lets kill Jodi. Is it possible that Jodi could end up onthe outside of prison? Or end up with a lesser sentence?

        Like

        • Cassie, hello.

          I think there are serious issues surrounding whether she got a fair trial. These are dealt with to some extent on “direct appeal”, a potentially years long process; and then on various potential post-conviction review procedures, some state and some federal.

          All of these processes are extreme long shots. While of course anything is possible, the likelihood is that Jodi will spend the rest of her life in prison. I think execution is, at this point, still possible but unlikely.

          Like

  2. stephanie

    What does it matter.she confessed.Even her judge says the conviction stands.So why post this ? Do you want to APPEAR more intelligent than anyone else?

    Like

    • R.

      You’ve missed the point. Re-read the post.

      Like

    • Besides the fact that you’ve missed the point of JMRJ’s post entirely, Jodi didn’t confess to premeditated murder in the first degree at all. She remembers holding a gun at Travis and the gun going off accidentally. Beyond that, she remembers nothing. That’s not a confession.

      Her conviction stands … unless it’s overturned. I think you’ve missed that point also.

      And while I’m sure even JMRJ would agree that there are probably others in this world that are even more intelligent than he, if you haven’t noticed yet, he is extremely intelligent.

      Like

  3. lissajrobinson

    Not sure if I am convinced re: convicted of murder, but agree that she has been sentenced for it yet, which does leave her in limbo.

    I am more fascinated by the statements by the jury foreman today.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jodi-arias-trial-jury-foreman-interview-william-zervakos-19247835

    He did believe she was verbally and emotionally abused. Of course, he didn’t find that to an excuse for her to murder him, but it sounds like he didn’t believe self-defence — which I can see.

    However, I am more confounded than ever before.about the M1 charge. M2 still seems more fitting of a charge to me. It is a short interview, so hard to know how he read all the evidence, but it struck me that he was influenced a lot by her lying. I definitely don’t believe that the “lying” proves premeditation. Clearly the jury couldn’t agree on the weapons, so what of that?

    It sounds like, although the evidence was very slim (at least in my opinion) for premeditation, it was possibly her lying that convinced them of premeditation along with the brutality of the murder? Given what he stated in his interview it seems that M2 was a better fit.

    Like

    • lissajrobinson

      *NOT been sentenced for it yet.

      Like

      • Heather

        Oh Lissa, thanks for the link, I’ll check it out, sounds a step in the right direction.. too little too late, but better late than never.. this case is far from over yet and thankfully so, although it would have been over and done with months ago here (UK), a crime of passion or manslaughter, 10 years max, 5 years time served, 5 more years and probably less because its usually a third of the sentence served. It would definitely not be a verdict of 1st degree murder, that’s for sure.

        Like

    • LOL first thing the foreman says in that interview is that it was hard to believe she could have done something that brutal. Talk about fertile ground for the third party did it scenario. How tragic that wasn’t done, whatever the reason. Ugh.

      Like

      • Heather

        Yes, I noticed that too, John

        Like

      • Jesse

        Ugh is absolutely correct. I’m probably one of the very very few that still thinks that scenario could really be the real one. Too much was stacked against her already once she told that story though. That being said there are too many “huh” scenarios within this whole case.

        It really took his roommates 5 days to smell his body? The house wasn’t that big. Not to mention all his personal belongings being in the house for days on end. All of which he supposedly never left home without. The bloody shoe print that if it had been Jodi’s, surely would have been brought into the prosecution’s case.

        Then there’s the anonymous tip from Ashley Thompson saying the police should look into her ex husband Dustin. She, however, conveniently commits suicide, shooting herself in the back of the head. Huh? Then if that is not weird enough Dustin’s brother commits suicide on the day of Jodi’s arrest. Bizarro world here I am!

        Lets not forget the Hughes angle either. I read something on the fact that Travis babysat for the Hughes and he supposedly fondled the Hughes children. That is supposedly why Jodi gave Travis the pedophile pamphlets. Hearsay or not I would think that is something that should be looked into if the detectives were really going to do a thorough investigation. That’s just me. Not to mention how visibly uncomfortable he looked on the stand, and the fact that he was calling potential defense witnesses to see if they were going to testify. I forgot to mention that due to Travis’ death, Chris Hughes effectively took over his whole up-line in the ponzi scheme know as PPL. $$$.

        If there was ever a capital case that screamed corruption, this is the case. Everyone wants to paint it as being so black and white, but there are to many people in this with too much to win and lose, and the only people that have lost so far are the two victims…..in my opinion.

        Like

        • Jessie, I had never heard anything about Dustin’s brother’s suicide. AA, how did we miss that?

          Like

          • Maybe we’re confusing Dustin’s brother with a guy named Joshua Freeman? Not sure what to make of that, but it surely is weird.

            Like

            • That’s correct JMRJ. It was Joshua Freeman who shot himself on the day of Jodi’s arrest. He actually died a week later.

              Dan Freeman is his brother and Desiree Freeman is his sister. Dan was a good friend of Jodi and he testified for the defense about an argument between Travis and Jodi that he witnessed. Desiree also testified, but she didn’t see much of the argument. Jodi and the Freemans had a very close relationship and they actually visited her in jail for a long time. Since his testimony, however, Daniel has given an interview saying that he now believe Jodi is guilty.

              Joshua was 21 when he died. He had been molested as a child and began to worry that he would molest children as an adult. He apparently had been experiencing desires for about a year before he died.

              Like

              • Jesse

                I see. I apologize, I must have misread something. I still don’t understand why they didn’t look into the Dustin Thompson angle a little more. I apologize for the confusion though.

                Like

    • It’s very interesting to learn a little about the jury foreman now, isn’t it? For example, he’s had a long career in radio broadcasting and as a newspaper columnist dating back to the 70s. He was aware of Juan Martinez’s aggressive style as a prosecutor going into this case. How many jurors would know so much about a prosecutor? The sad part is that, for him, it was Jodi’s 18 days on the stand, the previous lies she told, and the aggressive cross-examination that hurt her most. Again, perhaps, a flaw in the defense strategy for ever putting Jodi on the stand, especially for such a long period of time, looking at her life in such scrutinizing detail.

      Reading between the lines of his interview, the contrast between Jodi on direct as a rather gentle flower, and her inability to maintain a similar demeanour during Martinez’s brutal cross-examination, which included times she sassed back at him, may have hurt the most. I’m not criticizing her per se because personally, faced with his cross, I may well have thrown something at him.

      Like

      • Heather

        Yes, agree, AA, Jodi was in an impossible situation; I would definitely have thrown something at him, I couldn’t have tolerated it the way she did, I thought she was marvellous, after all, wasn’t she accused of having ”anger problems” ?. Why should anyone have to tolerate Martinez’ brutal cross examination? After having had to kill one abuser, she was faced with another.

        Its always the same, the previous lies she told. She was young, had just had to kill to save her life, and no one can understand why she lied? Its too much to ask for anyone to put themselves in that situation? 12 people whiter than white? I wish I had been on that jury.

        Like

      • Tim

        Also, I believe that they had to put Jodi on the stand in order for Samuels and LaViollette to testify to things that were said, other wise it was hearsay. And the only reason she was on there for 18 days was the prosecution actions allowed by a bias judge. If it was me up there I would have told him to get F___!

        Like

        • Heather

          And the Judge too, Tim! Poor Jodi was between a rock and a hard place, I thought she was marvellous, how she kept her cool with JM, I will never know – which of course JM hated, he wanted to get her angry and it didn’t work. This is supposed to be a woman with anger problems!

          Like

    • Lissa, I think one of the biggest hurdles an abused woman faces in any court proceeding, but especially those involving a jury, is that abuse is not well understood. In fact, international statistics reveal that abused women who kill their abusers are convicted at the same rate as any other person who commits murder.

      The average sentence served by an abusive man who kills his victim is 2-6 years; while the average sentence of an abused woman who kills her abuser is 15-20 years. Why? Society does not understand abuse and does not expect a woman to commit murder as a result. If she does, she is punished more severely for doing so. In addition, juries in these cases are predominately male-dominated.

      Approximately 75% of homicides by abusive men against their victims occur because the woman has or is in the process of leaving. Male jurors apparently sympathize to some degree or perhaps, understand a man’s rage. Women, on the other hand, are expected to walk away and little is understood about the difficulty for a woman to do so.

      We’re never going to be able to end domestic violence — as so many campaigns promote. It’s been occurring since the beginning of time. Promoting domestic violence awareness from the stance being undertaken, in my opinion, is also mostly a waste of time at this point. Everyone knows domestic violence occurs. Awareness of the reasons why women stay and return to these relationships is, however, desperately needed. If I had a dollar for every time I was asked “Why didn’t you just walk out the door and never go back?” I’d be wealthy woman today.

      Like

      • Heather

        Hi AA, I was totally shocked to read what you said about the gender difference in sentencing years; I was unaware of that. How the hell can they justify it, its obscene.

        Like

        • It’s very disturbing, isn’t it, Heather? There are so many women incarcerated for killing their abusers. The other frightening fact is that 70% of women killed or severely injured as a result of domestic violence are women who had left or were in the process of leaving. Jodi was doing all she could to end her relationship with Travis.

