site
stats
Menu

Corruption, State-Sponsored Murder & Twelve Angry Men (by Jade)

in Latest News by

.
Click the following link to read Jade’s latest post:

Corruption, State-Sponsored Murder & Twelve Angry Men

I’m so over you repugnant Alexander johnny-come-lately post grievers. You’re like paid mourners at a funeral. The only relationship you had with the pedophile pimp of prevarication and inspector of children’s underwear, was a strained one, and you milked every last greenback from every last dimwitted asshole who didn’t know it was an act. I’m loving the fact that only one true hero denied everything you wanted. Suck it. Crawl in your train and head back to where you came from.

This case was and is an enigma wrapped in anomalies, replete with criminal subterfuge by the M.C.A.O Nazis who have distinguished themselves as scum-like vermin…. [read more]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If you missed any of our previous posts, click on the links below:

Juror #17 – We Thank You
Jodi Arias Victorious Verdict Day: Video Coverage
The Jodi Arias Verdict: My Thoughts On “Pedo-Huggers United”
Jodi Arias Retrial – The Verdict: Mistrial – Hung Jury
Jodi Arias Retrial, Day #793 – Verdict Expected @ 9.30 am
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In the meantime, and once again…

Jodi Arias - Keep Calm & Thank Juror #17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remember…

WE ARE TEAM JODI – AND WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS in our quest for JUSTICE FOR JODI.

Never question it.

Never doubt it.

Prepare for it.

Leave your thoughts & comments below…

SJ
Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

Click the banner below to read Jade’s post – “Justice Denied: Why The Jurors Got It Wrong & How The Facts Decimate The State’s Case Against Jodi Arias.”:

Read - Justice Denied - Why The Jurors Got It Wrong & How The Facts Decimate The State's Case Against Jodi Arias
Click the links below to read Jade’s previous posts in the series:

The Immaculate Deception: Exposed
Michael Melendez – Perjury Exposed
The Presumption of Innocence
The Great Mormon Porn Swindle

Corruption, State-Sponsored Murder & Twelve Angry Men

If you would like to help Jodi by way of a financial donation to the JAA APPELLATE FUND, click the Team Jodi link below for further details. All donations via Justice4Jodi.com go directly to the fund for assisting with the legal fees associated with appealing Jodi’s wrongful conviction. Justice4Jodi.com is the ONLY website authorized to collect donations.

In addition, please DO NOT, under any circumstances, donate through any other website or Facebook page/group claiming to be “official” and/or acting with Jodi’s approval or authorization. The same applies to any “Jodi Membership Clubs”, groups or fake Trust funds that have been set up. These sites are bogus – as are their intentions – and they should be actively avoided. If you are aware of any such sites, please help Jodi by clicking here and reporting them. Thank you for your ongoing support!

We Are Team Jodi ---- And We Will Be Victorious!.

237 Comments

  1. Thank you juror #17, may god be with you!

    As always thinking about you Jodi, always in my prayers.

    I want to thank all here on this site, your support shines!!!

    • For sure I don’t know where to place my cursor. I just rode through a gigantic spring sneezing attack.
      When I was able to open my eyes, I didn’t know where I was. When I could focus, I had fallen into the year 2013 again!

      Sorry, everyone :- (

  2. Reposted from the original post:
    I wondered where you were, Jade.

    IMVVGO! And with some knowledge…
    Evidence that could have been brought up in trial by an attorney worth his salt (and tax-payers hard earned money) will NOT be of any help to Jodi now!
    If there is NEW technology that can analyze evidence introduced at trial and it indicates something different than w\as offered, that will work, but that may be a long way off.

    To turn off avenues of actual significant viability is foolish. Nothing will be gained by ‘wishing’ the lawyers were really fooled by the State; if they were SO naive during trial they should fall on their swords now and declare themselves to have been ineffective counsel for Jodi Arias.

    As to wrongful confessions: it is happening with increasing frequency in all kinds of cases for many reasons and is a possible highway to take for Jodi. She was interrogated for way to many hours: 130 or so…and there are other elements to this that fit the pattern.

    Only 25% of the overturned convictions involve DNA. Many convictions have also been overturned because of the Reid Technique, which has and is being considered by the judiciary in a great many states to be responsible for false convictions and those states are trying to get the police to stop using it. To say this is not a possible avenue to pursue is cutting off options. NO stone should be unturned. NO options should be put off the table. Facts are facts and the Reid Technique was used on Jodi Arias and should NOT be discounted

    • I agree, Carol, and with a lot you’ve said. Lots of really smart, compassionate people here. Jade’s posts are awesome, and Journee’s and many others. But someone’s got to wake up, sooner than later, and realize that Jodi is her own worst enemy. IMO, she’s asleep at the wheel….of the Titanic.She’s in a vacuum eating Hershey’s bars and communicating with her fans and making the best of things. Her supporters don’t want to rock her boat. But I do. The only way I know of to do that to her directly…is to write to her. But I am one postcard out of hundreds, maybe thousands that are seeking to scare her, manipulate and exploit her. I don’t believe she killed Travis. Maybe she shot him, but I’m not convinced of that either. But Jodi believes it. And with everyday she buys more into that story and her own guilt. I’m getting signs of this from many places. I’m also afraid that the more folks here come out against Travis and his family, and this gets back to Jodi, that it could have the affect of making her feel even more guilty and wanting to defend Travis. I could be completely wrong about that, but I just feel strongly that the only way for Jodi to ever get out of jail is for her to wake up, and to find others willing to consider that she falsely confessed, and attorneys who can take on the Mormon machine! I also think her current defense team needs to be leaned on…somehow.

      • I don’t believe she’s her worst enemy.
        How would you expect her to take on the corruption?
        It’s WAY bigger than she is.

        Some people in AZ know the truth and they will keep it, so IMO,
        what has happened was out of her control.
        That’s what I think.
        Also, she didn’t go out that night to meet TA and that mess.

        • I didn’t really understand what Sandra meant by the above either, Aly. Is this the same Sandra who writes the Inconvenient Truths blog? I often find that confusing too. It’s as if there’s inside information she’s privy to, but the rest of us aren’t, so she kind of writes in hints and innuendo. (Sorry, Sandra, I enjoy some of your blogs, but some of them are very confusing.)

          I think this Sandra above was talking about a news story I just read, or that she was alluding to it. There’s a news story out there that Jodi, somehow, spent 9 hours in one day (or one weekend) after the mistrial was declared, chatting with people by video chat (and video chat is apparently allowed in Estrella jail). And either one of the calls was with 27 of her supporters all on conference call (conference calls are apparently NOT allowed in Estrella jail) or she spoke to 27 people in the course of those 9 hours (that would make a bit more sense). But honestly, I find that entire story difficult to believe. I didn’t think she got that many hours of phone privileges in a month, other than I’m sure she can speak with her legal team 24/7 if needed. Their team *could* (quite easily) be comprised of 27 people between both of their law offices and the staff of the mitigation specialist, I’m sure. It wouldn’t be unusual to have that many people in one law firm working on a case of this magnitude.

          So, I’m assuming this is just another of those “let’s make up something Jodi did that’s shocking” and plaster it all over Twitter. And you know that if a story is told and retold on Twitter and it’s about Jodi, then it just *has* to be the gospel truth, right?

          I’m not sure I get the bit in Sheriff Joe’s statement about two 15 year old girls speaking with/visiting her though. I must be missing something. Oh well!

        • Aly, I never said she went out that night to meet TA…nothing even close!!!!
          And I don’t believe Sandra did either.
          Jodi has been her own worse enemy ever since she learned that Travis was dead. She talked forever to Flores until he had what he wanted and needed. She allowed herself to be duped…
          I’ll agree with Sandra.
          Jodi is no kid any more and she needs to wise up so she can help her appellate attorney get her out of prison.

  3. THANKS JADE ! 😯 That WOKE me up!!!! 😉
    AGAIN THANK YOU JUROR #17 . . .YOU TRULY ARE A MIRACLE!
    FEEL OUR LOVE AND GRATITUDE!!! ♥ ((((((JUROR #17))))))))) ♥

  4. Thank you, Jade.

    I’ve had friends over for the past 4 days, so haven’t been on much here, but my thoughts have been with Jodi as always. A lot of folks talked about how they slept well the night of the verdict, but I had the opposite reaction and was up much of the night and not sleeping well *at all*. I feel better about it now, but I honestly was upset by the fact that 11 jurors wanted to kill her. Those odds were even worse than the 8-4 split in the 1st jury.

    That being said, I really enjoyed the Bill Montgomary press conference. Martinez looked absolutely *tiny* and so defeated. And LOL at his “just a case” comments. 🙂

    • Lynn, I also was caught off guard by his demeanor. I never got the connection with Kermit the Frog. I did listening to his voice.
      Just another case…. Ya win some and you lose some….. BS JM!!!

      So now we have this woman being crucified afraid for her life….. Not one F~ing word from him. I don’t really care that her EX husband was prosecuted by him. Why was it that JW had to make a statement??

      Get a clue people JM knew all of this and he’s such a chicken f…. head he won’t come out and tell you.

      God bless this very strong brave woman for standing her ground…..

      • I was literally dancing and laughing in the kitchen as I watched the video. He was so defeated. Tough luck for him! It turns out you can’t murder everyone you want to, and that some see state sponsered murder as either gravely evil or as a punishment reserved for serial killers.

    • Lynn, one way to look at it though is from the perspective that the 2nd penalty phase was absurdly stacked against her because the jury pool was hopelessly contaminated by the fact that the initial jury found her guilty, so the new jurors had to accept that, plus in the penalty phase the defense team’s ability to argue self- defense was extremely constrained because they had to accept the guilty verdict.
      Other than juror #17, non of those jurors were making their mind up based on fairness and evidence. The fact that Jodi had no criminal history should have been enough by itself.
      I think less than five states in the U.S. allow for a second penalty phase. It is inherently corrupt.

      Plus the bias from the fact that the starting point of a jury, by law, having to be proponents of the DP, at least in certain cases. That can never be a fair set- up.

      Plus the misogynistic culture in Maricopa county, and the biased Mormon influence, and the wild- frontier mentality. If Jodi was tried in a more progressive state, she never would have received a severe sentence.

      I am certain the eleven were mostly inclined to vote DP from the get- go, even before deliberations.

      The jury system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled. To a large extent, a ‘jury of one’s peers’ is anything but. The way they are chosen is hardly different than a blind- folded person spinning around and picking random people off of twitter.

      It is disturbing that so many voted for DP, but the law considers only unanimity to be sufficient. Despite ignorant public opinion, one dissenting vote does not mean ‘not enough’ ___ it means EVERYTHING. Ignorant yellow journalists who have no respect for the constitution feed the fire.

      In a certain way, ‘winning’ by only one vote kind of makes the triumph greater.

      • Amy,

        With regards to your statement “The jury system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled. To a large extent, a ‘jury of one’s peers’ is anything but. ” I couldn’t agree more.

        Firstly DP cases have a death qualified jury, which automatically eliminates a huge bunch of people. Secondly the jury selection system gets even more warped for a couple of other reasons. Firstly, the peremptory strikes allow attorneys to actually remove people who might be in a better position to judge a case. So if you talk to attorneys they will tell you that just about any prosecutor will try and strike people who are engineers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, scientists or anyone else who has a training in analytic or critical thinking. Because with those folks it gets really hard to get by without connecting the dots or sleight of hand. Similarly, depending on the case defense attorneys tend to weed out certain people just based on education, training etc. While the law doesn’t allow discrimination based on race, it doesn’t stop any of these other forms of discrimination.

        Next you find that certain people have a tendency to get out of jury duty. Some of these types are the self-employed, or those who are in critical or essential jobs where they claim their absence will have an adverse impact on their lives or business. Then you have the folks who do all kinds of stuff like answer incorrectly on their questionnaires, etc to get out of the job.

        So the jury of one’s peers is typically chosen from those few who actually are honest about their civic duty minus all those with critical thinking training, investigative abilities, the initiative to undertake things like running a business, or having a critical jobs – but in cases like this favor the death penalty.

        What a great way to choose a jury.

        Drawing lots may in fact be better.

        • Death qualified trials by their nature become prolonged trials. Many people cannot serve
          for weeks or months, this also eliminates people who are more qualified to serve.

  5. It was abusive to use Jodi’s police testimony against her, which they did to great advantage. She was suffering from PTSD and desperately in need of counseling. It is no surprise that a hostile interrogation only produced nonsense. It could not have produced anything else. Jodi rightfully saw herself as being under attack, again, and became defensive. All that testimony did was prejudice her case and should have be thrown out.

    • It wasn’t just the police interviews, it was also her talking with the media, specifically 48 Hours, which helped doom her case. The media had no right to interview her knowing anything she said would be twisted against her. I have maintained Maureen Maher and her producer should have lost their jobs for peddling a web of lies.

      Remember, this was all about protecting Travis, including the stupid narrative his friends peddled. They ALL knew he was a psychological trainwreck but didn’t get him the help he desperately needed. That’s why he is dead.

      • I agree, all of Travis’s friends and family knew what trouble he was headed for and did absolutely nothing. . .they didn’t even care enough to help him. . .now they all want to profit off of him. True Vultures in every way! The Mormon/ LDS way of taking care of their member and family are disgusting. Cult.

      • Well, let’s be real here –

        There’s nothing to be done to help people who refuse to help themselves. Travis didn’t want help – beyond money anyway. Any kind of help involving his behavioral issues would have meant giving up behavior that he enjoyed. He didn’t want to do that.

          • Hey, don’t apologize. I’m with you on that, 100%.

            And there’s much to hold Travis’ friends and family accountable for. But ‘not getting him help’ isn’t one of them.

            • Hard to help others when they are lost themselves. . .I was having a moment! 🙁
              It is all going to work at just peachy keen in the end and no one will be able to stop it. Jodi will be free again. . .I just know it deep down in my heart! ♥Journee♥

  6. I am getting worried that I will never be able to see this retrial. Is it because the frog lost that nobody is releasing the video? Krafft from Fox10 said they would be, but now it sounds like they are going to release edited portions of it. Trying to cover up all the crap the frog and his lying witnesses were up to, is my assumption.

