Jodi Arias – A Few Questions (WARNING: GRAPHIC TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE MADE SENSE OF)

Back when I was posting about this case, I noted one of the things that bothered me most:  how does Jodi Arias, all by herself, get the better of  Travis Alexander in a knife fight?

This seems all the more problematic when you look at what the prosecutor argued, according to Nancy Grace’s HLN:

GRACE: OK. Let`s go over the evidence. Beth Karas, what is the state`s theory as to how she could murder him? She`s a couple — a few inches shorter than him. She weighs less than him. What`s their theory?

KARAS: Their theory is that as she was taking photos with his consent, while he was showering, she got him to sit in the shower to take one last photo. And two minutes after that photo was taken, there he is, on his back with his neck slashed. And that`s an accidental photo that her camera took.

So the theory is she got him in a vulnerable position, started to stab him. He grabbed at the knife because he has defensive wounds of cuts on his hands. And then he stumbled around, hung his head over the sink, bleeding into the sink, spitting. That`s the spatter. He probably stumbled, and she`s stabbing him in the back nine, ten times.

As he`s stumbling down the hall, he falls at the entrance to his bedroom. She slashes his throat, three-and-a-half inches deep, severs the airway, turns his body around and starts to drag him back and stuffs him in the shower — shoots him in the head, though, before putting him in the shower.

If she doesn’t kill or incapacitate him immediately with the knife there will be a ferocious response, right?  I mean, she would certainly lose that.

Then there are these “accidental” photos.  One of the ceiling and this other very interesting one, below.  How does the camera take photos “accidentally”?  Wouldn’t someone have to be handling it, or at least touching it in some manner?  If there was no one else there, how can that be?

But let’s say the camera might go off and snap a picture if it’s bumped in the struggle.  That’s a stretch, I think, but let’s run with that.  How is the photo below taken?  How does the camera get in that position? Were there any other photos “accidentally” taken besides the one of the ceiling and this one?

And, what does this photo show?  I mean, really?

slide_273021_1985286_free

It’s taken at 5:32:16 and the killing is in progress, obviously. But what, exactly, are we looking at?  What did the prosecution argue?  What did the defense argue?

From my perspective:  a) I cannot tell what part of the victim’s body is in the photo; b) I see what appears to be a leg and foot clad in a black leotard or stocking, upper part about the middle of the photo at the top, and extending diagonally downward towards the right with the foot apparently on or near the tile floor; c) I have absolutely no idea what I am looking at in the left part of the photo or what the blue stripe at the far left of the photo is.

I would appreciate any input from someone with more knowledge about the case than I am.

Advertisements

177 Comments

Filed under Media incompetence/bias

177 responses to “Jodi Arias – A Few Questions (WARNING: GRAPHIC TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE MADE SENSE OF)

  1. Min

    I have no knowledge about the case, and maybe that is a plus. 😉 I fiddled around with brightness, contrast, shadowing, etc. That seemed to make things clearer, but if I were in court I would want an expert witness to explain what’s there.

    First, the dark thing appears to be clothing. There looks like a seam running perpendicular to the blue stripe. My guess is that we are seeing the back of a denim jacket, with the seam in the middle and a lateral stripe. But it could be jeans, I suppose. It is possible that what looks like may be a foot is part of the cloth. It is obscure, but there is a bend or fold in the cloth, and it may extend underneath the guy’s body. What at first looked like a leg or knee now looks a lot like the right shoulder from above, and part of the right arm. Above that we can see part of the top of his head. There seems to be some blood near the neck. Did the guy have long hair? Then to the right could be hair, or maybe blood. It is quite dark.

    That’s what things look like to me, using Preview on a Mac. Just about every computer these days will have image software that you can use to try to make things clearer. 🙂

    Happy New Year!

    Like

    • Min

      Oh, yeah. If we are seeing the guy’s right shoulder and arm, then the right forearm looks to be upright, which probably would indicate that he is alive.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi again, Min! Since you’ve been so helpful with that enhancing stuff and all, another question or two:

        You’ve got this photo, taken 5:30:30

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/jodi-arias-crime-scene-photos_n_2412031.html#slide=1985293

        Do you think that might be blood in that fold of skin on his right hip? And perhaps a little pooling underneath him? What do you make of the legs being crossed like that after doing all that suggestive nude posing? Bottom line is, does this photo contain evidence suggesting that TA, at that point, had been shot – at a downward angle in the right temple – by someone who was standing while Jodi Arias, who had just completed the full photo of TA’s face from a kneeling position, was still kneeling?

        Finally do you see a blurry silver-ish object in the lower right of the photo? Can you make out what that is? Is it a pointer being used in the courtroom or is it part of the scene that was photographed?

        Has anyone ever argued anything about this photo, to your knowledge? Any other commenters know of anything?

        Like

    • James Farr

      Could be a white towel with a black stripe. Enhancement makes the material itself look almost black.

      Like

  2. Interested Blog Reader

    Those are just a few of the many strange questions about this case that linger, JMRJ. Travis Alexander worked out, had a punching bag in his home, and bragged of 16 inch biceps. He weighed about 200 lbs. She weighed about 115. Then again, Jodi Arias had taken martial arts classes, so she probably was far from a weakling. Could the element of surprise at her attack have left Travis in a weakened state? After all, it occurred after hours of sex and during a photo session? Could whatever adrenaline that was flowing through Jodi strengthened her?

    As I recall, the prosecution’s argument was pretty much as Beth Karas described above. The defense didn’t argue anything. Jodi testified (as close as my recollection can get) that while taking photos, she dropped Travis’s brand new fancy camera and he became angry and lunged at her. She then ran to the bathroom closet, which adjoined the bedroom, and he came after her. She remembered that he kept a gun on a shelf there and grabbed it. Then, the gun went off accidentally (something else “accidental”). She doesn’t remember anything after that until she “came to” somewhere in the desert driving in her car, realizing something terrible had happened. She must have remembered Travis was dead, however, because she called to leave him a voicemail and, according to her testimony, erased and re-recorded her message several times.

    During a previous version of Jodi’s story, one given to Detective Flores during lengthy interviews while in custody, and after she stopped denying being there at all on that fateful day, Jodi said that two masked intruders had attacked Travis. She recalled a few more details then, such as Travis not being able to feel his legs and/or walk.

    In the photo above, it was presented by the prosecution that she was dragging him down the hallway outside his bedroom, I believe. The stripe was on her pants, which were fancy sweatpants with a zipper down the side. During the police interrogation, Jodi admitted to having a pair of pants like those in a different color, but could not remember whether or not she had a pair in that color. She said that she might have had a pair in that color, but that they were too small, so she didn’t wear them. The flesh in the photo was presented as being Travis’s shoulder and right arm.

    Part of the prosecution’s factors for extreme cruelty during trial was that she shot him last, once she had dragged him back to the shower. I believe you’re already aware that the prosecution’s original theory, for many years, was that she shot him first, thereby incapacitating him to some degree, prior to the knife wounds.

    Mim, to answer your question, no, he did not have long hair.

    Like

    • Interested Blog Reader

      One other strange thing about this case: Jodi sold something called Prepaid Legal. It’s one of those pyramid marketing deals, and was, at that time, quite popular. For a nominal fee paid monthly, one could have immediate access to an attorney — at least, for telephone consultation(s), and presumably, some rather basic legal advice. Now, I would assume that a reasonable person who not only subscribed to such a service, but also sold it, would have contacted a criminal attorney prior to holding any discussions with a police detective, and most especially before being taken into custody and interrogated for a very lengthy period spanning more than two days (if I recall correctly).

      But, that’s not at all what Jodi Arias did. She telephoned the detective willingly more than once, even though she had heard through the grapevine, that she was a suspect. And then, when taken into custody, she did not ask for an attorney. Instead, she submitted to the detective’s questioning, first denying she was in AZ at all. Then, later admitting she was there (only after the detective presented photos of her taken that date, recovered from the camera memory card found in the washing machine after going through a wash cycle) and recounting the masked intruders version.

      Like

  3. Thank you very much for the comments, Min and Interested reader.

    There is a corollary that is also quite bothersome. There is another “accidental” photo that occurs a little more than a minute after the photo I posted here, at 5:33:32. It shows a portion of baseboard with blood on it. And supposedly also shows part of the body-dragging operation that JA engaged in, because there is supposedly part of TA’s body in the upper left quadrant of this photo.

    Now, here’s a big issue. And I’m assuming all the times are correct because they were digitally stamped at the time the photos were taken. The only information I have read about this photo indicated that it showed baseboard in the hallway, outside the bathroom. If that’s true, and it’s also true that TA’s body is in the photo, then that would mean that after he was mortally wounded on his back in the bathroom near the shower at 5:32:16 (where his body was ultimately found) he was dragged out into the hallway and then dragged back in. Which of course is possible but doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    Again, any input appreciated.

    Like

    • Interested Blog Reader

      There is some question about the time stamping of the photos, if I recall correctly. I’ve seen many discussions on various blogs about Exifs and all sorts of other things used to recreate the time stamps, with many arguments about the validity of them. It’s been a while since I’ve read them but perhaps someone else will have input. I can’t find a link quickly to look at the photos in sequence and attempt to refresh my memory.

      None of the back wounds were mortal injuries, however. They were all actually quite shallow. It was always alleged that the fatal wounds, particularly the neck wound, was made outside of the bathroom and in the hallway. But, that Jodi Arias dragged Travis Alexander back into the bathroom after that wound.

      I remember Jodi Arias testified that the photo shoot was supposed to be a tasteful “clean” one. Travis Alexander had previously allowed her to photograph him shaving, which I believe he used on his MySpace profile photo for a time.

      Like

  4. Interested Blog Reader

    Here are some links about the photos you may find interesting, but they are indeed very graphic:
    If you haven’t read the autopsy report and can comprehend the medical terminology to some degree, it can be found here:

    http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/redactedtravisautopsy.pdf

    If you should feel inclined to read …
    There’s a somewhat interesting essay (from a pro-defense standpoint) about the various wounds here:
    http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Innocence_Essay_Report.php

    With a more difficult to read “essay” that alleges it debunks everything stated by the blogger above (from a very pro-prosecutions standpoint), but makes some good points:
    http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-herr-speights-sinus-theory-debunked.html?spref=bl

    Like

  5. Interested Blog Reader

    If I may, I would like to ask you for your thoughts on a couple of things.

    It’s been many years now since I worked for a semi-retired criminal defense attorney, who had been a fairly high profile prosecutor prior to that (which is, of course, not uncommon). Although I worked with him during the trial of at least one of his clients accused of first degree murder, it was neither in Arizona, nor in a capital punishment state. However, I remember discussing other capital cases in other states with him and he mentioned that in such cases, court-appointed counsel must be qualified in that he/she served as lead and co-defense counsel in capital cases previously. However, I’ve read many articles stating that Kirk Nurmi (Jodi Arias’s lead defense counsel) has not previously served as lead defense counsel in a capital case; and also, that this is Judge Sherry Stevens’ first capital case. Have things changed since the good old days when there were actually rules?

    Also, I read a three-part article about prosecutorial misconduct in Arizona authored by Michael Kiefer, who has frequently reported on the Jodi Arias trial. http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20131027milke-krone-prosecutors-conduct-day1.html Part Three of his article discusses Juan Martinez, the prosecutor in the Arias case. Watching the guilt-phase of the trial, I found some of his conduct quite shocking. In particular, his demands for yes/no responses to compound questions and the manner in which he confused witnesses as he berated them for not responding as he demanded. His “technique” was obviously effective in getting the conviction he wanted. He seemed to “drive” every point home, regardless of the witness and whether it was a witness for the defense or the prosecution. But he is certainly a bulldog.

    In contrast, the Arias defense team appeared, at times, somewhat confused — at least, to me (and probably to the jury given the verdict). They drew out testimony for far too long without ever reaching any type of purpose, and, in my opinion, they missed opportunity after opportunity to “drive” home any point. I never understood why they allowed Jodi Arias to testify for about a month about her childhood, her waitressing career, her boyfriends, etc. It appears they used the same strategy during her “secret” testimony. It all seems rather mundane. While she did not have a glorious life, it is also not a life filled with horrific abuse and incredible hardships. When their domestic violence witnesses were on the stand, I don’t recall them ever asking if any abused woman before had been driven to such acts of violence (whether in self-defense or not) — which, to me, seemed to be a very pertinent question when presenting a self-defense case, particularly since there was no evidence of physical abuse other than Jodi Arias’s allegations about a couple of incidents.