          Like

          • Heather

            Yes AA, its Very telling that the abuse of women by men isn’t understood, its sexist, its looking at women like they’re second class citizens. What’s worrying is how women especially are so hateful to other women who have been victims of abuse, its like they Accept they’re second class citizens! Wow!
            Now I understand even more what my friend in the US told me, that when women are raped its Their fault, and how women are scared to report it, so they don’t.

            Like

          • Heather

            Its exactly as Alyce said, that the most dangerous time for a woman is when they try to leave their abuser. I LOVED Alyce, she was so spot on and such a lovely caring woman, yet women hated her? For saying what They Knew was the truth? I have problems getting my head around this one. It comes back to women accepting they’re second class citizens, its like they’re angry to think another woman is believed when no one believed Them; it explains the extreme hatred they have for them.

            Like

  4. Heather

    Hi Lissa, what on earth was that by the interviewer, saying that he thought she was guilty of murdering ”another man” before? What was that about? Odd to say the least.

    And if the Foreman felt Jodi had been abused, why do you think he voted against before this sentencing phase and knowing the following procedure? A hung jury at that point would have saved her from the choice between Life or death.

    Like

  5. lissajrobinson

    Heather, my thoughts are that possibly if he did feel it was a lesser charge of M1, but everyone else was M1 that it better she be charged rather than hang a jury since she did say she murdered him. Although I am not sure he says he wasn’t M1?

    Also, I have heard rumour (RUMOUR everyone please) that the jury was not aware that if they hung that there would be a mistrial on the sentencing phase. Heather, apparently in most states that still have DP … when a jury is hung the sentencing goes to the majority vote rather than to a mistrial. However, this is not the case in Arizona.

    Like

    • Lissa you sure about that? I can’t imagine there could be a death sentence on less than a unanimous verdict. I think when the SCOTUS re-authorized the DP, they did so on the condition that a jury would have to sentence at least in the first instance. In the US, jury verdicts in criminal cases typically have to be unanimous. I should think any non-unanimous jury verdict for DP would be challenged as unconstitutional, but I might not be entirely up on the law there.

      Like

      • lissajrobinson

        ACK … my apologies JMRJ … I meant to say that it goes automatically to LIFE when there is a hung jury. Is it possible for me to make that correction into the post myself? Or can you cross it out for me?

        Like

      • .

        Florida DP trials. They require majority not a unanimous vote.

        Like

    • Heather

      Oh Lissa, are you a Brit like me ? lol

      He worded it rather so that he didn’t give too much away, I’m as unclear about the murder1 vote as you are, whether he thought it was but as you say, she said she killed him. Thing is, I think she only said she murdered him for one of two reasons, either she didn’t do it herself, someone came in and she was threatened (like her first story without the threat) or she thought she must have done because she doesn’t remember doing it, so that must leave room for doubt, doesn’t it, wouldn’t it be inconclusive? If she isn’t sure and only surmises, how on earth should anyone else be sure beyond reasonable doubt, its supposition. Don’t know how the law stands on that. But then we’re not talking normal law, AZ law is very different; barbaric.

      Like

      • lissajrobinson

        Heather, not Brit, but Canadian. We have very similar laws (wish we would switch to loss of control and lose provocation) in charges and in publication restrictions. And yes, no DP. Yay!

        I am not disagreeing with what she really faced, but only trying to look at what was presented in terms of the charge. I think a lot of pieces are missing. I hope over time they come out. The recent interview that Pitchforks did with Gus Searcy was very persuasive and enlightening.

        I am speculating here but it seems that Arizona law itself has a lot of biases in place before the trial starts.

        AA, I am astounded at the statistics for women who have been abused that kills their abuser — re conviction. I have that background myself, so I agree that it is still severely misunderstood and not taken factually into account (the psychology) when trying these types of cases. I’m at a loss.

        Like

        • Heather

          Lissa, I missed that interview somehow 😦 different time zones maybe. I went to the page expecting to find a video to watch at any time and was disappointed. I like Pitchforks’ blogs. I only saw the interview with HLN.. just watching that Dr Drew and his cronies makes me want to scream!

          I agree, I think a lot of pieces are missing, but at least we have time for people to either come voluntarily out of the woodwork or be forced out.
          AZ is shockingly biased I’ve discovered, no wonder so many innocent people are on death row, its truly obscene. No way would a judge over here act the way the judge did in this case, I continue to be shocked. To me, the people who run the judicial system at Maricopa county are no more than savages.

          Like

    • Heather

      Lissa, So, the jury didn’t understand the court ruling? On something as serious as this? My God. And so like sheep they joined the rest of the fold – sounds about right..

      LOL I’ve been corrected on my spelling — on the word, ‘civilised’, on the Huffington Post, of all places; I didn’t know what I was in for when I went there, the type of person on the HP is vile beyond words.

      Like

  6. Dennis

    “LOL first thing the foreman says in that interview is that it was hard to believe she could have done something that brutal. Talk about fertile ground for the third party did it scenario.”

    JMRJ, in what I read he said the following:

    “When I walked into the courtroom for the first time and looked at who the defendant was, you know it’s hard to put that in perspective,” Zervakos said. “When you look at the young woman and think of the crime, and then you see the brutality of the crime, it just doesn’t wash – it’s very difficult to divest yourself from the personal, from the emotional part of it.”

    Exactly what I’ve been saying about gender bias again and again.

    Like

    • lissajrobinson

      Dennis, if you want to consider gender bias, what are your thoughts on what AA has outlined above?

      “The average sentence served by an abusive man who kills his victim is 2-6 years; while the average sentence of an abused woman who kills her abuser is 15-20 years. Why?”

      You can’t consider the one gender bias that you are proposing without considering the other. She did get M1, so I am confused about what your real issue is here with gender bias. Are you speaking in hypotheticals? The juror said one thing in an interview but in reality he charged her with M1. Your point?

      Like

      • Dennis

        lissa I don’t know about the sentence times you write of so I can’t comment. I brought up what the juror said because he stated what I’ve been saying about this case for a long time. He was able to get past his bias but I think many people just can’t.

        Like

        • Dennis, that’s a statistic released by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and confirmed by the FBI. You can find references to it all over the internet. Apparently, juries are biased when a woman kills her abuser. Personally, I think there’s incredible bias about domestic violence period. If I had $1 for every time someone asked me “Why didn’t you just leave?” well, I wouldn’t be posting here today. I’d be basking on a beach somewhere.

          Like

    • I don’t think it’s “bias” to believe that women are less likely to be harmfully violent to men than men are to women. That’s a matter of empirical fact.

      It’s also not “bias” to doubt that a smaller and weaker person, especially a female, could prevail in a physical struggle with a larger man. Again, a matter of empirical fact.

      I agree that there is some bias at work, though. There’s an instinctive, sub-rational aversion to the idea that a woman could do that to a man. If the evidence overcame that aversion and someone wouldn’t yield to it, I think the bias would be material. But when the evidence is as thin as this – gas cans for a trip into the desert as indicating a plan for murder, as opposed to “Gee, what happens if we run out of gas in the middle of the desert a long way from a gas station?” – the bias may still be there, but it doesn’t matter.

      I give credit to the juror. From what he said, if the evidence and arguments had been different he might have been open to the evidence, or arguments about the lack of it. As it was, it had been conceded that she killed him, and still the jury was troubled enough to refrain from voting for death.

      Or at least four of them were.

      Like

      • Jesse

        But you also have the stolen gun from her grandparent’s house. That does not cancel out the fact that the bullets in her grandparent’s gun were hollow points and the bullet that was found in Travis was not. That in and of itself errs to reasonable doubt if I was a juror.

        Like

  7. Here’s a slightly different look at the Jury Foreman’s thoughts. Basically, he’s stating that Jodi’s lies weren’t influential and they weren’t aware of the media blitz until last night/today, but they thought her interviews (at least those prior to trial) were a mistake. I also find his comments about the Jodi before the killing as a perfectly normal girl interesting. Is he saying they convicted her, not because of her lies, but because she gave interviews? I’m confused.

    http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/05/jodi-arias-jury-foreman-interview-video/

    Like

    • Dennis

      AA, he states that he doesn’t think the interviews affected their decision. As to why he would expect Jodi to lie about what she did and cover her tracks he doesn’t really explain although it seems he’s alluding to someone not wanting to lose their respectability, reputation, etc., especially considering the nature of the crime. Her lying did hurt her on the stand however as this juror says in the ABC interview that “she was not a good witness” and “there were so many contradicting stories.”

      Like

      • Dennis, was he referred to the lies pre-trial or lies he perceived she told on the stand? I got the impression it was the former.

        Like

        • Jesse

          And that is the saddest part of this whole thing to me. She may have only told one lie, the fact that she wasn’t there, for obvious reasons. Then she tries to tell the truth, under duress, and the detective doesn’t believe her. I could very well be dead wrong, but there were just too many angles that were not investigated into further. That being said, the state doesn’t care. They had a case against HER that they knew they could win, and unfortunately they did. Truth doesn’t matter anymore…”scoreboard.”

          Like

        • Dennis

          Referring to the pretrial.in terms of him expecting it. That’s how I took it. Later he says she was a bad witness.