    • The media pretended to be so concerned about absolute right of public access according to the constitution, but now the priority seems like not wanting certain players to look bad.

      I think eventually it will all be released though. People have a right to see an unedited version.

  7. Yes everyone was looking to get something out of Jodi. She was a real cash cow for HLN. They should all chip in for her appeal out of gratitude.

    • Trail by media Joe! Jodi was perfect for the media machine to latch onto and without them her case would never have been DP or even M1.

      Maricopa county was not adverse to having all of the media attention either, and I really wonder if Sheriff Joe had something to do with that at first (he is a media whore), JM wanted a high profile DP case as well. JSS was way out of her league (by design?) and Jodi was left hanging at the beginning with various Defence attorneys. She needed cracker jack lawyers right from the start.

  8. Is it true that neither Nurmi nor Willmot had ever done a murder case or DP case before?
    And if so, can their lack of experience (plus JSS’s lack of experience) be cited in Jodi’s appeals?

    • In Jens bio she has tried homicide cases. I’m not sure about KN.

      I’m going to throw something out there…
      I do think that KN was in I’ll health during the 1st. trial. I would take s guess that he had severe sleep apnea, high blood pressure, morbidly obese. Another words a Walking time bomb. Good heavens how many times did we wonder if he was sleeping? JSS knew this and still didn’t let him off the hook. I’m not trying to make excuses, just a personal observation. Look at the difference’s in him in the courtroom!!!
      Just IMHO…

      • Improved health might have had a lot to do with it.

        I suspect that much of it, tho, came from the sudden realization of the lengths to which the state had gone to kill Jodi. First time out, he was naive, believed state’s evidence over his own client because he had no expectation that the state would lie.

        Nurmi 2.0 was a different man because he was finally PISSED!

        • I’m sorry and hope I can say this, but I think you both give him far too much credit here. He’s like many lawyers I’ve known who go to work for the PDs office and simply get burned out, sick of it all. Many believe they are serving a cause in the beginning helping out the indigent, giving everyone a defense. But their caseload is enormous and most of the people they represent are absolute scum of the earth. They stop bothering to really practice law, fight for their clients, and they learn to take whatever plea bargain is offered that is slightly better than the worst sentence their clients might get at trial. That’s all they have time for. They become exhausted, worn out. They assume that most of their clients are lying to them, because most of them *are* lying. They’re so overloaded that they often don’t even see their clients for the first time until moments before they walk into court. Many of the people they do get plea bargains for commit other crimes, worse crimes.

          They’re not Atticus Finch, and it begins to dawn on them, after a while. More than 90% of the people they represent *are* guilty. The police hate them. Prosecutors hate them. Victims act like they want to kill them and look at them with daggers in their eyes. And their clients don’t even trust them because they’re trying to sell them a plea bargain when they swear they are innocent.

          Depending on the office, some of them don’t even represent the same client for long; sometimes not even twice. They might get shuffled around. Many are assigned to a court room to handle arraignment after arraignment. Another is assigned to handle motions. And yet, another handles trials. It’s not the life they hoped for.

          They stop thinking. They stop caring. They look around and see the guys/gals they went to law school with living a much better life, having paid off their student loans, wearing fancy suits, going on European vacations. And they look in the mirror and see an overworked unhappy tired person looking back, wearing an off-the-rack-ill-fitting suit. It’s not what they slogged through law school for.

          At this point, if they can, some go and work for another firm, but that’s starting out at the bottom again, after all their years of hard work, and that’s only if they’re lucky enough that someone will hire them. After many years of court experience, but nothing really great to show off on their resume, unless they’ve had a big case or two, and won, it’s not easy to get hired. Many try to get into the prosecutor’s office. While they’ll start at the bottom there too, they’ll have a nicer salary, better benefits, and with their previous court experience, might be able to move ahead in a decent amount of time. Others decide to go into practice for themselves and quickly learn that isn’t easy either. Their clients are no better and they still have to do some PD work to survive for quite some time. The paychecks from that PD work SUCK but it’s better than starving while they look for their niche in the law.

          Jodi saw her PD lawyers very little during the first few years and she is smart enough to recognize that they were doing nothing for her. In fact, she may have gone to the media early on, thinking that she could do more for herself. In one letter to the court from years ago, she begged the court to keep Nurmi on her case because he seemed to care and she had seem him more than anyone else. He was better than other PDs she’d had, but was he *that* much better?

          I thought this case was way over his head. Perhaps he knew that and that’s why he wanted off the case. Or, perhaps he just never believed anything Jodi told him after many years of representing guilty clients. Perhaps representing her in a high profile case like this scared him to pieces.

          Something did happen to him between the first and the second trial or so it seemed from the tweets. There’s really no such thing as bad publicity and I’m sure he got new clients, just because he was now famous. Why do you really think all these lawyers who crawled out of the woodwork weighed in on the case and welcomed spots in TV interviews? Why do you think they blogged? What about the armchair psychologists? Many of them are pretty quiet now. They got busy. They got some work to do. And so did Nurmi. He lost a ton of weight. He bought some better looking suits. And he acted more aggressively. And this time, he sort of “won.” And he won in the public eye.

          Unfortunately, he still hadn’t learned how to keep testimony from putting everyone in the court room to sleep, the least of which are the jurors. And, in my opinion, he still hadn’t learned how to drive his points home. He still went on and on and didn’t get to the point. He still sat down sometimes, right before he made his point. And he should know juries in that area, especially death penalty qualified juries.

          Until his final summation, that is. He actually did very well at that, from the tweets I read, anyway. But it was too little too late for the audience he had (the jurors — all but one of them, anyway — but that might have been all he thought he *could* get — and he got her).

          • You only need one. And Kirk/Jennifer got that one juror, just as they got four to vote for life the first time around.

          • I think his time in the PD’s office gave him little in the way of actual trial/courtroom experience. Most of his experience was likely negotiating pleas. When he couldn’t negotiate one for Jodi, he wanted out. Wanted nothing to do with a DP case because he knew he was in over his head.

            He tried again and again to get off the case and the judge(s) wouldn’t let him go.

            Yep, he was lacking in many ways. But I don’t think he was ever slacking. Just inexperienced.

          • stillOutThere

            We have a similar take on Nurmi being a gamble. Nurmi doesn’t care.
            I have no idea what Jodi may or may not be committed to.
            We who care about her case never get any word about what is going on.
            I would prefer that directions for her strategies come out of the close
            group of smart, trustworthy people who are beginning to coalesce on
            her behalf. In the past, we’ve been passive and kept in the background.,
            After doing that I think It would be better to explore some other
            approach. I suspected that there wasn’t enough thought put into
            her case. Getting locked up for life is a crushing outlook. I can’t visualize
            how this is going to play out in the next few weeks. Jodi probably is eligible
            for the NAU Innocence project in Flagstaff. They have a 19 pg screening
            questionaire that they mail for a candidate to fill out. They can be
            looked up on the internet. It’s part of the law school at the university.
            It sounds like they make use of students, which I am in favor of.
            I am all about collaboration,cooperation and transparency.
            That’s why I’m very enthused about what it happening at JAII right now.

            NAU=Northern Arizona University

            • StillOutThere:
              Hello There
              Here’s some info on getting access to probe AZ Innocence Project
              Again, likely Jodi would need to refrain from hiring her own lawyer to remain eligible to be considered for the AZ Project. She is eligible on several counts
              1. She is incarcerated in Arizona
              2. Crime was in Arizona
              3. She has at least 8 more years remaining on her sentence

              Re Obtaining AZ Innocence Project Screening Questionaire
              I believe their system is set up to communicate solely via US mail.
              However, it ought to be possible to print copies of the 17 pg screening questionaire
              directly from their Website

              nau.edu/Arizona-Innocence-Project/history

    • IIRC, the reason Jen was selected for this case, as second chair to Nurmi, was that she was DP qualified (experience w DP) where Nurmi was not. Now his is DP qualified also, because of this case.

    • According to Nurmi’s web site he has done two capital cases before this and was a part of the PD’s Capital Unit.

      I did try some quick searching. Found one of the cases, a guy called Hardy. Unfortunately that was one of those slam dunk conviction cases, so I doubt if Kirk got much experience from it. The guy was beating up on his wife. She ran to a friend’s house. He followed and killed both his wife and the other woman (her friend). I looked at the appeal filing, and you could tell they really were just going through the motions. I mean one of the arguments on appeal was that 3 members of the jury saw the defendant in his stripes. BTW KN’s partner in that case was Victoria Washington, who withdrew from Jodi’s case because of a conflict of interest.

      I don’t know what JW’s qualifications are but if I remember, they had to continue Jodi’s case for a while for JW to get properly qualified to be second chair.

      • Al, what do you think it would take to go rogue with people we trust and just run this ball into the end zone?
        I can’t get excited about these cookie cutter professionals. This is a work of art and a work of love.
        I think Jodi would qualify for the NAU Innocence project out of Flagstaff. They communicate by US Mail. They have a 19 page screening questionaire that they send out. to get qualified. She only has a small window of time to do this, because if she has a hired attorney, that will DISQUALIFY her for the Project..
        I’m interested in just how far we could get with working out the logistics on this. The past six years has not impressed me. The decisions that Jodi was encouraged to go with could just as well have been made the way a family makes decisions. The people at JAII love her so much, and there’s a lot of brain power there. How could thumbing our noses at the professional echelon be any more disasterous than the helter skelter that’s already taken place.

      • Hi Al,

        Important: Jodi needs to avoid hiring an attorney for the time being. in order to maintain her eligibility for the Innocence Project.

        Anyone who has a functioning printer can print PDF’s of the 17 page Innocence Project’s screening questionaire.

        nau.edu/Arizona-Innocence-Project/History

        This site will open if you type the info above into the url address line, but it’s tricky.

  9. I must apologize for a misstatement on my part. When Tanisha got up to make her victim impact statement it actually took her a little more than 60 seconds to get the tears rolling. (In my memory afterwards it seemed immediate, maybe because, in the bigger scheme of things, it was relatively immediate.)

      • Well, not sure how legal all of the Sheriff’s attempts to rewrite the law to fit his kingdom but should help with the appeals process. Hopefully, the more the haters carry on with their ridicules revenge the better for Jodi. They will keep on until they make certain Jodi’s Freedom will come sooner than later. Squirm you little slimy worms, squirm. I personally can’t wait to they turn on each other. . .now that will be entertaining.

    • WTF – really?? Just REALLY??

      What a bunch of sore, pathetic losers! And the gall to say one reason for the ban is due to people calling the jurors who voted for death losers. Have you morons forgotten about what all everyone else associated with the trial, including some folks here, have endured the last couple of years from the hateful mob?

      BOO-FUCKING-HOO Joe……..you cry baby.

    • It seems Sh. joe is a sore loser and can’t fathom the fact that shitzona can’t kill Jodi! So any which way you look at this: JODI WINS!

      Of course joe would do anything in his powers to try and ‘break’ Jodi. Not happening! Her spirits are high and strong!

      As for calling Jodi’s friends ‘fans’? Ha! Too funny! Thing is that Jodi doesn’t have fans! She has friends and people that support her. All of us have either spoken, written or visited Jodi.

      On the other hand, those pathetic haters who never knew travis, have never spoken to the alexanders or to anyone in that matter are fanatical oxymorons!

      Finally, all Sh.joe is doing is wasting his time! He will NEVER cut Jodi off from her friends. In 20 days, Jodi is out of that dump, so joe can kiss my GREEK ass!

      PEACE OUT!

    • Can he do that? I thought that they were allowed to talk to people as long as they were not on the wrong side of the law… no criminal history?

    • What gets me about all that is, all her postcards are read before being given to her and her voice chats are all listened in on so just what is his point? Who cares what someone else says using her name on a twitter account… everyone knows it is not her, unless they are total dumbasses.

      • It’s as if he’s trying to create a ‘virtual’ death row situation right there in the county jail. Jodi must stay cool so her group activities will not be restricted when she’s re-housed in Perryville. She will be able to help a lot of the women there and it will be a good thing.

  10. Got a question for everyone. I will go ahead and apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and I missed it.

    Did anyone else pick up on the female juror (during the jury’s post verdict press conference) who said they did NOT believe anything Dr. Foncesca said during her testimony? Doesn’t that sound just like the first jury who said the same thing about ALV? I immediately thought……..wow, really?

    Either the women are truly brainwashed out there in AZ by the Mormon thinking, or women have not advanced very much in terms of respect and equality to the male counterparts in technical professions. I don’t know which it is, but I found that statement a little sad, to be honest. I found both Dr. F and ALV to be two of the best people for the defense. Just saying………

    • I picked up on that as well Bystander. My belief is there goes another woman in denial over the abuse she suffers. Many heartfeltedly believe they deserve what they get, that they are responsible somehow.

    • I have noticed something about this DV issue in my conversations with people at work etc. Somehow it seems to me that men often seem more cognizant of abusers. The fact is we have a term for the kind of guy who is likely to be an abuser – a dickhead. And we all have a built in dickhead detector. Every single guy can recognize one from a mile away. What always amazes us is that a lot of women don’t seem to catch onto them. Hence the ever present question “What does she see in that dickhead?”

      So it doesn’t surprise me when some women don’t believe conclusions by folks like ALV and Dr Foncesca about a guy like that. To us men it’s pretty clear cut – she’s describing a dickhead. We’ve all come across them. But in all fairness Deanna, and Jodi and a whole bunch of other women didn’t recognize that when they lived it – so why should we be surprised when some don’t take another’s word for it.

      I mean, if this was a jury of guys one would ask the witness “How would you describe this guy? A. He’s a dickhead.” And everyman would know what they meant.

      • Well Mr. Al, that is the age old question, why?? I wish I knew the answer. OK I do have the answer, follow Jodi’s dateing history. DH’s, as you called them, can pick up on the vibes.

        • So Cindy that brings up another question. And I don’t know the answer so this is an honest question. Are there certain women who are more likely to be in an abusive relationship?