    Back in my days in criminal court, I found most prosecutors verged on being incredibly boring, presenting just the facts, essentially. If any drama was ever introduced, it was by the defense attorney. Is Mr. Martinez a typical prosecutor in this day and age or would that only occur in Arizona, in your experience/opinion?

    Thank you so much for your thoughts and wonderful blogs.

    Like

    • As far as what the rules are in Arizona to take on a capital case, I’ll have to pass, I don’t do Arizona state courts.

      As far as Martinez goes, I wouldn’t say he was typical, but he’s a type. Somewhat dull-witted, compensating through aggressiveness, maniacally focused on “winning” his case – which is not his job – unconcerned about whether his evidence is any good or whether he’s being hones, and not really a very good trial lawyer, despite “winning” this one. As a defense lawyer he would never win a case that way, but he can rack up an impressive record as a prosecutor.

      There are prosecutors who are just as underhanded and honesty challenged but who are far better trial lawyers. Though I’ve never actually seen him try a case, I would expect Tom Moran would be one of those.

      Like

    • A. Windsor

      I am so glad to have read this comment about Jaun Martinez, because it seems that most of the comments I’ve read about him turn him into some kind of saint. I also found him to be deeply hostile to everyone, regardless of whether they were acting for the defence or the prosecution. I couldn’t fathom how or why the Judge allowed him to get away with such behaviour, because he seemed to treat her with her with utter disrespect as well. I’m not from the USA, but where I’m from (Australia), everyone has to address the Judge as “Your Honour”, and I don’t know what the “rules” are in America, but even if is okay to call a judge “Judge”, there’s a polite way of doing so, and an aggressive way of doing so. He seemed to be barking “Judge” at her, and I just didn’t understand how this was permissible. I lived in the USA for five years, and I love the people and the country and can assure you that this is not some anti-American rant.

      I also watched the Oscar Pistorius trial, and while both barristers could become extremely demanding, neither one of them was ever rude in the way that Juan Martinez was. They began most of their addresses to the Judge with terms such as “with respect” or similar. Even when “going at” each other, there was a degree of professionalism and respect. Gerrie Nel (the Prosecutor in the Oscar Pistorius case) has been described as a bull dog, but he’s a much more intelligent one than Juan Martinez, who just seems to want to bite everyone, be they friend or foe!

      As for Juan “winning” the case; I’m not sure that he did win. After all, he wanted the death penalty (something that I can’t understand a country like America having at all, but that’s another issue…) and he didn’t get it. He’s now written a book, and blames his inability to secure the death penalty on a juror who apparently had a crush on Jodi Arias. He seems like a sore loser to me!

      Like

  6. Where to start? Alexander’s foot is actually visible in the photo (there is testimony on this), which gives an idea of the strange perspective. Careful study of the photo shows that it was taken just outside the linen cupboard, looking into the bathroom.

    The most significant phsyical evidence is summarised here : https://geebee2.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/jodi-arias-brief/

    Like

  7. Jessie

    I couldn’t agree more about Juan Martinez. He’s repellent, verbally abusive, and just plain bizarre (e.g., his absurd line of questioning about Snow White). But you and I are clearly in the minority on that one.

    I’m even more in the minority: I think Jodi Arias was telling the truth in her testimony. I’m even nurturing the theory that the well-publicized falling out between her and Kirk Nurmi (whom she had once fought to keep on her case) was because Nurmi’s defense strategy was to force the prosecution to prove that Arias killed him at all.

    The state’s evidence was really pretty weak — a bloody handprint and the nudie photos of Arias taken more than four hours before the attack. The former might be easy to muddy up and the latter could suggest she left long before the attack.

    Compare that to all the holes in the state’s case:
    An unidentified footprint in blood.
    A potential suspect who kills himself around the same time a friend of the victim’s also kills himself.
    A houseful of roommates who somehow lived with a corpse for a week when everyone else who entered the house said the smell was overpowering.
    The unlikelihood of a small woman overpowering a large man.
    A few blurry photos.
    And none of these things examined by Mesa PD with any vigor, if at all.

    Nurmi might have thought the best course of action was to hammer away at these problems and for Arias to not take the stand. After all, every time she opened her mouth, it didn’t end well. And this would explain why, for example, they never presented something like a counter-narrative based on the crime scene photos, which they wouldn’t have prepared if this was their strategy. Initially, she WAS denying she’d done it at all.

    But what if Arias insisted on finally coming clean in court? I just don’t find her testimony implausible. A dysfunctional relationship escalates, but slowly enough to foster her denial about it. One day all hell breaks loose and, through a combination of coincidence, adrenaline, and a partially crippling gunshot, she overpowers him, doing quite a lot of damage by dint of adrenaline, inexperience with a weapon, and rage over a thousand small indignities.

    Her later memory of the event is hazy and non-specific. She never actually testified that she couldn’t remember anything, only that she couldn’t reliably outline what happened or distinguish whether some memories happened on that day or on another day. That’s a well known reaction to trauma that most of us have experienced on a smaller scale — e.g., those days after a loved one’s death that are all a blur. Sometimes people have little or no memory of the funeral or of finding the loved one’s body. This is not an uncommon experience.

    But then Jodi starts to lie, to pretend even to herself that it never happened. She gets reckless, going on television and so forth. She’s really not a very good liar. I don’t see how anyone who’s listened to her original intruder story could actually believe that’s what happened. Flores had just told her they thought maybe two people might have killed him, so she spun a novelistic yarn about two people. It really wasn’t a very good story, relying on a shadowy, Mafia-like hit (in most versions the Mormon Church ordered the hit, which if the church really behaved that way, they’d wipe out most of Salt Lake City).

    So finally she decides to come clean. I doubt Kirk Nurmi believed it. He may even think she really did murder the guy. But he can’t stop her from testifying; she has a constitutional right to do that. But it alleviated the prosecution of having to prove a potentially troublesome case and allowed them to jump straight to their “premeditation” narrative.

    Moral of the story: Maybe you should listen to your lawyer.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Correct, Jodi’s testimony was the truth.

      “She’s really not a very good liar.”

      Spot on! So the fact her testimony was not proven false, AND is compatible with the physical evidence (in contrast to the prosecution theory) is a strong indication it was the truth.

      Like

    • Publius Smith

      I’m a criminal defense lawyer in California – solo practitioner. In June 2014 I started watching the Jodi Arias trial videos on Youtube. I was drawn in by the savagery of the crime coupled with the lack of any criminal record on the part of Ms. Arias. I wondered how it possible that such an unlikely defendant could be responsible for such a heinous act. Like a lot of lawyers, also, I was deeply offended and outraged by the antics of the prosecutor. In my state, we take civility and decorum seriously. No judge or lawyer would put up with the shameful actions of Mr. Martinez. I was also offended by the misogynistic undertones in Mr. Martinez’s interactions with Ms. Arias – it was the scarlet letter redux. Ms. Arias never represented herself to be some pure angel, unlike Travis, who held himself out to the world as a 30 year old virgin and who was a priest in the (creepy, SCARY), Mormon church. Yet Ms. Arias was portrayed as a whore, a harlot, while Mr. Alexander’s hyper-sexual antics with multiple women at any given one time were relegated to the sidelines. (I mean, that’s what men do, right?)

      So I reached out to Ms. Arias and sent her a letter via an Internet support site. My purpose was to express how impressed I was, as a lawyer, with her grace and dignity under withering, unethical attacks by the prosecution. I offered to help her if she had any legal affairs in California. I never expected my letter to reach Jodi, let alone to hear back from her, but I was told that she wanted to speak to me and I opened up a jail call account and soon thereafter she telephoned me from Estrella jail. Since then I have flown to Phoenix and met with her at least 15 times and spent probably close to 100 hours with Jodi Arias, talking to her, getting to know her, becoming her friend, typing affidavits (most which were never used in the second penalty phase), researching transcripts and trial videos, etc. Prior to Perryville, I spoke to her on legal calls weekly, and daily in the weeks before the sentencing. I also attended the penalty phase retrial a half-dozen times and was there for closing arguments and sentencing.

      Jodi Arias in person is completely different from the stoic, stone-faced Jodi Arias in the trial videos. She is a self-described “dork” who is always laughing and smiling. She is also one of the most intelligent women I have ever met. Her grammar is perfect. Her mind is sharp. Why she never finished high school and went on to college is beyond me. Ironically, she would have made a fantastic lawyer. What first struck me about her, however, was how petite she is. She is 5’6″ at best, and weighs 125 pounds. I immediately wondered how it was possible that she could kill Mr. Alexander, who was short but still taller than she and who had been bulking up for his Cancun trip, in less than 2 minutes, then drag his body into that small shower stall. By herself. It defies logic.

      I am absolutely convinced Ms. Arias did not receive a fair trial. Exculpatory evidence was withheld and/or destroyed. Mr. Martinez and Mr. Flores lied about the sequence of events. The gun shot came first, as the State maintained for years. Why did they change their story to claim it came last? Because if the gun shot came first, the State would not have been able to prove the aggravating factor of cruelty because Mr. Alexander would not have been conscious when his throat was slit. Judge Stephens continually turned a blind eye to Mr. Martinez’s unprofessional and unethical acts, and denied every motion for mistrial that were properly made by the defense. She also refused to requester the jury. Every time I see her in those videos ask the jury to raise their hands if anyone has spoken to anyone about the trial, my blood boils. Does any reasonable person think that no one talked to the jurors about this case?? I was in Phoenix many times and let me tell you, there’s no way you could escape the mob like atmosphere surrounding the trial in that town. It was everywhere, from billboards featuring the likeness of Juan Martinez, to the mob outside the courthouse steps. I’ve always respected judges but not so with Judge Stephens. She is incompetent and that’s putting it graciously.

      There are so many facts to support the claim that Ms. Arias was denied a fair trial, beginning with her defense team. How can a capital case defendant receive a fair trial when her lead attorney hasn’t spoken to her in almost a year? When exculpatory evidence is withheld for years and only on the day before trial begins, is turned over to the defense? When the existence of exculpatory evidence is denied by the State, then later, admitted. When the prosecutor is signing autographs for his fawning, adoring mob outside the courthouse? When potentially exculpatory evidence such as the footprint at the crime scene isn’t even mentioned? When mysterious “suicides” aren’t investigated? When, despite a complete media circus and the existence of social media, the jury is not sequestered? When a material witness (Det. Flores) is permitted to remain in the courtroom throughout the entire trial? When the same detective/witness perjures himself on the stand? When the State’s medical examiner perjures himself on the stand? (“Typo?” Seriously?). The answer is, she can’t.

      The power and scope of the Mormon church in Mesa, AZ should not be discounted. (I would pay big money to know if any of the jurors on either panel were members. The questions from the jury in the penalty phase re-trial certainly indicate that some may have been.) Det. Flores is Mormon. When one considers the history of Mormon rituals such as “blood atonement” the “Mormon ninjas” theory begins to look less incredible, (though I personally do not subscribe to it.) Also, it takes a LOT of time and MONEY to orchestrate the anti-Jodi Arias campaign that we’ve seen since before this trial began. I have my suspicions as to who is behind it and hope that the truth will come out, if not during Ms. Arias’ appeal(s), then some time in the not too distant future. Thanks for letting me vent.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Gosh, that’s a really great comment, “Publius”… I concur mostly. 🙂

        Like

      • barbara

        You are a murder loving freak. Nice of you push yourself into a national murder trial for what? You did paperwork for her? What are you her lawyer? You talked ” legal” with her? Once again are you her lawyer? Surly your pulling our leg now. Who does the things that you report to have done? Talk about a groupie. Ate you going to ask her to married you to? When’s the possible wedding date freak. Go scratch……..

        Like

        • Publius Smith

          I was hoping this was a forum primarily for lawyers, not the uneducated rabble who are unable to contemplate or consider an opinion that conflicts with their own without resorting to ad hominem insults. Apparently I was wrong. And my discussions with ANY of my clients are confidential and none of your business.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Michael Padgett, Esq.