          Like

  8. Dennis

    The juror admitted an initial bias and overcame it; others seem incapable.

    Premeditation wasn’t just about gas cans.

    Commenting on the merits of a case without at least a mild familiarity with the facts is folly.

    Like

    • Heather

      Dennis, to me the jurors were incapable of feeling any real compassion and empathy.
      The gas cans were just red herrings because Martinez had nothing at all to prove premeditation; he hoped the jurors would buy it and they did. He was a salesman, that’s all it amounted to imo.

      Like

      • Dennis

        Heather, the gas cans weren’t red herrings and the jury foreman struck me as thoughtful and considerate. He even stated that he thought the woman was mentally and verbally abused. One third of the jury found that there were mitigating factors to preclude death even though they also felt the crime met aggravating factors. To me that shows the jury was not without compassion.

        Like

        • Heather

          But those same jury members voted guilty, Dennis, I can’t forget that, as in guilty of 1st degree murder, so, ”not without compassion”?

          We have to disagree about the gas cans, Oh I know, JM did a marvellous sales pitch and spin and, well, some people fell for it and he knew they would.. but no way did they prove premeditation, oh and he knew that, too.
          The jury Foreman came across like that but didn’t give much away, yes, I know he said that he thought she was abused .. guess he found a ‘But’.. hmm thoughtful.. considerate.. hmmm… depends how you consider that.. remembering this is a woman’s life at stake..

          I think it may be helpful to got to Occupy HLN, Jason Weber say it all perfectly.. you should also see the Scam.. the Hughes’ (Mormon), people in Australia who’ve been brainwashing the public.. (the Justice4Travis State v Jodi Arias page).

          Like

          • Heather

            Oh and of course, not forgetting the Alexander family who put their name to that page..
            Its ALL about the $$$$$$, Dennis. A total Scam. Clever to get 50,000 people angry, hate-filled and wanting to ”do something”, so what do they do, well there’s only one thing, send dollars!.
            They are being brainwashed, Duped.

            Like

          • Dennis

            Compassion shouldn’t figure into a verdict, so a juror could feel compassion for a defendant and still find them guilty of the crime.

            Like

            • But apparently, it DID factor into the verdict. Did you see the interview with Juror No. 6 about her compassion for the Alexander family? Have you seen what the alternate juror No. 17 has been saying about compassion and her hatred for the defense witnesses and attorneys and how the jurors laughed at them together? She also talked about how her friends on the jury all made up their minds during opening statements. So much for not discussing the case, huh? Not only that, but she and her friends discussed Jodi’s ethnicity on her Facebook wall way back on May 14, before the final jury was chosen. Seems a LOT entered into the verdict that didn’t have anything to do with the evidence.

              Like

              • Heather

                Oh AA, you are spot on. Compassion DID come into it, and IMO too much so – for the Alexander family. Is there a link to where juror 17 said this?

                Reasons for not sequestering the jury when the State wants to murder her.

                Like

            • Heather

              But, Dennis, understanding Why she did it, IF they had any understanding, compassion and empathy, they would have voted for a lesser charge.

              Yes, she did kill him or so we’re to believe (even though she said she did but can’t remember stabbing him or slitting his throat), but the jury had an OPTION as to what charge it was and it should Not have been 1st degree murder since there was absolutely no proof whatsoever of premeditation. JM had no evidence of that, nothing, which is why the gas cans came into play so much – well, he was after all, the prosecutor – he had to have Something to say, didn’t he, something he could sell to make fit, he couldn’t very well have nothing, could he? The gas cans were all he had.

              Like

              • Dennis

                I didn’t see other interviews AA and will look for them. It’s also possible that this case will eventually be overturned due to lack of sequester, among other things, so there is hope for those who feel justice was not done.

                Heather, maybe some jurors felt they did understand why she did what she did and spared her life as a result. To say there was no proof of premeditation is just wrong. However, as I said before, Jodi testifying was a huge mistake. Also remember, just in terms of how you view things and how others do, that at least one juror didn’t seem to believe that Jodi suffered physical abuse.

                Like

              • Dennis, Juror 6 was interviewed by AZCentral. He released one portion of the interview on Saturday night. Then, he released another portion where he asked her some questions from the Twitterverse last night. She voted for death and didn’t believe anything Jodi said. She felt Jodi was playing the jury.

                She was also interviewed the same day (shown yesterday) by ABC with two other jurors, one was juror 13, but I don’t recall the other juror’s number. He was male and a banker. I don’t like to say their names, even though they have, but that’s just my personal policy. The other two also voted for death and apparently, didn’t believe anything Jodi said.

                Then, alternate Juror No. 17 has been posting on Twitter and discussing at length her feelings and those of the other jurors. She will be on Dr. Drew on HLN on Tuesday, with Juror 6.

                None of these jurors, especially alternate No. 17, believed Jodi was abused. Thus far, the foreman is the only person to have said that. For me, it’s very sad to hear that a woman is not believed about abuse unless there is corroboration because most abused women don’t have that.

                I’ll use my case for example. I have photos of a bruise in the shape of his fist mark on my stomach, but apparently that doesn’t prove anything (although I always hoped if he kills me, his fist might be able to be forensically matched with the first mark in the photo — but I have less confidence in that after this trial). I have a journal I kept solely dealing with his abuse for the last 6 months before he was arrested and his many statements that he was going to kill me, which I’d sent to friends. I have emails I wrote to friends telling them to be sure to contact certain people in law enforcement if I suddenly went missing because I was in fear for my life. And more than that, I have a video of him standing over me wearing a surgical glove brandishing a wine bottle saying he’s going to kill me with it. There’s also my sworn statement to the police who arrested him. The police report details his statement that yes, he did don a surgical glove and picked up a wine bottle, but he only did that because I said I was going to call the police and so, he was going to hit himself in the head with the bottle and tell the police I did it so that we could both spend the night in jail. That was enough for the police to arrest him for the felony of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He’d bought super heavy duty garbage bags that day which he says on the video are to dispose of my body so he could dump me into the ocean after he cut me up. He’d bought luminol and a crime scene clean up kit to erase signs of blood, which he said he knew exactly how to do from his experience erasing signs of blood out of the pools he cleaned for a living. He’d also packed a suitcase with some of my things, which he said he was going to dispose of with my body, so it looked like I left on a trip. He said he planned to spent that night with his mistress, come home and found me not there. Then, noticed my suitcase missing several days later, call my cell phone, and after I didn’t respond for several days or a week, he would then contact the police. If I was ever found, it would be assumed I left on a trip and something happened along the way. Since I don’t drive, the obvious suspect would be a cab driver.

                In my opinion, all of that is stronger evidence of premeditation of his intent to kill me than anything Martinez presented — even though I wasn’t actually killed that night because (a) he finally noticed me videotaping and said “Oh you think you’re so smart” and I told him I’d already sent the video to a friend and (b) that gave me the split second I needed to call the police and they arrived very quickly.

                But none of that was enough corroboration for the prosecutor to think it was worthy of being brought before a jury. It was only deemed worthy of the prosecutor offering a plea bargain of community service and probation which he refused to accept. It seems a witness (or several witnesses) would have had to have seen him abuse me for there to be strong enough corroboration for an actual trial to have occurred.

                But that’s the plight of many (or even most) abused women. In most cases, the only person who *can* testify to the abuse is the abused woman herself. We rarely make good witnesses because of our PTSD, our fear of the abuser, our shame in discussing that they raped us, and/or, in some cases, because we may not have led perfect lives prior to being with the abuser. That doesn’t mean we have criminal records either, but each and every one of our previous relationships are scrutinized. As I was told by the prosecutor, the fact that I was trying to separate from him at that time, had told a few people that I was, and had even spoken to a lawyer about divorce, would have been brought into evidence and jury may have viewed it as that we were simply arguing as divorcing couples do. And the fact that he had at least one mistress he’d been spending nights with could have been portrayed as me being jealous. Therefore, my case wasn’t perfect enough.

                If I hadn’t managed the call to police, and I’d been killed that night, it still wouldn’t be enough evidence of abuse, because there were no eyewitnesses to him ever abusing me. And he’d told plenty of people the reason I never left the house was (a) because I was crazy and afraid to go out or (b) I was ill with cancer and too weak to leave the house, so no one thought twice about the fact that I was never seen. And, of course, my body, the garbage bags, luminol and crime scene clean up kit would have been disposed of, along with my suitcase. He had it all planned out perfectly — and in my opinion, a lot better planning than you believe Jodi did.

                I find it difficult to believe you or anyone else really believes there was evidence of premeditation on Jodi’s part. All of the gas cans, car rental, phone dying, seems to be so coincidental.

                Like

              • AA, that does sound frightening, not to mention frustrating in your dealings with the criminal justice system.

                Like many of the lawyers who inhabit it, especially some prosecutors, the system is ego-centric. I’m always struck by the dogma that a rape allegation is more credible if it is made promptly. I think the reverse is true, in the worst rape situations the victim is always reluctant to report it. But the prompt report is better for the people who have to try to prove it later because there’s a good chance you’ll be able to get more evidence, and proving it is about evidence.