          I guess from what I heard during this trial it would seem that certain early life experiences would lead to people being more likely to take being abused. So I get that – its pretty common sense in a way. If from an early age one has been abused, or seen abuse that person is probably more likely to tolerate it, or even may be expect it, when it happens again. I get that part.

          I also get the DH part, so I know what kind of jerk would go about doing it.

          But I also believe that only a small percentage of men are such aforementioned DHs. So how do the two sides get together. How the heck do they find each other?

          I saw what you said about the vibes – but I must be missing something because I don’t think I’ve ever felt that vibe. How do these guys know – here’s a woman I can do all these nasty things to and get away with it. I mean if you are wrong you’re in the hoosegow. So they have to know they can get away with it, right? So how do they know that?

          Just totally confused.

          • It’s a progression though, Al.

            The stuff that doesn’t get him arrested comes first – the psychological abuse and emotional abuse come first. If she takes that and she stays, she’s already someone she didn’t know, and the physical blows that could get him arrested aren’t nearly as bad as the pain she’s been living with.

            • Ah Bach.

              Now I get it. So baby steps. Man these guys must be something else. Sure am getting a view at the underbelly of the beast.

              Thanks

              • There are many little tests that a woman is put through by this type of “DH” guy – nearly every woman who has dated at all has experienced this. If a woman doesn’t react much, just smooths over the uncomfortable moments, that is a taken as a green light. A guy like this might even get a little physical just to test the waters, even in a rather innocuous way – maybe steer the woman around by her arm, stuff like that. There can be calculated displays of indifference to see how much the woman wants the relationship; a kind of putting the ball in her court type of thing. Really, though, it’s anything but that. He is running the relationship when he does that. He’s not really backing off at all, but many women fall for this tactic.

                If a woman continually acquiesces to displays of moodiness – and these types can be cranky and irritable in private – she slowly becomes victimized because her own feelings of well-being always seem tainted by the negativity that’s oozing toward her, either directly or indirectly. The person who immediately says, [in effect], “Hey, wait a minute here. Who do you think you are and who do you think I am?” will often repel this type of person at the outset because a man seeking to indulge in dickheaded behavior wants a woman who will not “over react” to BS, especially in the presence of others. He wants a woman with fewer boundaries than is healthy.

                But some of these oppressive controllers are really, really good at behaving themselves when they want the relationship badly enough. They can play fair for a very long time, even years. It’s near impossible to see the ‘abuser’ in some of them, and that’s why it can happen to any woman, regardless of her self-esteem and/or family of origin issues. After many months or years, a person is inevitably emotionally involved and this is why the abused person cannot accept that things have changed so much. They won’t tell their friends that this terrific guy is now acting like a total DH, or that their belittling wife more often than not is ordering them around; treats the family dog better, so they get no reality check. When they finally do open up to others, their friends can’t really see the conflicts for what they are either, because they are emotionally invested in ‘the couple’. So there can simply be an unwillingness to get involved, ‘take sides’, when things get ugly.

                So the true depth of the abused person’s suffering is not recognized by anyone. The victim grows increasingly isolated, which leads to more internalized frustration and feelings of helplessness. The abuser may wonder where his ‘strong victim’ went and become even more abusive. Then it is in the abuser’s best interest to keep the victim isolated or marginalized so that the dynamics of the unhealthy relationship are not exposed to the light of day.

                In the end no two relationships are alike but people often wonder why a victimized person doesn’t leave. The answer is easy: They don’t feel equal to the task. They are that worn down. So why do they return if they’ve finally broken free? No easy answer there. Might be guilt because the abuser is still blaming them for their unhappiness. Could be hope that the abuser has changed. Could be for a pep talk, to let them know that they can still be friends even though they’re both moving on. Yet, maybe there is a simple answer too, for why an abused person will go back: People will always seek out the good in others, just as trees and flowers bend toward the sun.

      • Good points there, Al. You know, I always thought people saw my ex as charming until one time close to the end when a male I had met at some concerts years before (a married guy who just like the same music as me) who had met my ex said he came across as a “brooding dolt.”

        Last summer, I became acquaintances with a bunch of people, one of whom is male, as we all hung out at the same bar on Fridays. I was kinda warned that he was a womanizer and a player by another woman. I didn’t see that at first. He just seemed like a harmless funny guy who acted like a flirt a lot of the time. I didn’t care anyway as he wasn’t flirting with me and I’m engaged. In fact, he and my fiance seemed to get along okay. Some other guys also complained that this guy thought he had dibs on every attractive woman in the bar and were a bit ticked off about it. Still, I didn’t really see it. Then, I started to noticed that he had hurt some women who were interested in him and “fell” for his stuff and I realized that yes, he is a player, by about Halloween. But we’re all grown up, divorced, widowed, whatever, old enough to know better.

        And then one night, he joined up with some other friends of mine. One guy I like a lot who’s just a sweetheart immediately asked me “What’s the deal with this guy? He comes across as a dickhead to me.” I’d never even heard that guy cuss before so it was surprising. But, by then, I was beginning to see his point with various things the dickhead was doing. It wasn’t too many weeks later when the dickhead and his even more dickeaded brother (who didn’t even try to hide it) tried to bully me over something one night and yelled at me. Well, I don’t take yelling anymore and I wasn’t putting up with him. That was the last time I hung out with him. Every week or so, dickhead texts me and almost begs me to go hang out with him again and he tries to be so sweet. I’m not falling for it. Apparently, he’s not having as much fun without me and the people I brought with me.

        But yeah, funny how guys see dickhead right off the bat and us women don’t.

        • Sorry to hear about that – but yup they’re out there and we can tell. There are little things, but you can tell.

          Look at the guys they hang around with. So there’s another type of guy we call a dweeb – which is not a nerd, but actually one level below that. Now dweebs hang together. But if you find one non-dweeb hanging with a bunch of dweebs chances are he’s a DH.

          And watch his view about his possessions. A DHs iPhone’s always better than all the others, or his drink is special – that sort of stuff.

          And there’s his treatment of people serving him. It’s not brazenly rude, just a little bit of hidden rudeness, a sort of sly undercutting of the wait staff, and bartenders, etc.

          And there’s always a little thing about the dressing, the clothes, the shoes, some quirky jewelry (never trust a guy with a bracelet is what I say). So there’s always a little something funky. Its not some brash out there Vinnie Barbarino funky. Its just a little off. I don’t know how else to describe it, but its there.

          And watch them when they don’t know someone’s looking. There’s a sort of meanness there. Sort of reminds me of the rats in the Redwall books the kids used to read when they were small.

          It’s that sort of stuff.

          • Ah the red flags, Al! Thank you. Yes, this particular dickhead wears a Rolex, of course. And he drinks 12-year or better aged scotch neat, but only in a brandy snifter, and he bitches if an establishment doesn’t have either. I couldn’t say his clothes are particularly snazzy, usually a nice shirt worn out over jeans. Oh, but his dancing abilities are second to none and he loves to laugh at how other guys dance. He has a fireplace in his humongous bedroom, of course, and a sheepskin rug or something of that caliber — but that’s for the ladies. And he’s the best in the world at his job — well, until they found a way to fire him. But he was going to have an even better job within 2 weeks. It took a while longer than that, but he got some sympathy in the meantime.

            The one thing that always struck me the most about him was how he acted when he went somewhere else — not the bar that he felt he was “king of the castle” in. He was a different guy in some ways. Always looking around. And he always came with a posse — usually comprised of the sort of antisocial women who seem to hang around with him. They’re underpaid types who he has actually helped in some ways and he mocks them behind their backs, but stands up for them if a man says a word about them. He takes them into his house and they cook and clean for him and he brags about it. They seem to hang onto his every word. And when he goes elsewhere, there’s always one very attractive woman who is on his arm as his date. And then, there are other beautiful women who hang out with him and who are married and just like to go out, who feel he’s harmless because he confides in them.

            At his “home” bar, I often saw him juggle 3 or more women in the same night. His ex-wife in from out of town who is his “friend with benefits” and who cheated on him when they were married many years ago, and is still in love with him, now going through her own divorce; a woman he was hoping to “get into her panties” (as he put it); and his latest fling (who he usually looked like he was madly in love with, while with her, anyway, and as if they were going to devour one another with the passion of their kisses).

            It was a little amusing at times, until you saw some of these women actually get hurt. It was hard to believe they fell for it, but man did. Some got angry, which only garnered him more sympathy. I had one friend me and say we should get together. I was like “okay. She called me one time and tell me she thought they stood a good chance of a relationship, what did I think. I told her that I thought he was a bit of a womanizer. She said “But he asked me to be exclusive.” She has never shown up or spoken to me again since then.

    • Bystander,
      Part of the problem, IMO, is the mindset of Arizona jurors going into a trial. They feel their job is to find the defendant guilty and then get the death penalty for him/her. Anything else is a failure. Alt least that’s the way Jodi’s jurors seemed to think. In the 1st sentencing trial, a juror said: “I’m sorry,” to the Alexander family and in the second, there was a similar comment. Paul Sanders, a juror on the Marissa DeVault trial, wrote that “all of us were vested in justice for Dale Harrel, the victim.” When you go into a trial with that attitude, you’re likely to disregard everything that gets in the way of “justice.”

    • Kinda sounds like JM’s trusty sidekick, the POS PIO, sent 17’s FB page to the journalists, doesn’t it.

      Odd how Kiefer says the page was sent to the journalists but doesn’t say who sent it. Of course, journalists – even those with no other discernible scruples whatsoever – will assert their first amendment rights not to name their source. MK gave us a pretty good hint though, didn’t he?

      • Well now the truth comes out. Very interesting!

        As for the alleged pictures of Jodi, I saw them yesterday and I was seriously disturbed that they are being posted all over Twitter. If they are indeed her, she needs to be careful who she speaks with that would leak those out. Sad!

        And as for the names of other jurors’ names, um, that wasn’t a big revelation made by this site, sorry folks who would like to claim they were. They were out there floating around Twitter the day OF the verdict. I saw them with my own eyes and people saying they wanted to write them thank you letters.

    • Let’s go and pull the other 11 jurors Facebook accounts and see what we find on them. Bet it won’t be pretty. What ya say Froggie…….sound good to you?

      The audacity to try and get her thrown off is despicable…………SMH.

  11. So on to appeals I guess. I’m sure JSS is going to do the whole LWOP thing. Reading Jade’s post from today just makes it so much more concrete that an ineffective assistance of counsel issue is so obvious.

    I was thinking about this whole appeals thing on my way home this evening. So it seems there are five main stances people take on appeal:

    Judicial error
    Prosecutorial misconduct
    Ineffective assistance of counsel
    Jury issues
    Unfair trial environment (due to reasons other than those stated above)

    Somehow just about everything can be packed into one of those five classes. But in each case the appeals court determines the final outcome on a two pronged basis – firstly the alleged issue should have occurred, and second they appellant must show that it would have in fact had an impact on the final outcome. So they’ve actually had cases where the defense attorney was asleep during witness questioning, or drunk, or at least in one case suffering from dementia and the appeals court refused to overturn the conviction because they said it didn’t matter – the evidence was just too strong regardless of what a defense attorney might have done.

    I don’t know if there are any jury issues in this case.

    The media and social media activities in terms of witness and attorney intimidation, possible impact on the jury, etc definitely fall into the unfair trial environment category.

    I think the big prosecutorial misconduct issue really are the Horn/Flores lying, the computer disk virus/porn Brady violation thing and possibly the camera image files (more on that in a bit). In fact all of these cross over in part to the ineffective assistance of counsel side too.

    So obviously there was a Brady violation on the virus thing. It’s actually a pretty stark one because not only did the state fail to discover and disclose (strike 1), but they actually testified to the contrary and used the incorrect testimony to impeach the defense (strike 2) and during the retrial they tried to actively suppress the issue from coming forth and failed to take any action to mitigate the harm done by their admittedly incorrect testimony in the guilty phase (strike 3). The prosecutor can and in fact has the obligation to bring an oversight to the court’s attention, and take action to right any wrongs the oversight (intentional or otherwise) may have caused. Remember the prosecutor’s job is to get justice, whatever that may be and not to win the case. The same issue hold for the porn stuff – but I really think that the virus issue is bigger, because even though they did sort of address porn – the emphasis was on kiddie porn while the virus issue was a direct testimony. So Jodi never said there was porn on TA’s computer. However she did say that there was a virus, and they used the absence of the virus as direct impeachment.

    The Horn/Flores issue is just plain obvious. Someone lied (as in all of the players – JM, Horn, Flores). While all the BS about the jury being the trier of fact etc is true the following still stands. If at some stage the state realized that the shot came last, but the testimony in the evidentiary hearing was wrong, then again it becomes incumbent on the prosecutor to go back to the judge who held that hearing and report the error and possibly ask for a revised hearing or something. I know KN tried to get this in front of an appeals court, but they refused to hear it at that time because they said the case was still on going. Now this point may with the evidentiary hearing may become moot because whether or not an aggravating factor was found is inconsequential since there was no DP issued. However, someone somewhere needs to get their hand smacked for it. The issue then boils down to whether or not JM knew or should have known that someone was lying. If that is so then it s clearly prosecutorial misconduct. And it becomes a real issue because eventually that testimony was used to impeach the defense, and hence is a major deal.

    Now the issue with the pictures from the camera. I’m really not sure what the heck is going on there. The evidence as presented (I followed the link someone was kind enough to post yesterday) was so ragtag that its really hard to follow what Melendez means. I believe part of that is because he doesn’t have a clue and since the expert witness in such cases helps the attorney frame the questioning , JM didn’t really have a lot to get out. And the DT was even more clueless. So we have one of three possible scenarios; we don’t know squat because no one knew what to ask or how to answer, something really nefarious went on there, Melendez was so clueless that he actually screwed up the pictures himself. Someone’s going to have to get to the bottom of that. However, at the very least its another argument for ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Seeing as how you need to pick and choose your battles for the appeals court, I don’t thing issues with respect to JM’s demeanor, or signing autographs, or mocking defense lawyers, or any of that will add up to a hill of beans.