          I just popped the question and she said YES to being WIFE #4!!!! Please come! You want chicken, beef, or vegetarian?

          Kidding! (Well, not about being married 3x before.)

          Liked by 1 person

          • Now I know you’re joking. There are not 3 women on the planet who would marry a “struggling lawyer” (your mother’s words, not mine). Your professional fb page with love-sick pictures of Jodi speaks to your sense of “decorum”. Like a 6th grader.

            Like

          • I have a legal question, since this is a “lawyer” blog page. If you disagree with a person on the internet and it makes you so mad that you post their address with aerial pictures of their house for all the world to see, is this illegal or just rude? If that isn’t enough and you decide to call the California Board of Nursing to get this “disagreeable” nurse out of your hair, and fired from her job, is this illegal? Immoral? Or just rude? Let’s imagine for a moment you’ve run into another human who has pissed you off. Now you feel compelled to call their place of work and try to get them fired for being disagreeable on the internet. Illegal, yet? When does a line get crossed? If ANOTHER person you don’t care for isn’t toeing your line, is it wrong to call the PTA in which this person is a member and cite all the wrong-doings of this disagreeable nincompoop? When on-line bitch slapping becomes “real life” threats, what is one to do? Contact a lawyer or try to get them harmed in their place of business or home?

            Like

            • Jessie

              I’ll take a stab at this one, since John is a criminal defense attorney in New York and probably doesn’t know harassment and defamation law in California anyway. The laws in your state are what’s important here. Ask the relevant type of lawyer in California. But here’s my best guess:

              Taking photos of someone’s house from a distance is generally not illegal. Unless you’re trespassing or shooting long-distance photos into the interior of the house, it’s probably fine. Who owns a house is public record, so identifying that house as belonging to its owner is probably fine as well. (This has blocked efforts to make “doxxing” illegal, where someone posts the home address, telephone number, email, etc. of a person on social media, for the express purpose of harassing that person. Shy of making an imminent threat against that person, it’s hard to prove the doxxer did anything illegal.)

              Calling an employer or a licensing board or other organization might be defamation and/or harassment. Criminal defamation almost doesn’t exist in the US and it’s fairly difficult to prove. Usually, you’d have to show you were actually damaged (e.g., the Nursing Board believes the lie and you lose your job). That’s assuming you can find the person to sue them and assuming that there isn’t some kind of good faith exception to the reporting.

              Where it definitely crosses the line is threats of “imminently unlawful behavior.” “Kat is a jerk” is protected speech. “Kat is a jerk; let’s go kill her” is not. Law enforcement is likely to take it more seriously if there are threats of imminently unlawful behavior, but enough pesky phone calls and they might open an investigation for harassment or even stalking. If you know who’s doing it, you could pursue an Order for Protection.

              Overall, I’d say these parties need to work on their people skills. Doing things like this could definitely get you into criminal trouble of some sort. Not to mention it’s just lame. Who has the time to figure out who people are on the Internet to go harass them like this? Anybody doing this needs a life more than they need a lawyer.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Michael A. Padgett, Esq.

              “I’ve known of several occasions where the address and photos of JA supporters’ residences (or, in one instance, the home of one individual’s parents) were published. It’s a shame that there is such a dearth of “reasonable minds” that we no longer can “agree to disagree.” (And yes, “Katcradle,” (Jim Croce fan?), I was engaging in saracasm when I went into the multiple marriages spiel. Your reply, however, smacked of sardonicism as well as being factually incorrect.) Alas, I digress. With respect to CA torts, I just wanted to add to my colleague Jesse’s analysis (see below) the following: If the person you “disagree with” were to contact your employer and made statements about you that were false and tended to hold you in ridicule in the community in which you live, do business, etc. there certainly would be an issue of defamation, possibly slander per se, which assumes damages and doesn’t require you to prove them. Additionally, there might also be an issue of “intentional interference with contractual relations,” a separate tort, if he or she made comments about you that caused you to lose your job and he or she intended that that happen, or reasonably should’ve known it could’ve happened when he or she made the comments. On the criminal side, certain statements (such as “Let’s kill him”) could be considered “terrorist threats” in violation of Penal Code section 422 which states, in pertinent part:

              “(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.”

              Liked by 1 person

              • Thank you, too, for the reply. You can marry and divorce 10 women if you wish. I was snarky after reading some other commentary. KradleKat was a little group of dancers I was involved with long ago. I’m just using the name for now.

                Like

      • Sandra Webber, you missed the case that’s for sure.

        Like

      • The guy she was with (Travis) played her head and emotions, pushed her away then used her for sex and his own sick perverted desires. Wasn’t he accused of being a pedophile? Then he has her so mixed up she gives up her faith to follow his just to please him. If she did do this he deserved everything he got.
        She was driven to the breaking point, used and abused emotionally and physically when all she wanted was to be cared for and loved. He took her trust and innocence and toyed with her in the worst ways emotionally physically and sexually. She gave all to him and he didn’t care. Where were her lawyers to drive this point home to the jury? This guy was full of himself a public speaker with a forked tongue. Emotionally she was like a child and he took advantage of that…in the sickest ways. I hope you get your appeal and a fair trial this time. Screw the people and the haters who can’t see the facts and truth for what it is. Stay strong, have faith. You seem to have a good support system in your family. I wish there was something more I could do than just lend my support. Hope this helps. (Man I posted this on a FB page “Hodi Arias Supporters..” and what a bunch of mormons.. i mean morons. i got some of the most shallow, callous and repetitive brainless insults.) There are some haters out there.

        Like

      • Johanna Malinotti

        ‘Without IT (gun being last) the state wouldn’t have been able to prove the cruelty aggravator’.

        How can one claiming to be a ‘lawyer’ repeat such an absurd idea her lawyers also tried to spin as part of the record?

        Judge Duncan – who precided over the DP hearing- made it crystal clear that sequence of injuries had nada to do with her finding the murder was cruel and that Travis Alexander suffered mentally and physically as a result of the INjuries.

        Lawyers are supposed to understand the record. Understand what rulings were made and why. A recap of Duncan’s overview of states theory at the time- was NOT the basis of the cruelty aggravator.

        But to continue the mantra that Jodi Arias got an unfair trial – it requires the continuous misrepresentation of the facts. That doesn’t work Michael in the real world and it won’t work for your girl. No matter how much you stomp your feet and tell everyone you are a lawyer of means and reputation. (Which btw is weird given Webbers story about you being so broke you needed to use her credit card for a hotel room to visit your girl.)

        Your girl was entitled to a fair trial- not a perfect trial. And while she is provided the presumption of innocence until the evidence proves otherwise- she is not entitled to the jury needing to believe her fantasy testimony was the truth.
        Two VERY different things. Which you SHOULD know Michael. Cuz you’re a ‘lawyer’.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. “b) I see what appears to be a leg and foot clad in a black leotard or stocking, upper part about the middle of the photo at the top, and extending diagonally downward towards the right with the foot apparently on or near the tile floor;”

    Re: foot in a black sock or stocking. This has never been what I see in this photo. That is not a foot. Try looking at the one which was shown in court, as the details are clearer:

    Like

    • Yes, you’re right, that looks completely different. Although I don’t know what it is, other than some unidentifiable part of some denim something or other: jacket, mattress, I just don’t know.

      What do YOU think it is?

      Like

      • JMRJ, I’m around 90% certain about what I see.

        What people call the “pant leg with a stripe” is, indeed, a pant leg with a stripe. The doubled-stiched hem is clearly visible on the bottom of the pant leg. (Actually, there are two pant legs visible; I’ll explain that part later, though). Look at this photo, at both the sweat pants being modelled, and at the orientation of the model’s body:

        http://www.womanwithin.com/clothing/Stretch-bootcut-yoga-pants-with-side-stripes.aspx?PfId=60385&DeptId=9259&ProductTypeId=1&ppos=8&Splt=0#.VPnaFhbdnlI

        I chose this picture because the model’s toes are pointed toward the left frame of the picture, and I believe that there is a slightly similar “pose” going on in our mystery photograph.

        OK. The point is, the “black-sock foot” is actually a shadow. It’s Travis’ shadow. It cannot be a foot, not only because the shape is wrong, but because there is an an actual break in the top of the imagined “foot” — there is a sliver of an empty space in which a bit of Travis’ naked back shows through. If you want to locate this, track your eyes to the right and look at where the hemline of the pant leg meets Travis’ bloodied back. It’s difficult to see, but it’s there. There is a slight gap where his skin shows through, and this gap is right beneath where the pant leg ends.

        Later on tonight, I’m going to get someone to trace the outlines of this photo in a drawing program. I might label it, too. If you like, I can share the results with you. Though, I’m not sure how to upload such a file.

        Yes, I realize studying this photo is moot at this point. But it still drives me nuts that I’m unable to clearly explain to others why I see something quite different from what they see! So, I’d be very glad if you could give it a try.

        Let me know if you’re interested in whatever kind of graphics we can come up with tonight.

        Like

  9. What the Picture Reveals?
    Travis sitting on the floor, his back against a cushion. The cushion is leaning on a box type item. Travis is alive with his arm outstretched in front of him. The ‘stripe’ is a strap of some kind with a metal ‘D’ ring.
    When I realized what it was it clearly was false evidence admitted into evidence.

    Like

    • Kara

      This is either a joke or the ramblings of an idiot, neither of which matter since this entire post is a ridiculous attempt to misquote, twist facts and support the outrageous lies spun by the sociopath Jodi Arias…for what reason who knows and who cares. Pointing out ALL of the fallacies, speculations and outright crap here is a waste of time better spent cleaning the bottom of a birdcage, alas they are both filled with the same substance

      Liked by 1 person

      • Why waste your time writing a paragraph, then? Make a bird happy — go and clean its cage.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Interested Blog Reader

          EXACTLY morag99. Quite fascinating how someone who has ZILCH to add to a discussion is motivated to spend a few moments of their precious life commenting as such. Should we begin matching homeless birds with these types? We might actually accomplish something then. At least, we’d have meaningful discussion, perhaps?

          Liked by 2 people

  10. If that photo is of a foot, it appears the blue stripe color is a blue jean pant leg. Why didn’t the lawyers, either defense or prosecutor hire a professional photographer or dark room developer to analyze this photo?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well this is a very good question that of course I cannot really answer intelligently. I could speculate that neither side thought it would get anything it wanted by the analysis, which would be an acceptable reason for the defense not to look into it but not for the prosecution, but that’s as far as I can go with it.

      For me personally, although you’ve got a mortally wounded Travis Alexander depicted pretty clearly (others think otherwise, BTW) I just can’t make out what’s in the foreground of that photo – which is the really important question about it – and can’t even really imagine how that shot was taken.

      Like

    • Well this is a very good question that of course I cannot really answer intelligently. I could speculate that neither side thought it would get anything it wanted by the analysis, which would be an acceptable reason for the defense not to look into it but not for the prosecution, but that’s as far as I can go with it.

      For me personally, although you’ve got a mortally wounded Travis Alexander depicted pretty clearly (others think otherwise, BTW) I just can’t make out what’s in the foreground of that photo – which is the really important question about it – and can’t even really imagine how that shot was taken.

      Like

      • Interested Blog Reader

        Speaking of that shot, what I’ve never understood is why the defense didn’t have a medical examiner testify. The closest they came was using Dr. Geffner, a Diplomate in Clinical Neuropsychology, for sur-rebuttal. Then again, I’ve never understood why they didn’t have ANY witness to dispute any of the forensic evidence. Or why they let Jodi testify for 18 long days, or even why they went for self-defense in the first place. Not to mention why they asked their own witnesses so many questions they didn’t know the answers to.

        Well, actually I “get it” to some degree. Nurmi wanted off the case. He didn’t like his client. He didn’t like his second chair. He was angry that she had a contract with the PD’s office, but he didn’t. He was angry that both his client and his second chair wanted to proceed with strategy consistent with the PD’s policies when he wasn’t under contract with them. And he didn’t want to represent capital defendants anymore. So his motions spell out anyway. Even with all of that, I doubt it will rise to ineffective assistance of counsel.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jessie

          Well, in answer to your first question, remember the prosecution didn’t switch from shot-first to shot-last until right before trial. So the defense didn’t know they were going to need to rebut the County ME claiming the totality of his autopsy report was “a typo.”