                The fact that in situations like yours you’re dealing with two people who have been personally close generates subtleties that the criminal process is often not good at evaluating. More often than being overbearing jerks, prosecutors are mentally lazy. In their typical case, they put on their witnesses, mostly police officers, their witnesses are believed and the conviction flows naturally from that. They don’t have to think much, they don’t have to worry about subtle distinctions, and if the defense tries to bring things like that up, they have their stock arguments about guilty people making excuses or changing the subject or not accepting responsibility and “use your common sense”, and so on.

                The word among prosecutors in the last ten years is that rape/abuse cases where the perpetrator and the victim know each other are losers, so you don’t get much help. If you resort to self-help you’re likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a prosecution yourself.

                One way to employ the system that is relatively effective is to begin in the family court, get orders of protection which are pretty easily obtained, and then if they are violated you have a paper trail and a contempt charge, but I suppose you did that and of course it’s not foolproof or anything.

                Like

              • JMRJ, the problem with orders of protection (or injunctions, as they’re called in FL), is that they’re NOTHING but a piece of paper. Statistics show it requires at least 7 violations before a police officer will actually arrest on a violation unless they catch the perp in the act of assault.

                I was sitting in court in MD one day, where I now live, waiting for a hearing to domesticate my order here. The judge was really a nice guy actually, and the advocates said he was the most sensitive to abuse in that court. A woman’s case was called before mine. She had a small baby in her arms. She was without representation because she worked and didn’t qualify. She was attempting to get her ex violated on her order of protection which clearly specified he was not to go within so many yards of her home or work and he was only allowed to contact her via text to arrange visitation. There was a dispute about visitation. He showed up 4 hours late and she had left the meeting place. He then came to her home and harassed her. He physically shook her and threatened to do more. She called the police and they he hightailed it out of there. He then sent her a series of threatening texts that if she ever called the police on him again, he would effing kill her and their child. She showed the judge the texts. Did he hold the guy in contempt? No, he did not. He warned him that if he ever did anything like that again, he would find himself incarcerated. It was a strong warning. The problem here is, what if he killed her the next time? It happens every day. What good is an order if an abuser can violate it and get away with it?

                My ex was issued a no-contact order after his arrest by the criminal court during arraignment the next morning. I got an injunction for protection the same day. He drove into the development and confiscated my mail from the mailbox which was not located outside the house and just barely outside of the range he was allowed to come inside of. One of the things he stole was an appointment for me at immigration for fingerprinting to renew my green card. In an email to me, he admitted he stole it. he also admitted he stole it when he spoke to my attorney before the final hearing on the injunction. Apparently, stealing my mail was not a crime because we were related by marriage. The officer who arrested him really wanted to violate him for that, but his sergeant wouldn’t allow him to. (Of course, that was because my ex was best friends with the commander of that police department — but I can’t prove that, can I?) I was finally allowed to fill out an information report about the incident because I was persistent.

                He also drove up outside the house (inside that range) and remotely disconnected the internet. When the police arrived, he was gone, so they wouldn’t violate him for that. At the final hearing, the judge modified the order so that he wasn’t allowed to come into the development. Then, he went on USPS.com and changed my mailing address to his new address. There was nothing I could do about that, other than change it back. That became a game. He changed it, I changed it back. The police said “get a P.O. Box”. The problem was how was I then going to get my mail seeing as I didn’t drive and was struggling to get to the store in expensive ($100 round trip) unreliable cabs?

                My ex also accessed my bank accounts. He used my credit and debit cards. He charged his legal fees to my account and business expenses — using my debit card which he’d stolen. My stupid lawyer told me I couldn’t cut off his access to finances so I did nothing about it for a couple of weeks. By that point, he’d drained everything. He told the court at the final injunction hearing that I didn’t need support because I owned the business and we’d continue to run it together until our divorce was final. My stupid lawyer told me that was a good idea. A few days before that, he’d set up a new business in his name, and told the customers of the pool business -. which I owned — to pay his new business. Therefore, he cut off all access to income.

                By that point, any support hearing would have to be handled through the divorce which he’d filed for within days of arrest. But the divorce court wouldn’t hear emergency hearings until after mediation. He refused to attend mediation unless I paid for it, and I couldn’t afford to pay.

                He met with neighbours and instructed them not to help me in any way, shape or form. He had one of them drop off a written threat to the house. But since he didn’t do it, the police wouldn’t violate him. I saw him outside the back of the house on several occasions. He was always gone by the time the police arrived, so no violation.

                He tried to modify the no contact order in criminal court in a really sneaky move that I was only told about by a court advocate the night beforehand. His lawyer hadn’t notified me (something his lawyer repeatedly did throughout the divorce). I got a ride to court from a neighbour. The judge asked me if I wanted the order modified so we could speak. I said no. My ex walked by me, deliberately cutting off my path, and threatened me with a fist. The advocate with me, appointed by the court, saw it, but the prosecutor didn’t. She was filling in for the actual assigned prosecutor so she didn’t want to do anything about it. Then, he walked by the woman who drove me to court, made a fist at her and mouthed “I’ll effing kill you if you help her again.” She told the fill-in prosecutor and got the same answer I did. Thereafter, he drove into the development and regularly cut her off and/or followed that woman. Needless to say, she never helped me again.

                Then, he cut off water in the house and garbage collection. Somehow, somewhere along the line, he’d forged my name on a quit claim deed so the house was in his name. The city couldn’t help me with that unless he signed a lease renting the house to me. He refused. I couldn’t live without water.

                Later, he managed to cut off phone and internet in the house, even though they were in name. My iphone suddenly stopped working. I brought it to an Apple store and they verified it had been hijacked because some tracking information had been installed on it. My ex had only handled that phone for 20 minutes when I got it and that was because of the way he had WiFi hooked up in the house which he wouldn’t share with me.

                They were my all my lifelines and one by one, he systematically cut them off. He violated the very spirit of the injunction, but he was very careful not to get caught doing anything that actually violated it. I had no rights. I had no recourse. The police officer spent so much time at my house that we were on a first name basis with one another and I had his personal cell phone number. He even gave me a ride to immigration rather than me spending $90 each way on a cab there. I had no ID and was about to find myself in a situation where I wouldn’t be able to get back into the development if I left.

                When I finally moved, that officer and his friends, circled my house for hours while we loaded the truck. He was an amazing officer and he helped me in ways that were way above and beyond the call of duty. I would probably be dead if it wasn’t for him. But his hands were tied in terms of doing anything to violate my ex.

                And then, as I’ve mentioned before, after moving and participating in an address confidentiality program here, the divorce judge ordered me to disclose my home and work address to my ex during discovery. She was the same judge who issued a non-expiring injunction for protection. But she was angry that I wouldn’t comply with her order. When I refused, she struck my pleadings and barred me from participating in my own divorce.

                That’s on appeal (pro se) and the state of MD filed an amicus brief in support of my issue. They really told FL how nonsensical that order was. Will it work? I have no idea. If I lose, I’m prepared to petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Florida Supreme Court, and if they grant it and I lose there, I’ll do the same with SCOTUS, if I can. I’m not letting this issue go until I absolutely have to. I’m fighting, not for myself, but for every woman who has been ordered to give her new home address to her abuser in divorce court. It happens every day.

                My story isn’t unusual or rare. I wish it was. It’s the reality abused women face when they try to leave. No one is paying attention. No one helps us, unless you have money, or you find a friendly police officer who does what he can. He always said he only wishes he could have done more. I’m lucky I had *that* much help.

                Like

        • Jesse

          How were the gas cans not red herrings? What about her having gas cans proves premeditation in this case? I would understand if she set the house on fire, otherwise….?

          Like

          • Dennis

            Jesse, because there are documented gas-ups in all but Arizona which due to her car’s gas mileage demonstrates, along with other things, that she used the cans so she could deny ever being in Arizona, or more specifically near the Mesa area.

            Like

            • Jesse

              Fair enough. However does the route that she took when she left Travis’ house indicate that she would have had to fill up in Arizona with roughly a full tank?

              Like

            • Jesse

              “However”, as Stephen A Smith would say, if she was trying to cover up her trip, why then would she allow Travis to take nudes of her and she take pictures of Travis if she was trying to cover up her whole trip?

              Like

              • Well, of course, Jesse, she deleted the photographs and threw the camera in the washer and dryer. She didn’t remove the memory card and destroy it, because even though she was a semi-professional photographer, she was sure that deleting the pictures and running it through the washer/dryer cycle would be sufficient, don’t you know? (Forgive my sarcasm, but that’s the ridiculous argument here.)

                Like

              • Jesse

                Seriously. If that was the case, why would she not take the camera and bury it somewhere deep in the desert, or at least the memory card. As you said, as a budding professional photographer, you think she would be well aware that data on the memory card would more than likely be able to be recovered even if it was run through the wash. Too many things about this case adds up to everything but premeditation in my mind.

                Like

            • But Dennis, she purchase gas BEFORE long she left California in Salinas and again in Pasadena, right before she hit the desert. Whether she was intending to travel to Mesa or Utah at that point, she was going to go through the desert. It doesn’t prove that she wanted to deny ever being in AZ at all.