    Judicial error is nothing I could even start to comment on because firstly I know about as much about those issues as Melendez does about computer systems (Really, that guy is pathetic. Sort of like some guy who took a one week class at the local strip mall computer shop. Knows how to run a program). Also since most of those dealings were sealed we have no clue about what JSS did or did not do. The sequestration of the jury is an obvious issue but that fall into my unfair trial environment class.

    And so we now come to the aircraft carrier in the room – IAC (ineffective assistance of counsel. The thing that prompted this tirade was another one of Jade’s exemplary postings. So all this pictures, and forensic elements being talked about were available to the defense. I don’t know what jade’s qualifications are, but the DT should have been able to find someone who could do the same level of analysis. With a preemptive apology to jade if I am wrong, but a trained pathologist and forensics expert (assuming jade isn’t) may have been able to find even more. So Nurmi et al screwed up on the following:

    — They did not present any analysis of their own to challenge any conclusions the state drew (or didn’t) from any of the blood spatter and other evidence.

    — They presented no expert pathologist to counter Horn.

    — They didn’t question Samuels even after people should have seen that there was an issue with his testing (JM caught it)

    — They failed to address the whole gas can stuff (As I said yesterday, and further to CanadaCarol’s comments – it doesn’t matter whether it was .25 gallons, and the car tank holds more than the specification, or the gas cans hold more, or the gas shrinks, or expands or whatever. Do something to address it).

    — They failed to address the issues with respect to the pictures, etc.

    — The fact that Nurmi constantly wanted off this case is an issue.

    But here is my biggest problem with Nurmi. It actually started the day Samuels testified that Nurmi took him to see Jodi to convince her to get off the story she told Flores. On the face of it that seems OK. So here’s an attorney saying your story isn’t really believable and if I have to defend you we need the truth (though in the books and on TV none of the defense attorneys want the truth). But my issue was a little different. So he has a psychologist who has been evaluating the client, and is going to testify as an impartial scientific analyst. Using that person to convince the client to do something is just wrong. He should have either done it himself, with JW, or MDLR, or through Jodi’s Mom, or sister or a priest or hired another psychologist as a doctor or something. But the second question that always raises its ugly head is whether KN had anything to do with the story as told. And that is an issue in itself. And I believe that is a question other folks on the jury had to have asked.

    But I bet others can add a bunch more.

    So I think these points form at least a basis for an appeal, and as we can all see these issues could definitely have had an impact on the case so the second prong of the requirement should be easy to meet.

    • I will weigh in on the potential Brady violations a bit here because they seem the most obvious to go after in an appeal. But, the problem is, was the evidence withheld truly exculpatory? If it had not been withheld, what is the likelihood that it would have changed the outcome of the jury verdict from guilty to not guilty, or even a lesser charge?

      In simple terms, we’re talking about evidence that there was porn on Travis’s computer and that the prosecution made Jodi seem like a liar because the defense had no knowledge that there was porn on his computer and therefore, could not present that evidence. But, how likely, is that really to have changed the verdict? That’s what the majority of the appellate judges have to be convinced of. There have been far too many cases where even if they find there were Brady violations, they do not believe they rise to the level of having substantial enough influence on the jury that would change the verdict.

      The good news is that appeals are not like trial at all (other than PCR, to some degree) and are primarily decided based on briefs (which are not brief at all) and case law presented (in other words, past decisions of other AZ courts and higher courts). Oral argument isn’t always granted, and when it is, it is set to brief time limits. Can a good appellate attorney make a strong case and present primarily AZ case law that supports there’s a strong likelihood of a different verdict if the porn had been revealed?

      The bad news is that because Jodi didn’t get the death penalty, higher courts are less likely to even accept the appeal, but might because this case was so high profile.

      • Yes, the porn is and was material to this case…..it is for the trier of fact to determine the weight of the evidence….if that evidence is destroyed/hidden/tampered with then the defendant is deprived of their constitutional rights to a fair trial…believe me Brady violations are absolute….and for the 3,0000 books give or take of information that was destroyed at the crime scene by Flores and then again in 2009 when the state turned on the computer without a “write blocker” and against all known protocol we don’t just say, oh well, oops, and hey maybe there really wasn’t anything there that was exculpatory….the evidence lost in that scenario MUST be looked at in the light most favorable to the defendant – that is that it probably did contain exculpatory evidence – ….after all you are trying to take that person’s life…..and the mere fact that the state held in secret the original 2008 hard drive for six years SPEAKS VOLUMES !!! And will NOT be lost on the appellate court judges….This case revolved around Jodi’s credibility and throughout the trial Juan Martinez incessantly called her a liar and specifically called her a liar about the porn….the very thing that would have made jurors look at TA in a different light………you know, something other than the good, virginal Mormon boy that he was…oops !! WASN’T !!!!

        • While I hope you’re right, BB, I’ve just read too many appellate decisions, especially when the sentence is life, but even sometimes, when it’s death not to be cynical. I think Al has read a few too and that is part of his cynicism too. But, we can always hope. After all, sometimes, that’s all any of us have left.

          • I agree….but is should not have to rest on a hope and a prayer (although we should continue to pray for Jodi and her family) but it should rest on the integrity and honesty of the appellate court judges to act according to the law and put aside any other agendas that may be lurking…………

            🙂

          • I hear what you are saying and in some ways you are right. It seems these appellate judges often just say yeah that is so but we don’t think it would change the outcome. That just seems like the first cut in a lot of cases.

            But what I am saying is that if the appeals lawyers present it right this case has some really stark things.

            Not being a lawyer, or having any legal training I am left to wonder how they handle this.

            Do you throw everything including the kitchen sink into the appeal brief, or do you pick and choose the best ones (as in the most likely to succeed)?

            Of course in this case there are a whole boat load of them.

            • You pick your top 3-5 issues, never more. Less is always better in an appeal. Appellate judges find it difficult to believe that a judge could have effed up more than 5 times in the same case without remedy.

              • StuillOutThere:

                I think you have a valid point about human nature. That point deserves to be processed into our equation – being that those who see themselves as invested in “the system,” would respond better if they are thrown a soft ball, rather than a cannon. That doesn’t mean we need to back down, or let them off the hook in any way, just that maybe we can get them to “relax,” While we contemplate how we can make our move look like a “gift” even.

                I’ve noticed that the prosecutor gets quiet before launching his bombs – I’m thinking of the Neumeister episode. The aircraft carrier in the room.

        • And the fact that Jodi didn’t get the death penalty, Thank God !!, does not negate the fact that she is DUE A FAIR TRIAL THAT SHE NEVER GOT !!!! She was unjustly charged with the death penalty and was forced into a trial she should have never had to endure….the appellate courts will remedy this unjust egregious shameful case…………

      • You’ve put your finger on the appellate issue in terms of the second prong. I had talked about that a few days ago, in that even though you don’t get to argue the evidence per se in your appellate court judges do get to look at the totality of the evidence in order to determine if the alleged violation was enough to cause a change in the verdict.

        I think this case is one where some really careful crafting is going to be needed, because what you have to do is somehow argue the cumulative effect of all of these issues.

        The case really boils down to a he (JM) said vs she (Jodi) said.

        JM argued whatever physical evidence he had (not much) to say this is what happened (and he didn’t do much of that. But that same physical evidence would match everything Jodi said happened except for the following:

        1. Horn says the shot came last.
        2. Jodi said that while they were downstairs TA lost his cool and raped her (there I said it) because of a virus on the computer. Melendez says no virus was found. Hence that didn’t happen.

        Now that’s a combination of the Brady violation and a bit of testilying (term courtesy of Alan Dershowitz). But if you agree that there is a virus, and Horn/Flores stick to their original shot came first scenario then you have to concede those parts of the story.

        Now let’s look at the blood spatter and other such physical evidence. If the defense had an expert who said that the physical evidence actually matches a scenario similar to what jade laid out, as in it supports a quarrel of some kind, then coupled with an original scenario of the shot coming first it adds to the scenario presented by Nurmi et al as either self defense or sudden quarrel (more on that in a second). So now we have an ineffective assistance of counsel issue since they presented no evidence to that effect.

        So now add this to the two points above and you have a very effective argument that says they were down stairs, TA got mad about a virus, raped Jodi, they went upstairs and something went very wrong. Maybe it was just one rape or sexual insult too many, followed by some other something being said or done in the bathroom and everything flew off orbit. Now if the gunshot came first it follows her narrative in at least as far as the order of events. Now had Nurmi gotten a forensic pathologist/ crime scene expert to present their findings and conclusions on the blood spatter etc, maybe they could have shown how the fight progressed.

        So add those three things together and you are now well on the way to showing that a lot of JM’s case is smoke and mirrors.

        But the cumulative effect continues.

        Now lets move onto the pictures (I don’t know if they were mucked with, or came off two cards or what). But assume that there’s something wrong there. Well firstly we don’t know because the state’s witness was clueless, but I can’t see where the defense had any of that stuff analyzed from the point of view I’m talking about (so if true, then that’s ineffective assistance of counsel). However if there is something hinkey about those, then that puts into question the whole issue about timing, etc based on those pictures.

        So it sort of keeps adding up.

        Now to my last argument about the ineffectiveness issue. I am still concerned about the way the whole self-defense thing came about into being with Samuels testifying that he went with Nurmi to convince Jodi. Here’s my whole problem with that scenario. The first one is that it gave the impression that Nurmi took Samuels up there to feed her the story. Not saying that’s what happened, but its a perception issue and the guy should have never done it. Now of course if Jodi, through appellate counsel says Nurmi made her say it then that just blows the lid off the whole mess.

        Of course I have no doubt, by now, you are yelling – but how do you get this in front of the appellate courts without presenting evidence or arguing evidence per se. And that I don’t know. I doubt you can get that stuff analyzed now and present that to the court (except possibly as new evidence not discovered earlier due to incompetent counsel), but maybe a persuasive argument can be made by someone saying if the defense had done this it might have changed the course of events. I don’t think that the change has to be guaranteed but just come up to a preponderance of probability type level.

        I am sure there is adequate case law to support just about any thing in this situation. I think what’s more important is being able to tie all this together to show the cumulative effect. If the appeals court starts trying to knock each one out on its own merit with no knitting together of the totality then its probably a lost cause.

        And you are right about the fact that they may not even accept the appeal.Though given the high profile nature and some of the issues like the impact of social media, cyber harrasment, etc they just might.

        • IMHO the case boils down to the law, period. Did the state violate the law and did it impact the case in a material way? Yes….everything else is by the wayside at this point….What does the law say?

          Did the state violate the due process rights of Jodi Arias when they presented perjured testimony in the Chronis hearing to obtain a death qualifying aggravator? Yes….already admitted by Det Flores. Is this material even now? Yes….already explained

          Did the state violate the due process rights of Jodi Arias when they purposefully hid the original 2008 hard drive for 6 years from the DT? Yes…already admitted…..Is this material? Yes, they hid exculpatory evidence from the DT……

          Did the state violate the due process rights of Jodi Arias when they destroyed a ton of computer evidence at the scene? Yes, already admitted…..Is this material? Yes……

          Did the state violate the due process rights of Jodi Arias when Det Melendez gave false testimony on the witness stand that there was no porn or viruses on TA’s computer? Yes….already admitted…..Is this material? Yes…….

          I could go on…but it boils down to the law and whether or not it was violated….It does not depend on whether or not the judges are going to be able to figure out the intimate details of this most convoluted corrupt disaster of a case….

          Did the state violate the due process rights of Jodi Arias and were these violations material…..YES, YES, YES………..

          This case was a violation of her rights from the get go when they unjustly forced her into a death penalty case all the way to the end when it was finally revealed that they had with held exculpatory evidence from the DT and thus denied Jodi her constitutional rights….she is due a fair trial and she will get it…….

          • BB,

            So here’s what causes my confusion. (Not arguing but asking for enlightenment)

            If I read it right you say that a Brady violation is absolute. So if a Brady Violation occurred, i.e. the state failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, then that is it. (I guess as long as the evidence is material).

            Now I’m not sure what “being material” means. Obviously if its exculpatory its material. Am I right, because if it was immaterial how is it exculpatory?

            But then I see stuff like this:

            “State v. Tucker, 157 Ariz. 433, 438, 759 P.2d 579, 584 (1988), citing Brady, 373
            U.S. at 87-88. “Under this doctrine, the defendant is denied a fair trial only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

            So now someone somewhere has to make a decision that “reasonable probability that, had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” And that then means that we are now no longer in absolute territory but now saying that its only meaningful if there was a probability that the results would have been different.

            And I see similar language all over the place. So they find error, but then say it does not rise to the level of where it might have changed the outcome – at least in their opinion.

            So that;’s my confusion.

            Are these things absolute or does this judgement of “reasonable probability that, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” apply?

            • It *should* be absolute, Al. A prosecutor should NEVER fail to disclose ANY evidence. But they do, all the time. The key word is “exculpatory” here. We first have to determine *if* the evidence was actually exculpatory. Would it exonerate or tend to exonerate the defendant? And I go back to what I said earlier. How likely is it that had the evidence been presented, the jury would not have found Jodi guilty? So, we get into the territory of “well, she wouldn’t have been deemed as quite the liar the state made her seem.” But she had already lied to the police and she admitted that under oath. Could the jury then have doubted her credibility in any of her testimony thereafter? Could a reasonable person have doubted her because of her prior lies?

              This is where it all becomes VERY complicated in legal opinions.

              But, it’s disgusting to think that the prosecution would withhold ANY evidence, right? And you also have to consider whether or not that was a deliberate act or not. You can go back to Mooney and look at that case law. A bar hearing might be appropriate — and is sometimes recommended by appellate judges — even thought they still don’t reverse a jury verdict. Aaargh!

              • Right, and the case I cited above claims that a Brady Violation may occur and still not cause a reversal, because the court felt that the exculpatory evidence was not enough to overcome the rest of the evidence.

                Now to me, not a legal beagle” but a scientists this argument seems sort of like when I hear people talk about “bad” science. There being no such thing. If it’s scientific its true. If it’s not true it isn’t scientific.