          I, too, was surprised they didn’t present any forensics experts and made no attempt to walk the jury through the crime scene. The prosecution’s overall theory of the crime was easily refutable, requiring logical leaps like believing a man stabbed in the chest would pause before the mirror while his attacker continued to stab him in the back. Or that the chest wound would draw blood up into the sinus cavity to create that blood spatter at the sink. But the defense presented no alternative narrative.

          Here’s where my theory comes in: I don’t think they were planning on self-defense at all. She had been claiming she didn’t do it, so that was probably the defense they prepared for — force the state to prove she did it. The evidence was fairly weak, just a bloody handprint and the camera in the washer. Other DNA signs of her presence could be written off by the fact that she was a frequent guest there prior to the murder.

          But then what if Jodi insisted on testifying? She has a right to; her attorneys can’t stop her. What if she insisted on coming clean in court?

          That would force her defense attorneys to shift gears, switch to self-defense, and prepare to put her on the stand. That might also explain why Nurmi wanted off the case, especially if he didn’t believe she acted in self-defense.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Interested Blog Reader

            If I’m not mistaken, Jodi changed her plea from “not guilty” (she didn’t do it) to “self-defense” in April 2010. Here’s a little history of her counsel that might interest you. Her first court-appointed PD in 2008 was Maria Schaffer. Schaffer was replaced (when it became a capital case) by Victoria Washington and Kirk Nurmi in August 2009. Washington realized that she had a conflict in December 2011 (that took a while!!!) and Nurmi then became first chair, with Willmott replacing him as second chair.

            In October 2010, December 2010, and July 2011, Jodi submitted plea proposals offering to plead guilty to second degree murder, which were ignored or denied by the state on all three occasions. She pointed out in all 3 plea proposals that her relationship with Travis need not be revealed for what it was if the state (which would hurt the family) accepted her plea bargain. She also briefly represented herself in late 2010 when the plea proposals were first submitted. However, one can only assume that Nurmi was well aware of the facts of the case and strategy by July 2011, when he authored the third plea proposal.

            Nurmi first move to withdraw until February 2011, shortly after he started his own practice, and while Washington was still first chair. At that time, both Jodi and her mother wrote letters to the court begging the court not to remove him. At that time, he had been met with considerable obstruction from the state in obtaining all the emails and texts between Jodi and Travis — which the state was then denying existed.

            (Some have found Jodi’s change in plea in April 2010 interesting because there was a woman who was friends with Travis and had discussed moving in to his house via text to escape her abusive husband shortly before his murder. The same woman, allegedly committed suicide in March 2010, but her autopsy report makes her suicide questionable at best. Also, in regards to this woman, back in 2008, upon learning of Travis’s murder, she called a hotline to report her husband as a potential suspect based on his suspicious behavior around that time. A few other interesting tidbits: this woman filed for and was granted a restraining order 3 months before her suicide — an unusual act for a woman considering suicide.

            The medical examiner who authored her autopsy report was involved in some shady cases (one involving a police officer who was murdered in a way that looked like it could have been a suicide — more than a year later, that ME ruled it a suicide). That ME himself resigned from his position with Maricopa County and then, committed suicide himself, under suspicious circumstances at the end of 2011.

            All of this could just be very bizarre incidents that occurred in the lives of people who are only linked to one another tenuously because we know about the Jodi Arias case. But, if you recall, there’s also one other suicide. Remember the nice brother and sister who testified in the guilt phase and were friends of both Jodi and Travis and went on a trip with them? Well, their younger brother committed suicide a few days after Travis’s murder. That’s a whole lot of suicides, right?)

            Liked by 2 people

  11. sherry

    Was this a witness for the prosecution or defense? I don’t understand what this guy was there for?

    Like

  12. Pingback: "Jodi Arias – A Few Questions" (by Publius Smith) - Justice for Jodi Arias

  13. The person who penned this mindless drivel is not an attorney– not a competent one, anyway. How did Jodi Arias kill Travis Alexander? If this dope of an author had watched the trial, then they would realize that Skank attacked him, when he was at the most vulnerable that a human being can be:– naked & wet in the shower– whilst she was fully clothed and had on shoes, giving her traction. For goodness sakes, please watch the trial, prior to vomiting ignorant BS.

    Moreover, Jodi Arias has pedophilic tendencies, imo, not Travis Alexander. She was obsessed with porn too, imo, not Travis Alexander. Skank was also hyper-sexual, imo, not Travis Alexander. Jodi Arias has the pedo-fantasies, and apparently was making out with an underage dishwasher, “Edgar”, at the “Purple Plum”, after hacking Travis Alexander to death. She got “off” on porn, and planted it on his computer… Travis Alexander didn’t want Skank’s porn on his computer. Skank had nothing to offer but sex.

    Skank maliciously projected her own depravity onto her victim– blaming him for her own malevolent character flaws; whilst stealing his persona and projecting his good traits & the abuse that she inflicted upon him, onto herself– in order to save her own sordid & squalid life, in the aftermath of having savagely slaughtered him to death, because he would not waste any more time on the worthless slag.

    JA is a vicious psychopath & a brutal murderer, and unfortunately, Kirk Nurmi wanted to “win at all costs”… as did Jennifer Willmott… so they aided-and-abetted the psycho-butcher by trashing the victim, Travis Alexander. Shame on them!!!

    Like

    • Edie Morse,you are seriously in need of..something.You’ve been possessed by two strangers, Jodi and Travis for years. You can’t bring back Travis. No one can. You can’t do anything else to punish Jodi….She’s been sentenced to LWOP. Why are you continuing to punish yourself and others with your rants? OH, Jodi will be free or certainly her sentence drastically reduced one day. Hey, Edie…mark my words, and keep your shame to yourself!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Publius Smith

        Again, I thought this was a site for lawyers. It’s regrettable that it’s not. Note the assumption of facts not in evidence (he’s “not an attorney,” JA had “pedophilic (sic) tendencies,” she viewed “porn”, etc.), the name-calling, (“skank”; in other fora JA is referred to as “stabby,” “it,” (“It” is demonstrative of dehumanization-the Nazis perfected this to an art), etc.), hyperbole (“Skank maliciously projected her own depravity onto her victim.” Actually, that’s a bonus statement, showing all three of my criticisms! The point is, you can’t argue with such people, which leads me back to my first point which is I’m disappointed this is not a forum for lawyers only because at least we can argue logically, without letting emotions take over. The rabid posts of the (perhaps bankrolled) mob add nothing of value to the conversation.

        Liked by 1 person

        • But you know these non-lawyer comments also help open eyes, too…John Regan, owner of this blog, was one of the first attorneys to come out and start questioning the circus in Arizona. So,you may wish to think about the “value”. I only suggest one snarky, intelligent retort, however, lest things get ugly. And then Edie and her gang can go to their backroom hater rooms filled with the smoky scent of their….fire and brimstone,maybe? Does that work? 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          • Publius Smith

            Yours do, Ms. Webber; I should have clarified! What I would like to see is a discussion of the efforts to “dehumanize” the defendant in this case. I have seen this in various websites that are pro-prosecution. Referring to Jodi Arias as “It” is extremely troubling because ir reeks of Goebbels and the Nazi efforts to dehumanize Jews and devalue their lives. After all, if Jodi Arias is not human (because of her “depravity,”) it’s a lot easier to justify killing her, right?

            Like

        • Publius: This is a blog directed at lawyers, mostly, but not restricted to them. For the most part I just allow comments and let people speak for themselves, which a lot of times they abundantly do.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Publius Smith

            Thank you I understand and agree. Perhaps I was gently suggesting a little more decorum in the responses from non-bar commentators

            Like

            • That’s rather like asking a bull not to like the color red, isn’t it, Publius?

              Like

            • Johanna Malinotti

              Says the ‘lawyer’ who intentionally misrepresents why the cruelty aggravator was found to begin with.

              Judge Duncan – the lawyer who presided over the DP hearing found the cruelty aggravator was met based upon the victims mental and physical anguish. It was the injuries plural that were the basis of her finding and she states as much in her ruling. Just becs Jodis lawyers attempted to ridiculously spin the reason she found for cruelty doesn’t make it fact. No appellate judge in the land will fall for so transparent an attempt at misinformation.

              But Michael here wants to say that only lawyers- those who’ve passed the bar should be able to run their mouths so loosely.
              The sentiment is typical of hubris and an ego that’s out of whack with reality.

              Liked by 1 person

      • You’re in need of a seriously life & a brain SW.

        Like

    • Edie please keep your rants going because you are spot on. Don’t listen to that delusional Sandra Webber she is just an old bitter hag who wishes someone would like her. Every word you said about the trial is true and as we all know the killer is going nowhere. Edgar is the guy who the killer gave BJ’s to is he the same Edgar who is sick in the head and sticks up for the killer ? Keep your posts going I enjoy the truth for once.

      Like

  14. Interested Blog Reader

    Publius, thank you so much for your interesting comments and observations regarding this case. Also, thank you for letting us know a little about Jodi Arias, the person, as you have come to know her. Your description matches that of many others who have met her, before or during the case. This case is fascinating to many of us because of the orchestrated hate campaign, the brainwashing of those who seem incapable of considering any other point of view, and yes, the antics of the prosecutor.

    I have read many times that both the prosecutor and the lead detective (Flores) are longstanding members of the Mormon church. One juror in the penalty retrial admitted to being a member. I don’t recall specifically whether any juror admitted to being a member from the guilt phase, however; but I believe from various readings that some were. A very small number of jurors were interviewed and then, retreated from public view. One alternate and one actual juror continued to have a slight presence during the penalty retrial. Neither admitted publicly to being Mormon, but both socialized with the family of Mr. Alexander, including attending a large party with the prosecutor and lead detective after sentencing.

    I would also like to say that I’m so sorry for the responses you have received since your initial post. I am hoping you will continue to contribute your thoughts (within permissible confidentiality parameters, of course). The “trolls” tend to pop up on this blog, say their piece, and promptly disappear once they realize it is not particularly fertile ground for their vitriolic attacks and expressions of hatred.

    Thank you again.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’ve been conned by Sandra Webber. Happens to a lot of people. She’s the actual troll pretending to be a lawyer. Clearly she’s mentally ill.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Michael A. Padgett, Esq.

      Hey, thanks. Apparently stuff I posted on FB yesterday has garnered the attention of the Alexander minions and resulted in this person’s (and I know very well who she is) typically ad hominem, slanderous per se posts.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Most people you meet in jail are very happy to have someone to talk to (lie in this case). Making a first impression for jodi is very crucial for her benefit. She NEEDS you , and I guess in your case you need her for publicity for your failing lack of clients. She is guilty as charged. People like the subpar supporters are not helping her in the least. For some odd reason it benefits them as a fix on whats been done to them.. A bit macabe knowing how she butched an unarmed man. But dont you think it would be more beneficial for her to tell the truth and heal as a person? for her family? for Travis family? No one talks about that. Because they have all the wrong reasons to be her FRIEND. ITs news and they have to be a part of it. Pretty sick really, I think I would vomit being next to her, knowing she had blood from head to foot on her, human blood.

      Like

      • I don’t know what’s prompting all these comments about Jodi Arias all of a sudden.

        Like

        • Part of it may be due to the latest “movie”, “Murder Made Me Famous” by “Reelz”….I only watched a promo. But it’s the typical garbage.

          Since you’re here, John, I hope you won’t mind me sharing what’s been going on in my “Jodiland” as I still am trying to help the gal out of her predicament in some way.