              Like

    • Heather

      ”Commenting on the merits of a case without at least a mild familiarity with the facts is folly”

      Hmm.. depends of course where one gets these ”facts” from..

      I happen to think that having ”mild familiarity” of a case is dangerous, especially a case like this one, when it is far from being cut and dried, especially when it stands out a mile that this is what has happened; brainwashed people THINK they have the facts, when in reality they have just been duped into thinking it..

      Far too much gullibility.

      Like

  9. If she is not a convicted murderer, what status do you put on her – an innocent?

    Like

    • It’s a very technical point, Don. It usually doesn’t matter, but sometimes it does. The “conviction” doesn’t occur until sentencing.

      Her status at present is….defendant in an ongoing criminal action, because a jury verdict of guilty has been rendered, but it has not yet been reduced to a judgment of conviction.

      Like

  10. Dennis

    Hey, did you guys know that JA tried to send a coded message from jail to an ally?

    http://tinyurl.com/a7wfwah

    Longer reports and video elsewhere of course.

    I have to say I’m shocked this woman could be so devious.

    Like

    • And that was proven exactly how, Dennis?

      Some magazines that belonged to Jodi had potentially coded messages according to Martinez. Whose handwriting was it? You do realize magazines get passed around in jails right? There was nothing further about this big revelation of Martinez, after that.

      Gosh, you’d believe just about anything. If you send me $10,000 in cash, I’ll double it for you. Are we on?

      Like

      • Actually, AA, I have to agree with Dennis that this was a very damaging bit of evidence, though maybe not for the reason he thinks. I agree with Jose Baez about it:

        http://www.businessinsider.com/most-damning-evidence-against-jodi-arias-2013-3

        It doesn’t mean she killed TA. It doesn’t even mean that she’s improperly trying to influence someone’s testimony – although it permits that inference, which is bad.

        But what’s really bad about it is that it shows she’s capable of being cagey and deceptive. A jury will totally pounce on any indication of that, especially from a criminal defendant. The jury’s worst fear is that it’s going to be tricked into making the wrong decision. And I can’t emphasize enough that they are pre-disposed to believe that about the defendant to begin with, and that the opposite is true for the prosecution. That is, they’re ready to believe the criminal defendant is lying to them, and they’re ready to disbelieve that the prosecution is anything other than honest. It’s a huge and very unfair credibility gap that at the very least negates the whole “presumption of innocence” idea as a practical matter. It’s one of the main reasons that representing the criminal defendant is a much harder job than prosecuting.

        The likelihood is that Jodi was just being careful about communications from the jail, probably on her lawyer’s advice. In other words, it’s probably nowhere near as bad as it looks, but it still looks bad. For me it wouldn’t matter that much because I pretty much discount everything she says in the first place. But for most jurors that little episode about those magazines would have been very, very damaging.

        Like

        • Well the problem there, JMRJ, is that the magazines were NOT found in her cell. That article is incorrect — as so many articles about this trial have been to date.

          While in jail, Jodi became friends with a woman by the name of Donavan Bering. Ann Campbell regularly visited Donavan, and became friends with Jodi. When Donavan was released (Kim indicated that she accepted a plea deal), Ann continued to visit Jodi on a weekly basis. On August 4, 2011, Jodi wanted to give Ann the magazines, but as is the usual protocol in jails, the guards inspected them first. The guards apparently noticed the lettering on the magazines and turned them over to the prosecution — instead of allowing Ann to leave with them.

          At the very beginning of Martinez’s cross examination of Jodi, he asked her about a pre-trial hearing that took place on August 8, 2011. He asked if Travis’s s alleged masturbation to the photo of a little boy was discussed at the hearing. Jodi answered that it was. Suddenly and abruptly, he introduced the magazines. He asked Jodi to read the writing contained therein aloud. He then fed into the overhead projection unit, a typed piece of paper showing all the messages grouped together.

          Jodi seemed completely unfamiliar with the messages and struggled to read them. They were written in tiny print in pencil. The handwriting did not look like Jodi’s handwriting at all. We saw plenty of her handwriting from her journals, so it was not a difficult task to compare. She has a very distinct writing style and it simply did not match the writing in the magazines.

          After Jodi read the messages and the number codes, Martinez simply fired off a question to Jodi: “You tried to get someone to lie at that hearing, didn’t you?” Jodi replied “No.” And that was it. Court ended for the weekend and Martinez left the issue alone. Everyone expected him to return to the magazine issue when court resumed the following Monday, but he never did. It was bizarre. He continued to cross examine Jodi for a week thereafter. but never went back to the magazines.

          Her attorney did not address the issue on redirect. We were all waiting for him to do so. It was as if he forgot. (There were many things her attorneys seemed to forget to do during the trial. They often got right to a critical point and suddenly sat down. It was extremely frustrating, especially since Martinez drove every point home and then some.) I felt Nurmi should have at the very least asked if she actually wrote the messages. That seemed like a logical follow up question. He had scrutinized the magazines along with Willmott for at least 10 minutes when Martinez introduced them. It was quite obvious they had never seen them before.

          I’m sure the jurors were left believing that Jodi did, in fact, attempt to send a message to someone on the outside. But I don’t know whether she did or not. As I said, magazines get passed around in jail. They’re a hot commodity I think her lawyers dropped the ball in not following up on the issue. By then, we’d seen many of her journal entries and it would not have taken more than a few moments to ask questions that allowed comparison of the handwriting. It left the impression that they did not follow up because they knew Jodi had tried to send a message to influence testimony at that hearing.

          There was another moment much like that during rebuttal. Jodi had testified that she borrowed two gas cans from Darryl. Darryl’s testimony agreed with that. Jodi also bought a kerosene can from Wal-Mart in Salinas, CA. Gas cans at Wal-Mart are red, but kerosene cans are blue. The receipt of the purchase read “kerosene can”. Jodi testified that she returned that can as she decided she did not need it and that she received cash. Martinez grilled her about that, claiming that she was lying and had not returned it. He asked if she would be surprised to learn there was no record of her returning the can to Wal-Mart. He never followed up with that … until rebuttal. During rebuttal, he called a witness from the regional accounting department of Wal-Mart. She testified at length about having scoured the records for a return. When he was done with her, Nurmi had NO questions. Seriously! No questions. No cross. Nothing, Zippo. Nada. The jurors asked an intelligent question about whether a Wal-Mart employee could have used a dummy SKU for the return. The witness said that was possible. Neither Martinez nor Nurmi had ANY follow up. Again, NOTHING! It was positively insane.

          I couldn’t even begin to tell you the amount of people who posted on JAII about working at Wal-Mart during the past decade and how sloppy employees are on returns for less than $20 (which the kerosene can would have been). My ex-husband once returned something and they handed him cash from the drawer without touching his receipt because there was a long line. But Nurmi never thought to ask THAT question? It took the jurors to ask a good question, but even that wasn’t quite enough. The door was wide open for Nurmi to walk in after that juror question and he didn’t take the golden opportunity that should have been a lawyer’s dream!

          Another strange part of that whole gas can issue was that apparently, Martinez had obtained all the records from Wal-Mart’s regional office. But until that witness was listed on the rebuttal list, Jodi’s attorneys had never bothered to seek discovery of the records. At that point, and only then, they filed a motion that the prosecution turn over those records. I was sitting there screaming “Are you freaking serious?”

          I said right then and there, if Jodi is convicted of first degree murder, it will be as a result of that gas can fiasco!

          And then, there was the whole autopsy report fiasco. Three times, Dr. Horn, M.E. took the stand. THREE TIMES! And each time, he testified that if Travis was shot first, he would have been immediately incapacitated because the bullet entered his brain. Did the defense EVER call any type of licensed medical doctor to counter that? Not one.

          But during their surrebuttal, they used a neuropsychologist to explain that someone could be shot with a gun of that caliber and if it did not penetrate the dura mater, the person would NOT be incapacitated. Guess what the autopsy report stated: The dura mater and faix cerebri are intact. And guess who caught this and asked Dr. Horn! Was it the defense? Oh no, of course not. It was a juror question: “Was the dura mater penetrated?” Horn states that it had to have been. Then, he glances at his report, notices that’s not what it says and calls it a “typographical error.” Finally, Willmott gets up for her follow up to the juror questions and asks Horn if he realized the seriousness of this case and that a typographical error is simply not acceptable. I wanted to scream at that point.

          There was so much more that was completely unacceptable in their scattered defense, but I’m sure I’ve bored you enough for one morning!

          Like

          • AA, well, I guess I should check with you before I offer any opinions on evidence, in case there can be some dispute. I figured there was no dispute that this was her doing, but apparently that’s not the case.

            So either she did or didn’t try to get a message out that way. If she did, it really doesn’t mean all that much substantively, but it does create a huge appearance problem. If she didn’t, very bad error by the defense not to bring that out on redirect.

            On the gas can thing, it’s such a stretch to see anything other than someone taking some extra gas for a drive in the desert. A long time ago I drove east from California into the desert and remember the signs warning you to make sure you had a full tank because it was a long way to a gas station.