                So if its exculpatory – to me that means pointing towards innocence, or tending to clear of the charge, then by its very definition it has the possibility of changing the outcome.

                However some appeals court judges are going to weigh its probative value against the rest of the evidence.

                So when it comes to the benefit of the state they are loath to second guess the trier of fact, but when it tends to the exculpatory they march right in second guessing till the cows come home.

                Like you said —– Aaargh!

                • Can anybody find and post the video of JSS doing the line-item reading of the 17 item exculpatory evidence list that Kurt Nurmi filed with her on behalf of his client? I think it is important that we get to see that again. We are trying to make intelligent decisions about how to craft an important appellate motion. It is clear that the different approaches that our very intelligent JAII members are bringing forward, each have their own “hidden consequences” that can make all the difference.

                  It’s just a rip-off. No two ways about it.

                  I felt totally “Broken” after JSS “Flipped-Off” each and every item one after the other during that televised performance she did.

                  JSS acknowledged each individual item was with its very own, individual:

                  “…But I do not believe that this issue rises to the level that it would have impacted the outcome of the trial.

                  So this is a frightening reminder of the power and indifference with which these personalities impact our lives.

                  This is especially loathesome to me in that when I read my voters’ pamphlet at election time, there is no meaningful information about WHO these judge candidates are, what their record is, what do they believe in. Sometimes there is no information whatsoever.

                  This is the echelon of society in which “pronouncing it makes it so.” How long can hard-working, caring Americans live with this sort of dismissal. We are essentially written off and ignored.

                • Sorry, Al, I missed your response. I firmly believe the spirit of the rule was that EVERY SINGLE SHRED of evidence, even that which is irrelevant, should be turned over. That is what discovery is *all* about. But that’s just NOT what happens.

                  (You might remember me talking about my divorce case a few years ago and my “discovery violations” because I point blank refused to give my abusive ex (who was then facing criminal charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) with my home or work address in another state. That was “required” by his attorney as part of discovery (and please note, we have no kids, so there was absolutely NO necessity for him to know exactly where I had fled to.) In my case, this was all the more pertinent since I participate in MD’s address confidentiality program — a program almost identical to FL’s address confidentiality program (ACP). If I provide my address and it becomes part of public record (which it would under FL law), then I am no longer eligible to participate in the program. The IRS, USCIS, MV, courts in MD, etc., recognize my legal address is the ACP address. But, the judge held me in contempt and struck my pleadings. She also barred me from participating further in my own divorce. That meant that the final hearing was him and his lawyer and the judge. Lovely! He got everything, plus, a judgment against me for $31k. That allowed him to domesticate the judgment to MD and garnish my wages. And guess what that allowed? It allowed him to find out where I worked.

                  I had NO choice other than to appeal. I “won” the appeal, but that’s in inverted commas because I won, but I lost. The state of MD filed an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court) and intervened in my appeal basing their argument upon the fact that if FL required a domestic violence victim to reveal her address to her abuser, it would result in abusers resorting to venue-shopping. Move to FL for 6 months (or, at least, claim residence there by renting a cheap apartment). File for divorce/custody, and they could then, by court order, force their victim to reveal where she was living, regardless of where she lived or whether or not she was participating in an ACP. So, what’s the point of an ACP?

                  The appellate court agreed and overturned the divorce decree remanding it to the original court with the original judge. Well, that did me NO favours at all. Not only was I up against his lawyer but I was once again before a judge who considered (on the record) that his lawyer is “an attorney and a gentleman” and I’m neither, (nor could I ever be, short of a sex change) … but worse, the appellate court in FL not only reversed the property judgment, but the entire divorce. I ended up remarried to the bastard again, and this time, without my consent!

                  Meanwhile, the judge insisted on setting a trial date within a month, refused to hear my motions for his discovery violations (he’d complied with VERY little discovery — whereas my ONLY violation was in not revealing my home or work address) and refused to even grant me a continuance to attempt to find an attorney. Then, she stated: “Well, you live close enough to DC and that area has plenty of brilliant lawyers, find yourself one. I’m sure someone there will represent you pro bono. I only deal with lawyers. My advice is that you don’t continue representing yourself. It’s not going to go well in my court.” She said that ON THE RECORD while I stood outside a temp job (which she asked about as she heard traffic in the background — and had asked for a continuance of that hearing, which she denied, since I had never been served with notice of and only learned of it from viewing the online court docket — par for the course with his lawyer).

                  I was hospitalized shortly thereafter, due to the stress. Begrudgingly, she granted me ONE little continuance for 30 days when I was in the hospital, but she held ex parte communications with his lawyer in regards to it. I moved to recuse her based on her statements, but the appellate court (on that date, it was comprised of 3 Republican males — whereas, my original opinion was authored by a Democratic black woman) declined. It’s always the luck of the draw with an appellate court. Interestingly enough, my motion for recusal was based largely on George Zimmerman’s and he won — even though the particular judge he sought to recuse was less inflammatory than mine.

                  The judge also continued to demand that I disclose my home and work address, in spite of the instructions from the appellate court on remand. I argued that point with her and she finally “caved” on the home address, but insisted upon getting my work address. Luckily, by then, I had quit my job and was temping, and I had actually given him my prior work address — although his lawyer tried to deny it during the hearing.

                  So, I won my appeal, but I lost. Nonetheless, I set an important precedent for domestic violence victims in ACPs — and not just in FL. The appellate court didn’t go far enough, in my opinion, but they took a step. The next person this happens to can take it a step further. That’s the way it works. At least, now, there’s a precedent. There was ONLY one case even remotely similar in the country, prior to mine. My case has been relied upon in one other case since then. So, I achieve something! And I did that pro bono. It’s very rare that anyone wins an appeal pro bono. My odds were extremely slim. If my life never amounts to ANYTHING else, at least I gave lawyers something they can chew on and help their abused clients with.

                  Not trying to say I’m a hero or anything. Ultimately, I caved under the pressure and just settled the damn thing, giving him everything. So, I’m actually a coward. And many criticized me for that. But after 3 years, sometimes, you just can’t take anymore. And I couldn’t. I couldn’t afford it financially, emotionally, or any other way. He has no legal avenue left to find me, no financial judgment, nothing. More than a year has now gone by, so there’s nothing he can do to re-open the case. I left him with nothing more than my life, and I still have that, but so much more. I was the walking dead then, now I’m actually ALIVE. And now, I have the chance to build a life that’s all mine. And I have a wonderful loving partner who stood by me through the thick and thin of this — and I was in a terrible terrible place sometimes. We’re strong in our love and he’s always loving towards me, always.)

                  Pardon me for making this about me, but you can perhaps understand my intense anger about discovery violations when my life was put into extreme danger by the most minor (and actually, one which is allowed under FL law) violation of all. And yet, he violated every discovery rule he could. But because he filed BEFORE me, and they’re separate avenues, I was punished and he got away with his.

                  Again, I say, AAARGH!

                • I haven’t said it before now, but it’s time for me to come out of the closet, lol. Thank you so much to SJ and the admins for allowing me to post here under a different name and never “outing” me. When I first posted again recently, I honestly wasn’t sure my post would be approved. Thank you!

                  I used to post here as “Also Abused.” There are several reasons that I won’t use that name anymore, but the most important is that I am no longer abused and I won’t live that “title” anymore. I’m “StillOutThere.” I’m still going strong. I’m not an abused person anymore. I’m not living under the shadow of abuse. It will always be a part of my life. But I’m not going to name myself that ever again. NEVER!

                  I loved my time here and I’m loving it again now. I’m so grateful for the great conversation with like-minded people. I enjoyed many great conversations with intelligent people back then. We debated many topics intelligently and it was truly a wonderful aid to me, more than you all could ever know. It helped me to feel like “a person” again, after all the abuse I’d been through in my marriage. I felt like I was actually marginally intelligent, instead of the dumb ass I’d become in my marriage. The appellate briefs I wrote, were they perfect? Probably not, but they weren’t too bad, and apparently, the 3 judges assigned to my case agreed. You should have seen his lawyer’s brief. It has Juan Martinez written all over it.

                  Admittedly, I didn’t like everyone that was here then, or everything said, but those I liked a lot and cared about are still here today, and have welcomed me back.

                  That was an extremely difficult time in my life. I wasn’t at all emotionally prepared for what was happening and the terror I felt from those who singled me out and victimized me (on another site) in what was, for them, a game of clues. Ironically, I have never felt such terror, perhaps not even strangely enough, when I lived in fear for my life in the same house as my ex. As is the case with PTSD, it brought everything up again, I guess. And then came the appellate decision right when all that was going down, and I was thrown back in with the lions, unable to fight anymore, to survive, emotionally, or any which way. Not a good place to be! I had to run away from here. I even stopped reading for a long time.

                  I’d also insulated myself from everyone I ever knew while married and stayed that way for a very long time. But, right around closing arguments, I heard my ex considers himself a victim of domestic terrorism by me. I laughed. Today, I can honestly laugh at that crap. It’s just beyond pathetic. Okay, I’ll shut up now!

              • Speaking of lies; yesterday I found a lie that Jodi DIDN’T COMMIT!
                Written testimony by Erin Jan 11, 2013 7:15 pm
                Erin says:

                I lived in Siskiyou county for 6 years. It is a ranching community and hunting is a very popular recreational activity. It is commonplace for people to carry knives & guns in Yreka and surrounding areas. I don’t believe that it is odd or unusual for someone from that location to have a knife or a weapon on their person, and given where she’s from, I don’t think the presence of those weapons constitutes premeditation of Travis’ death.

                Also, myself and others have referred to CasaRomos in Yreka as “Margaritaville, as they are the only restaurant in a tiny little town that served the drinks. They are popular for their Margaritas.

                BeeCee Jan 18, 2013

                “BeeCee says You know, I was surprised that no one brought up in the trial if anyone ever called Casa Ramos a nickname like Margaritaville. Many restaurants will have a local nicknamne . . .
                The detective in Mesa is a total d___bag idiot. He doesn’t seem that bright to me actually.”

                Flores was up in Yreka to toment Jodi. If he was a real detective, he could have checked out that factoid while he was there. But it was more convenient to call Jodi a lier re the cuts on her hands.

                These geniuses are just displaying their utter ignorance, same as they did when they lied on the stand about the damage a .25 caliber bullet would do.

                Trixels says Jan 19, 2013 1:33 am

                There is a restaurant where I live and no one calls it by the name on the sign. Actually there’s two like that. One is a breakfast place called Country Kitchen. Everybody calls it the Waffle House.

                Other a Chinese place. Name is Tong Gong Low.Everybody calls it Charlie’s

              • stillOutThere
                I never know where to insert critical messages so they are discovered timely by the right person.

                This is re: info about the AZ Innocence project.

                Plus a warning: Jodi must refrain from hiring an attorney for the time being.
                She would become disqualified for the Innocence Project.

                Here’s how to pull up the Website for the Project. I find it a challenge to navigate, so good luck.

                nau.edu/Arizona-Innocence-Project/History/

                Anyone with a printer can print PDF copies of the 17 page screening questionaire.

        • I’d like to think some more on the issue regarding whether or not Jodi was “coerced” by her own attorney and his expert psychology witness into changing her testimony before commenting on that. I hadn’t even considered that until you mentioned it, Al. I guess one question is, can it be said that Jodi truly believes that and was never comfortable with it? Did she ever attempt to change her plea while representing herself during brief periods before the trial? She has admitted (in the sentencing retrial, at least) to suffering from mental illness. (Before someone says *she* didn’t admit it, she did, through her attorneys, and it was one of her mitigation factors.) Were there ever any mental competency hearings? I mean, there had to be, I would think (although AZ is not other states). She was facing the death penalty. She must have been found mentally competent to stand but what else may have been found regarding her ability to understand the particular defense strategy? That would bear exploration to argue your point.

          You make me wish I could scour through transcripts, looking for something, anything!

          • Well Samuels testified that he helped Nurmi convince Jodi to move off the “Ninja” story. So that’s in Samuels testimony.

            Now the problem I have is that once you’ve said that you have at the very least given the impression that this change came about not of her own volition, but due to coaxing from outside. And that perception is what causes the issue in my mind.

            Who knows what went on in that meeting, and who said what to whom. So the term “coerced” may be a little strong, but coaxed, convinced, something like that is what Samuels used.

            • I would really lilke to know Jodi’s version about why she thinks going with the Intruder story
              feels right to her.

              (Please use
              “intruder,” Jodi never said Ninja. That must be a demeaning term from the media trying to make her look bad.

              I was watching an old morman produced video, with a pair of white shirt bike-riders, etc. and the video happened to drop the info that the Mormon enterprise makes $4,000,000 per day. And that video was made at least a decade or two ago.

              Americans are completely unaware. One benefit of this trial (at jodi’s expense) is that now, after almost seven years, Jaii members can finally say the word Mormon and an honest objective criticism in the same sentence. There are also a growing number of websites for Ex-Mormons, FRM Recovery from Mormonism, etc.
              Peace

          • StillOutThere:

            Innocence-Proof-of-Perjury

            Try typing the above words into you address bar.
            If it will open, it contains the essay with the proof of Flores/Horn/Martinez perjury

            Thanks for your knowledge and help today. and Welcome back.
            I had been wondering what became of you.

        • Hi Al, I’ve tried twice to post this with an intro. It seems gone. Proof of the Horn/Flores Perjury

          by Richard Speights: Herr Speights Ventures.com

          Seabird Hope this is what we need for our Proof :- )

          • Seabird go to the newest thread about Sheriff Joe. . .Coldcase53 has posted the site you are trying to post there . . .check it out. Go to Home page and click on comments. 🙂

          • Hi Al, I found some some damning information that Martinez knowingly had his lab rats lie for him. It is at least a full step above speculation, or worse. It is contained in full within the Herr Speights web site that I sent you about an hour ago.

            I will attempt to type and post the excerpt in several segments in hopes of not loosing them again.

            • Dr. Horn knows from his training and experience a severed throat does not cause blood to flow through the audio canal and out the ear. Dr. Horn knows an incised superior vena cava does not supply blood to the ear. Dr. also knows a punctured lung does not cause the ear to bleed.