          Jodi has a California attorney, Michael A. Padgett, allegedly helping her with “legal matters”. He visits her at PV with attorney-client privilege. I’m concerned now about this guy, as we had become acquainted and I felt for awhile that he was a sincere supporter of Jodi’s overall good. However, I’ve now changed my mind. Padgett opened up a facebook page and posted several photos he allegedly had taken of Jodi at Estrella jail. I’m pretty sure this is against jail rules, not to mention pretty egregious for a board certified attorney to flaunt such rule-breaking, surely knowing this would get all over social media and likely back to the prison and/or Estrella. Along this same time, Padgett went on a pilgrimage to see Jodi and presented a story to me about being stranded in the desert with no money or credit. Allegedly, a friend’s credit card he had borrowed was denied at the pump. I offered to put him in a cheap hotel room. Upon arrival at the room, he told me there was a “live pigeon” in the room, and that it was unsuitable. He failed to make a record with the manager and not only was I not able to get a refund to my Am Ex, but I gave him the CC number to get a different room at a different hotel. My mistake. That’s when he decided to eat a nice meal, leave a fat tip, and for a reason I can’t figure out, pay Phoenix airport $15. All total was $252. This occurred on June 8. A week or so ago, I prompted Padgett with asking him what method of payment he would be using to repay me. He responded with talk of an insurance check from an alleged car accident he was in and told me to “back off!” He then went on several personal attacks against me, both through messaging and in a voicemail. Through third parties, he’s having folks tell me that he and another Jodi acquaintance (DB) are “filing charges. His voicemail told me that he was going to make my life a “living legal nightmare” based on my posting “What kind of moron lawyer…etc. etc.(the hotel room story)?” I posted this in a “secret” group, but of course seems there was a “mole”. He appears to be listening to some exaggerated, histrionic interpretation of my post, instead of looking at it for face value, and frankly, he had no right to look at it at all, but, I’d have posted it publicly initially if I’d known what an ass he was.

          Anyway, I’ve looked out for Jodi since the beginning and batted off a few creeps. I think this guy might be just another one. I want my $252 back. I also want to caution anyone else about this guy. A quick google and other search tells me this guy having privileged contact with Jodi is not for her overall good. To put it bluntly, he seems more than a little obsessed, plus, his delay in repaying his debt, and his spreading personal information about me (and even a family member of mine) about social media is disturbing. Your thoughts are welcome, and I understand if you’d rather not offer them as well…..Thanks, John.

          Like

          • All I can tell you is that there does appear to be a Michael Padgett admitted to the California bar with an office in Santa Ana. I don’t know anything else, including whether the man you were dealing with was indeed Michael Padgett. I think the comments here under his name have demonstrated very questionable judgment and I have doubted that they are actually from a lawyer. I don’t know how he purports to be representing JA or anyone else in Arizona if he is not admitted there.

            I’d be more careful in the future advancing funds to people you only know through the internet, but I suppose that hardly needs to be said at this point.

            Sorry I can’t say anything else that might be helpful.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I appreciate your reply. I respect your blog and the very excellent discussions on them. I don’t mean for this to be a public feud, but I do want to clear up on important point here, if I may. It appears Padgett is having third parties spread rumors and insinuations about our relationship. I never met Padgett and only reluctantly agreed to talk to him on the phone after what I would call his persuasive tactics. He had a compelling story of woe also, and it seemed to be growing, hence my suspicions and antennae went up which is one of the reasons I began to more aggressively seek the return of my money. It was at this point that Padgett began releasing personal details of our conversations on social media.

              My interest in Padgett was in how he might be able to help Jodi. I am in no way a “woman scorned”, as Donavan Bering has been spreading this rumor in a twitter tantrum that, from my view, seems sparked on by Padgett from the language she’s using.

              I never had anything against Donavan, but now that she is willing to spread false information, I have begun to both question her motives and even feel threatened by her.

              Padgett alleges he has spent hundreds of hours with Jodi since her incarceration. Since Jodi was a resident of California and has family, of course there, I wonder if she is allowed to have counsel pursuant to other matters besides her appeal, i.e. her art business or other. Padgett even forwarded emails between himself and AZ DOC counsel where he was asking for special privileges for visitation with Jodi, i.e. weekend visits and direct communication rather than through telephone receivers. The usual disclaimer is at the end of the emails and I have to wonder if Padgett’s judgment in sharing these confidential emails with not only myself, but with others, can have repercussions.

              Padgett shared with me quite a bit about his visits with Jodi. I sensed from this that even Jodi herself was uncomfortable with the frequency of his visits, but as Jodi has shown in her both before and after June 4, 2008 life, she sometimes has a hard time saying “no” and holding to her decision.

              Like

            • Just wanted to share that I have resolved this situation. After an investigation, American Express refunded the charges attorney Michael Padgett had managed to place on my account through some sort of finagling of employees at a Phoenix hotel and restaurant. Case Closed 🙂 So much bad behavior continues to surround this case. Now it seems besides Juan Martinez’ promise of a tell-all book, now scheduled for release in February, “L. Kirk Nurmi” has written a book. He may be the most savvy yet, titillating readers by the timed release of three volumes. I’ve only read his intro blurb, and to me, it smells like a contradiction of his tweeted advocacy against bullying. Rumors are that Nurmi talks about Jodi’s interactions with family and friends. Not sure what value those details are supposed to give readers. I imagine writing the book may have been cathartic for Nurmi. Writing in a private journal can be, too. But well….

              Like

          • How awful that YOUR personal information is being circulated on social media. People have no respect for boundaries, do they? Some people.

            Like

          • Johanna Malinotti

            Oh no!!!! Not THE Publius Smith- Michael Padgett??? I thought he was an independently wealthy lawyer who didn’t ‘have to work’ for a living? At least that’s what he wrote on some blog or another elsewhere! But now you are saying a man that is fixated on Jodi Arias is duplicitous in his intent Sandra?? Oh my! What a shocker that is.

            Lol.

            Liked by 1 person

          • WOW! That is some story.

            Liked by 1 person

        • What prompted you to read it

          Like

  15. Sandra Webber and George Barwood are the two worst people to go to in this trial. They never watched the whole trial plus they have been band from most sites. You can check for your self if you don’t believe me. Go back about a year or go back to the 2nd trial and you will see what I am talking about. You talk about name calling Sandra is very good doing that. She likes to call people the ” R ” word for specially challenged children. She is sick she has been asked not to use that word because there some posters who have special children but no she continued to call people that name along with other names. I am not saying I don’t call people names but you don’t use the ” R ” word.

    Like

    • heather4u2

      J4TA. Learn to punctuate.
      Those who are educated, have intelligence and a brain, take what you spew about Sandra and George as coming from uneducated and sick minds – no one of any intellect believes your lies, so why keep trying to convince others and showing yourself up?
      Btw, your blanket statement of ”they never watched the whole trial”, is an old one, you know?

      Like

      • Dont worry Heather we didnt leave you out on purpose. We know that you are a TRIO..of laughter .. George, Sandra and of course left out Heather lol…When I feel sad and blue I just look for the TRIOS post somewhere or anywhere on the net.. and I have an instand gradifigation of laughter.. as I am now lol

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Johanna Malinotti

    I don’t understand what it is you don’t understand. Jodis supporters can repeat this same line of ‘how could this ‘petite’ woman do this to this huge hulking man’ til dooms day and it’s not going to be important to anyone that has judicial input on her appeals. JODI Ann Arias was the one- even more than the prosecutor- by a long shot- that convinced the far greater majority following every detail and nuance of this case- that she was as guilty of premeditated murder as it gets. Then of course she absolutely convinced everyone watching- with zero bias re her case- that she is one of the most remorse-less murderers to come around in a very long time. She IS special. Special in that stunning way- of vindictive hatefulness – that she ridiculously thought she could hide. She’s exactly where she belongs and she is going nowhere. Ms Arias’ only trip out of Perryville will be in a box. Fact.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Michael A. Padgett, Esq.

      Whether she’s “where she belongs” doesn’t matter! Is it not enough for you that she is at Perryville for the rest of her life? Why do you feel this need, given the facts, to keep foolishly trying to persuade people like me to come around to your side?? Maybe pragmatism comes with being a lawyer. Non-lawyers are ruled by their emotions. This is something different, however; I’ve never seen this level of vitriol before. WTF?? I tell you what, YOU meet her and speak to her and gauge her eye to eye and THEN you tell me your thoughts. How about that? Can you handle suspending your presupposed judgments and let your higher faculty reasoning do its job for a brief moment or two? After all, it’s not like she’s going anywhere and you are “safe” from her, given the same.

      Liked by 1 person

    • heather4u2

      ”Johanna” or whatever your real name is that you’re ashamed of putting.

      Jodi Arias makes a very convenient scapegoat for you doesn’t she. She is someone you can hate and can deflect all the bad feelings you have about yourself, onto her, when going into intensive therapy is the answer. You know it is. You and others like you have severe problems to behave in this way – the nicer a person is, the more CARING, you have a compulsion to hate. In this instance it’s cowardly since Jodi Arias cannot defend herself fro you and those like you who exist to hate. You have a very Deep Need to Make her guilty, as you would ANY woman, especially a very beautiful and talented one like Jodi is. This is a serious problem that if not addressed fully, will eat you away, but you refuse to see this, that you are in fact, diseased.

      Like

  17. Johanna Malinotti

    Publius Smith (do you consider yourself in real life the ‘chief’ man?),

    Making allegations and assertions that evidence -helpful to JA -was either destroyed or kept from her – is such an easy peasy allegation to make when you don’t provide real substantiation. and those texts, gchats etc? Is THAT what you consider so exculpatory that it could have helped her case? Well – even JA admits they didn’t. And when read in FULL CONTEXT- after the fact- it’s no wonder they didn’t. If anything- those full context texts were far more damaging against JA and showed exactly the type of mental and emotional mind games SHE was playing.

    But I gotta ask, since most of us know WHO you actually are- the California lawyer who stood up in court one day desperately trying to get JAs attention (and had to be TOLD by the court to sit down and stop making a spectacle of yourself) — and because we KNOW that YOU were visiting JA a LOT toward the end of her retrial- getting around the sheriffs no social visits rule by claiming you were a PART of JAs defense team (how that ever flew since you aren’t licensed in AZ we will never know- but I’m sure JA had something to do with it) and you were giving JA access to your cell phone during those visits with her – something else against the rules- I find it quite interesting that YOU of all people should think you are qualified to discuss appropriate professional decorum.

    JAs involvement in releasing ALL of those jurors names to her buddies at JAII – (who everyday prove that Arias has zero remorse for the killing) will eventually be revealed. Were you a part of that little doxing scheme?

    It’s amazing to me that there are ppl out there who were capable of passing the bar- yet have been so deluded by a woman like her. I know you think you know the REAL JODI. That everybody else – in the WORLD got it wrong.
    The level of cognitive dysfunction is stunning.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Michael A. Padgett

      I know who you are. You’re the pathetic, apparently homeless woman who chastised me for standing up when everyone else in the gallery was doing the same that day in 5C. Even though it was none of your goddamned business, at that time I told you I had suffered a broken back from a severe car accident in 2004 and needed to stand up and stretch even though it was none of your business. Judge Stephens was off the bench and we AL stood up, INCLUDING YOU. It was my first time at the court for this trial and I certainly had no idea just how deep the hatred (convicted felon) Tanisha Alexandar supporters felt w/ respect to this matter. I was there as a lawyer who was shocked by the extremely unprofessional and disgraceful role Juan Martinez had played theretofore in this matter. Indeed, if I hadn’t seen the Youtube videos with respect to the same, I almost certainly would have ignored this whole fiasco, just as I ignored the whole Casey Anthony matter. When you told me to sit down, I shot back that I have the right to stretch my back without any castigation by you. You assumed then, asyou apparently still do, that I was trying to get JA’s attention. You don’t get it! Why would I even need to do that if I was able to visit her at Estrella? Idiota! You need to move on. JA is in Perryville for the rest of your life. Is your life so devoid of purpose that you need to keep going after some insignificant local Orange County, CA attorney who tries to do the right thing by his clients? Move on. Get a life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Michael A. Padgett, Esq.

        One more thing-when I piss troglodytes like you off, I KNOW I’m on the right side of the fence. Say hello to Chris for me. TRAIN WRECK!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Johanna Malinotti

        Yep. Of course you ignored my point. Making your baseless allegations the state hid or destroyed exculpatory evidence is just another jodiariasisinnocent unbalanced supporter talking big drama with no gunpowder. And like I said- even your girl Jodi said in the end ‘what did it matter it didn’t help my case anyway once they were released..’
        They didn’t help her becs the full context of those conversations does nothing but make Jodi look far worse than the state presented her. Imo – Arias should be damned thankful to Juan Martinez.

        Had I been her prosecutor- or a woman had been her prosecutor – she’d have REALLY hated the state.
        So very much more could have been used and used better she’d have been wishing Juan Martinez had been her prosecutor.