            But beyond that point, what is the big deal about returning a gas or kerosene can to Wal-Mart? What inference is being made or suggested about that, whether she did or didn’t? She’s saying she did and JM is saying she didn’t, but there’s no dispute that she had other gas cans anyway, right? I don’t understand what JM is getting at there.

            Like

            • I’m sure 99% of people who watched the trial or read anything about the magazines assumed that because her defense did not attempt to clarify the issue, she was trying to influence someone else’s testimony. Why they couldn’t have asked her any follow up questions about that is beyond me.

              The whole third gas can issue was basic witness impeachment 101, that’s all. She testified that she returned it. Martinez proved Wal-Mart had no record of the return. Martinez also proved (through a gas station rebuttal witness) that she made three separate purchases of gas at the same gas station. The logical conclusion then is that she filled up three different gas cans, so she had not returned one of them. During closing arguments, Nurmi attempted to convince that she had returned the third gas can to a different Wal-Mart. It was too little, too late.

              Between that issue and the magazines, the jurors saw her as a liar. If she could lie about something as stupid as a $12 gas can (or however much it cost because I honestly don’t remember), then she could lie about everything else.

              So, for premeditation, Martinez had a burglary at her grandparents’ house where a .25 caliber gun loaded with 7 hollow bullets, a DVD player and cash were stolen (the gun caliber matches the one Travis was shot with — although the bullet did not), her renting a car in another larger town (not the rinky dink town she lived in), borrowing two gas cans and buying another, buying gas in CA not AZ, turning off her cell phone (or her battery dying) before she got to AZ, and he alleged that she dyed her hair brown so she would not be recognized (the car rental agent remembered her as a blonde probably because she was blonde on her drivers license). That was another bone of contention for me. The police report from her grandparents’ burglary identified her as having brown hair. Did the defense use that? Of course not. They used photos taken on her camera, as if they carried more weight than a description made by a law enforcement officer!

              That was Martinez’s case and the jurors bought it hook, line and sinker. There was no reasonable doubt that she didn’t premeditate the murder. And even worse, 7 of them voted for felony murder, so they bought the story that after she first attacked Travis, she was no longer welcome in his home, and therefore, murdered him while committing burglary!!!

              Like

              • Jesse

                You know that is a good point. Why would her defense not point out that if in fact she did have blonde hair when she purchased the rental she could have not stolen that gun.

                Like

              • Jesse, that’s a million dollar questions, isn’t it? Why didn’t her defense use the burglary police report from her grandparents’ house? The police didn’t even consider Jodi a suspect. There was nothing damning in that report. So, why didn’t they use it? You can’t dye your hair dark brown on or before May 28 and dye it back to platinum blonde on or before June 2. Then dye it back to dark brown again on June 3. It just doesn’t work that way. And after you’ve been light blonde and then dye it dark brown, it actually stains the hair. It ultimately fades out to a a reddish colour and you have to keep dying it to keep it dark until it grows out. But if you tried to dye it blonde again, it could come out green and oh boy, would that cost a lot of money in colour correction. (I’m a natural dishwater blonde with one clump of natural light blonde highlights. For most of my life, I had highlights all over my hair to match the natural clump. Many times, hairdressers screwed up and colour correction was outrageously expensive and often looked worse a few days later than it had ever been.)

                Like

            • Jessie

              I’ll get back to our other conversation, hopefully tonight (I took last night off 🙂 But I thought I’d chime in on the gas cans, because there’s a very simple reason the gas cans don’t lead to a logical conclusion of premeditation. They make a great story….but the story doesn’t work.

              The story goes like this: She plotted to kill Travis en route to a planned visit to Salt Lake City. She plotted to erase all evidence that she ever went off-route to make her murderous side-trip to Mesa, including bringing her own gas to avoid having to stop anywhere on the off-route to gas up. Pretty clever, huh?

              The obvious problem is that it was unnecessary. Assuming the prosecution’s basic theory, it would have been far easier for her to just use a credit card for gas while on the “official alibi route” (thus leaving a clear paper trail) and then pay cash on her “off-route,” which went from the Hoover Dam to Mesa and back (again, not an unusual route — this is how one would travel from either the LA metro area to SLC or from Mesa to SLC, so no copy there).

              But, ok, let’s say Jodi’s just not very good at this whole premeditation thing and the simpler credit cash vs. cash scheme never occurred to her. It still doesn’t work because she carried, at most, 15 gallons of gas. The prosecution could only prove 10, but let’s be generous and give ’em the other five, because it doesn’t matter either way.

              Neither is anywhere near enough gas — not even close — to get you from the Hoover Dam to Mesa and back, which is over 600 miles, plus mileage within Mesa. It’s so woefully short of how much gas she would have needed that it can’t even be attributed to bad premeditation.

              Now, had she carried, say, 30 or more gallons, they’d have a strong point. It’s still not the simplest way to avoid leaving a paper trail, but it would be strange behavior to carry that much gas and it’s probably enough to take her through the entire off-route without stopping until she got back on the “alibi route.” But…moot point….she didn’t carry 30 gallons.

              Not only that, but Ryan Burns was expecting her 24+ hours before she arrived. I’ve said all along that had she arrived in Salt Lake ON TIME, I would probably believe she was guilty of premeditated murder. Because it would strongly indicate that she gave Burns a later arrival time in order to account for the missing hours while she’s in Mesa offing her ex. But that isn’t what happened either.

              At some point, bad planning becomes so bad that it can’t reasonably be attributed to planning at all and the gas can scenario is one of those things.

              Why did Martinez get so hung up on trying to prove she didn’t return the Wal-Mart gas can? He got sidetracked a lot like that, trying to prove dishonesty even in situations where dishonesty would have had no relevance to the crime at all. His very first question of her on cross-examination — the first one!! — revolved around whether she had ever called her sister “stupid.”

              He went on and on about it, trying to prove that she had once called her sister stupid, even though she was now denying that her sister was stupid. He went down a great many of these kinds of rabbit holes that had nothing to do with the facts of his case. Apparently, it worked with the jury, but all it made me think was that he had no case.

              Like

              • Heather

                A very good post, Jessie, well explained.

                I thought exactly them same with JM’s closing non sense. Its almost impossible to believe that the jury didn’t see it, I mean, Really, are they Really that dumb and stupid? Which of course only leads to one other conclusion, the Only one it Can be – that the jury were biased simply because.. she was a woman abused.
                One only has to look on the hater sites to see how many women gush, spewing such hatred and.. are actually enjoying doing so, maybe because of what They went through when They were abused – getting anyone who mattered to believe them, and so their attitude is, who the hell is She… and malign her.

                Like

              • Jesse

                Totally understood. That whole story does not make sense. She could have taken out all the money she wanted to before she left to make sure that she had enough money to leave no paper trail. Forgive me as I’m kind of off the rails at the moment, but didn’t she leave a check for Travis? Forget the amount but that doesn’t matter…if it was premeditated, didn’t she have enough cash in her account to make sure that she could have bought all the gas she wanted to without leaving a paper trail?

                Like

              • Jesse, she did. She had about $700 in her account as I recall. She also deposited cash into her account in Monterrey and made transfers between her personal and business account. I’m sure Darryl or Matt would have lent her cash for the trip if she needed it. But no, she charged everything to her own credit card. A terrible premeditated murderess, isn’t she?

                Like

              • Yeah, and there was that “Snow White” exchange. To me it just looked like he had essentially lost his mind, I thought someone should get in there and help him stop before he did any more damage to himself, but he just went on and on about it. It makes you wonder about his judgment, but it seemed like nobody really saw that, caught up as they were in the madness of the whole thing.

                And he’s prosecuting people for murder, I mean this is our point man. Makes you wonder about the whole system.

                Like

              • Oh my gosh, that was completely bizarre (the Snow White fiasco). A catchy name for a seminar was twisted beyond belief. And then, he grilled Alyce about her CV listing her as being a keynote speaker at an event when she was actually a keynote speaker for a breakout session, NOT the main event. Meanwhile, it was perfectly acceptable that Dr. DeMarte did NOT update her CV with everything she had done, because otherwise it would span 20 pages.

                The way Martinez grilled Alyce, and for that matter, Dr. Samuels, was completely unacceptable. He actually directly asked Dr. Samuels if he had feelings for Jodi. Alyce held her own with him and I had to laugh when she asked him if he was angry with her, and told him if he were in one of her groups, she would put him in a timeout. I was delighted when his tactics with Dr. Geffner did NOT work at all.

                But apparently, jurors in AZ like him — other than the foreman who said he didn’t like being spoken to as if he was a child. Yet, he still convicted Jodi, so …

                I really don’t understand his rabid determination to put this woman to death. At worst, she killed ONE man. She’s not a serial killer. Second degree murder was a generous plea offer that he refused to accept. And it seems he remains hellbent on a death sentence. WHY?????

                Like

            • Dennis

              The magazines were addressed to her, belonged to her, she had them, and tried to give them to her ally. How do we know? Because Jodi tells us so. Additionally, besides the slivers of the message written in the magazine there was the name and phone number of the ABC producer who had visited her in jail. http://tinyurl.com/ok8ytxe As JMRJ said, it doesn’t prove murder but it’s absolutely devastating to her and her case.