              • Martinez’ and Dr. Horn’s questions and answers during cross and testimony indicate dishonest intent. The blood in Alexander’s right ear seems the strongest evidence of perjury, subornation for perjury, and maybe even conspiracy to commit perjury,

                • The moment Juan Martinez mentioned blood coming out of the ear, Dr. Horn should have clarified and revealed to the court the only wound capable of producing blood in Alexander’s right ear was the gun shot to the head. He did not.

        • Hi. Al

          We are gathering momentum with some very good contributors. It is very encourating to welcom back StillOutThere, and even though she is fresh from the battlefield, what an example she has set. to she set her eye on her goal and never looked back. She accomplished what she needed to do, and is a miracle survivor today. the accomplish and just never give and never give up. Very wonderful work.
          Justusforusall has been keeping the essay an “Argument for Reasonable Doubt” in front of everybody. He has been breaking records with his number of hits. Lets not forget that Reasonable Doubt might end up becoming our tool to make appeals successful. Maybe combined with other tools we have on the table and waiting for discussion.

          I have no clue how to move on from our start. I know nothing about how SJ has structured the
          Website we use at his pleasure. We’ve reached the point where there is a need to start combining and refining the structure for pursuing an appellate review of what has been done to jodi by Arizona State. But all I know how to do is enjoy reading the JAII site and am able to post the odd information I tend to gather from strange corners of the Internet.

          Is there someone who can be designated as our leader to keep us from breaking unspoken rules while we grope with a method to compile a proposal for appeals. A first priority, before any senior toes get troden upon, is who are the senior people who own our sandbox? How can they swat us a good one if we get out of line? Is there already a strategy in place to defeat the notion that “APPEALS” can expected to take decades? That’s what I would hope to defeat. NAU in Arizona (Flagstaff) does have an Innocence Project that Jodi would probably qualify for. The transaction in via US Mail. A first step is to request their questionaire about 19 pgs, and figure out how to effectively commuicate with them and among ourselves, and how to bring jodi into the loop. She should have had the right to participate in her own defence, and that has been denied her from day one. I believe there are members of JAII who are personally acquainted with Jodi. Jodi deserves to have her intelligence validated and her temporary fragility supported.
          What do we feel is the right thing to do about a defence team that wants to quit, and has IMO failed Jodi. I’m not going to be politically “polite” but I am certainly not going to interfere with the group will. My main hope is that every effort will be made to become and remain as enclusive as possible and as transparent as possible.

    • I have to disagree about the admitted perjury/false testimony of Det Flores being moot….on the contrary, it is still a valid cause and we have case law to back that up…Nelson vs. Boylston the AZ court of appeals addressed using misleading/false testimony to obtain a finding of probable cause and stated in part that the evidence whether intentionally or unintentionally false was presented to the trier of fact and is used as a basis for probable cause….and the defendant has no way of cross examining or rebutting that false evidence….. the normal remedy for false/misleading testimony would be to remand the case for a new determination for probable cause, and this normally must be done prior to trial….However, there is an exception to that rule and it is this:

      “when a defendant has had to stand trial on an indictment which the government knew was based partially on perjured material testimony.”

      Det Flores was acting on behalf of the government in this case and was used during the Chronis hearing to present hearsay testimony regarding statements attributed to Dr. Horn…… and Flores openly admitted that he lied during the Chronis hearing when he testified during the criminal trial that he used his opinion instead of the Dr.’s opinion when testifying during the hearing…..He admitted perjuring himself to obtain the death qualifying aggravator…….

      There is NO way out of this…..this issue is still viable to this day….we don’t just say oh well, been there done that Jodi didn’t get the Death penalty so we move on….OH NO !!! The ninth circuit court of appeals has overturned convictions for this very reason !!

      The appellate courts will not look kindly upon this issue and will give great deference to the defendant who was forced unjustly to be tried under a death penalty…..if not for this aggravator this case would have been entirely different and her constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated and she is entitled to a new fair trial based on the true facts of the case…..

      The Brady violations are also a viable avenue for vacating the verdict and remanding for a new trial….I have gone over that ad nauseam

            • Thanks Tonysam, Nelson was the one I was looking for which BB referenced.

              I’m very sorry, but I don’t see how that will be successful on appeal. It would first have to be proven that any testimony was perjurious. I believe, in this case, and in accordance with Judge Smith’s rather lengthy ruling, that was never found. If Jodi had been sentenced to the death penalty, this *might* be more worthwhile. But, she didn’t. I’m sorry. I can’t just sit here and lie.

                • I don’t recall him ever testifying that he perjured himself. I only recall him saying he made a mistake. That’s a huge difference. If you have something different you can point me to, please do. It’s been a while since the original trial and my memory is FAR from perfect.

                • He did more than say he made a mistake….he stated that it was his opinion he gave at the Chronis hearing…a far different statement and an admission of perjury on his part….during the Chronis hearing Det Flores was used to bring in the opinion of Dr. Horn….he did not…he brought in his own opinion…….

                • I’m too tired now, but I’ll listen to what Flores said about this again in the upcoming days. But what you’re saying is NOT an admission of perjury. Simply an admission that he may have understood because of his own preformed opinion. That could well be a very clever way of saying that he lied. And remember, Chronis delves into “legal sufficiency” in aggravating factors probably cause hearings which isn’t even defined in AZ law. There was a probable cause hearing and it was later challenged and upheld by the court (as I recall).

                  To challenge that again now, there would (and may be) have to be case law that would prove had the aggravating factor not been upheld, had this not been a death penalty case in the first place, the outcome would have been different. Again, had Jodi been sentenced to the death penalty, that would have potentially been something worth arguing.

              • Hi AlL, Well, a post or two back I nominated you “The King of Simple.”

                Here’s the challenge . Everything you just said has validity and potential, but we are loosing “SIMPLE.” Are there parts of your theory that could be set on the 2nd string bench. Give us time to pool our community to see if there are stronger arguments remaining, or stated, that can stand on their own. We need to be able to SELL this to the Board of Appeals. Salesmen know that they had better make their pitch in the first 30seconds. Lets just play with this as kids doing some brainstorming just for fun.

                What if you had to focus Jodi’s defence on only two themes. Would there be enough valid points left that the case couldn’t be knocked down? (a ls JSS & the 17 points)

                BB is adament that there is case law, that the State would not be able to argue away. I’m nervous about relying on the cumulative case vs the legal case that BB is arguing for.

                In this sense, I am crawling inside the skin of these “legal’ personalities with self-images propped up by notches in their guns. Think about TA’s clan. It’s all about ego, they band together and will stop at nothing to protect their own. Same with the Mormon stronghold. That’s how those cults rule. They manage to establish a protectorate that can’t be breached. I am thinking that with BB’s idea of using the law itself as a WEAPON, we can establish our juistice without having to “embarrass”
                the personalities of the “protectorate,”

                It’s the careful crafting you were talking about that would give them a way to save face, (they were forced to follow the law due to scrutiny of a global case.)we might be able to put them in the spotlight forcing them into the open to having to bend to the letter of the law. If “the law” made them “(reverse the sentence or remand for retrial).” they could save face with their following. (because legally they had no choice)

                I notice that BB is quoting a law, that normally would be inelligible, due to not being timely filed. That gives our side the advantage of “smoke and mirrors.” It’s an appeaser for those who must save face. Meanwhile BB says there’ an EXCEPTION. Al has already addressed the need for “CAREFUL CRAFTING.” We have the brainpower in SJ’s community. I for instance, could not pull all the pieces together to pull this off, but I do get flashes of insight. Martial artists will be familiar with: Don’t give away your own force. Use your opponents force to reach the winning maneuver.

      • BB

        So the Flores/Horn things raises its head in two different places. The first is in the hearing to determine probable cause for aggravating factors, then again during the actual trial.

        So the issue with respect to the trial is obvious. It’s major. And that’s why I keep bringing it up – because it was clearly done to offset the defense case, made spectacularly evident by the manner in and time at which they notified the DT about their “change” in position. So that’s not going away. Period. And I think someone, somewhere should be able to make a case that says that the State knowingly produced false evidence.

        Now in the case of the evidentiary hearing, as I said earlier, if the state’s position is that their witness made an error then they have an obligation to inform the court of this error and petition the court to take whatever remedial action is necessary, possibly even revisiting the hearing. However, what I meant to say is that the appeals court may say that issues with respect to the evidentiary hearing are moot because a DP was not handed down, so the lack of an aggravating factor would not change that outcome. There is an argument that can be made that says that should the court have thrown out the one and only remaining aggravating factor due to this issue, then Jodi would not have been tried by a death qualified jury and that could change the outcome of the case. There is ample empirical data to show that there is evidence to that effect. But I don’t know how one argues that – as in not that I doubt it but I am without knowledge about how its done.

        • The state’s position is already clear…their witness gave false testimony in the Chronis hearing and admitted such….Det Flores admitted that he used his opinion, not Dr. Horn’s opinion during the hearing….this is obvious false testimony….it is NOT a mistake or an error….they have already admitted to the perjury regarding this….the issue is not moot….it is very relevant and the exception rule applies here as KN described in his petition (mentioned above in my other post)….Jodi was forced into a death penalty trial based on the perjured testimony of Det Flores….and the state knew it….Det Flores knew this and he was used as an agent of the state to bring in the opinion of Dr. Horn, but Det Flores did not bring in the opinion of Dr. Horn and admitted to bringing in his own opinion in order to obtain a death aggravator to make this a death penalty case…the state never notified the court of this perjury/false testimony something they were required to do……so this is not moot by any means…you can not now say oh well Jodi didn’t get the death penalty so don’t worry about the perjury now….NO !! Jodi was made to endure a death penalty case and all that this entails with the narrowed jury pool and the narrowed jury instructions, etc. and this effected the outcome of this trial immensely…..you saw for yourself that Jodi escaped the death penalty by the slimmest of margins…had the death penalty not been a factor the jury pool would have been different, the case would have proceeded differently, the jury instructions would have been different and not narrowed…….the lack of an aggravating factor CERTAINLY COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME……she is due a fair trial based on the true facts of the case….you can not say oh well she didn’t get the death penalty so she got a fair trial she did NOT !!! I don’t know how many ways I can say this…….

            • They don’t … but unfortunately, in an appellate court loath to reverse jury verdicts, that is unfortunately, very often, the bottom line. This is such a steep mountain to climb. I’m sorry. I realize you’re very passionate about this.

              • Yes I am passionate about the due process rights of Jodi….she never got a fair trial…and if it can happen to Jodi it can happen to any of us……

              • I can think of another factor that would play as a motivator for the State to try to play games.

                The Alexander family was allowed to get way out of bounds in that courtroom. This went on for months and was escallating toward the end. During Nurmi’s closing argument The Alexander entourage staged a three tiered walk-out. They were also running around and sneaking about around the elevators and “the victims’ room” Martinez seemed to be in on it.

                This trial is sort of like one of those killings by a cop of an unarmed teenager. The factions have been seething for months for any excuse to start a “rumble” so to speak.

                The State may be prone to sabatage the Defence’s effectiveness in the trial, just to keep the lid on one of these Demonstrations of community violence. Or the reverse – to see it blown off. The reading I’m treated to tonight is fabulous. Getting goose bumps.

            • When you are not dealing with death penalty cases the jury (not death qualified) could have found her guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or found her not guilty..we just do not know….and you can not take Jodi’s due process rights away simply bc you believe she may be found guilty of premeditated murder and given a life sentence again in a retrial….you are guessing and this is not allowed….the jury is the trier of fact, not you and I….did the state violate Jodi’s due process rights when they put forth false/perjured testimony to obtain a death aggravator? Yes…is it material even now? Yes….

              • In law, unfortunately, only if it truly is perjured testimony. Thus far, I haven’t heard you say that Flores ever admitted that. But again, I will review his words on the subject if I can find them.

          • That’s exactly what I was saying. I agree that it was perjured testimony. In fact I raise you and say I believe the state had an obligation to go back to the court and say it had perjured itself and revisit the evidentiary hearing. That’s what I have been saying. And I also said I believed that a non-death qualified jury could have come up with a completely different verdict.

            So I have said everything you just said. I’m not arguing the facts. I am asking a question because I don’t know the answer. So I’m looking for enlightenment.

            My question was two fold:

            1. Given the state did not do anything to mitigate the perjured testimony during the aggravation evidentiary hearing, what does one do about it now? How do they appeal that part, and does the court say well that parts moot because it would have no impact on the judgement?

            2. There is all this research and stuff about death qualified juries being more likely to convict. But does that translate into a legal argument?

            So these are questions I don’t know the answers to and am throwing them out to see if anyone can enlighten us.

            • I haven’t ever researched the issue, Al. So, I don’t know. But I haven’t yet seen case law on the subject.

              • If such case law exists, then, it could be a cause on appeal. But since, even without the death penalty, Jodi could have been sentenced to life, and that’s what she’s going to get, an appellate court could decide that they can’t reverse. I know that’s unfair, but they decide like that all the time.

                • If they do then they have no integrity and are not following the law and saying in essence that the ends justify the means…..scary thought for our country bc this can happen to anyone and would you want it happening to you….no…

                • If nothing else, the level of thinking being devoted to this matter far exceeds that which the DT was equipped to contribute. That is why they scare me.

                  BB, Your comment above: “If they do they have no integrity and they are not following the law.” How true this is.

                  However we are dealing with scoundrels who are in a position of power such that we have been watching them get away with making proclamations that something “is so” and then “expecting” the law to agree with them that, then it must be so.

                  The prosecution is in effect making up their own version of the law as they go along, AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT. Martinez was using that arrogant tactic when Neumeister stood up to him and straight out called him a lier. Our case was nevertheless contaminated with the aftertaste of being flawed on the part of the defence.

                  I hate to think that they have us trapped into that scenario, and we just have to accept it.

                  The “LAW” is not our problem. It’s that we seem unable to depend on the law being enforced that it just killing us.