        Liked by 1 person

        • heather4u2

          ”Had I been her prosecutor- or a woman had been her prosecutor – she’d have REALLY hated the state.”

          You are so busy hating her that it has run away with you, so much so, that you fail to see that you have spoken volumes, not about Jodi Arias, but about yourself.

          Like

        • heather4u2

          ”Making your baseless allegations the state hid or destroyed exculpatory evidence is just another jodiariasisinnocent unbalanced supporter talking big drama”

          It is now PROVEN by the Court of Appeal that JM withheld exculpatory evidence, want to argue with them, do you? Martinez was asked countless times to admit it and he Refused point blank.

          (I’m sure you can find the Court of Appeal letter about Martinez on the JAII page if you care to look!)

          You have serious problems, ”Johanna.”

          Like

    • heather4u2

      Johanna Malinotti, Just What is it you get out of being so hateful, especially it seems to a lawyer, Publius Smith, who you seem to take delight in your feeble and pathetic attempts to discredit? If anyone’s cognitive dysfunction is stunning it is yours, madam. Don’t you realise that people with intelligence and a brain are laughing at you and those like you? Because they are.
      You really don’t realise it, but people like you give yourselves away, we can see right through you. To attack a Defence Lawyer, is nothing short of shameful, but then your sort have no shame or brain for that matter, so your attempts to hurt (why should you have the need to do this, beats me) are to do with YOU, it’s about time you took the time to address it instead of spewing this crap, and stop making yourself look more of a fool than you are.

      Like

  18. “Johanna”:

    Here’s some free advice for you (though there certainly is no attorney-client relationship between you and me): read up on libel per se before you continue in your stupid and ignorant accusations. As you well know, if you were actually there, Judge Stephens never said anything to me at all, let alone direct me to sit down and stop “making a spectacle” of myself.

    I don’t know why you feel “sure JA had something to do with [my] getting around [that buffoon Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s] no social visits rule by claiming [I] was part of JA’s defense team,” and you offer no evidence to support your claim, but I can assure you you are completely mistaken. On my several visits to Estrella I consistently respected and complied with the rules, procedures, and protocols of that facility. I voluntarily handed my iPhone over to the very professional detention officers who were present and on duty at Estrella during my visits with Ms. Arias, and your insinuations that somehow I skirted the rules in effect is not only libelous, it’s an insult to the many staff members I had the pleasure of meeting and interacting with. They are professionals and they would never permit me or any other visitor to give Jodi Arias or another inmate “access to [my] cell phone.”

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Hey Johanna Malinotti, from the sounds of your interest in Jodi Arias and Michael Padgett, you are the one with the obsession with all things Jodi. In case you don’t realize it, it’s a pretty sure bet that Travis is dead and his family and friends don’t benefit one iota from your obsession or attendance in court. Jodi’s alive, and Michael Padgett wants to help her. Her trial was unjust by American standards, and whether you like it or not, Arizona is still under Federal law. If you or any of your loved ones are ever subjected to the absurdities of Maricopa County Superior Court and/or Juan Martinez, I hope you remember me, and Michael Padgett.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Michael S. Padgett, Esq.

      Ms. Webber: she can remember me all she wants; however, if she’s ever in trouble In that throwback state, I certainly would not be able to help her, (even on a pro have vice basis), given the obvious conflict of interest, and the moral repugnance her views generate in me.
      Michael A. Padgett, Esq.
      (CA SBN 263587)

      Like

    • Isn’t this the same lawyer that owes you money? How quickly the worm turns. Please, go on.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Johanna Malinotti

      Lol Heather sweetie pumpkin. Let’s talk about what Matt McCartney said about Jodi. That she refused to allow him to end the relationship with her. That he had to stop being intimate with Jodi cuz she just wouldn’t let him leave the relationship. That after she went and confronted Bianca, confirming for certain that Matt was seeing someone else- she went and drove straight to Matts house to sleep in his bed when he wasn’t there. In a town that was at least 60 miles NORTH of where she lived from where she confronted Bianca. Making her drive back 2.5 hours.
      Jodi refused to let Matt go.

      Or let’s talk Darryl Brewer. How DB tried to end his relationship with JA too but she wouldn’t let him. She’d constantly cry and make up excuses to be together with him. You can continue to tell yourself it was all TAs fault but Jodi Arias was a train wreck waiting to happen. Travis was just the final straw.
      All the men in her life wanted out of the relationship with her. That’s not coincidence. That’s a real pattern.

      Liked by 2 people

      • heather4u2

        Why do you enjoy lying? The one who has a ”real pattern” is You.

        Like

        • Johanna Malinotti

          Name the part where I’m lying Heather. This was all testified to in the 2nd trial. ALL of IT. But likely it was a part you refused to listen to becs it wasn’t coming from a defense witness – and when you put your fingers in your ears ….right?

          Liked by 2 people

          • heather4u2

            If you were being honest you would know.

            Like

          • heather4u2

            I have already told you where you are lying, ”Johanna” – see above ^^^ and then some.

            Doubtless you believe what Juan told you, that Nurmi and her previous Defence Lawyer deleted the Porn they wanted to find on TA’s computer in order to help their client! Well, you Would believe that, wouldn’t you! LOL!

            You believed every lie that came out of Martinez’ vile and rabid mouth because it suited your agenda.

            Martinez and Flores deleted it to say that Jodi was lying, when Martinez was the Liar. And you couldn’t work that out?!

            Like

    • Johanna Malinotti

      Sigh. Does he want to ‘help her’ Sandy ..or does he want to ‘use her’. Which is it? Your gut on people in general needs to be checked. Yesterday you loved Mike and today your posting he ripped you off. Your ‘gut instinct’ on people in general just ‘might’ be your problem. If you could so easily be wrong about one person- you likely are wrong on Jodi too.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Johanna Malinotti

        I could say i won’t tell you ‘I told you so..’, but I won’t. ‘I told you so.’ We all have.

        Liked by 1 person

        • My. We certainly are busy this morning, aren’t we?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jessie

            Not that it’s my place, John, but is it maybe time to start cracking down here a little bit? I appreciate the largely free rein you give your commenters, but some of this is getting really sarcastic and out of control. (And I stopped responding to most of your other commenters when they were only displaying their usual level of crazy 🙂

            I’m not sure why you question whether Michael is really a lawyer, but I don’t see that he’s done anything to warrant the relentless nastiness directed at him here — other than supporting Jodi Arias, of course.

            I would respectfully request that if the tone doesn’t change around here that you start blocking some asses. Your blog has always been an oasis of more intelligent discussion than some of the recent comments would otherwise suggest.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Jessie, hi.

              I appreciate the suggestion, but I guess I’m reluctant to start playing censor unless I’m getting personal threats or fighting words or whatnot. And perhaps some of these people need to vent from time to time. And I continue to be fascinated by what comes out of some people with these salacious cases involving pretty females and sex and trysts and so on. Maybe some of these comments will form the basis of a more in-depth analysis of the whole phenomenon, if I or someone else ever gets around to that.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Jessie

                I can appreciate that. Usually I think moderators are too quick to start censoring posts in the mistaken belief that no disagreement is the same thing as civility.

                I just don’t see anything worthwhile in these recent posts. Not even any arguments of why they believe Arias is guilty (“Because she’s HODI — DUH!”).

                I’m not sure there’s really anything in it to find, really, except a whole lot of bandwagon-jumping. Granted, there is some of that on the pro-Arias side too, but more in the sense of enjoying being a persecuted minority. Maybe there’s something to the psychology of whether a person would prefer to be in the majority or the minority on something like this. (I do have a contrary streak, as you know, refusing to believe that Amanda Knox is either guilty or not present at the scene. BTW, I found a lawyer who published an analysis of that case that’s basically the same as mine! We weight a few of the details differently, but wind up at the same conclusions.)

                Why do we focus on these cases? I think it’s partly for exactly the opposite reason that people claim: It’s because we DON’T know what happened. Because we have no idea whether Jodi Arias or Amanda Knox, et. al. actually did the deed. They’re real-life murder mysteries and if we knew for sure, they wouldn’t be interesting.

                Sure, the salacious details help. The attractive defendants help. They’re not all female — Scott Peterson wasn’t hard on the eyes either and everybody was obsessed with him for a while. But, again, did he or didn’t he? Everybody claims to know, but it’s the fact that we don’t know that keeps us hooked. Who doesn’t love a puzzle?

                Good marketing helps too. Nancy Grace put most of these cases on the public map. But the ones that stick are the ones where we really don’t know what happened.

                And, sadly, the simplicity helps too. It’s easy to understand the arguments for and against Jodi Arias’ guilt, even though in the grand scheme of the justice system it’s fairly inconsequential. Your more substantive posts go by with only a few comments, probably because the issues involved are harder to understand, even though in the scheme of things they’re far more important to the functioning of the justice system.

                Like

              • Well, Jessie, I think your interest is primarily in the mystery of it all, which is a healthy interest.

                But I think something else is going on with a lot of other people.

                I was making an analogous point in a wholly different context with someone else last night. There was a study I read about some time ago – forgive me if you sent it to me – about people feeling freer to steal from or otherwise victimize people who were convicted criminals. I guess the idea was that convicted criminals were an underclass and no one would care what happened to them, so others higher in the pecking order subconsciously felt they were fair game for exploitation of whatever kind.

                Something like that may be going on here. It’s ugly, whatever it is.

                I mostly like and often admire my fellow human beings. But many of them have a class consciousness that’s disturbing to me. They seem to accept atrocities from those in authority and convert their objections into a shit rolls downhill mentality that leads them to step on those they perceive as being beneath them. The idea being, I suppose, that if I am exploited I look around for someone else I can exploit in turn.

                I’m just musing. It’s late and I have a lot of work to do on other things. Very nice to hear from you, and especially hearing that you have been reading my more substantive posts and realize the significance of the issues.

                Liked by 3 people

              • Johanna Malinotti

                Oh it’s so perfectly apropos how Heather gets personal and hostile toward someone for discussing the evidence. Telling them they should ‘be ashamed of themselves for daring to have a contrary view from hers of Arias’ testimony. The view that most high profile lawyers (btw) following the case closely share and agree with. And how she so aptly proves that what she complains about to John is really only what she is guilty of. I don’t care if you think I’m arrogant Heather. I won’t share what I think of you becs I was taught better manners than that.
                As for ‘knowing’ who I am – that’s cool!! I really do not care. But- I don’t believe you know anyway. But thanks for proving its you that refuses to discuss the actual case. And just responds with ad hominem attacks. Yawn

                Liked by 2 people

              • Jessie

                That’s an interesting theory (and, no, I didn’t send it to you 🙂

                Certainly lots of people talking about these cases get all Judgey McJudgeyPants about it. They KNOW what the truth is and that gives them the right to heap opprobrium on some stranger whose guilt or innocence, let alone other circumstances, we can’t possibly actually know.

                But that doesn’t explain why the cases that become so popular are the ones that stick in the public imagination. Domestic murders happen every day — why bother with Jodi Arias? Parents murder their children every day — why bother with Casey Anthony? Those cases have gained public attention out of all proportion to the rather garden-variety crimes involved. There’s gotta be something else going on.

                Moreover, we don’t always accept that the authorities are right. We accept that they’re always right when they’re the authorities IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Amanda Knox is the obvious example. Put that same set of facts in the US and she’d have been another Jodi Arias.

                The McCanns were another example. Portugal considered it at least suspicious that their kid disappeared when their only alibi was that all the adults had left the children unattended to go to a bar. But the US and the UK considered it an affront that they would even be investigated. I think the current theory is that the little girl was stolen by gypsies (because that happens so often). No doubt if it had occurred in the US or UK, they’d have been decried as terrible parents who were responsible for the death of their child.

                So there’s a heavy element of nationalism here. Our cops and prosecutors get it right. If they’re going after somebody, that somebody MUST be guilty. But if it’s one of our own in another country, then that country is backwards and we’re convinced such terrible justice would never happen here, even though it happens here all the time. We’ve executed people on less evidence than they had against Knox. We’ve executed people on the word on one single eyewitness known to be unreliable.