              The funniest part is where Martinez asks her if she sees the numbers on the bottom of the page (the ones that are used to put the slivers of the message in order) and asks, “And what are those numbers, Ma’am?” so she could read them aloud, just as she had read off the slivers of the message. And she answers, “My understanding is that they’re page numbers.” Funny stuff.

              I think the gas can issue is that Jodi needed more gas to get in and out of Mesa undetected which is why she bought it, why she claims she returned it and why the prosecution drove home that she never did.

              Like

              • Dennis, I didn’t say “devastating”; I said damaging, and only because it shows guile, which is something a criminal defendant dare not show. And by the way, although that’s the way it is, it’s very unfair: guile shown by, say, the police is an admired quality and never leads to credibility problems for them.

                If you want my take on it, you’re just looking at someone in way over their head, unable to anticipate how something like that might be seen by people who are suspicious of her for other reasons. This is a common problem in representing a criminal defendant, especially innocent ones but also inexperienced ones – explaining to them how they are being viewed, how their antagonist can take something they’ve said or done and twist it into something else to make them look guilty. When you don’t feel guilty this is unimaginable.

                She has a right to try to correct another witness’ account of something, but assuming that’s what she was doing she didn’t go about it the right way. And it’s a difficult problem when you’re locked up, because they’re recording all your phone calls and watching you all the time, except when you’re talking to your attorney and even then, you know, sometimes.

                Again, it’s hard to get used to the double standard: the police and the prosecutors can threaten and intimidate and cajole witnesses, but a defendant doing the same thing will be accused of “tampering”. Just what happened here. I have to re-emphasize, what she did with those magazines was nowhere near as bad as it looked, but it looked bad because it undermined her credibility at a time she really needed that.

                Like

              • The magazines belonged to her and were addressed to her, and yes, she tried to give them to her friend, Ann Campbell. But Ann became her friend AFTER she was incarcerated, so what’s the point of that? And magazines get passed around in jails because they’re a hot commodity. One of them was a Star magazine with a cover story about Casey Anthony. You don’t think other prisoners wouldn’t have asked to view that?

                The ABC producer visited her twice in 2009, not 2011, according to what Martinez verified from the visitor logs, during that same portion of his cross. The magazines were dated July and August 2011. But Jodi didn’t give an interview in 2011, so why would SHE have referenced an ABC producer’s phone number and a statement that the interview was great in 2011? How does that make sense? Could someone else in that jail have borrowed the magazine because SHE was in contact with an ABC reporter to talk about Jodi?

                Nothing of this BS makes ANY sense, Dennis, unless you want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

                Like

              • Dennis

                JMRJ, the coded message is pretty devastating because it shows that this woman is devious, calculating and fabricating evidence which utterly destroys her credibility and makes premeditation seem something she’s comfortable with, that’s part of her MO. I know cops lie, fabricate evidence, etc., but in this area of the case it’s completely irrelevant.

                AA, As I said before, I can’t imagine the things you’ve had to endure and I wish you the best, but that doesn’t make Jodi Arias an abused women.

                Like

              • Dennis, it proves devious and calculating but not fabricating evidence. Remember the circumstances. She’s in jail, has been for some time, and you get careful about your communications after all that time with people monitoring everything. A certain amount of deviousness and calculation would be normal at that point. And it might have been an effort to “tamper” with a witness, but it might not have been. Isn’t enough information to say.

                And you simply illustrate the double standard: for her to exhibit those characteristics is “devastating”; for police to exhibit them is “irrelevant”.

                Like

          • Heather

            Wow, AA, just WOW, that post was mindblowing, its exactly as it happened; reading this I felt I was straight back in the courtroom.

            The more I think about it the more I feel that someone who had been abused would have made a perfect attorney for Jodi, not that her defence didn’t try, they just missed a LOT.

            I think you would have been perfect.

            As my late father said to me when I was forced to be my own Lawyer (when I too had a biased judge who threw my case out after making me prosecute for 4 days). ”I take my hat off to you.”
            He also told me I had had my eyes opened wide to the courts and judges.
            He wasn’t wrong there.

            Like

      • Heather

        AA, LOL Its a wonder he doesn’t believe the fairy story that the moon is made of green cheese.. and he is not alone, as we know..

        Its as if as soon as we overcome one argument, they came back with another because, for reasons we don’t understand, people like Dennis are looking for reasons to find her guilty.

        Like

        • Dennis

          JMRJ, We’re just going to have to disagree, though maybe you could be right. I, mean, maybe people do send secret messages demanding testimony be fixed out of concern for the truth. Anything’s possible I suppose.

          Like

          • Well, Dennis, despite the sarcasm an effort to “fix” testimony might very well be a concern for the truth. Fix is like “repair”. She might believe that something the witness said was erroneous, not that it was true and that she wanted it changed to false. You are concerned about gender bias, but your certitude that it’s the latter is yet another example of the bias against criminal defendants. I’ll admit you can infer different meanings for the word “fix”, but you immediately jump to the most adverse possible inference and ridicule another inference consistent with innocence. Yet you have no legitimate reason to opt for the one as opposed to the other.

            This is how the prosecution “dirties up” a defendant, and it often works because people are too ready to make exactly the inference that the prosecution wants, because they are suspicious of everything the defendant does in the first place because they are the ones who are accused. This is one reason that the “presumption of innocence” is nothing but a bromide.

            Like

            • Dennis

              JMRJ I was being sarcastic because it’s obvious what was going on. Do you know what the message even pertained to, why she was sending it? Then again, Ms. Arias apparently doesn’t know who wrote that secret message so maybe it was for a different case written by someone else. Or maybe she was being set-up by the same people who actually killed the victim.!!!!!!! C’mon, JMRJ, this woman is ridiculous and part of what’s so funny is that she lies all the time and yet is awful at it.

              Like

              • Dennis, you’ll have to get used to the idea that it’s not obvious the way you want to argue that. I’ll assume that she sent out the coded message, although there appears to be some dispute about that. But assuming she sent it, this occurred in 2011 after she had already been locked up for around 3 years. It does not say that the addressee is to lie, rather that they “fucked up”, which could mean that they erred, not that they told the truth and that she now wants them to change to a lie.

                Nevertheless, you could infer the latter and argue it, as you are doing. The problem for you is that the former inference is just as likely.

                The problem for her is that most everyone will believe what you are arguing for the simple reason that she is accused and under suspicion in the first place. In fact this whole line of reasoning of yours is quite illustrative of one of the main reasons criminal defendants have a very, very hard time getting acquitted.

                Like

              • Dennis, assuming it was Jodi who wrote the message (which I dispute because it does not appear to be her handwriting), do you know what the message pertained to or why she was even sending it? Have you ever read her handwritten letter to Ryan Burns where she, for example, corrects him on saying she stopped at some place called Sinclairs, which she has never heard of? Could the messages have been to him? You see, you assume the worst, but no evidence was presented that it was actually the worst. There was nothing more than inference.

                If it was Jodi’s handwriting, since obviously, Martinez had a handwriting expert on retainer to verify that her journals contained her handwriting, why did he not verify that was indeed Jodi’s handwriting by simply calling that expert? It would have cleared up the matter once and for all. Or, more simply, why didn’t he ask her while she was on the stand “Did you write these messages?” He allowed the inference to be made without asking that one important question.

                During that time period, there were other inmates from the same jail who were interviewed on Nancy Grace’s show on HLN and who were contacting various other networks, including Fox Phoenix’s Troy Hayden, to discuss their experience of being incarcerated with Jodi Arias. Are you aware of that? If not, perform a Google search and review various articles where inmates gave statements to reporters. It’s not difficult to do. You’ll find statements from interviews with Sara Wardana, Jenna Bounds, women Nancy Grace spoke to behind bars who are not given names, etc., etc. I’ll let you do your own searching. It might just open your eyes.

                If you do so, then answer this question, is it possible that the messages were written by someone else who was an inmate? And if so, why didn’t Martinez clarify that? Things are not always as they seem.

                Like

              • One more thing, Sheriff Joe has given interviews saying that the Estrella Jail has an open door policy for the media. He also said there are media personnel in the jail every day of the week interviewing inmates.

                Like

              • Dennis

                Who sends a secret message because they want to honestly correct the record? I’d like to see you argue that in front of a jury without making them laugh.

                As to AA, I believe the message transfer was attempted shortly before a pretrial hearing and a few weeks after the state interviewed her ex-boyfriend. The purpose of the message, see above. If the the mags were sent to her, were in her possession, contained the number of a producer she spoke with, referenced an interview with someone she knew and her ex was so interviewed just weeks prior, and the transfer was attempted just days before a hearing, I don’t think it’s the state who needs to bring in a handwriting expert.

                Like

              • Dennis, who sends a message to a witness who is not remembering something correctly? PLENTY of people. You do realize that telephone calls in jail are recorded, right? And that conversations about testimony is not an uncommon phenomenon, by any means? Or, have you NEVER heard of that?

                Hey, how about Chris Hughes calling potential witnesses or having other people call them, like, let’s say, Gus Searcy, to “influence” their testimony? Is that okay in your opinion because it wasn’t Jodi who did it?