            • Okay, understand…

              1) They appeal based on violation of due process rights of Jodi Arias and No, it is not moot for all the reasons I have been stating…..she had a right to a fair trial and the ninth circuit has overturned cases based on perjured testimony during Chronis hearings
              2) No, it is irrelevant..and I only used what another jury might do as an example….that would not be a question before the court…the court would only need to answer whether or not Jodi’s due process rights were violated by the perjured testimony of Det Flores in order to gain a death aggravator…and the answer to that is YES !

            • I am not convinced whatsoever that a non-death qualified jury would have come up with a different verdict if the state still presented the case with the gunshot being last, particularly in AZ.

              As I said on yesterday’s page, I’ve always felt that JM would have worked his way to an aggravator either way, because of the wounds, and because they were inflicted by two weapons.

              Stephens absolutely erred when she said that the order of the injuries didn’t matter. As far as crime scene investigation and criminal profiling are concerned, to say that is nothing short of ignorant. It rises even to the level of the ridiculous.

              The defense and the prosecution both agreed that the knife wounds killed him, so she decided, based on that agreed upon fact, that the order did not matter. It did matter, because Jodi’s self-defense case hinged on WHEN the pistol discharged, and WHY. JM sought to make it a non-issue to upend Jodi’s case and the judge bought it without sufficient evidence. She read aloud in court during oral arguements Judge Duncan’s description of aspirated blood in the sink being the result of the gunshot as if she were an incomprehending somnambulist.

              The computer revelations of the re-trial are very significant, because in the guilt phase you had a jury hearing testimony from witnesses about Jodi’s behavior that is maybe not technically/legally hearsay in court, but it’s hearsay evidence generated by the victim. In light of what came out in the re-trial with respect to the computer files, he could be seen as less than truthful. This could not be said to be the same picture that the jury saw in the guilt phase. The second jury disregarded the question of his veracity with respect to his relationship Jodi, but the first jury might have taken it into consideration as they weight guilt, ESPECIALLY if the gunshot was deemed to have been first.

              Doesn’t the appellate court lay these issues out (say there are 3-5, as StillOutThere suggests) in order to weigh the sum of these elements – to see if in the balance, the sum as it relates to culpability or judicial error is greater than the individual parts?

        • I would have to go back through pretrial motions and I’m not even sure I could find all of them at this time (if anyone can help with that, I’d be happy to look at them) to determine why and how the court ruled. However, my recollection (which may also be flawed) is that the state did admit, prior to trial (several days beforehand) that Flores had a flawed recollection of the sequence of injuries.

          And Al, you are very correct. The outcome wasn’t changed because the death penalty was not the ultimate sentence — albeit achieved by quite different means.

          To argue that had Jodi not been tried by a death qualified jury, she may have never been found guilty, and that it was Flores’s testimony which subjected her to that type of jury — now that’s an entirely different story — and that’s assuming that you *can* show Flores committed perjury, as opposed to making a mistake (his testimony in evidence). Is there any case law reversing a verdict because a death penalty qualified jury is more likely to find a defendant guilty? I know there are blogs and suppositions to that end, but is there actual case law in AZ or in any higher courts? (I have done zero research on this, but would have assumed some of the blogs I’ve read authored by lawyers might have cited it, if such case law exists.)

          • Haven’t seen any. I doubt it, because if there was a case that in any way acknowledged that a death qualified jury was more likely to find someone guilty, would that be a tacit acknowledgement of the unfairness of a death qualified jury?

            • Right, so I doubt it too. But when I’m not so exhausted, I’ll look.

              Sometimes, you can use other sources in an appeal — although they’re generally not well regarded by the judges. But they are charged with determining new case law.

              I used some judicial journal excerpts in my appeal, actually, because all I had was a very vaguely stated rule that wasn’t sufficient for my argument. I won!

          • It wasn’t just a “flawed recollection” ……by Det Flores own testimony during the trial he admitted that it was “his opinion” that was used at the Chronis hearing, not Dr. Horn’s opinion. This is an admission of perjury…he was there at the Chronis hearing to bring in Dr. Horn’s opinion and stated such during that hearing….then when he admits under questioning from Juan Martinez during the criminal trial that it was really his opinion he used and not Dr. Horn’s then he has just admitted to perjury….admitting to a flawed recollection and admitting to perjury are two very different things….and I only use the example of what another non-death qualified jury may have done in this case only as an example….there does not have to be any case law or proof that another jury would have found Jodi guilty of a different or lesser crime….the only question before the court at that point would be was Jodi Arias denied her due process rights as a result of the perjured testimony of Det Flores which resulted in obtaining an aggravating death factor?….was Jodi Arias entitled to have a fair Chronis hearing and ultimately a fair trial?

              • But don’t appellate courts sometimes end up creating precedence?

                If that weren’t true, how would you get precedence in the first place?

                • They do, Al, but it’s usually a reinterpretation of existing case law, in situations where such decisions have already been made by other courts.

                  BB, in such a situation, even if the appellate court found that there was a due process violation, they still may decide NOT to reverse the jury verdict because when all is said and done, Jodi didn’t get the death penalty

        • Yes Al: I believe I heard Nurmi mutter a couple of times at the start of that hearing that the Defence had not had prervious notication of that change to gun shot first.

          Of course JSS brushed it off as unimportant _ something that could be worked out later or some such.

      • Det Flores, from my reading is not acting on behalf of the Gov’t I think I read that he as well as the prosecutors and the ME all work for the PEOPLE. As such they come under the Health dept.
        Not MCPD.

      • BB
        I do so like what I am reading here. We are past due for demonstrating that when you work “for the people” you have to take responsibility for your deeds when you cheat.

        If we could just purge our counytry of the cheating, we allready have more laws and regulations than it would take to govern an entire planet.

    • Al, I always savor reading your analyses. Thank you for taking your time to help Jodi’s situation.

      I was hoping those boring gas cans were behind us. But I see they are back on the menu.
      I have seen an image posted online of one of the receipts that Jodi transacted.
      It states: “KEROSENE can” I think the receipt also stated “blue”, the correct color.

      To my observation from what has been displayed online,
      Jodi NEVER BOUGHT a total of three “GAS CANS” (which are red)
      If she bought a total of three FUEL cans; that would have been TWO GAS cans, plus ONE KEROSENE CAN.

      I do find it troublesome as to why she would buy a Kerosene can at all. [She didn’t know the difference? She planned to go camping ie the 9mm gun plus a heat source?]

      I hope someone knows how to cause that receipt to resurface. I’m guessing it’s total recorded information would be needed.

      Part of my concern, should this mix-up lead to more misunderstanding is: Why would Jodi have bought a “kerosene” can in the first place?
      Those are only legal for holding kerosene, not gasoline. I believe there is a defeat mechanism on those cans to prevent them being filled with gasoline.

      • Two gas cans were borrowed from Brewer.

        She purchased a third can from a Walmart that has since closed and relocated, while the automotive department of the original store remained in operation at the original location. So there’s been a lot of curiosity and speculation as to where the records of the return – if they exist at all – might be.

        Don’t know whether the DT ever picked up on the fact that the purchase receipt specified a kerosene can. I know JM carefully avoided reading the item as it was named on the receipt. But it’s broadly known in the community of Jodi’s supporters. She never purchased a ‘gas’ can at all.

        • That’s right, she never bought a gas can and that’s why JM mostly called it a “fuel can” in court. But many people believe she did buy one. The fact that it was not serviceable for gas could be one of the reasons that she returned it. Or perhaps she never noticed the difference – figured it was a different color because she was buying it from a different store than the one Darryl used, or that the manufacturer was different. I’m not trying to attribute thoughts to Jodi in this regard. Just offering a common-sense explanation for why she bought a blue one. She did testify that she realized she didn’t need an extra can.

          JM is a master of deception IMO. Above here is an example of how he drives people’s thinking processes. With respect to the gunshot last theory, I just cannot understand why some believe that the state’s primary motivation for this switch was to get a death-qualified jury and the aggravator for the death penalty. The state had to get a conviction first, and they knew it was going to be an uphill battle because the burden of proof lay at their feet.

          The state had a plethora of reasons for claiming that the gunshot was last, and they all amounted to getting a Murder in the First Degree conviction either through the Premeditation charge or through the charge of Felony Murder. They achieved it by removing the possibility that the jury would be able to find one of the lesser includeds in the Premeditation charge.

          And JM used the gunshot last argument on Trial Day #20 to render the Felony Murder charge a more plausible crime. I believe he clung to the Felony Murder charge in the Alternative in spite of Nurmi’s argument that it constituted circular reasoning in case Grandpa’s gun was ever recovered in CA sending the state’s Premeditation charge out the window. If that had happened, he simply would have said that there was already a gun in the house but that she brought a knife, and would have pursued his Alternative Murder in the First Degree Felony Murder charge, which requires only intention.

          Finally, I would think that an appellate court would notice that the gunshot last assertion ran contrary to the physical evidence AND the written Autopsy Report, which indicates that he was not incapacitated by the gunshot. When the gun was fired and why are important, but even more important is the damage it caused. Horn’s report indicates that it did not perforate the brain’s dura mater membrane and so would not have incapacitated him, rendering Jodi’s claim of self-defense during repeated attacks at least viable, while the question of whether or not the gunshot was accidental could not have been so mindlessly swept aside.

          There is no real wiggle room for reasonable doubt if that gunshot was intentional and after the fact. And obviously both sides knew that whether or not the shot WOULD have been incapacitating becomes moot if the shot is last. The stunning last-minute switch on the wound sequencing by the prosecution was monumentally prejudicial and devastating to Jodi’s claim of self-defense.

          Ultimately, the only way for JM to have gotten a jury to find the aggravator was to get her convicted first. They didn’t convict her because they were death-certified. They convicted her because they accepted the alleged overkill, believed that it was intentional by virtue of the defendant supposedly having stopped an attack to pick up an additional weapon for a viciously gratuitous final coup after the fact. The written Autopsy Report should have trumped the incoherent dissemblings of Horn and Flores on the stand and their obviously careworn memories IMO, but Judge Sherry Stephens lets attorneys try their cases. She let the state try this case to the point of unreason and obvious prejudice, all the way to a wrongful conviction.

        • But was that third can the blue Kerosene can? If so, that might explain the confusion over returned or not returned.

        • It seems to me that Richard Speights’ thesis uses the documented evidence (blood coming from right ear) absolutely to prove that Flores and Horn are trying to sell a false theory that is a physical impossibility.

          That leaves them vulnerable as to their motive to insist on doing that. And the only motive that makes sense is their determination to upgrade the charge to Murder 1.

          This is one more example of the State’s side “declaring” that something is true, and refusing to accept that it is irrational and impossible, scientifically.

    • Hi Al, Monday, several of us were following your lead as you created a beautiful plan of priorties starting with the Horne/Flores lies at the behest of Martinez. You suggested that the next step was to find PROOF of the lies. I hope that the Richard Speights thesis, below, will accomplish the sort of proof you are looking for.

      Herr Speights Adventures.com “Innocence”_Proof of Horne,Flores Perjury
      I can hardly wait to hear of this will help us more forward

      Again, thank you for caring enough to use you time to help us help Jodi.

      Seabird

      • I’m with Seabird! Continue, Al, continue. I can maybe help on a few areas, but my time is very lacking. Call on me if there’s anything you can ask me about or I might be able to comment on, please. But, continue to work on this. Don’t stop now. You have amazing insight. Keep it going. Everyone needs this now, most especially, Jodi.

        • StillOutThere, Thank you for your validation.

          So do you think the “Speights thesis” covers the fact as well as the “proof” that Flores, Horn, and Martinez are actually perjuring themselves knowingly?
          It really burns my spirit that these guys can sail along without being held accountable.

          An aside: My gut feeling is nagging me that the death of Flores’ son is suspicious, as in might it be a “message” to Flores and anyone else (who would know who they are). I have an image of the stallion’s head in bed in the movie “The Godfather” whenever that recent death comes to mind.

          In Krakauer’s book, “The God Makers,” about certain Mormon history (both recent and past) i.e. Blood Atonement, the leaders show a cold blooded readiness not only to lie for the Lord, but to kill for the Lord. (Just saying.)

    • Hi All hope everyone is having a wonderful day. Anyhow I would really like some clarification on this whole gas can thing. Apparently Jodi’s mom had an interview the Baghdad County Police Station, and had indicated that Jodi said she did not go to Arizona and has the gas receipts to prove it. Whats your thoughts? Please give me something good to understand, is this bullshit? Help me understand.

      • Josequis, thank you for posting this. I am shocked, and I hope someone knows somnething to add.
        Is Bagdad County where Yreka is located? I wonder if this is something else that Martinez has been hiding from the defencer?

    • Good morning, Al

      First I want to compliment you on how easy and fun your style of writing is to read and understand. It’s just plain “comfortable.”

      I am learning a lot from working in your shadow. Your boxing off your list of five categories showed me the need to create focus. Now I am better appreciating the difference in your view point and the strict legalistic view point that BB is working from. The are simply different tools, really. Like a shovel and a rake. You need them both, but once one of the tools has done its job, maybe you don’t need the other any more.

      I tried to create a chart on my computer, when I realized I don’t know how to use my computer, so I’m doing it by hand for now.

      Starting from your categories, I have two colums, headed Justice Zone and Danger Zone (Distractions). Parden my need to move along and post segments as I go. I tend to loose my work and need to start over.