                (Incidentally, I respect your skepticism of cases like Knox because you’re consistent in your skepticism of law enforcement and prosecution tactics, and you’re consistent in looking for any plausible way a defendant might be innocent. I would find the American defense of Knox and the McCanns much less irritating if the nationalist hypocrisy weren’t so rampant and so obvious, if there were some acknowledgement that innocent people are railroaded every day in the United States.)

                But I’m getting off-topic here… Ok, so we do seem to enjoy looking down on defendants, who are considered as good convicted as soon as they’re accused. But why pick the ones we pick?

                They all seem to have a few things in common. The element of mystery, the uncertainty as to whether or not the defendant actually did it. Usually, neither the prosecution nor the defense arguments really make sense. The puzzle pieces never quite fit.

                Usually, you’ve got an attractive defendant, or at least not an ugly one, and they’re usually white. Usually, you’ve got the marketing push of Nancy Grace and other media, as well as cameras in the courtroom, allowing the proceedings to be turned into everyone’s favorite reality show.

                Usually there are some stark moral lessons: Mothers shouldn’t go out and party. Men shouldn’t cheat on their pregnant wives. Domestic abuse victims should leave right away at the first sign of trouble. This would fit with your Love to Hate the Criminal theory.

                But I think your theory also ignores the sense of belonging that comes from joining one side or the other. There’s a certain esprit de corps that comes with being Team Travis or Team Jodi — maybe especially Team Jodi because there aren’t nearly as many of them. The JodiAriasIsInnocent website has become a tight-knit group of personal friends.

                It may be as simple as these cases offer simplistic moral lessons and a crude sense of belonging. Sort of like joining Rotary or a bowling league, except you have an issue to get all fired up and passionate about, and it’s frankly not a very difficult issue to understand. There’s very little nuance, but the uncertainty in the cases that make it big provide fodder for lots of discussion and theorizing.

                You just don’t see this same phenomenon with a case like, say, the Aurora theater shooter. Because there are no simplistic moral lessons to draw and there’s no doubt that he did it, leaving very few puzzle pieces to try to put together.

                Like

            • heather4u2

              Hi Jesse, I can vouch for Michael A Padgett being a Lawyer, and you’re right, all this nastiness towards him has got like a runaway train. Some people just love to be nasty, this has got out of hand and is unwarranted; once some people get a whiff of someone they can stamp into the ground they are relentless, even when they only know one side of the story it doesn’t matter to them.

              Like

              • Johanna Malinotti

                Jessie and Heather- I’m happy to discuss the case any day you’d like. I’ve NEVER called JArias ‘Hodi’ and I actually agree with you that name calling like that- without referencing the evidence – is just emotional venting.
                Jodi Arias made a mockery of the courts, made a mockery of real victims of domestic violence, and did so with just stunning arrogance. My interest in the Padgett situation is strictly based upon the actions and posts the man himself as brought on himself.
                I think you just would like to paint all of those interested in this case -that don’t believe Arias’ multiple conflicting stories, including those she testified to on the stand- with one brush so they are easily dismissed. I thank John for not buying in to pressure to delete comments just becs they may disagree with his take on the evidence or- any one else’s take on the evidence.
                And I’ve posted numerous posts on his blog going back years. Discussing the evidence. Not name calling JArias ‘Hodi’ or calling her a slut etc. I am not at all interested in those types of comments either. Boring.

                Liked by 2 people

              • heather4u2

                I know who you are and it’s you who’s arrogant, it’s You who has no respect. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

                Like

              • Johanna Malinotti

                Jessie- i don’t know if others have this problem on Johns blog but some replies when looking at them on an iPhone are spaced out very strangely.
                I don’t buy into some belief that authorities are always honest. There are plenty of cases where I believe the state railroaded the defendant. Amanda Knox imo? Innocent. Obviously. West Memphis 3? Innocent. Crosley Greene? Innocent. Ray Krone? Innocent. Mccanns? Innocent.
                But Jodi Arias? Casey Anthony? The facts of their cases speak for themselves. Guilty as guilty gets. I have no interest in JArias ‘being guilty becs I want her to be guilty’ and I do not follow any group of people just to belong.
                I watched the Oscar Pitorious case. Every bit of it. And the judge imo did the only thing she COULD do. That was highly unpopular for me to say anywhere. But to me it’s always about justice. If the state fails to meet their burden beyond a reasonable doubt then I will say so.
                Clumping Arias in with all the ppl I mentioned above imo is just sleight of hand trickery. The case against Arias all throughout had so much evidence of guilt- and the defendant herself was so obviously lying on the stand- about her being a victim of anyone that the comparison is deeply insulting to Knox and anyone else imo.
                Arias is not where she is becs of Nancy Grace. I’m sorry but that theory is ridiculous. And ignores all the evidence in the case. You may think the evidence against her means nada -but once an appellate court rejects all her appeals maybe you will look at the evidence again with blinders taken off. But If u are related to her and one of her entrenched supporters out there simply trying to influence public opinion by twisting facts- you are going to find yourself in a losing battle. The facts won’t change. And using ’emotional reasoning’ won’t suddenly turn Jodi into an abuse victim who contradicts herself at every important fact. Pretty girls DONT sleep with guys they believe are pedophiles-and they DONT try to help their loved one who is sexually attracted to children by sending texts to them initiating sex fantasies involving little girls. So if her story makes no sense- you can’t trust anything she says.

                Liked by 2 people

  20. John
    Maybe you can help me with my problems too.
    My husband and I went out for ice cream and planned to use a friend’s credit card. During what some might consider good luck for us but bad luck for her, she became our friend after she left her purse in the shopping cart we were using at Walmart. She was the kindest friend we ever had. My husband and I had some struggles and this generous friend let us charge a very nice dinner, a generous trip, an airport fee and a very unfortunate stay at a hotel which I can post about more if needed. Nice, isn’t she?
    Anyway, back to the ice cream. Like I said, we planned to borrow her card again but when it came time to pay for our ice cream, much to our surprise our friend’s credit card was refused. Instead of risking stains to the new t-shirt I bought at Walmart and having my ice cream melt while I washed dishes at the ice cream joint, I called another friend to borrow her card and, per that friend, was very persuasive with her about using her credit card. Now I find myself in a horrible spot because after I did use her card, my second friend is posting all over the internet that while i had permission to use her card for our ice cream, I didn’t have permission to use the card for our extra toppings. All I got was hot fudge but my husband did get hot fudge and caramel. The whipped cream and cherries were free. Not sure about the extra cherries though.
    What should I do?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Who is “Dirk”? “Sandy”….is it? Should all names be in parenthesis, “Heather”? I’ve seen a lot of that going on here between “Michael Padgett” and “Johanna” and “Heather”. Some crazy party you’ve got going on here! I ❤ all of it!

    Like

  22. Veronika Harris

    Johanna, I think it’s quite entertaining that Padgett and Mr. Soper “know who you are”. SMH. They’re not even close. But I guess with all the drama they are entangled in with Sandy, they’re focusing on REAL legal issues now. Ha!

    Like

  23. I know this is old but I just found it so its new to me. Ok first off you said it yourself, states “THEORY”. The knife coming first is just a theory. It doesn’t mean that it’s true. Ia theory is basically an opinion. Personally I do not agree with their theory. I think the gun came first and for two very good reasons. One, it just makes more sense. As a woman, I don’t think I’d ever chance walking up to a man twice my size, with a knife where he could easily grab my wrist and wrestle the knife away from me. Shooting seems like the much safer option. Assuming Jodi didn’t know much about Guns at the time, she most likely choose the .25 caliber because it was “cute”,small and easy to conceal. She probably didn’t realize either that is wasn’t the most deadly gun she could’ve chosen. While still a gun, it’s not going to do as much damage as a glock 9. The ME’s theory that If Travjs was shot in the head first, he’d be rendered immobile is also a theory. He also cannot say for sure that, that would be the case because he couldn’t see a tract wound in the brain due to the decomposition. It’s been proven that people have been impaled in the same area and have lived to tell the tale. Travis could’ve been stunned. Walked up to the mirror to see what happened and had no idea a knife was going to come.

    The second reason I believe the gun came first is simple. It’s the only consistency in Jodi’s story.

    Now the camera. Go check out the camera online. It’s very possible it could’ve snapped a picture especially if it was in self timer mode. The button could’ve been pressed seconds earlier. Also If Jodi was using the camera in manual mode (like most photographers do) the button would be more sensitive because it’s not automatically focusing. A slight tap of the button could’ve set it off. The camera was upside down when it took the picture above. If you look at a photo of the camera online and visualize it upside down you can easily see how that would’ve happened. The camera could’ve been kicked or dropped and once it rocked back and forth it would settle on the floor and its own weight would set the button off. The part where the button is would rest on the ground because it’s the heaviest part of the cameras body. It’s amazing that it captured this photo.

    If you google “Jodi’s foot picture” there’s a much clearer picture from the courtroom where the photo was lightened up a bit that better shows what we are looking at.

    Liked by 1 person

    • And by the way, if you look at the sequencing of pictures you can tell that Jodi was operating the camera in manual or partially manual mode dude to the fact that the flash wasn’t used in most pictures and the fact that the lighting seems to change from picture to picture. The last picture was of his face and she used the flash there and the shower doors were closed. This could’ve possibles been done to temporarily blind him.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Jessie

    Hey, John, did you see the news that the Arias lawyers are writing books?

    From the Arizona Republic: Kirk Nurmi, “whose numerous motions to be released from the Arias case were denied, writes in his blurb that his book details “… what happened before the case began, what happened before the cameras were on. I detail the things that you do not know, things that will describe my reality, the reality that I was ‘Trapped with Ms. Arias.’ ”

    Isn’t that sort of ineffective assistance of counsel In. The. Bag? Guy not only writes a book about her, but writes a book about how badly he wanted to get away from her.

    Meanwhile, Juan is writing his own book, which he promises will not contain any extrajudicial statements. His teaser says—-DID I ASK YOU WHAT HIS TEASER SAYS?!? (Sorry….Juan Moment….)

    His teaser says the book will “unearth new details from the investigation that were never revealed at trial, exploring key facts from the case and the pieces of evidence he chose to keep close to the vest.”

    Martinez is already getting continuances on his current cases for the book tour.

    I don’t like this new celebrity thing. I like my lawyers quiet, even a bit dull, with a nitpickiness bordering on crippling social disability. I have met many interesting and attractive (even sexy) lawyers, but I don’t want to live in world where, if they released a sex tape, anyone at all would actually care.

    Like

    • Helo, Jessie. No, I hadn’t seen any news stories about that.

      Nurmi’s on thin ice unless he has JA’s permission. Martinez? He consistently makes me despair of the profession.

      And you have dashed all my hopes for a planned sex tape. I’m just going to have to rethink everything now.

      Like

  25. MICHAEL H.

    Re: Michael A. Padgett Esq. #263587 Attorney from California and Law Office in Santa Ana Ca. Must feel Jodi Arias needs his help and legal counsel in which given his legal status here his clients have not been able to contact him for months and this Marine Veteran Client just received a letter from the Superior Court of California stating my case has been taken off the Calendar. Thank You Michael A. Padgett for 2 years of Disappointment please return my $2500 fee ASAP and I will seek new counsel. Or I can ask the judge for Relief from the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Michael Lottridge

    She’s dragging him. He’s on his back with arms up.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. James Farr

    She shot him first, okay? That’s why she was able to proceed. He was stunned by being shot. The gun then jammed, which that model of pistol is famous for. . While she was off fetching the knife, he climbed out of the shower to see how bad it was in the vanity mirror. The bullet had missed his brain and eye-stalk. Then she came back and finished him with the knife.

    Liked by 1 person

    • heather4u2

      Sounds good, doesn’t it, straight out of murder mystery, only, just because it sounds feasible, it doesn’t mean it’s right, and, it isn’t. Travis was No Weakling, okay? The way you love to write it out it’s like he was just a stuffed dummy, except it wasn’t, he was a man in his prime, Very Strong, and your’re writing as if he just stood there and let her kill him…. no, it isn’t that simple, is it! He waited till she came back to finish him off…? Think about it, wouldn’t You grab the knife from her as soon as it touched you? Or, would you let her keep stabbing? Are you weak? No, and Travis used to do wrestling, was bigger and stronger than petite little Jodi, she would have been No Match for Travis, so………….

      You’re going to have to think again!