                Hmm, so why didn’t Jodi call Matt and ask him to come visit her? Why give the magazines to Ann Campbell who didn’t know Matt and didn’t live anywhere near him? And let’s see, Jodi hadn’t done an interview with that producer nor had that producer visited her in jail for two years prior to the magazine transfer. But other inmates in that jail WERE talking to ABC, NBC, CNN and HLN producers about Jodi. Yet, you’re still convinced it was Jodi who wrote that number — even though it didn’t look ANYTHING like her handwriting?

                And you never did answer, why didn’t Martinez ask Jodi if she wrote the messages?

                Although I’ll agree that her defense dropped the ball on that issue, as I believe they dropped the ball on many others.

                Like

              • Dennis

                AA, Martinez didn’t have to ask, he asserted it and it’s also self-evident. And it wasn’t a message it was a secret message and again it’s obvious to anyone what’s she trying to do. I understand your position, we disagree and we’re just rehashing. So off to other posts.

                Like

  11. Dee Andrews

    Regarding the gas cans, I am surprised no one else has brought up the fact that she filled gas cans in Utah for the trip home. In fact, that is the only time that JM could say she had 3 cans because there was so much gas purchased. Now, if she filled the gas cans for the trip to Mesa and then didn’t fill them on the way home, that would look suspicious, but she (according to JM) actually bought more gas in Utah after leaving Ryan Burns house. So how can you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not fill the gas cans for the soul purpose of having enough gas to cross the desert and for no other reason. , I do not think her attorney did a good job addressing this, in fact, I don’t think Nurmi mentioned it at all, but it seems important because why would she need to fill gas cans for the return trip, if the whole purpose of bringing them was to cover up that
    she went to Mesa.

    Like

  12. .

    I’m still stuck on the felony murder charge. I’ve never heard of the felony being aggravated assault during the murder. JM argued something different during trial. Saying JA took Travis’ gun – which would be a burglary. Is this issue appealable? http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012013/m5600778.pdf

    Like

  13. Love you but here you’re because the AZ Supreme Ct in case law held “conviction” occurs when judge ~reads verdict~of the penalty phase in open ct. Nor does it need to be written by the judge. The Court did so because, as it said in it’s opinion, there is no definition within the AZ Rules of Criminal Procedure which defines when a “conviction” occurs.

    Like

  14. So I’m a little off, maybe, but there still isn’t a conviction because there has been no verdict in the penalty phase, correct?

    In any case, that verdict/conviction distinction has come up at the SCOTUS here and there, and I think if push came to shove and they ever ruled on it specifically, they would probably hold that due process required the sentence to be a part of any criminal judgment, and accordingly there would be no judgment until sentencing.

    Which is how it works now pretty much everywhere anyway.

    Thanks for the info and the comment.

    Like

    • Hi John,
      A pal “Pitchforks” corrected me by pointing out that you did mention that the law may be different in Arizona. Please accept my apologies for shoddy reading in this instance 🙂

      Rule 26.1, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Post-Verdict Procedures, controls in Arizona. You can read the 3 page document here: http://www.wtv-zone.com/mechtild/movers/rule26%201_postverdict.pdf

      As regards conviction it states,
      “The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically define “conviction,” but the term “conviction” is used in Arizona to mean “determination of guilt” rather than “judgment.” In State v. Thompson, 200 Ariz. 439, 27 P.3d 796 (2001), the Arizona Supreme Court explained, “One is convicted when there has been a determination of guilt by verdict, finding, or the acceptance of a plea. Sentencing is not required.” Id. at 440, ¶ 4, 27 P.3d at 797 [internal citations omitted].”

      Thus in Arizona “conviction” occurs prior to, & does not include, either ‘sentencing’ nor a ‘judgment’. The pertinent question it seems is, “At what point does the defendant become a ‘felon’ with concurrent lose of certain constitutional rights?”, Such as the right to vote for example. As Arizona stands now, it would be at the time of pronouncement of verdict. By, as you suggest SCOTUS would hold, it would be after the time of sentencing.

      Another question would be, “What if the defendant became mentally incapacitated post verdict but prior to sentencing?” Under Arizona’s Rule 26.1, the post-verdict time incapacitated would likely be considered as ‘time served’. But not so under a Rule in which there is no conviction until the point of sentencing. In such a scenario there is the possibility the defendant could spend significant amount of time confined without that time being considered as ‘time served’ and with the lose of whatever rights he might otherwise have had re early release or parole, for example.

      In any case, just some thoughts.
      Thank you for the follow on Twitter too, John 🙂

      Like

      • LOL Arizona is la la land. You understand that this statute reveals that whoever wrote it was intimately familiar with how the law has traditionally regarded criminal verdicts, convictions, and judgments and specifically meant to alter the centuries old settled doctrine in that regard? Why else say that “Sentencing is not required”, other than that historically sentencing was required?

        It’s a marker of how much political clout prosecutors wield. There was probably some case where the person was found guilty by a verdict and then maybe died before sentencing and the DA felt cheated out of his “conviction”, then the furious lobbying took place and now you have the new rule of criminal procedure to appease this prosecutor anger.

        Criminal defendants have no political clout, by the way. And neither do their attorneys. Ugh.

        One last thing: if this ever came up to the SCOTUS in some relevant case, Arizona’s law would lose. The idea of when a judgment of conviction occurs is really very basic and time honored, and although the SCOTUS has few virtues, one of them is that it is reluctant to part from tradition.

        Like

        • Thanks for the guidance in reading between the lines in penal code statutes, John 🙂

          Another marker of Maricopa’s prosecutorial favoritism is prosecutors are paid twice as much as public defenders. Which also leads to the conclusion that Maricopa is really interested in having excellent public defenders…Not.

          Pal Pitchforks tweeted this on the subject: “So wrong that he whose vocation in life is to kill people earns twice as much as she who’s trying to save lives.” (#PitchforksPosts, http://babelbooth.com)

          Barbara

          Like

  15. logic

    @aa,

    You have all the documentation you list about your own situation, which is excellent, but Jodi has NOT ONE PIECE. And not ONE other witness but the dead man. This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it is a strong fact, especially since they had thousands of text msgs, off the cuff, she took lots of pictures, wrote copiously in her journals, etc. And she had “an answer for everything”. Study probability, and then get back to us. If the probability is 1 in a few QUADRILLION of so many coincidences, then there is no REASONABLE doubt. Even if Jodi’s story is somehow true in this one instance (it isn’t), it is still legally permissible to convict her by the legal standard based on all rational probability and no categorical evidence of the claims she makes. I could tell you I spoke to Jesus today, and he spoke back, and I could tell you a hundred things he said to me, and you could never prove I’m lying, and I could never prove I’m telling the truth. But even though it’s POSSIBLE, it’s not REASONABLE, unless I show you something to make it reasonable.

    Also, re: premeditation, it does not have to mean she “planned” the murder, it only has to mean she pre-MEDITATED, which means she thought about it for only a few seconds before she went ahead. And someone recently said it very simply: changing weapons=premeditation. She either had both weapons with her at the time, or she went and got the second weapon and made sure she killed him. She admitted she took the gun and knife and the rope with her (why would she take the rope?), so the fact that she left the camera doesn’t change the fact she ADMITTED to want to clean up her involvement. So she didn’t do a great job? That’s how they caught her! If she did a better job, you may never have heard of her. She didn’t even have an answer for why she didn’t take the camera, even though she DID take the gun. Why take the gun if it was self defense? If I try to clean up the kitchen after dinner, but don’t do a good job, it doesn’t mean I didn’t plan to make dinner!

    The gas cans is a big deal because she changed her story IN TESTIMONY, as to why she wanted the cans in the first place. And if 2 or 3 cans is not important, why lie about them at all? If you just want to not get stuck in the desert, why aren’t 2 cans enough? And LYING ON THE STAND? She didn’t think they could or would prove it. Why insist you returned it if it’s unimportant? SHE is the one who said she returned it. They didn’t ask her if she did before she brought it up. The WMT employee said NO to the dummy SKU question. And they even cross-checked the AMOUNTS of the returns, not just the items returned.

    To the poster who says 15 gallons is not enough, don’t forget the 12-13 gallons in the TANK!. She had a total of about 27 gallons which would get her about 810 miles before stopping, which is more than enough to go from Pasadena CA to Mesa and out of the state of AZ without stopping for gas, leaving NO paper trail, and NO chance of showing up on a security camera.

    Re: all the things the defense failed to ask- Jodi was her own atty for a long while. She called the shots to her attys and often defied them (tv interviews???) . Don’t you think if she had a better answer to the questions you raised, she would have instructed them to pursue those issues?

    If *you* ever are granted a trial, yours will be a much different case from Jodi’s because your story is true and you have all the elements that naturally exist when one is telling the truth. Magical stealth evidence almost never is real, and that’s all JA could suggest.

    But the bottom line is you will never believe other than what you want to believe about JA, so you will constantly try to refute what ALL 12 JURORS believe, and most of the world as well. Are you smarter than all of them? JA thinks she is too….

    Like

  16. GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

    Agree logic, I noted same thing about AA’s situation. Her ex had a long hx of leaving damage with his exes. IOW, there IS evidence in AA’s story. Totally different scenario w/ Arias.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s