      • I started with your It’s just obvious remarks for column one.
        1. The great Martinez, Flores, Horne deception, which is backed up by the Ilustrated Herr Speights documentacion
        2. The Brady violations wherein Martinez et all did a whole lot of hiding & destroying of critical evidence. That is backed up by the Neumeister Report. Highly skilled computer and forensic image expert. Wherepon when a plethora of virusus & cleaners turned up in TA’s computer, Martinez exclaimed it there is virus and porn on there, Ms Arias first defence team did it. Brian Neumeister: shocked: “Juan, that is just sliming. That is a lie.” Juan, “Sir, are you calling me a liar?” Brian, YES!” And the defence team sill has not been given possession of the only CORRECTly done mirror image for that 2008 HDD

        • 3. BRADY ISSUES_Then it came to light that someone had entered the MCPD evidence lockup room, turned on defeNce team computers in evidence without benefit of write blockers (again) and Brian Nuemeister determined that more than 160,000 files had been lost and/or destroyed. Martinez became irate again, and threatened to conduct “testimony” regarding the specific computer, and he would PROVE THAT it was the defence team that BROKE THE COMPUTER. JM glared at Brian and asked Brian:
          Did you do it on purpose, did you do it accidently? INCLUDES VIRUS & PORN THAT WAS FINALLY REVEALED IN SECOND TRIAL. (I may have lost control of time line.)
          Perjury was involved because Martinez computer expert went on the stand, swor to tell the truth and then stated that there was NO virus, and NO porn whatsoever on the computer, yes and Brian N. said it was so full of porn and cleaning programs that they had to use special equipment before they were able to anlyse it. BN dildn’t know why Martinez people couldn’t “find it, it was impossible to miss it.” BN: It wasn’t the elephant in the room. “It was the aircraft carriaer in the room!”

          • This section should be easier. It is stuff to avoid as distractions, or downright dangers.

            DANGER ZONE
            1. At Al’s prompting: Ignore Martinez behavior and the Porn saga (you saw how much trouble I just got into trying to deliniate what went on. If we are sticking, as BB suiggested to no lmore than three primary issues for the appellate court, we’re done with Martinez and the porn.

            BB was very firm about a strong focus on the law, and the law alone, and I do agree with her after giving it a lot of thought. Remember when JSS read each one of the 17 items on the Motion that Kirk Nurmi had prepared. Well Miss Sherry also dismissed all 17 items down that list, one by one. And guess what her reasoning was _ She had the authurity to divine on her own that not a single one ROSE TO THE LEVEL that would change one darned thing in Jodi’s trial. Round of applause for BB__Thank you. We had no control over what JSS chose to decide. We don’t need a list with JUNK on it, now do we.

            So for those we can coax on board to help us design a better mouse trap, hop on up. We have a ways to go to perfect a working plan that can’t be sabotaged, and we need everyone to keep percolating those random thoughts and passing along. I have been a Linux (open source) user for the past _ um 8 years. I believe in collaboration, transparent process, working together, and having a great experience doing it. Next segment I will propose a list from the Danger that taking, Al’s lead, I believe we are better off leaving behind for our greater goal. I already mentioned Martinez, well it is hopefully headed for the trash shoot, if we can conceive of a way to proove his purposeful messing around with our evidence. But even if he doesn’t, that’s OK.
            I was an abused kid, and I propose leaving parents out of our master focus. It’s too confusing and they are way too unpredictable, and does anyone think they can control that category. Then there’s that Gaggle of Californians, I’m still trying to figure out how they took over control of the Entire Phoenix Court House _I mean, really they are from CA. Yeah it’s fun to poke fun, but we need our focus on pulling off our own master plan, airtight as BB wants it, so that legal wall cannot be breached. That’s why the next group are no more than a distraction. I’m talking about card carrying attorneys. I’m not talking about all the wonderful friends and geniuses on lJAII. They are the heart and soul of what we hope to accomplish. But confess. Which attorney that we’ve been forced to use has been as smart and motivated as we can be together. Have you noticed they are too busy to even check out what might be useful that just might already posted by someone maybe even an expert in their field, and really, really smart.

            • I know I am missing people, but I don’t really know a lot of you, yet. “StillOutThere” is a new personality for me, but I know she has been encouraging toward me, and a like that a lot.
              I can tell there is a whole lot of knowledge and experience behind that unusual name 🙂
              I’ll just throw these last five items into the Pinatta, of Disstractions, and possible hazards.
              Psych-types (I know that I’m getting better from what I absorb from all of you. I don’t believe any of us are “that kind of sick, and almost all are on the continuum. JSS, we know what she is, poor thing. But we have more important things to discuss than our judge that we never needed in the first place.
              TA I can’t escape my deep sense of sorrow that there is not just one, but two very harmed and broken people. I suppose this has been a tragedy, but I don’t really believe that, either. l would not trade my experiences from this trip. The Gas Cans, oh Lordy Mercy! I will never be able to relate to the nonsense of gas cans. The camera. I wonder who has that and if they use it. It can’t be broken beyond use. But put those messed up mean nothing pictures that even our brilliant Al has gotten to tired to mess with OUT into the Pinatta.

              And last but not least—————————————————————The real killers. l

              While I’m thinking of it, I’ve been wondering how badly torn up Jodi’s body is after the abuse. I hope there is some way we can make sure she has a good examination by a gentle doctor, and gets any repairs she may require. Our precious Al – after posting re the incident in the office _”There, I said it,” then he exhaled. That’s a real gentleman that we’ve been blessed with 🙂

              This is a lot of words, buy it needs a lot of editing and tweaking to be a lot of quality. I never started out to do this. But I do feel I’m being guided. I pray, yet I already feel certain that Jodi will put her unique insight into motion and make lives better just by being who she it.

              God Bless Every one. We’ve only just begun. WhooPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaway we go Cindy – you are teaching me to play, and the sun just popped out here in Washington in the woods.

              OopS _ONE MORE_ THE ENTERTAINMENT CREW
              They are not polished, yet, but they are working on it. It’s the amazing Alexander family, fresh from conquering Sheriff’s Arpaio’s Court House in a mere fortnight of months. CAlifornia is calling…………..Y’all Hurry back to your home. If you liked Arizona, you’ll absolute LOVE the YOUKON!

  12. Hi Al,

    Great to see your name again. You’re an author extraordinaire of common sense informative posts.

    Really enjoyed all the convo’s we had back in the early days.

    • CC53 Thanks for that. Looked for it yesterday.

      JSS is a real piece of work. To steal from Foghorn Leghorn either she’s about as sharp as a bowling ball, or must think that about the rest of us.

      So she claims she had no idea about the numerical split, but you clearly have the foreman complaining about one holdout, and the holdout complaining about the pressure from the rest, and JM trying to get that one person ejected. What the heck else does she need?

      Or are judges forbidden from any deductive reasoning?

      Schmuck.

    • Gosh, that’s depressing to read through. It just bothers me how much this juror was harassed by other jurors. Who wants to serve on a jury in a high profile case anymore? This compromises our entire system.

    • Amazing that Juan tried to get the one holdout booted from the jury….Thank God for the holdout juror…they didn’t respect her opinion and she is entitled to it, period !!!

      • Yes, and on the exact same day they learned about the hold-out, and out of twelve jurors on that particular day, for some ‘coincidental’ reason, it just ‘happened’ to be the case that Juan was conducting an investigation ( even though he had every opportunity to investigate the juror before trial__ part of his job and responsibility),

        By some magical reason he just happens to do the investigation when the jury is actually deliberating.

        Prior to the mistrial being declared, I skimmed over Twitter posts before and while jury deliberations were going on, and *I might be wrong*, but I think I remember anti- Jodi people discussing looking up the juror’s FB page and mentioning likes on HLN. ( I might be confusing this with immediately after the mistrial was declared.)

        So, I wonder if the tweeters sent relevant info to the prosecutor while deliberations were occuring?
        I know it has been reported, I think, that Flores found the info.

        I still do not believe that Martinez did not know all info related to juror #17’s ex- husband. (Tweeters found info only hours after the mistrial was declared.)

        Willmott released a public statement that if Martinez had not checked the ex- husband issue more deeply, that was entirely his fault, and there was nothing illegal about juror #17 remaining on the jury.

        The eleven jurors were just grasping at straws when they tried to use the Lifetime movie as an excuse___ the same movie that was very anti- Arias.
        It is highly likely that the eleven also saw at least some of the movie.

        A red flag: Martinez knew HLN is extremely anti- Jodi, so if anything, he would have had reason to be happy that juror liked HLN.
        It’s all suspicious to me.
        And what is a ‘secret motion,’ and when would the defense have been informed of it, and why did Martinez make it secret?

  13. Does anyone know if there are transcripts of the penalty phase trial available online?

    So much easier to browse through than watch on YouTube – plus I don’t have to listen to JM’s voice again.

    • Al, I’ve been trying to get information on trial transcripts, too. No luck so far. BTW, thanks for your piece on appeals yesterday and starting a discussion on that issue. I need to go to “appeals school.”

      • Yes! I had to go to “appeals school” myself a few years ago. You really do need the transcripts first to identify the potential issues you may wish to go forward with. There is an incredible amount to scour through for a case like this. And there are various levels, of course. But, I’m assuming your speaking more to the direct appeals than PCR. In short, you identify most potential issues first, then, narrow them down to the strongest ones to proceed with. And then, you need the ability to do a whole lot of research, which can be incredibly boring and tedious, at times. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes. Then, writing good briefs is another skill set entirely. I read some wonderful books on that subject I could recommend, if you’re interested. There are also some great websites out there that provide suggestions on the entire process.

        Are you going to assist Jodi’s appellate attorneys with the appeal? (I do understand if you can’t answer that question publicly.)

        • “you’re” … I hate when people spell that as “your” and what did I do? Ugh! I need to stop posting quickly while at work. Forgive me.

        • Nothing new here: keep it simple. That is why I enjoy Al’s writing. He’s King of Simple.
          Share, collaborate, and assist.

          Keep it legal. I dub BB Queen of Simple.

          BB’s simple message: Keep it legal.

          Critique one another’s work.
          Key collaborative question: How do you think this will make the jury FEEL?

          JW’s and KN’s greatest downfall has been isolating themselves, even from each other.

          During Jodi’s case, I asked myself: What keeps this from working?

          Martinez:
          He absolutely needs to be peer-criticized for bringing abuse into the courtroom.

          Fact finding is a rational exercise. Not a stalk and kill exercise.

          • Interesting you mentioned that the attorneys were isolated even from each other. When we were talking about this yesterday, I did a quick search for the last motion where Nurmi wanted to withdraw. I wasn’t really paying attention to the case or this site around that time so I missed it. When I found it, I was rather shocked. It was from August of 2014 and there were many things he stated in it that I didn’t really know about. First of all, he mentioned that he didn’t want to represent capital defendants and that he hadn’t wanted to do so since 2011. Interesting!

            Also, he talked about what appears to be a little “conflict” between him and Willmott where she apparently has a contract with the PD’s office and he doesn’t. And that Jodi, while representing herself, wanted her defense team to act in ways consistent with the PD’s policy, but he, essentially, didn’t believe he should have to. I wonder what on earth that was all about. Very interesting.

            He also said his relationship with Jodi was completely fractured. And yet, he seemed to get along better with her during the retrial than he had during the first trial.

            • Hi StillOutThere, intereting set of observations you have added. Thanks.

              I stumbled upon the list of protocols expected of the Public Defenders in MCPD. They were very humane and stressed making your client feel like you are truly on their side, and other considerate commonsense notions, . . .like Making yourself available to your client and keeping your client abreast of their case.

              Needless to say, by Nurmi telling his receptionist to take no calls from Jodi, take no messages, hang up on her, etc. Nurmi made a big show of his CONTEMPT for the official written policy for Public Defenders! Sorry, but I can’t overlook his abusing Jodi in this cruel manner. Jodi, a woman whose entire case is about abuse.

    • The only transcript that I know of, is the closing argument that I transcribed for a Wiki site shortly after the event. The 3.5 hours takes up 30 pages, so the volume for the trial would be pretty big. There are bits and pieces of other testimony on that site.

    • I watched that preview on Saturday and it upset me a great deal. Juror 8 was pretty confident she was for the death penalty by the time she “made it into deliberation”. She elaborated that more towards the end she “had definitely knew [stet] that she wanted the death penalty”, Juror 4 knew he was leaning more towards the death penalty when they went to deliberate and when deliberations started. Juror 18 said it really became clear to him that the death penalty was “where [he] was at” as soon as they started to deliberate. But, according to Juror 8, Juror 17 was wrong to have “chose[n] life” right off the bat. And, it was extremely frustrating and she kinda had to apologize for her behaviour because she was trying to hard and it wasn’t going to change anything.

      Where in this interview does ANYONE (even the reporter) acknowledge that perhaps it was also extremely frustrating for Juror 17 because 11 other jurors were harassing her, forcing her to look at gruesome photos, etc., and she couldn’t change their opinions? Isn’t it possible that she was equally as frustrated? And, whereas, in the initial vote, they started out with 5 others voting for life. Within a day, those who started deliberations (their words, not mine) wanting death penalty had convinced the other 5 to change their minds.

      • Still OutThere, If you click on the link at the bottom of that link and go to the Good Morning America segment, the last thing stated on Good Morning America is that the holdout juror is receiving death threats…but NO! There was NO mention of how difficult it must have been for #17 to be up against those bullies and remain fortitudinous. There is no mention of the seriousness of the danger the lone juror faces because of ALL the bullies that PUSHED for the death penalty.

        • I *think* I saw that piece about the death threats, Dorothy.

          I honestly can’t imagine how it must feel to be that juror! And how this undermines our juror system is just well .. unthinkable.

  14. Morning Al ..all out here alone?? I would assume there are transcripts but…perhaps others would know where to find them.

    Well my friends I’m off for a week or two
    Going in to get my shoulder worked on. Wouldn’t you know it it’s my right one and I’m right handed. But I will be able to read… So I will be up to date on every thing…. Just not able to answer….

    Love and prayers to Jodi…..Keep strong baby girl…..God has this”!!!!!

  15. So what is going to happen now, as in between today and April 13 sentencing date? No visitors nothing? Is that legal?

  16. I am kinda ready to give up. A friend’s kid asked me to write something with my 20 or so takeaways from this case for an article she’s writing on this case. I got lost (surprise, surprise) and came up with 30 or so. I asked for some help, posted them, but my post disappeared. It was very “tongue-in-cheek” but I actually thought people here might have enjoyed what I said. What did I do wrong?

  17. StillOutThere,
    I was just posting about how happy to have you back
    and that you didn’t want to use “Also Abused”
    It took me about 20 minutes and right out in space it went. lol
    I think it just does that some time.
    BUT, to make a long story short, I’m proud that you are a survivor. : )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Go to Top