      And btw she did not go there to murder him. She has above average intelligence, come out of the clouds, of course she wouldn’t have driven all that way to kill him, the isea is absurd, it was found on her phone that Travis Did make that call asking her to go and see him when she was en route, her phone had slipped down the seats and the police had it, but you think they would have said so at the trial? If so, you’re in cloud cuckoo land.

      It was Self Defence, not so juicy, boring old self defence. JM lied, Horn and Flores lied, why did JM change his charge, why did Horn change his statement, why say 2 sentences was a typo, why JM’s misconduct, why did JM accuse the Defence of deleting the porn when they wanted to find it to help their client?!?!! JM not only accused the Defence he also accused her previous lawyer of deleting it, he accused Neumeister of it too…. and you know who it reallty was? JM and Flores.

      Their idea was that she lied about it and so she was just a pathological liar, he turned people against her, kept repeating, ”she’s a LIARR”… and the sheep jury lapped it up, loved it and hated her with gay abandon.

      Jodi Arias is innocent. JM and cronies, plus the biased Judge, they should all be in Jail.

      Like

      • heather4u2

        As one of my learned friends said, ”The haters are wrong. Their perspective is skewed by their lack of education and insight / awareness of the issues that transpired between Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander. Haters have no concept of how Jodi was appeasing TA’s narcissism and telling him what he wanted to hear. The conversation that is being discussed here is a discussion of ‘fantasy between two consenting adults’. The brutal reality of what happened on the day TA was killed is another event that skews the haters perception and brings out their confirmation bias. If you disagree with the haters, they gang up on you. I’m not surprised, that reaction by the haters shows their utter ignorance and prejudice. I bet there is not one single professional, unbiased person, educated in human relationships or the DSM among that group of people commonly referred to as haters.”

        Like

    • susansayshi

      Absolutely right on the money James Farr! The only way Jodi could get the best of Travis!

      Like

  28. heather4u2

    It never ceases to amaze me how some people let the Deletion of the Porn incident just fly straight over their heads… can people really be so brainwashed? Or do they just need any excuse to hate?

    Like

    • Alex

      Ok, I guess I’m a little behind on this new evidence here, because I just finished reading up an older book published in 2013 about this case. Where is the evidence he called her en route? I was under the impression her phone was off the entire, if not most, of the time? Another thing, I think after being shot in the head, Travis was probably extremely disorientated, and probably a bit defenseless. However, I agree that a lot of the evidence against Jodi is circumstantial, but it still doesn’t look good for her. The gun stolen from her grandparents’ house was the same caliber as the gun that shot Travis, the gas cans she borrowed because she didn’t want to get caught on camera, and the strange and slightly violent behavior leading up to the murder. Her lying didn’t help her either, although I can understand because she was scared. But here’s a few questions to ask…Where were Travis’ roommates? Where’s the gun and knife now? No one noticed Travis wasn’t hanging around the house for four entire days? You are also right about Jodi being smart, which tells me she is plenty smart enough to pull off this kind of thing; she was smart enough not to get caught on camera, and she was smart enough to wash off the DNA and leave him in the shower….But who knows, there’s much missing to this case. I don’t think there’s really enough forensic evidence against her for her to have been convicted.

      Like

      • Jessie

        I think the question of Arias’ guilt or innocence has become irrelevant at this point. (I believe she’s most likely innocent, in the sense that I don’t buy the prosecution’s rather novelistic narrative and consider it far more likely that two already kinda fucked-up kids had a pretty fucked-up relationship.)

        But now in the appeals stage, this case is as weird as ever. Both attorneys are being sanctioned—-Juan Martinez for making Prosecution-by-Tourettes his normal way of doing business, and the defense attorney for writing a book full of privileged information about how much he hated Arias and believed she was guilty. Could there be a more clear-cut example of “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”??

        If there’s any justice at all, the case will be reversed simply because of the climate surrounding the trial. No one could testify for the defense unless they were keen to enter witness protection, because the mob outside wasn’t just braying, they were doxxing people and hunting them down.

        Between those two factors, there is no way in hell this woman got a fair trial. Whether she’s guilty or not is immaterial in that regard. (I lean heavily towards innocence, but I don’t even necessarily believe that there’s so much evidence of her innocence as to vacate her conviction, so much as to reverse and remand it.) She could be the most obviously guilty person in the fucking world, and this case still needs to be either redone or dismissed.

        Liked by 1 person

        • heather4u2

          Jessie you gave an excellent response, but to the last sentence my feelings are that Travis undoubtedly would have killed her, his anger being such, that this was a case of Self Defence. In the UK Jodi would have been a free woman long ago and yes, she should be freed, she has already been incarcerated far too long, here she would have done, say, 3-5 years, if that. My opinion is that she should not have been imprisoned at all for having to save her life, that Self Defence is not a crime. The people who should take her place are Horn, who deliberately lied for Martinez, Flores who lied, and the judge for showing bias and denying the violations and misconduct, Melendez wasn’t telling the truth either. Not forgetting Arpaio for treating her so inhumanely.
          The whole trial was a farce from start to finish.

          Like

      • heather4u2

        Alex, I read afterwards they had found her phone and that it was proved that a call was made while Jodi was en route, just like Jodi said. I remember thinking that none of this was brought up in court – astonishing. JM also withheld exculpatory evidence, loads of it, that even when asked to submit it he refused. How can a case be judged fairly without ALL of the evidence, a DP case (that should never have been), and it’s pick and choose evidence by the prosecution?
        I recall that both lawyers argued before the case, Nurmi saying JM was refusing to admit evidence that could prove her innocence….. and the case went ahead Without it! A DP Case! The Judge was evidently more than happy to let the case go ahead without it!
        Alex, I watched every second of the trial as it happened, straight from the court and there is no way she ”pulled it off”…
        When you get a corrupt and convincing liar of a prosecutor repeating himself, telling lies to fit what he wanted, changing his Charge to get her the DP… How in the World can anyone think she was guilty?
        The mere fact that Martinez lied, withheld evidence… why on Earth would he have done that if she were guilty? He innocence Screams out and should do to everyone.
        The problem was the media circus and an unsequestered jury.. it turned into a witch hunt with people baring their teeth screaming for her death, Travis Supporters sending death threats to defence witnesses… I have never , nor shall I ever witness anything so EVIL ever again. The whole thing traumatised me, I was mortified.

        Like

        • Leslie Quillen

          Omg woman! You are still spewing lies!! Everything you are saying Is false!! That slut Will never be free! Apparently you missed the fact that she stood before the judge, before sentencing, and said she remembered, all of a sudden, that she knew he was alive when the knife went in. She confessed to killing him you dumb moron!! Get your head out of your fat butt and shut the hell up. Perhaps you can go find a good descent person to champion. The slut Is never getting out!! So shut up you UK cow!!!!

          Liked by 2 people

          • susansayshi

            heather4u2 will never stop spewing her lies. She refuses to pay attention to the evidence presented in court. She continues to focus on utter bs that has no bearing on guilt or innocence, but enjoys flapping her gums to people as IF she knows everything. Just another nut case so infatuated with the inmate that one would think her life depends on her advocating for Jodi’s innocence. She’s going to be waiting an eternity for Jodi’s release. The inmate’s own words before sentencing sealed her fate. Appeal(s) DENIED!!!

            Liked by 1 person

            • heather4u2

              Every bit of truth is a lie according to you, I guess it’s another lie that Martinez accused the Defence AND her previous lawyer of deleting the porn, porn they wanted to find on TA’s computer in order to help their client.
              Have you told the Court of Appeal they are lying too? No? Well, what is stopping you?

              Like

          • heather4u2

            Yes, she saved her life, I see you have a problem with that.

            Like

            • Oh please. Stop hollering about Jodi Arias. It’s done. finished Heather. It’s all over. Even the Jodi Arias is Innocent site has kicked you off because even they can’t deal with your craziness.

              Liked by 1 person

              • heather4u2

                Why do you lie? Your whole life is a lie, you’re what is called a pathpological liar – you can’t help yourself. You are a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
                Yeah, craziness because the sick page you’re in thought it fun to screenshot someone’s comments on the JAII page to mock at (that’s your mark) and I told the JAII page about it. There, that is the truth but you wouldn’t know what truth was if it came and slapped you in the face – which you sorely need, btw..

                Like

              • LOL. Touch a nerve have I? You just know you are beyond crazy when even the crazies at Jodi Arias is Innocent don’t want to deal with you!! LOLOL

                Like

              • heather4u2

                All you are doing, Juliegregg, is reinforcing my opinion about you and advertising the fact that you’re a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

                Like

              • Heather, let me tell you. I couldn’t give a stuff what some crazy lady thinks about me. I would be worried if I did.

                Like

              • coyote

                I think a lot of people hate JA so much because they think she thinks she’s smarter than everybody else. She IS smart. She made some pretty dumb moves though, starting with talking to the cops w/o an attorney, insisting on testifying at trial, and doing those self-destructive interviews. There’s a reason why Casey Anthony is free and Jodi Arias sits in Perrville. Jodi was her own worst enemy in this whole matter.

                The above notwithstanding, you don’t have to like Jodi Arias to have problems with the way this case was prosecuted, and the trial run. The arguments have been made ad nauseam and don’t need to be repeated here. Besides, as fans and haters keep demonstrating, neither side is going to change the other side’s views in this matter.

                Like

              • heather4u2

                I think the women hate her because she’s a strong woman, a stronger woman than they are or will ever be; they judge her on their own toxic/abusive relationships. I agree that they can’t stand the fact that she’s a very intelligent woman, plus for the beautiful way she’s so elequent in the way she speaks; of course they pull her apart for lying, and so forth, they simply Refuse to admit she was scared.. no, no NO, because that would be understanding, and by Christ they’re not going to do that!! It’s jealousy of her for all the above, plus the fact she’s a beautiful, young and talented woman… and, dare I say, sexual to men…. Ooooh they can’t take any of That! They Have to demean her to make themselves feel better and they Have to Keep Doing it to get the ‘Likes’, the warped payoff they crave, insulting myself and others makes them feel better… for a while.. it’s why they have kept up this daily hate for 3 YEARS. It’s why they Have to say she traces.. Lord above, they will Never in a million years say she’s talented – for Them that is going too far!
                Of course the men hate her for other reasons – She Survived her Abuser, when THEY are Abusers themselves.

                Like

              • heather4u2

                And no, sorry to disappoint you but no, it is not finished, Jodi will win her appeal, her own appeal, that is. It will happen because the truth will always prevail in the end. People like you are so full of hate and vindictiveness. You’re a woman to be pitied.

                Like

              • Sure. Arias will win her appeal and you will wake up. Both at the same time. Won’t that be something? LOL

                Like

              • heather4u2

                Oh and do Stop advertising the fact that you have insurmountable problems.

                Like

          • heather4u2

            Too much Truth for you, is it, Lesley Quillen? Aww what a shame. I guess the Court of Appeal letter lied too… tsk tsk tsk can’t have that, you’d better tell ’em. Tell them they are wrong about JM withholding evidence, see what they say to you!
            Btw admitting to killing him in Self Defence is NOT an admission of premeditated murder, my oh my your education is sorely lacking, isn’t it, you didn’t know that?
            Carry on hating, you need anger management, I’m sure if you look there’ll be someplace in your area.

            Like

            • Chad

              The bar complaint was vacated. A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. Kiefer failed to ever report that piece of information leading people to continue to believe Juan is on probation. Juan is to good for that!

              Liked by 1 person

              • heather4u2

                Where is your evidence of this?
                By saying, ”Juan is too good for this”, what you mean is, he is too good at lying, too good at sending the innocent to death, too corrupt.
                Arizona is a backward State and the Judiciary at Maricopa court is known for it’s corruption. Arizona is one of the worst States for corruption in the US.
                Your mention of Keifer tells me you’re a hater and why I should pay no mind; you have failed to produce evidence of what you state, but no haters do, so no surprise there.
                Glad you at least understand what the word ”vacated” means, though!

                Like

              • Correct Chad! Thank you for pointing this out.

                Like

              • heather4u2

                EVIDENCE . You haven’t any.

                Like

  29. heather4u2

    Without Evidence you cannot state is fact, juliegregg/Chad.

    Only alternative facts.

    If you had the evidence you would give it. You don’t. Because there isn’t any evidence of this.

    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